LCD's vs CRT's

I'm tired of this whole 30fps, 60fps argument.

The difference is night and day. Any person who claims to not see a difference between the two simply has not performed the correct comparison... because they WILL see it, and you would have to be clinically blind to NOT see it.
 
mathesar said:
Couple vidoes of a 2405FPW next to a CRT:

Video 1

Video 2

I also noted input lag on a 2001FP with it sitting next to my CRT,but when I ran 2 CRT's there was absolutely no lag as shown here , So it was definately the fault of the LCD itself.
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting those links. I see this topic has really been beat to a dead horse around here. I wonder why people still argue about it? Perhaps someone needs to perform the same tests with one of those "4ms" displays?
 
Samhorns said:
Boy people get heated on this topic. Anyway all this debate aside IMHO test drive one and see if it matters to you. Here's my story:

Had a Sony G400 19", colors so vivid you can swim in them, gorgous CRT that I swore by for years. Was at the same crossroad as you a few weeks ago. Got my tax return coming, nice chunk of money not already accounted for, and a fist full of fatty reviews about the 2405FPW from Dell. Their flagship gamer LCD, widescreen, fast refresh, all the bells and whistles. What to do.......well I did it and bought the beast hoping for the best but expecting the worst. Was pleasently surprised to find it was acceptably in the middle of all the hype. Sure you can't fool me, this isn't black, it's grey. Sure there is ghosting no matter how much the reviews talk smack. Sure my colors look washed out compared to a SONY trin. However for me, a few hours in the seat and all was forgiven. NOTHING compares to playing WoW at 1920X1200. Headshots in CSS are a tad easier when your targets head is the size of a quarter. Pretty nice to have two entire websites up side by side with no sideways scroll bar. Would I have switched for any LCD less then this monster? Hell no, CRT is king for gaming. But widescreen is a whole nother world chief, trust me. Unless your competing, the ghosting is not that big a deal after an hour or so. I tested them side by side and the trade offs were worth it to me. What you need to do is test drive one in your price range and see if it is for you. As I said it would not be worth it if I went anything less then a widescreen with this much realestate, but that's just me. Oh one more thing, don't do it unless you have enough machine to run at the native rez, LCDs look like poop otherwise IMO.
Click to expand...

The Sony fw-900 can do all those things and more (like 2300 x 1400 reso or something). I'm in love with mine. The monitor can't be beat for the price, got mine for 325 SHIPPED using a paypal coupon (got the pretty sony one too, not the HP :p ). With the approx. $500 I saved on it vs buying the dell 2405, I could buy me a nice desk to go along with it and have some spare change as well.

I was going to get a LCD before I saw the thread here about the 24" sony, I'm so glad I saw it too. I was originally just wanting to get a monitor to hold me over until SEDs come out, but I like this one so much, I imagine I will just run it till it dies.

Like it's been said a million times, CRTs have pretty much all the technical advantages over LCDs, it's just that LCDs are more convenient to have than a huge "box" on your desk. Now, some people will say that text is easier on LCDs, which I would probably give that one, however, I can still read my text fine at 1920x1200 (if I get real anal, I could just bump the reso down real quick). Another thing that people say about CRTs is that they get headaches from viewing them too long. This may be true if you are looking at a refresh rate of like 60-70hz, but I have mine at 96hz and can drift into a glazed stare without feeling discomfort.

Probably the biggest plus to me (besides refresh rate, vivid colors, low costs, etc) though is the ability to scale down the resolution when needed. I dont have to continually dish out money to be able to run my monitor at 1920 x 1200. Just bump it down to 1600 x 1000 and it's good to go, heck, maybe even lower if the game is that power hungry.
 
Fuzzy Logik said:
Just like a woman and or a liberal.

You can't just dissect a statement and argue one point as if the rest were moot.

So are you accepting the fact of ghosting, streaking, blurring, ect?

Well if that's the case i laugh at dead pixels too, because if you are using LCD you obviosuly have a host of issues to deal with despite the awesomeness of dead pixels not being noticeable.
Click to expand...
:D

You said ghosting and dead pixels were a problem LCD's have.

I have already stated my opinion on ghosting a few times already, didn't feel like repeating myself. So I just commented on the dead pixels thing.

I guess I will have to repeat myself though. Ghosting is not a problem at all for me. I don't know about other people, but when I am playing CS:S I look at the enemy, not at the blur behind the enemy. The small blur does not distract me. My performance had not decreased right after switching to my LCD from a CRT. It has improved a lot since then.
Ghosting is not much of a problem. I notice it when I'm looking for it, but I don't when I'm looking to shoot something.


As I said before with my first post in this thread,
These LCD/CRT arguments are retarded. They never end, and no one can ever agree on anything.
 
if the sole reason people arent getting LCD's are because CRT don't have ghosting. well then you better just up and stop playing games cause even crt monitors ghost slightly.

dont believe me? get a white mouse cursor and move it in circles on a black background. you dont even have to move it all that fast to notice. I don't know if it's my ultra "noobness" but I don't notice any ghosting on my 8ms lcd. I liked how my crt can display a full range of resolutions, but the fact that the lcd takes 1/5 of the footspace, has a bigger viewing area, and sucks up about 1/5 of the electricity is worth the limited resolution. who needs 1152x864, not me.
 
Tutelary said:
I'm so tired of this entire arguement. LCDs are great for certain things. Quite simply for text they cannot be beat. For gaming, they bluntly suck. Those of you who cannot see ghosting on an LCD need to come to grips with the fact that other people CAN. In the same manner that some people have better hearing within the norman human range, some people have better eyesight. I've met people who cannot see ghosting on 20+ms LCDs, while everyone around them can. I personally can see it quite noticeably even on the good 8ms unit I'm on now.
If you cant thats fine and dandy, but do not sit and tell the rest of us it doesnt exist, it does. If I had any inclination to play games as much as I did in the past there is no way I would have bought an LCD, but for what I do now its fine. Its just a matter of what your personal needs are, and what you personally can or cannot see on screen.

There is no "RIGHT" answer to this debate. Get over it.
Click to expand...

I am over it and have gone LCD.

The grain of wisdom in the above post is to look and see which monitor suits YOU personally.
Most all of my use is internet, business apps and gaming.

The downsides: In fast gaming even an 8ms panel ghosts a bit and a 20ms panel gives me a headache. Also 20inch LCD's and below cost more than like sized CRT's these days.

On the plus side for LCD's: the brilliance of color and overall image brightness and quality way, way outweighs the bit of ghosting an 8ms panel exhibits.
The increased desk space and screen real estate between like sized crt and lcd's is really nice. The fact that the 19" lcd uses 1/4 the electricity the crt does and keeps my computer room noticeably cooler is great.

I looked long and hard for a large crt before going lcd. I did not want to give up zero ghosting and the ability to set most any screen resolution. Unfortunately it seems like there is not much available above 21inch in crtland. The ones that are out there have disadvantages. Prices are high, freight is high, weight is high, bulkiness is high and they act as pretty good room heaters.

So in the end I say, look at everything you can and buy what you like.

Rickman
 
mathesar said:
Hi my name is Sony FW900 , im a 24" 16:10 Widescreen CRT with a max widescreen resolution of 2304x1440 , Have we met? :D
Click to expand...

Yes you little vixen and all I can say is I wish I had an extra 1100 laying around and trust me I would have gone that route *sniff*
 
Just to throw my $.02 in...

I had a 21" Dell Trinitron for years... had an _awesome_ max res and refresh rate....

But... I got married and bought an aesthetically pleasing desk that had a glass top that would have broken underneath the weight of the 21". So I caved and bought a Hyundai L90D+ (price was right... had DVI and a good refresh rate).

At first it was a slight adjustment... things just move a bit differently. But after I got used to it I love it now. To me my LCD gives me crisper looking games.... in games like BF2 where there is a lot going on it is easy to spot enemies off in the distance. Kinda hard to explain... but there it is.

These days I never even notice it... but I'm sure if I were to go back to a CRT and come back again I could tell....

For desktop needs there is no equal.... the color (even compared to my calibrated trinitron!) is awesome, and text is _very_ clear.

Since then I have also obtained a 21" LCD (from work). Having two slim monitors side by side is a dream come true!

In short, I think that if I already had a good CRT and a place to put it.... I wouldn't switch (what would be the point!?!). But if you have a wife that _loathes_ the _huge_ black thing in the corner or just generally need to clear up some space you shouldn't fear an LCD. Get yourself a low refresh rate known brand and you won't regret switching.

Friedmud
 
saber07 said:
The Sony fw-900 can do all those things and more (like 2300 x 1400 reso or something). I'm in love with mine. The monitor can't be beat for the price, got mine for 325 SHIPPED using a paypal coupon (got the pretty sony one too, not the HP :p ). With the approx. $500 I saved on it vs buying the dell 2405, I could buy me a nice desk to go along with it and have some spare change as well.

I was going to get a LCD before I saw the thread here about the 24" sony, I'm so glad I saw it too. I was originally just wanting to get a monitor to hold me over until SEDs come out, but I like this one so much, I imagine I will just run it till it dies.
Click to expand...

Um where in sam heck are ppl finding fw-900s for under 1500 new? or was yours used? Because trust me, never did I say life was perfect, I said I could forgive the flaws due to the bennies. Tell me I can chase down a 24-inch widescreen CRT SONY for cheap and my girlfriend might just get a new LCD......
 
Samhorns said:
Um where in sam heck are ppl finding fw-900s for under 1500 new? or was yours used? Because trust me, never did I say life was perfect, I said I could forgive the flaws due to the bennies. Tell me I can chase down a 24-inch widescreen CRT SONY for cheap and my girlfriend might just get a new LCD......
Click to expand...

Well a little searching and I have learned the horrible reality that this vixen is discontinued, as I'm sure most of you know *sniff*. Guess I'm just that far behind the times dang...... Well since I'm not too keen on buying used gear with questionable lifespans, guess I'm sticking with my LCD (yes I'm fishing).
 
Shodin10k said:
alittle off topic, but is there any lcds that do +75hz vsync?

My 19" Used Trinitron (Dell Branded) picture quality is good, but thats not why I got it. I love my crt cause it can display 1280x1024 85hz, which is only important to me in FPS'. Even though people not might notice the importance (to me, and to many) of vsync, fps' just play so much smoother when its on. I have a 17" Sony SDM-X73 on one of my other systems which I have had for 2-3 years, and it only has a max refresh rate of 75hz, and I do notice the difference. I notice slight ghosting, but the smoothness of 85hz+ is gone.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe vsync dosen't really apply to LCD (other than using a default of 60hz) since LCDs "hold" the color on the pixel versus CRTs "pulsing" the color at a frequency. LCD takes the opposite approach and holds the color till a change is needed, thus the whole ghosting problem.

As for gaming, I coudn't say. I've never played a game on an LCD. I have seen a tv show, playing directly off the antenna on an LCD and a CRT side by side, and it was obvious that the CRT displayed the picture before the LCD. Would it affect my gaming? Probalby not, but I'm incredibly bad at FPSs.
Click to expand...

This is probably because of converison, if using a VGA cable to an LCD:
antenna(analog) > card(digital) > VGA cable (analog) > LCD (Digital)
DVI cable:
antenna(analog) > card(digital) >DVI (digital) > LCD (digital)
Using DVI may help.
 
I have the NEC FP912SB 19" CRT and my wife has the Samsung 930B 19" LCD. I have hooked them up side by side to my X800XT PE vid card, the NEC on analog and Samsung on DVI. Using extended desktop mode you can grab a window and "slide" them from monitor to monitor. The effect is dramatic, with an image positioned halfway between both monitors I can directly discern the LCD has a sharp, bright image but with muted colors, while the CRT colors are richer but the image is darker and slightly blurry.

The one thing that really stood out for me was the greyish blacks of the Samsung 930B compared to the NEC FP912SB. In "dark" games this means all the levels end up fairly visible and kills the game. For instance, in many places in Far Cry on my CRT you have to use the Cry-vision (at least I do) to be able to see all the enemies, but with the 930B you can see everything without the night vision mode. (I could do screenies but I'm lazy).

However, saying all that, I am actually considering an upgrade to the Dell FP2005. Mainly due to the fact that I actually spend more of my PC time surfin da web or working on Excel, PowerPoint or Word. IMHO, there will always be trade offs when picking a type of display, you just need to buy the type that meets your primary needs.
 
LCDs:
Pros: Great text quality, great brightness, easy on eyes, space and power saving.
Cons: Poor contrast, poor color accuracy, backlight bleeding, and of course ghosting, expensive

CRT:
Pros: Fast, best color accuracy and contrast (blacks are actually black), cheap even for top of the line
Cons: Flickery and makes eyes hurt, slight worse brighness, worse text, bulky, and power consuming.

You be the one to decide. The pros and cons are pretty even, so the decision comes down to personal needs.
 
Lantano said:
I have the NEC FP912SB 19" CRT and my wife has the Samsung 930B 19" LCD. I have hooked them up side by side to my X800XT PE vid card, the NEC on analog and Samsung on DVI. Using extended desktop mode you can grab a window and "slide" them from monitor to monitor. The effect is dramatic, with an image positioned halfway between both monitors I can directly discern the LCD has a sharp, bright image but with muted colors, while the CRT colors are richer but the image is darker and slightly blurry.

The one thing that really stood out for me was the greyish blacks of the Samsung 930B compared to the NEC FP912SB. In "dark" games this means all the levels end up fairly visible and kills the game. For instance, in many places in Far Cry on my CRT you have to use the Cry-vision (at least I do) to be able to see all the enemies, but with the 930B you can see everything without the night vision mode. (I could do screenies but I'm lazy).

However, saying all that, I am actually considering an upgrade to the Dell FP2005. Mainly due to the fact that I actually spend more of my PC time surfin da web or working on Excel, PowerPoint or Word. IMHO, there will always be trade offs when picking a type of display, you just need to buy the type that meets your primary needs.
Click to expand...


damn. I have a 930b and I'd say the blacks are VERY black. I just came from a crt, so I'd think I would notice. Have you definitely tinkered with it enough to make sure its not just a settings issue? Not saying you are wrong in any way, just that my blacks SEEM very black to me.
 
Lol, me and my friend just had an argument today about wether his 19" CRT or my 19" LCD is better. One of his arguments was that his CRT was $100 cheaper than my LCD. It's ironic because he's the one that spent $350 on a Athlon 64 4000+ and $450 on a 7800GTX and I spent $150 on my Athlon 65 3000+ and $200 on my X800GTO2.
 
I got 'brave' and decided to try an LCD as my beloved 6 year old Dell 21" Trinitron CRT started acting up recently. Having been unimpressed by the cheap 15" LCDs at work, I was convinced CRTs were still better. After searching various forums and newegg comments, I picked up a slightly used Samsung 730B (8ms advertised response time) 17" LCD for $150. After using this new LCD for a few days, when I look at any CRT monitor now, I am unimpressed. Even my friends 17" Dell Trinitron CRT that I used to always be blown away by due to it's sharp text and vibrant colors looks blurry and dull to me. This 730B has Samsung's Ultrabrite feature, and I love it in games. I also love getting away from CRT flickering (I can notice this even at 100Hz refresh rates), and I love the clear text and sharp 2D while web surfing. I no longer get eye strain after being in front of the computer for a long time. I do miss the CRTs ability to run in any resolution clearly during gaming, but so far even with my archaic system, I can play the games I like at the Samsung's native resolution just fine. I also love having my desk space back, and not having my computer room superheated by the 21" Dell. In summary, for the CRT lovers out there (I was one too), try a good LCD......you will probably come around too!! :)
 
Xeero said:
easy answer: get a decent LCD to hold you over until SED is mainstream or stick with ur CRT until SED is mainstream
Click to expand...

What is SED?

BTW, I am planning on using a pair of watercooled 6800 Ultra's in SLI if it helps matters any.
 
RegisteredToPost said:
Just pray that crt doesnt die because if it does...It will find the nearest dumpster because you can buy three new ones for the cost it takes to fix the one that broke on you! Keep in mind, by the time it breaks you cant buy a new one because they dont make them anymore! Paging NEC multisync FE series CRT consumers! (typical desk life was months past their warranty)
Click to expand...

This is the main reason I haven't gotten an LCD. Now I can get a used 21" CRT for under $75 and it usually comes with at least a 90 day warranty and is usually fixable. The people who fix monitors say that when a LCD goes south so does your wallet. :(
 
mathesar said:
I'm 100% certain you can see the difference between 30 and 60fps ,If you have Quake 3 try this test, load it up and bring down the console then type /cg_drawfps 1 which should display a framerate counter , now type /com_maxfps 30 in the console and move around the map for a bit noting the slightly 'choppy' framerate, now bring the console back down and type /com_maxfps 60 ,Assuming your PC is powerful enough (framerate counter should be pegged at 60fps) The difference is quite noticeable and is much smoother @ 60fps ..also be sure Vsync is enabled for the best effect (although its still noticeable w/ vsync disabled).

I just tried it before typing this and honestly it baffles me when people claim they cant see the differance.
Click to expand...
I've tried this before just because of this arguement in the past with 2 computers side by side and can honestly say I didn't see a difference. Seriously my eyes are different than you eyes, I just don't see any difference in fluidity. :confused:
 
i'll be using my 22" nec multisync until it explodes on me. i just hope that when that finally happens there will be a suitable lcd replacement for me to choose from that won't kill my eyes. i'm one of those people that can see the difference in the quake 3 framerate test(you can also try it in css the same way using the fps_max command) and refresh rates under 85 tend to make my head throb. so the ghosting is a real issue to me since i apparantly have eyes very sensitive to changes in light/movement. doubt the ghosting or other issues would make me enjoy the games much less, but the headache i'd get from it sure would.
 
Becoming said:
i'll be using my 22" nec multisync until it explodes on me. i just hope that when that finally happens there will be a suitable lcd replacement for me to choose from that won't kill my eyes. i'm one of those people that can see the difference in the quake 3 framerate test(you can also try it in css the same way using the fps_max command) and refresh rates under 85 tend to make my head throb. so the ghosting is a real issue to me since i apparantly have eyes very sensitive to changes in light/movement. doubt the ghosting or other issues would make me enjoy the games much less, but the headache i'd get from it sure would.
Click to expand...


I've got the 24" NEC Multi. Absolutely awesome CRT. You'll pry it from my cold, dead hands as well. <end reference to quote>

In my living room, I have a 42" CRT Monitor that does 1280x1024 Progressive with a VGA input. It's an older Mitsu unit that I've had for a while. I've been working with LCD's since they came out. I use them at work every day, and I've worked with just about every vendor under the sun. 90% of what I do on my monitors is gaming, movies and TV. I notice ghosting, flickering, bad horizontal and vertical scroll, bad interpolation from non-native resolution, and non-true blacks. Some people don't. More power to you. LCD does not and will not work for what I do at home. At work, it's OK. However, I've seen what an LCD looks like after 15,000 hours of continuous use, and it isn't pretty.

I'm skipping LCD technology. If your eyes don't notice anything, that's great. Mine do. I think that LCD looks like absolute dog shit unless you're typing in Word under XP with Cleartype enabled. Even then, don't scroll, or you'll see tremendous bleeding.

If you think that justifying your trendy $600.00 purchase to gamers by claiming you don't see the problem, you're just deluding yourself. People who aren't blinded by the amount of coin they just blew on an LCD will notice the difference.

Matt.
 
rydell said:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe vsync dosen't really apply to LCD (other than using a default of 60hz) since LCDs "hold" the color on the pixel versus CRTs "pulsing" the color at a frequency. LCD takes the opposite approach and holds the color till a change is needed, thus the whole ghosting problem.
Click to expand...

Go ahead and try it. I dont know what its exactly called, but i can turn on vsync @75hz on my lcd, and it is smoother than when its 60hz no vsync.
 
Well, my 214T just came in. I worried about the purchase since I was pretty much a CRT guy. I've used LCD's at work and generally was not impressed, heck even some brand new ones were not too impressive. The panel on my Dell 9300 laptop showed a little ghosting and was while decent did not do anything to prove LCD's.

But back to the 214T...

Bye bye 21" Trinitron...

After calibrating both monitors (I borrowed a screen-calibration device from work) I can say the 214T shows colors better and more richly than my CRT does, looks more crisp, no noticable ghosting. I'm sure I'll notice some in darker games like Doom3, or in some parts of HL2, but none in GTR, Falcon4, BF2, DoW, some parts of HL2 (only games I've tested thus far).

Now there was one thing I picked up on quickly that I am a bit confused about. With the exact same settings, my games seem to run more smoothly. I can only guess the change from VGA to DVI made some difference, but things were actually more fluid and smooth. I'm sure my frame rate was the same, but it was all smoother. Much more immersive. And LCD was much easier on my eyes.

I wouldn't go so far as to say LCD's are better across the board, but there are certaintly some LCD's out there that do perform. (And no, I'm not just saying this to make myself feel better, I shocked enough that I had my wife and brother-in-law verify the difference and they agreed with me)

EDIT: Changed 914T to say 214T (corrected model name)
 
*Shock* your lcd beat your 6, 7, or 8 year old consumer level trinitron. An FW900 ate it and your lcd. :p

I'm just messing around but world plus dog, outside of geeks, will agree your lcd's better. Geeks are different animal. Some will agree, some not. I know that lcd and I wouldn't put it on my x1900xt. Realize relatives and such, all things considered, are noobs.

Everyone always comparing to there old CRT. FW900 may very well have blown you away moreso. Other notions of them growing out of favor and going obsolete... meh so what. With the prices it's pro level CRT competition now.

I guess a big departure comes from the topic again. What the rig is for. I have a "gaming" rig, where nothing else matters. Do a lot of you guys do your work on the same balls to the wall overclocked machine you play Quake on? Of of course you're level of annoyance with lcd cons would play a role still. You seem happy. Have a great one and enjoy that lcd! Guess i should stop posting. We've kind of come around full circle whereby most are at least acknowledging if the old dog has some kick left in it, faced paced games is one. If not, I'd still like anyone who has seen an LCD better than an FW900 to announce what it is. Has anyone replaced a Fw900 with an LCD instead of the other way around?

Realize many H'ers really only started getting the Sony recently. So to others who've said try a good lcd and what not... well I've had the forum poster child 2405FPW.. and it gets creamed by this in.... faced paced games.
 
For reference the 21" Trinitron I replaced was an IBM P202. Which is old, but definate was not a "consumer" model.

Anyhow, CRT's are a dying breed. People like the clean look of LCD's over big bulky CRT's. I hate wide-screen's for computers so the FW900 had two strikes against it. Then the price for a new one is much more than my LCD cost. Three strikes....

I am not doubting the CRT is a good monitor, heck, I still think my CRT I replaced it much much better than many LCD's (Just my new LCD is better than the CRT I had). But for most people LCD's are a realistic and viable option. When upgrading a lot of people may have to discuss it with a significant other, and well it is much easier to say "but dear, think how much nicer my desk will look" vs "oh you think this one is big??? wait until you see the one I just ordered!!!". (I did not have this conversation, but I can image many people could).

One area the CRT's will always beat LCD's is true black. Though I noticed when calibrating monitors many LCD's seem to fumble on certain levels of blue too (especially when trying to calibrate an RGB device to match the output of a CMYK printer). The good ones don't, but many fall short. But how many people actually calibrate their displays?

Bottom line: For most people LCD's are a good choice if they choose wisely.
 
Crts are better at handling different resolutions and higher frequencies without compromising too much detail; try changing resolutions on LCD you have to generally stay in the native resolution.

Plus side to LCD's don't weigh a ton.

I guess have to wait for SED or OLED's to come out at decent price.

But worst part of LCD is 16:10 aspect ratio and not 16:9 which is common for movies in widescreen.
 
vexter said:
You may think this to be true. But Ive seen truely blind tests at a lan party. And nobody could tell the difference short of a lucky guess.
Click to expand...

As far as my own perception of frame rate, I KNOW it to be true. If you view a computer monitor in the periphery of your vision instead of head on, you can see it refreshing pretty easily at 60hz (due to greater sensitivity there since capillaries aren't blocking the retina at that angle). It's even easier to see if you move your eyes a bit.

You are confusing the brain's ability to make a picture looks smooth with its ability to perceive content at higher frame rates. Again, I've seen referenced online several times Air Force studies where pilots identified aircraft at 1/220 second flashes. That's more than just noticing white to black changes. White to black frames can be seen at closer to 1/300 sec. Unfortunately I can't find a direct link to the actual study, but then again it may only be available through journal libraries.

What you DO notice is when you go below 24 fps. Its very hard to game at 30fps, without dropping to 24. Almost impossible to recreate in a game. This test was set up specifically to stay around 25-40, but never drop below 25.

It was really interesting to say the least. Lots of pissed off gamers.
Click to expand...

No doubt, because that is near the bottom of our brain's ability to "smooth" motion. It's like TVs, they look smooth, but they only display 30fps (refreshing at 60hz). That's not because we can only see 24fps, it's because A. they blur motion, and B. our brains are marvellous devices.

Again, just because we can tolerate low framerates (and refresh freq.) doesn't mean that we don't gain from higher ones.

P.
 
Tutelary said:
damn. I have a 930b and I'd say the blacks are VERY black. I just came from a crt, so I'd think I would notice. Have you definitely tinkered with it enough to make sure its not just a settings issue? Not saying you are wrong in any way, just that my blacks SEEM very black to me.
Click to expand...

I agree the 930B by itself the blacks do seem black in 2D desktop, unless playing a 3D game with shadows, then not so black blacks. I'll admit I have not spent the timing tweaking this monitor as this 930B is used on my wife's business laptop. But side by side against my NEC FP912SB the Samsung 930B is not even close on black level.

In fact the reason I was doing the side by side comparison was to see if I wanted to buy another 930B for myself.... (got the monitor for $279 after rebate at the local BB in June 05) With the Dell FP2005 I could learn to live with the LCD tech limitations. Haven't pulled the trigger yet, but I'm close.
 
Pneuma said:
No doubt, because that is near the bottom of our brain's ability to "smooth" motion. It's like TVs, they look smooth, but they only display 30fps (refreshing at 60hz). That's not because we can only see 24fps, it's because A. they blur motion, and B. our brains are marvellous devices.
Click to expand...

TV's can display up to 60fps, haven't you ever played a game on one? you must be thinking of movies, NTSC is 29.97fps and PAL is 25fps.
 
vexter said:
You may think this to be true. But Ive seen truely blind tests at a lan party. And nobody could tell the difference short of a lucky guess.

What you DO notice is when you go below 24 fps. Its very hard to game at 30fps, without dropping to 24. Almost impossible to recreate in a game. This test was set up specifically to stay around 25-40, but never drop below 25.

It was really interesting to say the least. Lots of pissed off gamers.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly disagree. There was a demo for voodoo 2 cards where half the screen ran at 30fps and the other half ran at 60fps and the difference was night and day.
 
For computer monitors CRT's are better for gaming then LCD's, because both have the same dot pitch, and CRT's have better color and black level reproduction.

For HDTV's Front panel LCD's (rear projection LCD's are the worst) are better for gaming then CRT's, because LCD's have significantly smaller dot pitch then CRT's. Having a finer dot pitch makes for a much more detailed image. Plus, the color bleeding is much greater with CRT HDTV's. I've played on two CRT HDTV's, one 36" Sony Trinitron, and one 32" Samsung, and i was not impressed at all; the pixels were horribly large as compared to front panel lcd's.
 
Foe-hammer said:
For computer monitors CRT's are better for gaming then LCD's, because both have the same dot pitch, and CRT's have better color and black level reproduction.

For HDTV's Front panel LCD's (rear projection LCD's are the worst) are better for gaming then CRT's, because LCD's have significantly smaller dot pitch then CRT's. Having a finer dot pitch makes for a much more detailed image. Plus, the color bleeding is much greater with CRT HDTV's. I've played on two CRT HDTV's, one 36" Sony Trinitron, and one 32" Samsung, and i was not impressed at all; the pixels were horribly large as compared to front panel lcd's.
Click to expand...

If you saw any kind of color bleeding on a Sony CRT HDTV then it wasnt setup properly ,my 32" Sony HDTV doesnt bleed at all and has a brilliant 1080i picture w/ Xbox 360. Playing games like Condemned on an LCD will reveal their piss poor black levels vs. a CRT, not to mention motion blur..and im not sure what you mean by 'large pixels' on a CRT being they're not fixed pixel displays. For HDTV's under 34" nothing beats the 34" Sony XBR960 HDTV CRT ,It has the finest pitch tube available on the market (65% finer pitch vs. any other crt hdtv) and has amazing picture quality across the board. CNET still uses it as there refrence tv when rating other HDTVs.
 
CRTs are absolutely better for gaming. But I spend alot of time looking at text and such so I like LCD's better. I also recently got a 214T and I think it's pretty sweet. I live in a small NYC apartment so any of those big CRTs are problem.

Though I don't know why I had run into alot geometry related blurriness problems with my old CRT. So I don't miss it. But I mean I still have a old Sony CRT TV and honestly it's colors are just fantastic - even if it doesn't do high definition. I might have to get a tube TV for high def.

To me on paper it seems that CRT's would be so much better. But in reality I like LCDs better. I think the main thing is that the static picture is just so sharp and easy on the eyes. I can deal with the "ghosting" much easier then i thought I could. I was deadly scared of getting a PVA monitor but it's not so bad at all.

Pete
 
Heh... I'm a CRT guy myself but I don't think when he was saying how much he loved his LCD he accidentally left out something about a headache. Although you did say terrific, so I guess it could be! Let him enjoy his display. :)

Besides he gave the ol' tanks the gaming nod. That's the one I find interesting when people say otherwise. Not there overall choice or needs.
 
Don't know about anyone else but I can tell the difference between 30, 60, 100, and 200 FPS if I'm not running around 80-100FPS it looks choppy to me :(
 
I used to be a CRT guy but once I got my LCD, I would never look at another CRT again. I've never experienced ghosting on any of my LCDs so that was never a problem for me. Also when I used to stare at my CRT for a couple of hours I would get headaches from doing that. :(
 
Deetox said:
TV's can display up to 60fps, haven't you ever played a game on one? you must be thinking of movies, NTSC is 29.97fps and PAL is 25fps.
Click to expand...

I talking about broadcast TV, which is NTSC format in the US. Thus, 30fps.

P.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top