M
Mark Morrison
Agreed - my housemate just bought a 40" 1080p, and the picture is
stunning.
Now I just need him to get a Bluray player
Agreed - my housemate just bought a 40" 1080p, and the picture is
stunning.
Now I just need him to get a Bluray player
S
Shawk
Beladi said:
I'm amazed you didn't start the old CRT vs LCD flamewar with this one.
Must be due... it's been weeks.
I wouldn't personally bother over 22" unless you are about to buy the
mother of all gfx cards, (currently SLI'd 768 GTX's or Ultra's I guess).
I have a Sammy 22" and can play Crysis at high settings at my native
rez of 1680x1050 except for the last level on the carrier where it all
goes to shite (feck knows why - least impressive gfx in that part than
the rest of the game). I do this with a 512MB 8800GTS coupled with a
couple of gig of fast ram and a C2D E6600.
I used to have a 7900GT and would drop the rez to play most games like
Stalker, Bioshock or FEAR at their highest settings on this 22" and TBH
I never noticed the degradation of image this is 'supposed' to cause.
My daughter has a 19" widescreen and I really hate the cramped feeling
when playing on that now that I'm used to the 22".
A
Ant
Interesting. Thanks for the information. Do all LCD monitors come with
this non-stretching option? I haven't seen any at home and work, and
online with Samsung, Sony, and Philips brands (17" to 21").
--
"Busy as ants hurrying orcs were digging, digging lines of deep trenches
in a huge ring, just out of bowshot from the walls;" --The Return of the
King (book)
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Remove ANT from e-mail address: (e-mail address removed)
( ) or (e-mail address removed)
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
A
Ant
Heh, that is why I stuck with 19" LCD monitor. Even that has issues like
in World in Conflict, Crysis, etc. with my GeForce 7950 GT KO (512 MB;
PCIe). If I had a slightly bigger monitor, 1600x1200 would be my next
native resolution and that's a big jump.
--
"The foreign policy aim of ants can be summed up as follows: restless
aggression, territorial conquest, and genocidal annihilation of
neighboring colonies whenever possible. If ants had nuclear weapons,
they would probably end the world in a week." --Journey to the Ants,
page 59. Bert Holldobler & Edward O. Wilson
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Remove ANT from e-mail address: (e-mail address removed)
( ) or (e-mail address removed)
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
B
Benjamin Gawert
* Ant:
Sadly, no. Some monitors do (usually the more expensive models), some
don't. Especially entry-level (means: cheaper) monitors lack the option
to display standard resolutions non-stretched.
Benjamin
Sadly, no. Some monitors do (usually the more expensive models), some
don't. Especially entry-level (means: cheaper) monitors lack the option
to display standard resolutions non-stretched.
Benjamin
A
Ant
Dang, that means mine is cheap! I think I paid almost 300 bucks (with
taxes).
--
"Your parents were killed by ants?" --Idle Hands movie
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.home.dhs.org (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Remove ANT from e-mail address: (e-mail address removed)
( ) or (e-mail address removed)
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
P
Phil_12345
Benjamin said:
I don't argue with you regarding how each person define 'good' image
quality - it's all depend on the eyes. The same thing as speakers: a
certain brand might sound good to some but sound bad to other - it's
all in the ears. Same with video movie, a certain compression
quality would look good to some but would consider bad to other.
I don't care how well interpolation of the LCD now a day but currently
I am using a 24" Dell LCD at work and the quality of the image/Windows
text look pretty bad in any lower resolutions other than its native
resolution. In 2D Window image/text, I want my letters clear and
sharp: 'i or I', 'l or L", 't or T" take only one pixel vertical or
horizontal in width - no beeding shadow into the next pixel or what
ever - I would notice it instantly. Can any other lower resolution
can do that? Same with image quality in game - perhaps it's not too
obvious in FPS because you spend most of the game time running and
shooting; but if you pause the game and look closely at the image then
you would certaintly tell the diffrent in 'bad' and 'good' image.
As long as the LCD hardware do some kind of image re-processing or
some tricks try to make it look "as" good as in its native resolution
then it is not the same - it's all in the eyes. Some can easily be
tricked, but some are not.
B
Benjamin Gawert
* (e-mail address removed):
That's BS. With pixel-type displays like LCD the degradation primarily
depends on the ratio of the the used resolution and the native
(physical) resolution of the display.
Of course it also depends on what an individual finds "acceptable" and
what not. But this definitely has nothing to do with the eyes.
Again BS. The difference is not in the ears, it's only in the mind.
Yes, one that is an even fraction of the native resolution.
Maybe, maybe not. But besides that even in games it depends on the ratio
of used resolution and native resolution it's usually considered to be
pretty stupid to pause games just to search for signs of image
degradation. If you don't like how the scaled down image looks then
either play at native resolution or change your display to something
your gfx card can handle at it's native resolution. Or use a CRT if you
can live with the drawbacks. Simple as that.
Again, that's BS. Like with music it's all in the mind.
Benjamin
That's BS. With pixel-type displays like LCD the degradation primarily
depends on the ratio of the the used resolution and the native
(physical) resolution of the display.
Of course it also depends on what an individual finds "acceptable" and
what not. But this definitely has nothing to do with the eyes.
Again BS. The difference is not in the ears, it's only in the mind.
Yes, one that is an even fraction of the native resolution.
Maybe, maybe not. But besides that even in games it depends on the ratio
of used resolution and native resolution it's usually considered to be
pretty stupid to pause games just to search for signs of image
degradation. If you don't like how the scaled down image looks then
either play at native resolution or change your display to something
your gfx card can handle at it's native resolution. Or use a CRT if you
can live with the drawbacks. Simple as that.
Again, that's BS. Like with music it's all in the mind.
Benjamin
P
Phil
So, according you, hearing of sound and seeing of images are not based
on the ears and eyes, but it's all in the mind !!! Based on this,
everybody should have the same hearing level and same level of
'seeing' - only the mind that does all the trickery with what you hear
and see. Right? So please explain to me why there are people with
hearing aids device or corrective lenses. Why a 80 years old doesn't
have the same hearing and seeing 'power' as one in his/her teen?
So I guess why should some spend thousand of $$$ for a pair of
speakers while a $100 one would sound the same to all. Or why some
would spend more on a high-end LCD while a cheapest brand would give
the same image?
Sir, your arguement is full of hole !!!
B
Backspace
Ant said:Heh, that is why I stuck with 19" LCD monitor. Even that has issues like
in World in Conflict, Crysis, etc. with my GeForce 7950 GT KO (512 MB;
PCIe). If I had a slightly bigger monitor, 1600x1200 would be my next
native resolution and that's a big jump.
Yea, you would do better to get 16:9 22" @1680x1050 instead of 4:3
@1600x1200.
P
Phil_12345
Well, we men always obsessed with size - the bigger the better.
Any way, joking aside, bigger screen in Windows is a feast to the
eyes, unless you don't mind to run FPS at a lower resolution. For
some reason, so far no one mention about how tire you hand have to
move the mouse back and forth using a large WS LCD. I'm using a
Dell 24" widescreen at work for just Windows application development
and my hand so tire after a while of moving the mouse back and forth
to minimize/maximize/close/open multiple windows. Even when I have the
mouse speed set to nearest fastest workable speed and highest
acceleration.
At home, I can move the mouse back and forth for hours / or playing
game with a standard 4:3 19" LCD without getting my hand tire. Any
suggestion regarding this issue?
R
Robert McMillan
Get a mouse with a higher DPI sensor for work. Not all mouse are equal when
it comes to speed, the higher dpi will mean it can be set at a lower speed
setting and achieve the same as your current mouse.
B
Beladi Nasrallah
What about the colour transmission of this minitor ? E.g. I have an LG
19" WS monitor, and it saturates white. The next screen I want to get
is to have a better reproduction of colour. I am not interested in a
cheap 24" screen if its quality of colour is not good.
P
Phil_12345
Good suggestion - I totally forgot about the track ball. Damn, the
last time I use a track ball was with the Unisys ICON computer
system. Start getting use with the mouse since the day of the
C64/128 with the GEOS software package.
B
Beladi Nasrallah
Google what ?
My comment was that the 24" monitor you were tempted with probably had
a not-too-good image quality, because it was cheap. My comment was
that _I_ put the image quality over the size of the monitor.
Q
Q
Mr.E Solved! said:
Because 1600x1200 is more pixels to push than 1680x1050. For gaming
widescreen is better anyway because it helps alleviate tunnel vision
many older 4:3 games suffer from. In racing sims, flight sims and FPS's
widescreen is much better.
Q
Q
Get a Logitech Marble Trackball and let your finders do the walking
instead of your hand. I have one but still use a mouse for gaming with.
You can have both mouse and trackball hooked up at the same time with no
issues. My mouse is wired and the trackball is wireless.
Q
Q
Tim said:We have obvioulsy found a guy here who has never played Centipede,
Missle Command, Marble Madness, World Class Bowling or Golden Tee
Golf.
Some games they are ok for but in most games they suck.
Q
Q
Mr.E Solved! said:
Not in shooters. I tried my trackball in those kinds of games and it was
horrible. Need more precision and speed than a trackball can give.
B
Benjamin Gawert
* Phil:
Nope. Read again and this time at least try to understand what the words
mean even if it's obviously difficult for you. As you can see above, I
just said that to the example of the speakers that *this* is no function
of the ears because if something sounds "good" or "bad" for you is just
a function of the mind and not of the ears. There are enough scientific
documents around that cover the complexity of hearing impression.
Nope. Vision and hearing degrades over time, and this degradation is
different for every individual.
But degradation has nothing to do if some speaker sounds "good" or "bad"
to you.
Again this is due degradation of hearing. And again this has *nothing*
to do if a speaker sounds "good" or "bad" to someone.
You obviously mix the signal reception (ears/eyes) with the signal
processing (brain, your "mind"). The hearing/vision *performance* is
decided by the ears/eyes, but what you find "good" or "bad" is not.
Someone who bought a set of speaker he finds sounding "good" won't find
them "bad" when he gets older and his hearing degrades. Hearing is much
more than just a function of the ears, and the human signal processing
(brain) is very good in interpolation to correct flaws in the signal
reception. The same is valid for the eyes.
Again, I suggest you read into how seeing and hearing really works and
not how you think it does.
The only real difference between a cheap LCD and a high end LCD is color
reproduction. High end displays have a much better color reproduction,
combined with a consistent backlight. Cheap LCDs usually come with
backlights that are brighter or darker in some parts of the screen, and
the color reproduction isn't as good. That means these ****ing expensive
LCDs are bought for applications where color reproduction is essential
(i.e. image processing).
If you buy such a high end display for generic apps or games just
because you hope to get a better overall image quality you're stupid
like hell. BTW: most of these displays have quite high response times.
Just because you're too stupid to see the difference between
vision/hearing degradation and that what is usually called "taste"
doesn't make my statements wrong. Of course, I understand that *you* are
not able to see it as it seems that biology on Canadian schools don't
cover this topic at all. In other countries this is part of basic school
education.
Benjamin
Nope. Read again and this time at least try to understand what the words
mean even if it's obviously difficult for you. As you can see above, I
just said that to the example of the speakers that *this* is no function
of the ears because if something sounds "good" or "bad" for you is just
a function of the mind and not of the ears. There are enough scientific
documents around that cover the complexity of hearing impression.
Nope. Vision and hearing degrades over time, and this degradation is
different for every individual.
But degradation has nothing to do if some speaker sounds "good" or "bad"
to you.
Again this is due degradation of hearing. And again this has *nothing*
to do if a speaker sounds "good" or "bad" to someone.
You obviously mix the signal reception (ears/eyes) with the signal
processing (brain, your "mind"). The hearing/vision *performance* is
decided by the ears/eyes, but what you find "good" or "bad" is not.
Someone who bought a set of speaker he finds sounding "good" won't find
them "bad" when he gets older and his hearing degrades. Hearing is much
more than just a function of the ears, and the human signal processing
(brain) is very good in interpolation to correct flaws in the signal
reception. The same is valid for the eyes.
Again, I suggest you read into how seeing and hearing really works and
not how you think it does.
The only real difference between a cheap LCD and a high end LCD is color
reproduction. High end displays have a much better color reproduction,
combined with a consistent backlight. Cheap LCDs usually come with
backlights that are brighter or darker in some parts of the screen, and
the color reproduction isn't as good. That means these ****ing expensive
LCDs are bought for applications where color reproduction is essential
(i.e. image processing).
If you buy such a high end display for generic apps or games just
because you hope to get a better overall image quality you're stupid
like hell. BTW: most of these displays have quite high response times.
Just because you're too stupid to see the difference between
vision/hearing degradation and that what is usually called "taste"
doesn't make my statements wrong. Of course, I understand that *you* are
not able to see it as it seems that biology on Canadian schools don't
cover this topic at all. In other countries this is part of basic school
education.
Benjamin