LCD - good enough for gaming?

[randycat99]

I'd be interested in where it is an issue, because it is not an issue for me with movies or FPS games, two areas that test response time quite heavily. I also have a hard time believing it is simply a matter of tastes.

Movies won't show it by virtue of their pedestrian framerate. The motion is either stuttering across the screen or it is motion-blurred. So that effect will pretty well out-compete any ghosting of the LCD. FPS games will be highly reliant on the type of motion and the type of scene. Just because it is moving doesn't mean it will ghost on an LCD. The motion has to be long enough that the eye has a long enough moment to track it and note the detail. Typically you are staring straight ahead trying to aim at something. That is just one example, but there are plenty of reasons LCD ghosting may not be immediately apparent.

That is why I suggested a simple screen test earlier on that does not rely on chaotic videogame imagery or particular movies. This is something that anyone can reproduce by virtue of the very OS they are running on their PC.

Does an extra 100 fps over an already 400 fps make any difference other than to be used on paper for marketing? There is a point where those numbers do not matter anymore, I guarantee you wouldn't be able to notice a difference between a 1 ms panel and a 5 ms panel.

Very true, but that is assuming 1 ms and 5 ms panels are truly what they claim. If an 8ms panel was truly performing at that spec, we would not be discussing this, at all. They could be spec'd at -5 ms and reverse ghost time traveling into the future, and they still would be ghosting in our time dimension because the manner in which the manufacturers report transient response is just plainly bogus. That is what is so ridiculous about this spec's race. It could be 8, 5, 1, .00001 ms. The ghosting should have been gone by 16, but it isn't. The market spec is absolute garbage. Maybe the thing to make everyone honest is if manufacturers were required to spec the highest response of the device, instead of the lowest. Then we would have an idea of the worst we could expect. It is the worst element that our eyes will pick up on first, afterall. We may find that all of these "8 ms" panels are actually "30 ms" panels. The numbers may not be so impressive, but at least they would be more representative, and it would encourage manufacturers to make improvements (in the interest of citing better specs than the next guy) on the end of the range that would really matter- the worse end.

Popularity has nothing to do with this.

LCD panels aren't en vogue? This would be news to me.

If you say so, I'm inclined to disagree, especially when looking at text which is noticably sharper on LCDs because of those "grainy" pixels.

It's a different kind of sharpness. It, in of itself, or the lack of it, is still not a guarantee of a hi-resolution presentation.

Picture quality depends on how far away you are from the display and how dense those pixels are. If you think the 1.3 million pixels on a 17" LCD is not adaquate, fair enough, however you may want to try sitting further away than 8 inches from the screen.

Very true, and then you have also stepped away from that "pixel perfect" look that is touted so often for LCD's. You are then in the same realm of what a good CRT has been providing since the late 90's.

Sure, there are CRTs with very low pixel pitches, but then so there are for LCDs, have you ever looked at the 1680x1050 15" LCDs on laptops?

Those turn out to be equally dubious in practicality. Trying to make out 6 and 8 point text on a 15" screen isn't exactly joy. In fact, it can easily give you the very eyestrain that you cited earlier for CRT's. So what was the point? It's technology gone mad and practicality gone out the window. The balance between dot pitch and resolution just seems more reasonable when it was from the CRT age. LCD's still need some maturing before they find the right combination of dot pitch and rendering resolution that makes the most sense for PQ.

Even in cases where this is true, CRTs have to deal with this and then some, resulting in far less perfection.

Neither is or was close to "perfection". One may be more suitable than the other depending on what you are looking for. Bringing the word "perfection" into this discussion is pretty close to disingenuous. I certainly believe that you really, really like LCD's. To each his own, and I have no problem with your preferences.

No, but they very well would notice the difference when comparing it to an LCD which would not be the case with response time except maybe some rare circumstances, but again that depends entirely on the panel.

You just agreed the difference can be too small to notice, and then you assert they would notice the difference? Can't have it both ways.

Same old rehash arguments I hear all the time. We've established the CRT has a better contrast ratio, no one is arguing with you on this. Color range depends on the panel and I can honestly say my LCD has brighter and more vivid colors than my old CRT.

No doubt they do. However, color range has as much to do with the fineness of gradations in between than the degree of the extremes. The gradations are what are at issue when I used the term "color range".

"True" 15ms response time? Can you honestly say you've looked at all LCDs to determine none of them come close to 15ms?

I've looked at enough to realize that what you see isn't the number they are claiming. If you believe in the spec, just because it is printed with the description on the product, then that is your own deal.

I'm not affraid of CRT x-rays, it's simply something I don't need more of if there is a better alternative.

You certainly put it out to be something quite insidious when you brought it up. Now all of a sudden it is no big deal.

To consciously subject yourself to something you know is not good for you is rather ignorant imo.

Lemme guess- you've long since sold your car, as well? Can't expose yourself to those gene alterring fumes every time you filler'up, right? Right??? Are you also making a blanket declaration that all CRT users are now ignorant??? How about people who work 60 hr work weeks? People who like the chemical fumes of "new car smell"? People who eat seafood? People who enjoy redmeat? People who sun bathe at the beach? People who work in heavy industrial areas? People who take cholesterol medication even though it might give them heart problems? How about 4 decades of people who watched TV on CRT's? What about people who work under florescent lights 40 hrs a week? People that drink coffee every morning? People that drive hybrids to be environmentally green, but the car weighs 1000 lbs extra and uses batteries that contain enough dangerous chemicals to turn a single human body into a pillar of salt?

Not to mention the eyestrain associated with the refresh rate.

Increase anywhere above 60 Hz and you will be fine. This is something that has been mitigated for what, almost a decade now?

Microwaves are too large to escape the shielding unless there is something wrong with that microwave,...

100% containment, eh? You seem pretty confident.

...at any rate do you sit for hours on end in front of a microwave?

Didn't you just say it is ignorant to consciously subject yourself to something you know is not good for you? It's ok if it just for short moments? What about the part where it's something you don't need more of if there is an alternative? This doesn't apply now?

I personally don't own a cellphone and EM radiation from the PC is no more than from any electrical device and is mi-nute.

Ah yes, the word "minute". It is minute for your PC, but not for the nasty, insidious CRT, right? Can we try being at least a bit consistent when it comes to lining up cons for the device of your disfavor? You also forgot to comment about never meandering outdoors where you might be exposed to direct sunlight- lots of nasty radiation out there.

 

[darkblu]

ok, my 2 cents*.

after some improvised callibration (who told those monitor IHVs to bump up the brightness of their products to the max at the factory?) and some even more so improvised experiments i can say that:

• the top notch response time of this model is still not adequate for a person who is used to CRT response times. during fast motion video i clearly see extra 'motion blur'. this could be due to the low refresh, though (60Hz, vs me being used to 85+Hz on CRTs)
• the contrast is superb, but the color fidelity is not - i keep seeing color banding in tons of places i don't recall having seen that (in 32bit color). could be due to the abund brightness and/or inadequalte fidelity at the low end of the luma.
• 400cd/m^2 is way above my lighting tolerance - it feels like sitting infront of an interrogation lamp, but it does make some mediocre digital photos look good.
• the fact that individual pixels are often distinguishable, though very useful for my work, is something i'm not sure i'd want to see always, not at these lighting levels - many things on my desktop that used to be nicely antialiased are much less so now.

overall, aside from giving me the ability to better spot pixels, which is welcome to me, and the perfect geometry natural for its breed, this brand-new-tech LCD is a not a top comfort provider to me, i feel much more comfortable in front of a decent CRT of the same size.

* as a CRT person who happened to spend the better part of today infront of a NEC 70GX2, a 4ms GTG, 8ms average response TFT LCD with 700:1 contrast and 400cd/m^2 brightness.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

I can run all of the games you mentioned at max settings on my X850 XT at 12x10, just some without AA or softshadows. You can get the X850 XT for $200 or less now and is hardly a top of the line card anymore.

For a lot of people AA is essential. I'll drop resolution to use AA. £200 is also more money than a lot of people will spend on a graphics card when they are budgeting £500-600 on a PC. Your answer to not being able to run at fixed res is simply to go out and buy better hardware or turn down the IQ. I'm saying that the other option is to lower the res, which cost no money at all, but can't be done on LCD unless you are willing to trash your IQ. This is a fact.

 

[ANova]

Randycat, you're obviously compelled to defend the CRT and lash out on the LCD. Don't get me wrong, I have my own quarrels with LCDs, and yes they are hardly perfect, but then neither are CRTs. 'LCDs are trash' seems to be the consensus around here and I felt I should put forth some reasons why they are not, and why I decided to get one. So you are all about image quality, I understand that, what I don't understand is the double standard in that thinking. CRTs require image adjusting because of their inherent nature and even then you get imperfect edges and unmathematically equal borders. So in essence they do not only not have equally good image quality compared to LCDs, it is worse, in that respect. Yes, they have better response times, color fidelity and contrast in general, but that depends largely on the application and use. If one does not notice these problems on either platform accept in certain rare circumstances, ie. a screen test conducted specifically and purposefully to find such a case, then I fail to see what the problem is other than to prove a point. Sure I notice ghosting when I move my black mouse over a white background if I stare at its motion, but how often does one do that. In fact I only noticed it by chance, most of the time I think nothing of it and it certainly does not prove to be a problem during any of my usual activities. You can argue over sementics all day, it doesn't change anything. Most of your replies are just a beat around the bush in an attempt to turn my words around, which does not work. Anything above 60hz is not adaquate, x-rays are not good for you and should be avoided whenever possible (yes that includes going out in the sun, look up skin cancer, people do get it), yes exposure to chemicals is not good for you, yes microwaves go on that list as well, they are not 100% contained but near it and as I said, people stick something in their microwave for a minute, walk away and come back when it's done, they do not sit in front of it for hours like you do with a computer monitor, the two cannot be compared, period.

As you yourself said, I could argue all day long, but it would just be a waste of time since you are obviously decided on the issue, as well as I. That's the thing with the human race, we tend to stick to our beliefs no matter what and I grow weary of it.

For a lot of people AA is essential. I'll drop resolution to use AA. £200 is also more money than a lot of people will spend on a graphics card when they are budgeting £500-600 on a PC. Your answer to not being able to run at fixed res is simply to go out and buy better hardware or turn down the IQ. I'm saying that the other option is to lower the res, which cost no money at all, but can't be done on LCD unless you are willing to trash your IQ. This is a fact.

People need to be prepared to play the upgrade game if they want to play computer games. If you are unwilling then get a console. Lowering the resolution leads to a decrease in image quality in itself, even on a CRT, because you are running fewer pixels on the same screen size. So you have a choice, you can either lower the resolution and lose IQ on the overall picture or you can turn off a couple extra effects, lower texture quality, etc. The only difference between an LCD and a CRT is that one dithers the image over fixed pixels while the other just removes the pixels altogether.

 

[Frank]

I'm basing my recomendation to my friend on the fact that a good, fast response 19" LCD capable of gaming with little or no ghosting is significantly more expensive than a 19" Flatscreen CRT with no ghosting and without fixed resolution or viewing angle issues. I just think he'll be happier with that, especially as he wants me to keep the price down.

I think LCDs can be good for gaming and have certainly coming a long way in the last couple of years, but until they sort out some decent interpolation and actually make their response time specs meet general usage and not best case scenarios, IMO they still have a little way to go.

A 19" LCD has a bigger screen size than a 19" CRT, about the same size as an 21" CRT, actually. With CRT's they measure the size of the tube, while with LCD's they measure the actual area covered with pixels.

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

People need to be prepared to play the upgrade game if they want to play computer games. If you are unwilling then get a console. Lowering the resolution leads to a decrease in image quality in itself, even on a CRT, because you are running fewer pixels on the same screen size. So you have a choice, you can either lower the resolution and lose IQ on the overall picture or you can turn off a couple extra effects, lower texture quality, etc. The only difference between an LCD and a CRT is that one dithers the image over fixed pixels while the other just removes the pixels altogether.

But at lower screen res those pixels still look pretty good on CRT, especially while you can still have the eye candy and AA enabled. They look pretty awful dithered on a LCD. If you're a mid-range gamer, I agree you will be able to run most games at a LCD fixed res. What I didn't want for for my friend was to get a more expensive LCD and then find that when he plays a high end game, he has to reduce IQ, either in the form of disabling eye-candy or living with the really awful interpolation. I wouldn't live with it, so why would I spec it for someone else who wants this as a purely gaming machine within a specific budget? Why would I tell him after the fact that he has to throw more money at the machine if he wants to play anything other than last years games?

When I looked at all the pros and cons within the remit and budget I had, a good CRT just made more sense for the price, high response, better colour, variable resolution.

 

[Sandwich]

People need to be prepared to play the upgrade game if they want to play computer games. If you are unwilling then get a console. Lowering the resolution leads to

Don't forget some games won't even run at certain resolutions. I still occasionally play classics meant for 800x600(like BG2) or 1024x768(like civ3).

There's definitely a use for lowering the resolution apart from increasing performance or applying AA.

 

[pascal]

I can play games like Quake4 at 800x600 without perceptible scalling problems in my 17" Sony LCD which has a native resolution of 1280x1024.

 

[Xmas]

Those turn out to be equally dubious in practicality. Trying to make out 6 and 8 point text on a 15" screen isn't exactly joy. In fact, it can easily give you the very eyestrain that you cited earlier for CRT's. So what was the point? It's technology gone mad and practicality gone out the window. The balance between dot pitch and resolution just seems more reasonable when it was from the CRT age. LCD's still need some maturing before they find the right combination of dot pitch and rendering resolution that makes the most sense for PQ.

Point is a unit of physical size. 6 point text is actually far more readable on a 128dpi display (1680x1050, 15.4") than it is on a 96dpi display.
Which "balance between dot pitch and resolution"?? Resolution should strive to be as high as possible given the constraints of transmission and processing power.
Just because some software lags behind in capability to scale, high-res displays aren't "technology gone mad" or impractical.

But at lower screen res those pixels still look pretty good on CRT, especially while you can still have the eye candy and AA enabled. They look pretty awful dithered on a LCD.

There are some LCDs with good scaling, and some with bad scaling.

 

[Moloch]

A 19" LCD has a bigger screen size than a 19" CRT, about the same size as an 21" CRT, actually. With CRT's they measure the size of the tube, while with LCD's they measure the actual area covered with pixels.

crts you usally chop an inch off to get the viewable

 

[Xmas]

crts you usally chop an inch off to get the viewable

It gets more the bigger the screen is (and of course depends on make and model). My 28" widescreen CRT TV has slightly less than 26" viewable.

 

[Moloch]

It gets more the bigger the screen is (and of course depends on make and model). My 28" widescreen CRT TV has slightly less than 26" viewable.

ya but he was talking about 21" crt and they still are 20" viewable so erm a .. 20" lcd would be comparable

 

[PeterT]

As someone who uses 2 22" (20.5 viewable) 130kHz 0.24mm CRTs, let me first say that I believe LCDs to be the best choice (as PC displays at least, TV is another matter) for nearly all applications and people at this point in time. Here are the reasons why I choose CRTs, and also the circumstances in which I believe them to be a better match:

• I have a huge desk.
• My "computer" room is almost perpetually shrouded in twilight
• I don't have a TV and use (one of) my monitors to watch movies and series.
• I play lots of games in many different resolutions (not only because of performance considerations, but also because many games are still too dumb to scale their GUI)
• I spent upwards of 3 hours configuring and adjusting these monitors when I got them (They are professional-grade, so that means zoned horizontal and vertical convergence and a gazillion of geometry settings)

So, in summary, if you don't mind some fiddling with settings, have the space and want to watch movies or play games a lot (perhaps even in near-darkness) then I'd say get a CRT. Otherwise, an LCD should be better.

Of course, there's also the price factor to consider. While 19" and smaller LCDs are now dirt cheap, I personally (and probably many of you) would really dislike going back to 1280*960 and that size. Bigger LCDs are a huge step upwards in price, especially if you want high quality.

 

[Blazkowicz]

Even on Windows desktop I like to be able to choose resolution.
I have a 17" CRT, running most time at 1024x768 100Hz (easiest on the eyes); if I want a bit more estate I switch to 1152x864 85Hz (two clicks only thanks to Rivatuner which lyes on the systray). If I have to watch a 720p WMV I swith to 1280x960 75Hz (though there is no HD content, only demos from microsoft).

as for setting the geometry, it depends on your CRT. A crap CRT will be hard or impossible to set up, that seems to be the case of Iiyama which have utter crap electronics (and boring OSD), they even can forget their settings. My IBM CRT is almost perfectly set (and that was quite easy).

 

[PeterT]

as for setting the geometry, it depends on your CRT. A crap CRT will be hard or impossible to set up, that seems to be the case of Iiyama which have utter crap electronics (and boring OSD), they even can forget their settings. My IBM CRT is almost perfectly set (and that was quite easy).

You are generally right, though it should be mentioned that bigger CRTs are generally harder to set up than smaller ones (that's why the better ones have all those convergence settings). In my case the situation is complicated by having 2 right next to each other, which obviously causes some (compensable) magnetic interference. You're also right that Iiyama's are a bit crappy, at least if the one I've seen is anything to go by

By the way, though it focuses on TV usage, the 4-part Display Technology Shootout at ExtremeTech is really worth a read!

 

[randycat99]

Point is a unit of physical size. 6 point text is actually far more readable on a 128dpi display (1680x1050, 15.4") than it is on a 96dpi display.

Yes, I agree. When I made that remark I was trying to convey the notion of tiny, tiny text, rather than the literal interpretation of point size. I've seen these high resolutions on laptops, and the text is simply too tiny for my comfort, unless you go into Windows settings and start tweaking text settings. My point was simply that after a certain point, larger desktops that result from higher resolution settings really do not seem worth it, as a result of what it does to the default gui elements. To that extent, I maintain that reading "6 pt" text is no more desirable at 128 dpi or 96 dpi- it's just plainly too small for regular use. That is why 10 pt and 12 pt settings are far more popular. When you get to settings like 1680x1050 on a 15" screen, everything looks like 6 pt, in exchange for that spacious desktop. I don't doubt some people can deal with this just fine, but it simply doesn't strike me as particularly practical for how most people would like to read their displays.

Which "balance between dot pitch and resolution"?? Resolution should strive to be as high as possible given the constraints of transmission and processing power.
Just because some software lags behind in capability to scale, high-res displays aren't "technology gone mad" or impractical.

That's the problem- the 2 factors are tied together on an LCD to get optimal performance. On a CRT, you have the convenience of choosing from numerous resolution settings, apart from the native dot pitch of the screen, and it can still look good. When I said "technology gone mad", I was referring to the dubious nature of very high resolutions on small screens. The resolution spec looks impressive to the layman. The dpi is also impressive. However, I don't know if it ends up being all that practical when you see the size of the text you will have to deal with at that setting. That's the point I was trying to make.

There are some LCDs with good scaling, and some with bad scaling.

The drop in PQ penalty for not using the native resolution is still substantial. If you are going to pass on the optimal PQ setting of an LCD, what was the point of blowing the cash on that LCD in the first place?

 

[randycat99]

Randycat, you're obviously compelled to defend the CRT and lash out on the LCD.

I believe this is where you went wrong. My intent is simply to give both styles equal and fair billing. LCD's are far from flawless, and CRT's are far from useless. I believe they both have their places and uses, and if you had sincerely read my posts, this would be clear to you. Instead, you interpreted it as gratuitous bashing of LCD's. You, otoh, made the very absolute implication that anybody who still uses a CRT in this age must be ignorant, and that LCD's must be the "smart" choice. That doesn't come off as particularly fair minded. You need to reconsider your assessment of my contributions.

 

[Xmas]

Yes, I agree. When I made that remark I was trying to convey the notion of tiny, tiny text, rather than the literal interpretation of point size. I've seen these high resolutions on laptops, and the text is simply too tiny for my comfort, unless you go into Windows settings and start tweaking text settings. My point was simply that after a certain point, larger desktops that result from higher resolution settings really do not seem worth it, as a result of what it does to the default gui elements. To that extent, I maintain that reading "6 pt" text is no more desirable at 128 dpi or 96 dpi- it's just plainly too small for regular use. That is why 10 pt and 12 pt settings are far more popular. When you get to settings like 1680x1050 on a 15" screen, everything looks like 6 pt, in exchange for that spacious desktop. I don't doubt some people can deal with this just fine, but it simply doesn't strike me as particularly practical for how most people would like to read their displays.

But the point is that you are supposed to change the text settings.
I believe there are window systems around which handle GUI scaling better than WinXP, but it isn't so bad as to be unusable.
I never really understood the notion that higher resolutions give you "a larger desktop". I mean, the screen is still the same size, and you still sit the same distance in front of it. All it does is, well, give you a higher resolution, i.e. higher quality. The GUI elements shouldn't just get smaller, that is a completely separate thing. Although if you're comfortable with small elements on screen, a higher resolution gives you more headroom for going smaller.

That's the problem- the 2 factors are tied together on an LCD to get optimal performance. On a CRT, you have the convenience of choosing from numerous resolution settings, apart from the native dot pitch of the screen, and it can still look good. When I said "technology gone mad", I was referring to the dubious nature of very high resolutions on small screens. The resolution spec looks impressive to the layman. The dpi is also impressive. However, I don't know if it ends up being all that practical when you see the size of the text you will have to deal with at that setting. That's the point I was trying to make.

As I said, it's the software lagging behind. But not so far as to making high-res screens impractical. I have been using a laptop with 128dpi for two years now, and it has become my main PC for everyday use at home (because it's silent and has this awesome LCD which I can't use for another PC). I've set Windows to 120dpi, and rarely found annoying things like dialog boxes where the text wouldn't fit. You have to live with either pretty small or quite large icons, but that's about it. OTOH you get amazingly crisp text, which I rank far more important.

I firmly believe that all GUI elements should be vector graphics objects. Of course you could still use bitmaps, but they should only be used where absolutely necessary: photos, scans, art and screenshots. NOT icons. Most of the time I have at most two items on screen (on both screens, that is) that really need to be bitmaps.

 

[mito]

this morning picked up my rig...

opty 175
x1800xt 512mb
acer 20" lcd widescreen (8ms)

installed winxp and serious sam II.

f***

so so sweet........... the image is so so f*** nice.

 

[darkblu]

ok, just for laughs. i was browsing mindlessly the techreport site when i came upon this article reviewing several lcd monitors. it had a quick expose on the lcd tech, and out of boredom i started reading it. little by little while reading it i started to realise that i was nodding in agreement to each and every point the author was making on the subject. until i came to the point when i realised the article was from .. 2002. has really nothing actually changed since then? aside from prices, that is.