If they made 30" monitors at 1900x1200..?

R0achTheWarHero said:
Now that's a crock of shit. You're probably one of those people that comes in 6th place every single time. In my thread about LCD resolutions and aspect ratio, pretty much everyone agreed that the higher resolution you go, the less responsive and less precise the mouse feels. This is on 1600-3200dpi mice here.

There is a reason that no professional FPS players use resolution this high.
Click to expand...

It's ok, Roach obviously can't handle the fact people are capable of playing games and finishing #1 while having a high resolution. I went to CSS competition in CPL 2 years in a row, I know how to shoot. I was playing 1600x1200 then, switching to 1680x1050 took me about 1-2weeks to adjust to, and the same goes for 2560x1600.

Also, I have a monitor with 2560x1600 resolution and an average input lag of 7.5ms according to tftcentral.co.uk, it's actually <3ms according to my own measurements of a cloned CRT vs LCD stopwatch program with over 100 samples. This thing doesn't slow my gaming down in the least compared to a CRT (3ms, 7.5ms, either way, doesn't make a bit of difference in the real world).

As for the precision of the mouse, when you change resolution/monitors you have to adapt to the new resolution, the same goes for the sensitivity of the mouse. I use an Logitech MX 518 and still own in CSS just as much as I used to. Same goes for TF2, BF2, BF2142, L4D, etc. Having a high resolution monitor makes no difference what so ever unless you are an old fart who sucks at video games to begin with. Load up any number of those games and I'll be happy to put you in your place any day with my horrible 2560x1600 resolution...

Now if you're pulling 25 fps in games with that res then obviously you are going to suck.... That should go without saying.
 
I have a 37" 1920X1080 sitting next to my HP 30". I like the larger size, and the 16:9 aspect ration is fine. I'm ready for a 37" monitor with 2880X1620. It would have about the same DPI as 1920X1200 on a 26" monitor. Current vid cards would drive it just fine.

Think of the spreadsheets you could put on that thing! I could drive the company into insolvency twice as fast.
 
so will we ever see a 2560x1440 30inch 16:9 monitor? Im using a 24inch 1920x1080 and I really like the extra width in gaming but I am already finding this res a little confining. I know they make a 2048x1152 monitor but it seems like a 28 to 30inch at 2560x1440 would be really sweet.
 
GregOP said:
As for the precision of the mouse, when you change resolution/monitors you have to adapt to the new resolution, the same goes for the sensitivity of the mouse. I use an Logitech MX 518 and still own in CSS just as much as I used to.
Click to expand...


Depends what kind of player you are. Some people use low sensitivity and huge mouse pads and move their arm like 1 foot just to click somebody.

I like higher than 1600 dpi even using 1680x1050. Probably not many mice would feel normal to me at 2560x except the new Logitech 5000dpi g9x
 
R0achTheWarHero said:
Now that's a crock of shit. You're probably one of those people that comes in 6th place every single time. In my thread about LCD resolutions and aspect ratio, pretty much everyone agreed that the higher resolution you go, the less responsive and less precise the mouse feels. This is on 1600-3200dpi mice here.

There is a reason that no professional FPS players use resolution this high.
Click to expand...
GregOP said:
It's ok, Roach obviously can't handle the fact people are capable of playing games and finishing #1 while having a high resolution.
Click to expand...
Lmao, this coming from the same guy who wants to sandpaper his LCD monitor to polish it. Sure knows a lot about failing and coming in 6th place I'm sure.
 
Very scientific... as is your logic with resolutions and aspect ratios...

-_-
 
Blazestorm said:
Very scientific... as is your logic with resolutions and aspect ratios...

-_-
Click to expand...

Yes, my logic is so illogical yet 16:9 aspect ratio was created specifically because it was the best for human peripheral vision.

I love random idiots trying to talk shit for no reason.
 
GregOP said:
It's ok, Roach obviously can't handle the fact people are capable of playing games and finishing #1 while having a high resolution. I went to CSS competition in CPL 2 years in a row, I know how to shoot. I was playing 1600x1200 then, switching to 1680x1050 took me about 1-2weeks to adjust to, and the same goes for 2560x1600.

Also, I have a monitor with 2560x1600 resolution and an average input lag of 7.5ms according to tftcentral.co.uk, it's actually <3ms according to my own measurements of a cloned CRT vs LCD stopwatch program with over 100 samples. This thing doesn't slow my gaming down in the least compared to a CRT (3ms, 7.5ms, either way, doesn't make a bit of difference in the real world).
Click to expand...

and what screen would this be?
 
R0achTheWarHero said:
Now that's a crock of shit. You're probably one of those people that comes in 6th place every single time. In my thread about LCD resolutions and aspect ratio, pretty much everyone agreed that the higher resolution you go, the less responsive and less precise the mouse feels. This is on 1600-3200dpi mice here.

There is a reason that no professional FPS players use resolution this high.
Click to expand...

Why would you talk about professional fps players resolution settings and then talk about high dpi mice that basically none of them use? Pretty much the highest I've seen any player with decent aim use is the deathadder or mx518 at 1800 dpi and they usually just turn windows sens down to compensate for that extreme dpi.

On my 3007 I play CS1.6 Quake3 or 4 and TF2 just fine and do just as well as I did on my CRT and to be honest I got a little better playing on a larger screen at least when it came to headshots in 1.6 and TF2 sniping.

I'm just going to chalk you up as one of those gamers that analyze everything through biased personal views and copy professional players settings/hardware all in an effort to be better when in reality its all personal preference.
 
shagvirus said:
and what screen would this be?
Click to expand...

DoubleSight DS-305W, the tftcentral monitor was the Hazro HZ30W which looks identical to my DS-305W.

Swarley said:
Why would you talk about professional fps players resolution settings and then talk about high dpi mice that basically none of them use? Pretty much the highest I've seen any player with decent aim use is the deathadder or mx518 at 1800 dpi and they usually just turn windows sens down to compensate for that extreme dpi.

On my 3007 I play CS1.6 Quake3 or 4 and TF2 just fine and do just as well as I did on my CRT and to be honest I got a little better playing on a larger screen at least when it came to headshots in 1.6 and TF2 sniping.

I'm just going to chalk you up as one of those gamers that analyze everything through biased personal views and copy professional players settings/hardware all in an effort to be better when in reality its all personal preference.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know professional players who use massive 3-4ft mouse pads and move their entire arm, and I know players who use a 1ft wide icemat and move only their wrist with small arm movements when necessary. It's personal preference and how you grew up. I actually use the 800DPI (middle setting) of the MX518, if I used 1600DPI I'd have to lower my CSS sensitivity to literally .2/.3 (I use 1.3 right now) and TF2 down to .6 or so. Of course, mouse acceleration is off, that is one that every gamer I know turns off.
 
What I'd like to see is a 23" or 24" at 2560x1600 myself. Not a physically larger monitor, but a physically smaller one with higher dot pitch. I never wanted a 24" because of their size, so I lucked out and got one of those HP 23" panels recently from Geeks.com - 1920x1200 in full glory, on an S-IPS panel, and it's gorgeous while being about 4" less wide than almost any 24" I could find. Takes up less space on the desktop, is far superior to any 24" I could afford, and only cost me $162.

Now, if I could get 2560x1600 in the same 23" panel size... pure butter, baby... ;)
 
R0achTheWarHero said:
Yes, my logic is so illogical yet 16:9 aspect ratio was created specifically because it was the best for human peripheral vision.
Click to expand...

Care to list some sources for this info? According to Wikipedia the reason for 16:9 was mostly technical, even if it happens to have similar qualities to human eyesight.

Why high res is beneficial to gamers is that you can see enemies in the distance much better because they're composed of more pixels compared to a lower resolution. Not a big deal in superspeed shooters like Quake etc where the levels are cramped but definitely important in something like Counter-Strike.
 
Quigon said:
Low resolution large monitors are called HD TV's. So the answer for some people is yes. For me, no, no thank you - I'll keep half my pixels please.
Click to expand...

I have a 65" screen for my media center at 1920x1080 and text is almost impossible to read. (the opposite of what you would think). You constantly have to wip out the windows magnifier or increase your browser font size to 200%.
 
Back on topic, I'd be one of those people that would buy a 30" 1900x1200 when they would get cheaper. Increasing font sizes messes up a lot of websites.
 
DeadByDawn said:
I have a 65" screen for my media center at 1920x1080 and text is almost impossible to read. (the opposite of what you would think). You constantly have to wip out the windows magnifier or increase your browser font size to 200%.
Click to expand...

If your "TV" doesn't have a 1:1 pixel mode which bypasses all scalers this is bound to happen.
 
I still have my Westy 37'. runs at 1080p.. and I love if for text etc. Im old.. 47, wear bifocals, and love that my 3' desk.. then I can lay back in my chair and still read blogs, etc easily, and yet gaming.. It is perfect as well.
 
btw, they do make 28" 1920x1200 panels.

AgentQ said:
My 15.4" laptop is 1920x1200 and it's absolutely perfect. Until my eyesight degrades, that is.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I got one of those too. Great panel, but for me it's just a bit too much (I guess age is catching up with me.) Our second laptop therefore came with 15.4" 1680x1050, which is a lot easer on my eyes... :eek:

GregOP said:
DoubleSight DS-305W, the tftcentral monitor was the Hazro HZ30W which looks identical to my DS-305W.
Click to expand...

No scaler, no OSD right?
 
Correct, no OSD, no scaler. Works amazingly well for gaming and has actual backlight control instead of brightness (black level) control. My only real complain is the antiglare filter seems to be pretty noticeable, but oh well, nothing but the most anal of person would mention.
 
I'm more interested in seeing a 32-inch or 37-inch 2560x1600 monitor.

R0achTheWarHero said:
Yes, my logic is so illogical yet 16:9 aspect ratio was created specifically because it was the best for human peripheral vision.
Click to expand...

....okay, never heard that before. I always thought the reason it was created was because of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:9#Why_16:9.3F

When the 16:9 aspect ratio was proposed by Kerns H. Powers, nobody was creating 16:9 videos. The popular choices in 1980 were 4:3 (based on the previous television standard's ratio), 1.66:1 (the European "flat" ratio), 1.85:1 (the American "flat" ratio), 2.20:1 (the ratio of 70 mm films) and 2.35:1 (the ratio of anamorphic widescreen films). Powers discovered that all of those aspects when normalized to constant area would fit within an outer rectangle and when over-lapped, all shared a common inner rectangle.[1] The aspect ratio of these rectangles is simply the geometric mean of the extremes of 4:3 and 2.35:1, that is, 1.77:1, which is coincidentally close to 16:9, or 1.78:1.

http://www.cinemasource.com/articles/aspect_ratios.pdf

According to Wiki anyway. The PDF goes more in-depth.

Do you have an article or anything talking about the peripheral vision argument?
 
AgentQ said:
My 15.4" laptop is 1920x1200 and it's absolutely perfect. Until my eyesight degrades, that is.

If they made 24" monitors at 2560x1600 I would buy one of those over a 30" with the same resolution.
Click to expand...

Joe Average said:
What I'd like to see is a 23" or 24" at 2560x1600 myself. Not a physically larger monitor, but a physically smaller one with higher dot pitch. I never wanted a 24" because of their size, so I lucked out and got one of those HP 23" panels recently from Geeks.com - 1920x1200 in full glory, on an S-IPS panel, and it's gorgeous while being about 4" less wide than almost any 24" I could find. Takes up less space on the desktop, is far superior to any 24" I could afford, and only cost me $162.

Now, if I could get 2560x1600 in the same 23" panel size... pure butter, baby... ;)
Click to expand...

ah at least some people still care about DPI... i have an IBM T-210 LCD... 20.8" and 2048x1536... i am always #1~3 in every TF2 game i play, and i play @ full res on an 8800GTX ;)
 
FLECOM said:
ah at least some people still care about DPI... i have an IBM T-210 LCD... 20.8" and 2048x1536... i am always #1~3 in every TF2 game i play, and i play @ full res on an 8800GTX ;)
Click to expand...
One of the few high res monitors I can think of. T221 and its variants aren't cheap, and the SGI 1600SW doesn't take DVI/VGA. Best you can really do these days is 1920x1200 on a 22" monitor. :(
 
R0achTheWarHero said:
Yes, my logic is so illogical yet 16:9 aspect ratio was created specifically because it was the best for human peripheral vision.
Click to expand...

King of Heroes said:
....okay, never heard that before. I always thought the reason it was created was because of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:9#Why_16:9.3F

When the 16:9 aspect ratio was proposed by Kerns H. Powers, nobody was creating 16:9 videos. The popular choices in 1980 were 4:3 (based on the previous television standard's ratio), 1.66:1 (the European "flat" ratio), 1.85:1 (the American "flat" ratio), 2.20:1 (the ratio of 70 mm films) and 2.35:1 (the ratio of anamorphic widescreen films). Powers discovered that all of those aspects when normalized to constant area would fit within an outer rectangle and when over-lapped, all shared a common inner rectangle.[1] The aspect ratio of these rectangles is simply the geometric mean of the extremes of 4:3 and 2.35:1, that is, 1.77:1, which is coincidentally close to 16:9, or 1.78:1.

http://www.cinemasource.com/articles/aspect_ratios.pdf

According to Wiki anyway. The PDF goes more in-depth.

Do you have an article or anything talking about the peripheral vision argument?
Click to expand...

I could be wrong, but I think it was 16:10, not 16:9, that was thought to be most pleasing to the human eye, simply because it's very close to the "golden ratio".

Then again, I dug up this quote from the New World Encyclopedia (wft?):

"This was a result of widescreen computer display engineers' uninformed assumption that people viewing 16:9 content on their computer would prefer that an area of the screen be reserved for playback controls, subtitles or their taskbar, as opposed to viewing content full-screen."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top