New Monitor Advice Please

[totaljerkface]

Hello... I don't know too much about monitors.... but I am definitely looking to upgrade. I want to be able to play games at 1600x1200 resolution or higher.

As of now I feel that I want a large CRT monitor. Currently I am considering this: http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/crtmonitors/graphicseries/g220fb/

I may consider LCD, but I really don't want any ghosting at all. I used to watch my friend play a fps on an apple monitor and it looked awful. I do however like the idea of playing all my games in widescreen. If i were to get an LCD i would probably lean towards the Dell UltraSharp 2405FPW.

So.... what in your very experienced opinion is the better choice? Are new LCD's that much more improved that it's worth getting one just to play in widescreen? or does the overall quality of CRT make for a better game at 1600x1200?

Also... are there any obvious monitor choices I'm missing out on?

Any responses are greatly appreciated

 

[AlphaWolf]

For gaming I still prefer my CRT (22" samsung 1200NF) to an LCD panel. The new panels are getting close but the off resolutions still don't look right.

 

[Graham]

back home I have a viewsonic VP201b LCD. very very nice

I saw on in a fries store the other day, so I guess they may have them to look at. I dunno, not from these here parts.

I like it a lot, however I don't do much gaming, the main thing I love it for is being able to code and browse at 1200x1600 portrait. Take a lookey lookey

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

I just got a ViewSonic VX924 and it is a very sweet monitor 1280*1024 is the resolution though

Very good contrast and very fast for an LCD not to mention great color reproduction

 

[Graham]

one thing I'll mention extra,

if you do decide on an lcd, be very weary of the responce time it claims.
my vp201b is a measured 16ms responce, which is fine for me, but for a hardcore gamer may be a bit low, although you'd have to be pretty picky.
that said, my flatmate got himself a vp109b, which is the 19" version. It has something or other tech (overdrive?) and claims to be 8ms or 6ms or something. Well. crap. I played doom3 on it, and noticed quite significant ghosting on really dark colours. Your gun view model had a noticable trail.... it wasn't very impressive. So be careful, make sure you can return it if your are not happy at least.

 

[Ty]

Part of the problem in just looking at the numbers is because what they are measuring is different.

For instance, some panels are measured Black-to-Black (best) whereas others measure Gray-to-Gray (not as good).

 

[silence]

only CRT i REALLY REALLY want is this baby.....i cant believe i cant paste bloody link....

anyway, it's iiyama 22'' that works 1600x1200 @ 113Hz max... and support many more resolutions...

Vision Master Pro 514
HM204DTA

 

[kyleb]

My dream monitor is still a Sony GDM-FW900, 24" of widescreen CRT goodness that maxs out at 2304x1440@80Hz. Unfortunatly they don't make them anymore, but there are some reasonable deals on referbished ones going around still.

 

[totaljerkface]

welll.... after quite a bit of internet research.... i think i'm pretty set on going with the Sony GDM-FW900. They seem to be easily available on ebay for around $250.... which to me is mindboggling.

It seems that the only downside to this monitor is the enormous size and weight.... both of which don't really bother me at all. I'd be paying much less for a more accurate picture with no ghosting and more resolution options.

Is there really any good reason left for me to consider an LCD screen (yes i know they take up less space)?

 

[ANova]

welll.... after quite a bit of internet research.... i think i'm pretty set on going with the Sony GDM-FW900. They seem to be easily available on ebay for around $250.... which to me is mindboggling.

It seems that the only downside to this monitor is the enormous size and weight.... both of which don't really bother me at all. I'd be paying much less for a more accurate picture with no ghosting and more resolution options.

Is there really any good reason left for me to consider an LCD screen (yes i know they take up less space)?

Umm, in addition to less space and weight they draw substantially less power, emit enormously less radiation, are better for the eyes, last longer (CRTs fade in brightness over time whereas the florescent lamps only need replacing in an LCD) and are typically much clearer/less fuzzy then CRTs as long as you run them at their native resolution. Ghosting is a non-issue for todays LCDs.

 

[KimB]

Which is why I'd recommend an LCD for work any day of the week. But for gaming, the ability to change resolutions without penalty, the better color reproduction, and the total lack of ghosting make CRT's the best choice by far.

 

[Guden Oden]

Is there really any good reason left for me to consider an LCD screen (yes i know they take up less space)?

One thing that is just immensely important for me (and is a biiiig plus even if one hates other LCD quirks, such as afterimages etc) is, LCDs don't suffer from moiré and bad image geometry.

Fact is, for a CRT you need to manually adjust each and every resolution and refresh mode so it fills the screen to the edges. Depending on what kind of software(s) you run, this might be A LOT of screenmodes. This is usually also a painstaking and timeconsuming chore, in most cases by using a primitive button-based UI with rudimentary on-screen graphics to go along with it.

Add to this, image bowing, pincushioning, various convergence issues (or rather; lack of, which leads to color mismatches), and so on. Even though many pro-quality monitors have controls to adjust image geometry, fact is this is pretty much impossible to get perfect, particulary as a monitor grows older and components wear/age.

With an LCD (or plasma, or any other discrete pixel display device), this issue doesn't even exist in the first place. Unlike a CRT, pixels are sharp and sit in completely straight rows and columns. The display precision and clarity is completely different and totally superior to ANY CRT ever made.

 

[ANova]

Which is why I'd recommend an LCD for work any day of the week. But for gaming, the ability to change resolutions without penalty, the better color reproduction, and the total lack of ghosting make CRT's the best choice by far.

The resolution argument is a valid one but the rest I don't agree on. And even then, if you have a UXGA LCD running at a resolution one or even two notches under native isn't terribly noticable, especially with AA.

 

[KimB]

Fact is, for a CRT you need to manually adjust each and every resolution and refresh mode so it fills the screen to the edges. Depending on what kind of software(s) you run, this might be A LOT of screenmodes. This is usually also a painstaking and timeconsuming chore, in most cases by using a primitive button-based UI with rudimentary on-screen graphics to go along with it.

Sure, but you only have to do this once.

With an LCD (or plasma, or any other discrete pixel display device), this issue doesn't even exist in the first place. Unlike a CRT, pixels are sharp and sit in completely straight rows and columns. The display precision and clarity is completely different and totally superior to ANY CRT ever made.

...and the drawback being you only have that clarity at the native resolution of the device. For gaming, being able to adjust resolution is often a requirement, most especially if you play any old games.

 

[KimB]

The resolution argument is a valid one but the rest I don't agree on. And even then, if you have a UXGA LCD running at a resolution one or even two notches under native isn't terribly noticable, especially with AA.

Well, the further under native you go, the better it should look, as the high-resolution grid should be a better approximation to the lower-resolution grid you're running it at.

 

[kyleb]

It seems to me that it would just come down to how good a job the scaling hardware in the display does. I mean, I don't see anything ugly turn up when I downsample an image in PhotoShop, be it by one notch of resolution or more; it seems to me that a decent hardware scaler could produce the similar results.

 

[KimB]

It seems to me that it would just come down to how good a job the scaling hardware in the display does. I mean, I don't see anything ugly turn up when I downsample an image in PhotoShop, be it by one notch of resolution or more; it seems to me that a decent hardware scaler could produce the similar results.

That may be fine with a picture, but try doing it with text.

 

[totaljerkface]

I've never owned an LCD, and i'm very wary of ghosting. I watched a friend of mine play a FPS on an apple monitor and it looked terrible (don't know the model, but was 2 years ago..... i know response times have gotten better). I know i'd probably be dissatisfied if i saw even the slightest bit of ghosting.... i guess i am a bit picky.

My potential LCD alternative would be the Dell 2405. For those of you that have them.... is there no ghosting at all? or is there a certain level of it that you are just tolerating?

Also.... someone pointed out on another forum that the Sony CRT only has analog inputs... no digital. i'm stupid so i don't really know how this limits me. can someone explain?

 

[KimB]

Er, as far as I know, there are no CRT's that use digital inputs. It's pretty pointless, really, considering that CRT's are analog by nature.

 

[Sxotty]

My dream monitor is still a Sony GDM-FW900, 24" of widescreen CRT goodness that maxs out at 2304x1440@80Hz. Unfortunatly they don't make them anymore, but there are some reasonable deals on referbished ones going around still.

I could have got one for $300.00 w/ shipping included, if I knew it was your dream I would have told you

I decided against it since I did not really care to have such a huge monstrosity...