LCD - good enough for gaming?
- Thread starter Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
- Start date
- Status
pascal said:
Ok, but what about 1024x768, 1088x612, or 1152x864?
Gaming is typically just like that - you get a decent framerate with the settings you like only using some strange resolution which isn't a nicely scalable almost-half-of-native-resolution. For example I usually end up playing with 1152x864 on my CRT, since that enables me to use full effects and 4xAA on my computer. I am planning on buying a TFT, and based on what I have seen scaling still seems to be an issue, although not as bad as it used to be. With TFT you end up with less than optimal resolution, scaling problems, or compromising on picture quality settings - you can't get the "sweet spot" as you can with CRT.
I understand. Yes, not all resolutions scale well.jimpo said:
But in my case LCDs have more pros than cons.
Maybe a solution for future videochips is have an upscaller AFTER the 3D renderer and in the videochip.
We could have two resolutions configurable. One is the display resolution and the other the rendering resolution. Today both are the same.
DVDplayers with HDMI have upscallers.
randycat99
Veteran
My hunch is that the sub-pixel pattern in an LCD panel needs to have a more similar pattern to the phosphor pattern used in high-quality CRT screens. Additionally, the "lighting of a single pixel" needs to be "virtualized" (the first idea simply allows the second idea to be leveraged more effectively). That is- move away from the concept of addressing a physical pixel by invoking the sub-color elements to creat a certain color value from that physical cell. Instead, light sub-color elements at the nearest virtual location on the screen to "represent" a virtual pixel of the desired color. An example being, a "virtual pixel" may actually occupy color elements from multiple neighboring physical pixel cells, rather than having the physical pixel cell rigidly be the "display domain" of the rendered pixel. I hope that explanation wasn't too confusing.
I project that such a system would probably take a small penalty in that "pixel perfect" look of current day LCD panels, but at the same time, it would allow the LCD panel to be more "agnostic" to numerous rendering resolutions (given the possibility that "virtual pixels" are no longer rigidly bound to the position of physical pixel cells). Given the state of LCD panels, I'd think it has the "sharpness" to spare, in order to gain some flexibility and AA effect. I think you would still retain the perk of optimal performance at the native resolution, as well (since the "virtual pixels" would simply fall upon their respective physical pixel locations).
I project that such a system would probably take a small penalty in that "pixel perfect" look of current day LCD panels, but at the same time, it would allow the LCD panel to be more "agnostic" to numerous rendering resolutions (given the possibility that "virtual pixels" are no longer rigidly bound to the position of physical pixel cells). Given the state of LCD panels, I'd think it has the "sharpness" to spare, in order to gain some flexibility and AA effect. I think you would still retain the perk of optimal performance at the native resolution, as well (since the "virtual pixels" would simply fall upon their respective physical pixel locations).
Last edited by a moderator:
You forget the main issue of CRT's. Radiation.
I don't know the cause but working more than 6 hours a day on a CRT gave me migrens, bad moods, my eyes hurt and so on. I use an LCD for two years now. It is far from perfect, but it is much better to work and play on for hours.
The response time thing is very interesting. You know, I did notice ghosting in the firts day. But your eyes and brain gets use to it, and I do not notice it anymore. Also people said they notice it and it bothers them when we watched videos, but I do not notice that anymore.
There are several questions for me, now, when I try to replace my 2 year old LCD (a 18" - yes, 18", must have been a protoype or something - AG Neovo S18, with a 25 ms MVA panel. It has large view angles, 170/170, it has a antireflective and protective glass panel. (NeoV Filter)
First: do I want a 25 ms 170/170 panel with good contrast and 8 bit color depth, or do I want a 4-8 ms panel with the usual 150/135 view angles, 6 bit color depth ? Also there is the resoution question; I will use the monitor to work on, so a 1440 x 900 wide 19" LCD is tempting. But I also play games, and 1440x 900 is just not a standard resolution.
Also, my 2 years old monitor has display issues , like the crystals tend to tire, they ghost images displayed for a long time, like menus, and HUD si in games and other applications.
The backlights usually tend to lose their power, and this leads to a costly replacement. I guess most people will just buy another monitor when this happens. Liftime for a CRT is much longer. Don't get me wrong, I'll never use a CRT again, except for DCC, photo editing and such tasks, where color accuracy is very very important.
Good thing is that LCD are much cheaper now. I did pay more then 600 USD on a 18" LCD in late 2003, now the price droped to half of this amount.
I don't know the cause but working more than 6 hours a day on a CRT gave me migrens, bad moods, my eyes hurt and so on. I use an LCD for two years now. It is far from perfect, but it is much better to work and play on for hours.
The response time thing is very interesting. You know, I did notice ghosting in the firts day. But your eyes and brain gets use to it, and I do not notice it anymore. Also people said they notice it and it bothers them when we watched videos, but I do not notice that anymore.
There are several questions for me, now, when I try to replace my 2 year old LCD (a 18" - yes, 18", must have been a protoype or something - AG Neovo S18, with a 25 ms MVA panel. It has large view angles, 170/170, it has a antireflective and protective glass panel. (NeoV Filter)
First: do I want a 25 ms 170/170 panel with good contrast and 8 bit color depth, or do I want a 4-8 ms panel with the usual 150/135 view angles, 6 bit color depth ? Also there is the resoution question; I will use the monitor to work on, so a 1440 x 900 wide 19" LCD is tempting. But I also play games, and 1440x 900 is just not a standard resolution.
Also, my 2 years old monitor has display issues , like the crystals tend to tire, they ghost images displayed for a long time, like menus, and HUD si in games and other applications.
The backlights usually tend to lose their power, and this leads to a costly replacement. I guess most people will just buy another monitor when this happens. Liftime for a CRT is much longer. Don't get me wrong, I'll never use a CRT again, except for DCC, photo editing and such tasks, where color accuracy is very very important.
Good thing is that LCD are much cheaper now. I did pay more then 600 USD on a 18" LCD in late 2003, now the price droped to half of this amount.
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't count the times I come across officemates with CRT's that are still using the default 60 Hz refresh setting. I just want to shake them and say, "How in the world can you tolerate that 60 Hz refresh day after day??? You do know you can set it higher, right???"
To me, this setting seems like a very basic thing to know about if you are using computers, yet it is not for most people- even people I hold in high esteem to be smart. I once helped out a guy with a EE masters degree to change his refresh rate, after he put up with it for a week (on his new workplace computer) and was complaining of severe headaches and having to soak his head in cold shower water in the middle of the night because he thought he was about to have a seizure.
To me, this setting seems like a very basic thing to know about if you are using computers, yet it is not for most people- even people I hold in high esteem to be smart. I once helped out a guy with a EE masters degree to change his refresh rate, after he put up with it for a week (on his new workplace computer) and was complaining of severe headaches and having to soak his head in cold shower water in the middle of the night because he thought he was about to have a seizure.
After 5 years of using a MAG786 FD 17" Trinitron CRT monitor, I have finally caved in and ordered an LCD.
I should be recieiving it in the next few days, and then I'll try to offer a more "hands on" approach to some of the issues that might/should arise from the transition.
After reading countless reviews, I decided upon a Viewsonic VX924 for my needs.
So I'll write about it asap for what's it's worth.
BTW - is it me, or does it feel like LCD reviews are more elusive then most other major PC parts? CPU, GPU, Memory, Motherboards, Hard Drives and even heatsink reviews are readily available if you just google a bit. LCD's...well, they seem harder to find, only thoruogh reviews I've found are at Toms and XBIt.
I should be recieiving it in the next few days, and then I'll try to offer a more "hands on" approach to some of the issues that might/should arise from the transition.
After reading countless reviews, I decided upon a Viewsonic VX924 for my needs.
So I'll write about it asap for what's it's worth.
BTW - is it me, or does it feel like LCD reviews are more elusive then most other major PC parts? CPU, GPU, Memory, Motherboards, Hard Drives and even heatsink reviews are readily available if you just google a bit. LCD's...well, they seem harder to find, only thoruogh reviews I've found are at Toms and XBIt.
They are good enough unless you are a crazed videophile. In fact, the general population doesn't notice the flaws of even older LCDs. I myself really, really like my Dell LCDs and they are noticeably superior to my more than adequate laptop's screen.
But yeah, Doom3 looks better on a CRT. Total blackness is a big problem with that backlight. And I've found that my Dell LCDs cause some sort of repetitive stress injury to my poor eyeballs and that I need to keep decent lighting in the room for overall eyeball comfort. They are way way bright and eye searing lol.
But yeah, Doom3 looks better on a CRT. Total blackness is a big problem with that backlight. And I've found that my Dell LCDs cause some sort of repetitive stress injury to my poor eyeballs and that I need to keep decent lighting in the room for overall eyeball comfort. They are way way bright and eye searing lol.
The default brightness was making my eyes sore, but after adjusting (and this monitor Samsung 193p+ needed a lot) it's brilliant. In a way it's easy to play when your toy has the capability, you just need to take the time.
As for black level, this Samsung is just as good if not better than my old CRT?!? The CRT was Iiyama VM 451pro - was a high end CRT, and the blacks and color uniformity on this LCD are just superb. and pictures on LCD
I am still amazed, it looks wow. Just recently I hooked the CRT as second monitor, and well, I keep it shut so far, I might use it if I ever need it to extend the desktop, but it just can't compare, the clarity of LCD is amazing comparing to CRT.
As for black level, this Samsung is just as good if not better than my old CRT?!? The CRT was Iiyama VM 451pro - was a high end CRT, and the blacks and color uniformity on this LCD are just superb. and pictures on LCD
randycat99
Veteran
Diplo said:
That is essentially the consequence of these insane contrast ratios that are cited for later LCD screens. The number looks more impressive, the bigger it is (400/500/1000...), but it is possible to go too far with it, and you end up with excessive brightness that actually becomes a liability, rather than a performance benefit. It always helps to get a good calibration setting though, since the default setting can easily look unnecessarily bright and washed-out. Beyond that, these uber contrast ratio panels are not really that useful, unless you are watching a video program on one from across the room. That's what the brightness is good for- to contend with ambiant lighting while throwing a strong image across the room.
The problem is that response times for LCDs that are supposed to be the same from different manufacturers are not the same. In other words some companies use false advertising in order to put their product on the same level as genuinely high performance brands. For example 8ms on X brand may equal 12ms on Y brand. Spec shopping isn't a guarantee of higher performance whether you're talking about LCDs, TVs, or any kind of electronic device for that matter. Some LCDs will have ghosting while others will not, but the fact is some LCDs outperform the best CRTs already so LCDs definitely can be the better choice depending on the model. I don't even know why some people are so concerned about black levels for an LCD that's used for a PC. Unless you use your PC as a HTPC for your living room, LCD black levels are moot. However if that's the case then you're better off getting a plasma instead which have better blacks. For PCs the best LCD will destroy the best CRT.
8-bit LCDs=Ghosting.
6-bit LCDs=some are getting there.
FPS gamers only got the option of the 6-bit displays if you got for one of the 8-bit displays you will have ghosting.
I use a LCD at work I also use a CRT at work ( I work for a mailing house so alot of data comparison as well as text and layout colour ain't an issue for me though since anything important is offset printed by someone else and probably uses pantone colours which can't be represented by RGB anyway ). The LCD completely kills the CRT however the CRT is a POS I come home and have not problems with my crt ( though its possibly not as a bright ) and its like getting on its age ( prolly 7 years? ) its a nice trinitron monitor. Though I dunno how much longer I'm going to have it something exploded inside it last night though its still running thankfully but I wouldn't replace it with a LCD right at the present point in time because I want good response speed and 8bits please. Also I hate the fact that your more or less locked into a fixed resolution on LCDs.
Oh another major problem of why CRTs look bad but LCDs look good is these days most ppl are running LCD on DVI where as CRTs analog. Now if the analog circuits on the video cards a *#@$@ then so is the picture on the crt.
6-bit LCDs=some are getting there.
FPS gamers only got the option of the 6-bit displays if you got for one of the 8-bit displays you will have ghosting.
I use a LCD at work I also use a CRT at work ( I work for a mailing house so alot of data comparison as well as text and layout colour ain't an issue for me though since anything important is offset printed by someone else and probably uses pantone colours which can't be represented by RGB anyway ). The LCD completely kills the CRT however the CRT is a POS I come home and have not problems with my crt ( though its possibly not as a bright ) and its like getting on its age ( prolly 7 years? ) its a nice trinitron monitor
. Though I dunno how much longer I'm going to have it something exploded inside it last night though its still running thankfully but I wouldn't replace it with a LCD right at the present point in time because I want good response speed and 8bits please. Also I hate the fact that your more or less locked into a fixed resolution on LCDs.Oh another major problem of why CRTs look bad but LCDs look good is these days most ppl are running LCD on DVI where as CRTs analog. Now if the analog circuits on the video cards a *#@$@ then so is the picture on the crt.
Last edited by a moderator:
Blazkowicz
Legend
DiGuru said:Resolution and framerates are so 20th century!
60Hz is so 1987!
bloodbob said:
I'd say that it depends on your eyes, I for example see none on mine - so far... and it has been a good couple of months since I had it. To be honest I did not play too many FPS games lately (due to Civ 4
) but for what is worth my eyes see no ghosting in Quake4, Serious Sam II, RCTW:ET from FPS games.- Status