• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

120Hz LCD Info Thread

cannondale06 said:
well I got an A in physics but thanks for the smartass remark. the number of pixels doesn't mean a damn thing because its the aspect ratio that is the issue year. 1280x720 and 1920x1080 will both have the exact same view within a game. sure the 1280x720 will be less crisp but again what you see on the screen will the same. nothing is lost going from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 in hor+ games and in fact only change is that slightly more info is added to the sides with 1920x1080. there is NO loss of detail or zoomed effect when going from 16:10 to 16:9 in a hor+ game.
Click to expand...

Wow, just wow. The number of pixels doesn't mean a damn thing? So I take it you are going to buy the next 192x108 resolution LCD that comes out? Hey, it even comes with your favorite aspect ratio! So you go from no-change to now a "less crisp" image with lower pixels and write it off as if that doesn't matter.

Here, I'll even simplify it for you even more. Take a look at the retarded aspect ratio .gif you posted of SC2. You see how the 16:10 image "appears" smaller and fit's inside the 16:9 frame? Yet it does all of that and at the same time the 16:10 image has 10% more pixels and screen surface area! You don't think this affects your view of the screen? LoL. Not only do you have to sit closer to the 16:9 screen vs the 16:10 to get the same physical image size, but there are less pixels making up the image, hence loss of detail.

You take a 24" 16:10 vs a 24" 16x9, the pixel sizes are the same and the surface area of the 16:10 is 10% larger. So in your world a screen with 10% more pixels and surface area retains the same detail and view zoom with a screen image of same vertical dimensions and a wider view of the game world?

Did you even look at the SC2 screen shots I posted? You can clearly see that the 16:10 command center is larger than the 16:9. If you are blind, take a tape measure and measure the height of both command centers.

So NO, you don't get a wider field with 16:9 without detracting from another aspect of the image. You can't magically make something out of nothing. Unless you are talking quantum mechanics of course. :eek:
 
Vega said:
Wow, just wow. The number of pixels doesn't mean a damn thing? So I take it you are going to buy the next 192x108 resolution LCD that comes out? Hey, it even comes with your favorite aspect ratio! So you go from no-change to now a "less crisp" image with lower pixels and write it off as if that doesn't matter.

Here, I'll even simplify it for you even more. Take a look at the retarded aspect ratio .gif you posted of SC2. You see how the 16:10 image "appears" smaller and fit's inside the 16:9 frame? Yet it does all of that and at the same time the 16:10 image has 10% more pixels and screen surface area! You don't think this affects your view of the screen? LoL. Not only do you have to sit closer to the 16:9 screen vs the 16:10 to get the same physical image size, but there are less pixels making up the image, hence loss of detail.

You take a 24" 16:10 vs a 24" 16x9, the pixel sizes are the same and the surface area of the 16:10 is 10% larger. So in your world a screen with 10% more pixels and surface area retains the same detail and view zoom with a screen image of same vertical dimensions and a wider view of the game world?

Did you even look at the SC2 screen shots I posted? You can clearly see that the 16:10 command center is larger than the 16:9. If you are blind, take a tape measure and measure the height of both command centers.

So NO, you don't get a wider field with 16:9 without detracting from another aspect of the image. You can't magically make something out of nothing. Unless you are talking quantum mechanics of course. :eek:
Click to expand...
keep thinking whatever you want. if you think you can notice the detail difference between a 16:10 24inch screen at 0.2692 dot pitch and a 16:9 24inch 0.2767 screen then you are delusional.

when you take screenshots of different resolutions and then look at them on the desktop it can be misleading. within the game on the same monitor though nothing is larger in 16:10 when both are being compared. if I run 1280x800 objects are the exact same size as me running 1280x720. again the only difference is that 1280x720 would add a bit more to the sides in hor+ games. that gif I posted earlier demonstrates that perfectly.

if you need more proof of how hor+ has no zooming here you go. scroll down to the 1280x800(16:10) and 1280x720(16:9) comparison. that's exactly how it would look when testing both on the same monitor from within the game. nothing is larger or zoomed and for the 10th time only a little more width is added. http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4060
 
Last edited:
cannondale06 said:
keep thinking whatever you want. if you think you can notice the detail difference between a 16:10 24inch screen at 0.2692 dot pitch and a 16:9 24inch 0.2767 screen then you are delusional.

when you take screenshots of different resolutions and then look at them on the desktop it can be misleading. within the game on the same monitor though nothing is larger in 16:10 when both are being compared. if I run 1280x800 objects are the exact same size as me running 1280x720. again the only difference is that 1280x720 would add a bit more to the sides in hor+ games. that gif I posted earlier demonstrates that perfectly.

if you need more proof of how hor+ has no zooming here you go. scroll down to the 1280x800(16:10) and 1280x720(16:9) comparison. that's exactly how it would look when testing both on the same monitor from within the game. nothing is larger or zoomed and for the 10th time only a little more width is added. http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4060
Click to expand...

It's not only about the dot pitch setting but also that there is 10% more pixels in total giving a larger surface area to the screen, creating a larger image. It has nothing to do with "thinking what I want". See the beauty of science and mathematics is that they are objective and not subjective.

Monitor sizes are given in diagonal angles from corner to corner. The largest possible monitor size per aspect ratio is a perfect square; or 1:1. The smaller the aspect ratio becomes from height to width, the larger the diagonal distance number becomes yet at the same time the overall surface area and pixel density DECREASES.

To exaggerate this effect, think of a 20" LCD that is only 1 inch high yet slightly greater than 20 inches wide. It is technically a 20" LCD yet has virtually no surface area nor pixels. the same thing occurs when going from 16:10 to 16:9 but to obviously a lesser extent.

An image on a 1080p screen is 1080 vertical lines. On a 1920x1200 16:10 screen the height is 1200 vertical lines. How do you think you can fit the same image in height on the 1080 screen as you can on the 1200 screen? The detail of the image is compressed from the 1200 lines to the 1080. Not only that, but the physical screen height of a 24" 16:10 screen is quite a bit larger than the physical screen height of a 24" 16:9.

So not only does the 16:10 have more pixels to display the image vertically for more detail, the physical image is larger as displayed on your retina. So on a 16:9 screen, to get the same physical retinal image size, you have to sit closer to the 16:9 screen and the screen will portray less detail. That is the sacrifice that is made to get a wider aspect ratio of the game world when keeping the vertical image component constant.

Look at your SC2 .gif. Do you actually think the 24" 16:10 LCD fit's inside a 24" 16:9 LCD as portrayed? You mis-interpret what I mean by "zoom". The zoom I am referring to deals with retinal image size and not "displayed area for given image size" zoom.
 
Vega said:
The zoom I am referring to deals with retinal image size and not "displayed area for given image size" zoom.
Click to expand...

A 24" 1920x1200 monitor can display a 16:9 image as large as a 23.3" 1920x1080 monitor can.

http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?b8e67d378e78edadb470e480c0bada47

I'm not great at math, so I don't know the answer to the question, "How much closer to a 24" 16:10 monitor would I have to move my head to get the same retinal image size as a 24" 16:9 monitor?" but my guess is it's going to be a very short distance - perhaps an inch or two at most. This doesn't seem worth making such a stink about.

But this topic should be moved to the very large 16:9 vs 16:10 thread, because it is off-topic here. Unless there's something I haven't heard about, there are no 1920x1200 120Hz monitors existing or planned, so what's the point of arguing 16:9 vs 16:10 here?
 
The point is that there should be a 16:10 120Hz panel. If people do not speak up, the manufacturers think they can toss whatever they want at us like what's been going on with 1080p.

1080p through marketing has invaded the computer realm. Movies aren't even shot in 16:9, it's a friggin' TV format and sucks for computers. Manufacturers have moved towards 1080p computer monitors because they are cheaper, easier to make in volume and they know most uneducated consumers think the magic words "1080p, HD" is the best stuff to be had.

I think a 120Hz 16:10 would sell pretty good, but I doubt it is ever going to happen. I bet 120Hz will be the sole realm of 16:9 TN panels for years to come.
 
Vega said:
I bet 120Hz will be the sole realm of 16:9 TN panels for years to come.
Click to expand...

16:9 for sure, but I suspect we'll see a IPS panel or two in the next year and a half. It's possible they could get the response times on an IPS down low enough to work with 120Hz.
 
I've played FPS games on 19.7" 4:3 CRT, 23" 1920x1080 and 24" 1920x1200 and I found the extra width is good for movies vs 4:3, but the height is needed to be more immersed in the FPS game.
 
DarkUltra said:
I've played FPS games on 19.7" 4:3 CRT, 23" 1920x1080 and 24" 1920x1200 and I found the extra width is good for movies vs 4:3, but the height is needed to be more immersed in the FPS game.
Click to expand...
that doesn't make sense since almost all modern games are hor+. 4:3 doesn't give you any more height and all it does is cut off your view on the sides compared to 16:9 and 16:10.
 
cannondale06 said:
that doesn't make sense since almost all modern games are hor+. 4:3 doesn't give you any more height and all it does is cut off your view on the sides compared to 16:9 and 16:10.
Click to expand...

Even in hor+ games, 4:3 at the same horizontal resolution gives you more physical height and vertical resolution, which is very useful for high level fps gaming. See my post on the 16:9/16:10 thread:

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1036104602&postcount=333
 
There's separate thread for 16:9 and 16:10 wars ;)

Considering most manufacturers have only one or two models with 120Hz it's no suprise they are all 16:9 since it's most popular at the moment.
 
sadbuttrue said:
Even in hor+ games, 4:3 at the same horizontal resolution gives you more physical height and vertical resolution, which is very useful for high level fps gaming. See my post on the 16:9/16:10 thread:

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1036104602&postcount=333
Click to expand...
physical screen size and what you see in the game are two different things. if you had a 20 inch 4:3 screen then physically it would be slightly taller than a 23 inch 16:9 screen but your view within the game would still contain the same info from top to bottom. the 16:9 would simply add more to the sides in games compared to the 4:3 screen. I can run 5:4 to 16:9 on my monitor and nothing gets any smaller on the wider aspect ratios when in the actual a game. if I take a screenshot then sure it will look like yours but that's not how its actually displayed in the game.

in fact this is what it looks like on the actual screen with in the game when changing the different aspect ratios on a 16:9 monitor.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
 
Last edited:
You're right, there are no vertical information lost at all... That is good. But 16:9 still is an awkward ratio for PC. Laptops will always be 16:10 and Windows 7 double-sized task bar and ribbon menus take up a lot of space. And you need height too to be immersed in a FPS game, 23" 16:9 is just too low if your used to a 24" 16:10.

BTW that is agood video cannondale06, if it's yours I urge you to add better description and tags.

 
DarkUltra said:
Laptops will always be 16:10
Click to expand...
Actually, laptops are now becoming 16:9 as well. Take a look at the newer "HD" laptops.

23" 16:9 is just too low if your used to a 24" 16:10.
Click to expand...
It wasn't for me. I went from a Dell 24" LCD to an Alienware AW2310 with no issue. ;) Width is almost the same, but with less height.
 
DarkUltra said:
You're right, there are no vertical information lost at all... That is good. But 16:9 still is an awkward ratio for PC. Laptops will always be 16:10 and Windows 7 double-sized task bar and ribbon menus take up a lot of space. And you need height too to be immersed in a FPS game, 23" 16:9 is just too low if your used to a 24" 16:10.

BTW that is agood video cannondale06, if it's yours I urge you to add better description and tags.

Click to expand...

He is not right in his video. You cannot view the differences adequately between 16:10, 16:9 and 4:3 solely on a 16:9 monitor. You actually need monitors with those aspect ratio's. Very basic flaw in methodology. Head over to the 16:9 vs 16:10 thread for a more accurate description.
 
Still no word when the LG will be available in the states? If nobody has news regarding that, how about the ASUS without the glasses?
 
Is there any news on large 120hz screens for next year? I was going to purchase a nice 30" (2560x1600) screen this year but i'm thinking i want to wait a little longer for a higher refresh rate for 3D.
 
Rossi~ said:
Is there any news on large 120hz screens for next year? I was going to purchase a nice 30" (2560x1600) screen this year but i'm thinking i want to wait a little longer for a higher refresh rate for 3D.
Click to expand...

Asus will be releasing a 27" 120Hz screen later this year, but it's still only 1080p.
 
USMC2Hard4U said:
So from everything I read, the Alienware OptX AW2310 23-inch seems to be the one to get for overall image quality, response time, and input lag...

But is it worth $700?
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/...3&cs=19&c=us&l=en&dgc=SS&cid=27530&lid=627063
Click to expand...


I bought one of these when they first came out and utterly hated it. Did a pretty harsh review of it that got me lambasted by some of the community over at the nvidia forums.

However, I'm now starting to wonder if I got a lemon or something...but I'm really hesitant to rebuy this monitor.
 
I have the Alienware and love it, I got tired of waiting for the other 120Hz monitors to come out.
 
SKL1 said:
I have the Alienware and love it, I got tired of waiting for the other 120Hz monitors to come out.
Click to expand...

I've had mine for a couple of months now and I've been very happy with them, much better color than I thought for a TN monitor though of course not the greatest viewing angles but that's to be expected from a TN panel monitor.
 
Rossi~ said:
Is there any news on large 120hz screens for next year? I was going to purchase a nice 30" (2560x1600) screen this year but i'm thinking i want to wait a little longer for a higher refresh rate for 3D.
Click to expand...

As long as you don't mind not getting 2560x1600, like vega said, they will only be in 1080p. I doubt there will be even a 1200p next year. 2560x1600 120hz won't be happening for quite some time.
 
The problem with higher resolutions I believe is that dual link dvi and HDMI 1.4 do not have high enough bandwidth to run anything above 1920x1080@120hz. Displayport is the only current connection that can do that, but it would be unlikely for any monitor maker to make a monitor capable of being run only on AMD (RIP ATI, still not used to this) cards.

Either Nvidia would need to adopt displayport, hdmi 1.5 would need to double its current bandwidth, or an entirely new connection would need to become standard for anything above 1920x1080 to happen.
 
i got a gtx 260, will that be "okay" for 3d gaming or what? i would hate to upgrade the monitor and graphic card at the same time.
 
Your FPS in games is effectively halved as each eye need's it's own frame. So theoretically you need a 2x more powerful graphics card to get the same FPS you were getting before 3d.
 
Vega said:
Your FPS in games is effectively halved as each eye need's it's own frame. So theoretically you need a 2x more powerful graphics card to get the same FPS you were getting before 3d.
Click to expand...

that doesnt make sense, your telling me that the card renders the image twice? thats totally unnecessary.
 
dioxholster said:
yes but why do both frames have the same depth and details? cant one frame have half of the details?
Click to expand...

No both frames need full detail. Remember 120Hz is already knocked down to 60Hz by the glasses, if you halved the detail you'd actually be getting 30Hz/FPS of detail to both of your eyes. No good.
 
dioxholster said:
yes but why do both frames have the same depth and details? cant one frame have half of the details?
Click to expand...

They don't. The two frames - one for each eye - have different depth of field information. Cover your left eye with one hand; now move that hand to cover your right eye. Is what your left eye saw exactly the same as what your right eye saw? No. The difference between the two is what gives you 3D vision.

It has to be 60Hz per eye, because alternating 30Hz per eye causes headaches and vomiting. And no, the way you saw Avatar in 3D at the movie theatre has nothing to do with the way shutter glasses work.
 
evilsofa said:
They don't. The two frames - one for each eye - have different depth of field information. Cover your left eye with one hand; now move that hand to cover your right eye. Is what your left eye saw exactly the same as what your right eye saw? No. The difference between the two is what gives you 3D vision.

It has to be 60Hz per eye, because alternating 30Hz per eye causes headaches and vomiting. And no, the way you saw Avatar in 3D at the movie theatre has nothing to do with the way shutter glasses work.
Click to expand...

how come monitors/TV cant do what cinema projectors do? why we need shutter glasses? and isnt ATI making their own 3d to work with monitors with new hdmi 1.4 and has nothing to do with 120hz?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top