• 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.

LCD vrs CRT

Darth Bagel said:
went out and bought an nec multisync lcd1765. best money i ever spent. sharp as hell, i can see no ghosting whatsoever. colors are nice and warm. probably not terribly accurate, but what the hell do i care? im an engineer not a designer. got another nec panel, but i kinda regret it. theyve gone downhill since i got my 1765.
Click to expand...

I bought a bunch of 1765's for the developers here at work and they're really nice. I know what you mean about them having gone downhill since though. All the 1765's are great, but a couple newer models and some other LCD's I've gotten in aren't nearly as nice.
 
I've got a 22" NEC monitor, i love it. it sells for like, 600$ something on newegg after shipping but i picked it up on ebay for $414 shipped, brand new sealed in box. so i definately couldn't pass that up. i love it. i've never had any experience with more high end LCD's, but some of my friends have the ones that come with a basic dell or gateway system and i hate them. i think i'll be sticking with this monitor untill the time comes around when i can afford an apple cinema display or whatever the best 16:9 high def flat-lcd style monitor is when i save up that much money.
 
IMO, CRT are beginning to be obsolete, everyone in the industry are beginning, have, or planning to get rid of them(mother nature will thank them), in 5-6 years LCD will be obsolete and we will be having the same conversation.
 
darktiger said:
IMO, CRT are beginning to be obsolete, everyone in the industry are beginning, have, or planning to get rid of them(mother nature will thank them), in 5-6 years LCD will be obsolete and we will be having the same conversation.
Click to expand...


Agreed. Even if you go to the retail stores, all they have are LCDs (for the most part)
Granted they aren't the BEST for gaming (by a long shot ;) I think companies are embrassing LCDs more.
 
Agreed. CRT's are going the way of VCR Tapes, there are a few out there, but when you walk into a Blockbuster, Bestbuy, you see more DVD's, in this case LCDs...
 
I think CRT's are here to stay. At least for home appliances, unless you are living in 300 square feet of living space and paying 15 cents/kilowatt like in Japan.

One thing I would like to see is a CRT with a Digital input, so that it can accept say a 1600x1200 60hz DVI signal and maybe upscan it to 90hz. That way, there would no longer be any signal degradation due to the cable.

There are tons of new LCD's out there that suck right now, but if you get a new CRT you are pretty well guaranteed a decent minimum level of quality.
 
LCDs have lots of disadvantages.

-One native resolutions, all others look like ass (interpolated)
-Poor color fidelity compared to CRT
-Poor video playback compared to CRT
-Ghosting/motion blur, even in allegedly low response time monitors
-Response time specs are often bogus (e.g. 8ms may really be as high as 27!)
-Limited viewing angle

Some LCDs overcome some or most of these disadvantages, but never all of them. Even high end Ben-Q and Hyundai panels rated at 8ms have craptacular video playback and poor viewing angles, and the the Samsung SyncMaster's response time is really as high as 27ms!

http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050215/index.html
 
fallguy said:
? You cant use two monitors when gaming anyways, so that makes no sense. You get more screen wth a 19" LCD, than a 19" CRT. About 1" more.
Click to expand...

I don't recall explicitly stating that I wanted two 19" monitors for gaming--that was your implication. I was simply using that example as a comparison of price.

At any rate, 1 more inch is not worth $200+ dollars to me.
 
Well I just got a LCD tonight. I've been trying it out. I like how vibrant the colors are and the clarity is second to nothing. However the response time, while supposedly 16ms isn't anywhere close to my CRT.
 
fallguy said:
I had mine setup just fine. Playing in the dark, for a few ours, would strain my eyes. Or hours of other activities would do the same. Seemed like it was worse with a white background, like from Word or something.
Click to expand...

You need a small amount of indirect lighting or the eyes will become fatigued. This is true of any direct view display.
 
Tofu Drift said:
I don't recall explicitly stating that I wanted two 19" monitors for gaming--that was your implication. I was simply using that example as a comparison of price.

At any rate, 1 more inch is not worth $200+ dollars to me.
Click to expand...

No, you didnt explicitly state that, but it sure looked to be implied.

Tofu Drift said:
Screen size matters a lot to me when I'm gaming. I could buy 2 quality 19" CRTs with the money I would spend buying 1 quality 19" LCD, so I decided to get a decent CRT.
Click to expand...

Should have stated it differently. :confused:

OTL said:
You need a small amount of indirect lighting or the eyes will become fatigued. This is true of any direct view display.
Click to expand...


Perhaps. All I know is it was much worse with my old CRT than my LCD ever was.
 
It's so hard to go into a store and find a high end CRT these days. Sucks ass. But so far I'm loving my LCD.
 
i agree that good CRT's are hard to find in stores, and therefore more expensive unless you find someone with cheap or free shipping........this is what prompted me to get an LCD in teh first place :)
 
Well I partially got one for the quality of the image. LCD's are just easier on my eyes. What does suck though is having to have it set to native resolution or have it look like ass. Although in games when it's set to 1280x1024 instead of 1600x1200 it's not nearly as bad as when you have the desktop resolution set differently. The tiny text is just too hard to read outside of the native resolution. But the monitor I got does a fair job in other resoltions.
 
Sir-Fragalot said:
Well I partially got one for the quality of the image. LCD's are just easier on my eyes. What does suck though is having to have it set to native resolution or have it look like ass. Although in games when it's set to 1280x1024 instead of 1600x1200 it's not nearly as bad as when you have the desktop resolution set differently. The tiny text is just too hard to read outside of the native resolution. But the monitor I got does a fair job in other resoltions.
Click to expand...

Thats why you buy a an LCD that has a native resolution for the resolution you normally use :).

1280x1024 is a bit different on an LCD then it is on a CRT because the screen is bigger.

Most people dont game at 1600x1200 anyways because in very GPU intensive games you'll be forced to turn down the IQ unless you have a high-end video card. 1280x1024 is just about the perfect gaming resolution on an LCD i think. I game at 1600x1200 on my 19" CRT though.
 
I dont' understand when people say it sucks to lower your resolution. I mean I don't think it looks bad. Maybe it's just my monitor (VP201b) but it's not HORRIBLE. I've switched game resolutions to see and I'm like...ok...what is everyone talking about? I notice it more for the desktop (it's a LITTLE blurrier but only compared to it's native resolution)

*Shrug* I dunno I guess ignorance is bliss. (but I'm not foo' to resolution and image quality just don't think it's a major issue)
 
Oh, lowering resolution to support a 1280x1024 or *ick* a 1024x768 monitor is just so wrong.

IE: This is what my CRT at 1792x1344 looks like

http://s89930274.onlinehome.us/highres.gif

Now for people using a low res LCD or CRT this one will probably explain it better:

http://s89930274.onlinehome.us/halfres.gif (896x688)

Now imagine that stretched out to your monitor, even at half resolution notice how the fonts are crisp and readable, and how much information is just packed into the windows. You can do this with high resolutions... I would never go back to anything below 1600x1200. If I could afford it I would get a monitor that would do 2048x1536 at 85 hz.
 
Netrat33 said:
I dont' understand when people say it sucks to lower your resolution. I mean I don't think it looks bad. Maybe it's just my monitor (VP201b) but it's not HORRIBLE. I've switched game resolutions to see and I'm like...ok...what is everyone talking about? I notice it more for the desktop (it's a LITTLE blurrier but only compared to it's native resolution)

*Shrug* I dunno I guess ignorance is bliss. (but I'm not foo' to resolution and image quality just don't think it's a major issue)
Click to expand...

I have the Viewsonic VP201S (The same as yours but silver) and I can say that it doesn't look as good in other resolutions, but it definatley looks better than most LCD's do when you adjust it outside the native resolution.

The VP201S is a damn good monitor. Plain and simple. I am enjoying mine very much right now.
 
ZenOps said:
Oh, lowering resolution to support a 1280x1024 or *ick* a 1024x768 monitor is just so wrong.

IE: This is what my CRT at 1792x1344 looks like

http://s89930274.onlinehome.us/highres.gif

Now for people using a low res LCD or CRT this one will probably explain it better:

http://s89930274.onlinehome.us/halfres.gif (896x688)

Now imagine that stretched out to your monitor, even at half resolution notice how the fonts are crisp and readable, and how much information is just packed into the windows. You can do this with high resolutions... I would never go back to anything below 1600x1200. If I could afford it I would get a monitor that would do 2048x1536 at 85 hz.
Click to expand...

That's not...really...accurate. Not even remotely. It's not like you saving out a bitmap and stretching that. It's not the same. If you took ANY image and stretched it beyond it's resolution it will be blurry no matter WHAT you use, LCD or CRT. It does not look like I stretched a 896x688 (???) resolution to fit a 20inch monitor. A 640x480 resolution picture only looks good in a 640x480 resolution. If you stretch it, it blurs it. Period. So that example doesn't work.

If you know about how fonts work they are resolution independant (basically like vector graphics). Now true, due to how LCDs display a picture is different and at lower resolutions they can be a little more blurry, but you can correct that by turning on Cleartype in windows.
 
Sir-Fragalot said:
I have the Viewsonic VP201S (The same as yours but silver) and I can say that it doesn't look as good in other resolutions, but it definatley looks better than most LCD's do when you adjust it outside the native resolution.

The VP201S is a damn good monitor. Plain and simple. I am enjoying mine very much right now.
Click to expand...


I dunno. I don't really notice anything to say...BOoo. (In 3D games)
But yea, I could be that this is my first LCD so I can't really compare it to a "bad" one since this one is very good. And this is coming from a CRT monitor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top