not quite.davepermen said:all initial lcd complains are solved today. just get a look at a recent one, and you'll see.. i never want to touch a fat, flimmering, unsharp crt again. pointing at me, shooting at me with 60mhz to 120mhz, huge magnets breaking the orientation-system of any bird flying above.
crts are shit. we still have a lot at work here, not the money yet to replace'm all.. bah
Image deformity at 1280x1024 rez?
- Thread starter higgsbosonparticle
- Start date
yeah, go get yourself a nice NEC like my 1860NX. Granted, it has a relatively high response time (like 30ms i think) but the ghosting doesnt bother me. they also have other models that have 16ms now. I *love* this monitor, worked alongside one of them fat flashing CRT's for a few months (it was running at 110Hz, yes i noticed the flashing even out of the corner of my eye) and finally just bought a cheaper LCD to replace it because it bugged the crap out of me and i couldnt concentrate. yeah, the other LCD i dont get proper gamma and it's a 17" rather than a 18 and it ghosts something bad if i put a moving picture on it... but it's great for divinging my desktop icons up, keeping my 12 or so IM windows open, a second folder or other window (like hypershade in Maya). And, it only cost like $200.
Sage said:
Flashing is most obvious that way. Personally I dont think LCD's can compare to CRT when gaming, but work is a completely different picture.
And I have seen many LCD's with different price points (I work for a hardware magazine) including top of the line EIZO's and Samsung that are almost double in price from standard models.
Zvekan
Zvekan said:
I got my first LCD for the crispness and accuracy. I had problems using lightwave (that was a long time ago, back before v7.5 even) because I couldn't see precisely where lines were and weren't. I use Maya now, but still felt the need for a more crisp display. Also, because I use Corel Painter 8 I found it important that I have the most geometrically accurate display. It makes a big difference, especially on my screwed up eyes. However, because they are so much more crisp it makes aliasing much worse and you have to use higher levels of AA. Also, you end up noticing low-rez textures much more easily.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
davepermen said:
Yes, and the good ones only cost three times as much as the equivalent CRT. Especially good when you get one with pixel dropouts that the manufacturer tells you is within spec.
Well, that's fine. I'd love to have one or more LCD's for secondary display(s). But for a main display, I'm sticking with a CRT.
As a side note, I don't notice the flickering out of the corner of my eye on my monitor at 85Hz. You may want to make sure that you're in a bright environment when using the computer. The rods, which are more sensitive to changes in brightness, are more active in dimmer light.
As a side note, I don't notice the flickering out of the corner of my eye on my monitor at 85Hz. You may want to make sure that you're in a bright environment when using the computer. The rods, which are more sensitive to changes in brightness, are more active in dimmer light.
Chalnoth said:
well, it's not a problem anymore for me. and I can't stand to use a computer in bright light. i do like to slightly open my north-facing window (in in Northern hemisphere) and let some of that blue light hit the wall behind me. but my eyes are really screwed up in numerous ways, like i simply can't manage to read printed material in bright light but make it dark and i blaze through it.
as for having a CRT as my main display- i would go nuts if i had to stare at one of those things all day. for one, the glare. two, the blurriness (I notice blurriness on a nice 21" ViewSonic at 1600x1200, dunno refresh but definitely not 60hz... my LCD still looks better) however for color-correctness a proffesional CRT is the only way to go (well.. if you're doing production work like for a print mag or something.)
Eronarn said:People use LCDs? For gaming?
Yup. I was a little concerned when I bought my LCD that it maybe wouldn't be good for gaming, so I got a 16ms one. I can't even spot the difference, not even if I try really hard to look for blurring. It's just not there. I've been playing UT2004 and other games with no problems at all. The only problem is with older games that can't set the resolution high enough to fit the native screen res, but if it can render at least 1024x768 is usually looks quite ok anyway.
davepermen
Regular
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:
well, for anything ELSE than gaming, its worth paying more, because you get more. for any living place wich is NOT huge, its worth paying more, because you save more (space), and, except money, you don't lose anything.
oh, and, dunno, i got mine for the same price as a crt of that size was, and thats 1.5 years back
(18.1").pixel drop outs are a non-issue here, haven't seen one in ages (okay, one, in school.. one green pixel
). and the price isn't that bad. there's just one important thing: you have to see it if you want to pay it. wysiwyg is VERY important. check what you pay for, don't pay online. if you like the screen, get it, if not, not. but you can only judge if you can take a look at it.davepermen
Regular
Chalnoth said:
never did, never really seen reason. but yes, you got me. i'm only switching to modes from 320x200 to 1600x1200.. not that big difference
For me, it's Diablo II (which I still play now and again) and zSNES (Super Nintendo emulator) that I never run at those high resolutions. Then there's the Baldur's Gate games, or perhaps Planescape: Torment. The list of older games I go back to every once in a while could continue for a few paragraphs......Sage said:
Anyway, I have a great NEC MultiSync 97F. It has an excellent, crisp display all the way up to 1600x1200@75Hz, so I really have no reason to move to an LCD.
davepermen
Regular
Chalnoth said:
you're using an CRT and cry about atis filtering as if it could hurt YOU at all. you know that the major reason BRILINEAR got detected, was, because it got ran on an LCD. much sharper and much more crisp.. very easy to detect artefacts (but not in the ati case, as there aren't any).
i have just one game that requires low-res, and thats outcast. all the other are setable. and a possible driver release by ati will allow to set any arbitary real res, and an arbitary virtual res, and some high-quality up/down-scale filters in between. (has been in discussion yet). so you can even run your system at 10x10 (yes, 10 pixels x 10 pixels
) at full 1600x1200 wtf, is this the uber-feature to be expected from the new drivers? This is... great!davepermen said:i have just one game that requires low-res, and thats outcast. all the other are setable. and a possible driver release by ati will allow to set any arbitary real res, and an arbitary virtual res, and some high-quality up/down-scale filters in between. (has been in discussion yet). so you can even run your system at 10x10 (yes, 10 pixels x 10 pixels