Widescreen gamer looking for gaming resolution tips: how d..

>> LOL!
>> But they're still better than CRT?
>
> Yup, I think so.
>
> None of us have the exact same eyesight. I like sharp images with deep
> colors, two things that quality LCD's are very good at reproducing.
> I've had my fair share of CRT's and was very happy with them while
> they lasted.

Yeah, well it's religion I guess
I've a LCD as main screen just in case you've wondered.
 >> Stay informed about: Widescreen gamer looking for gaming resolution tips: how d.. 

On Sep 24, 11:17 pm, "ShutEye" <n....TakeThisOut@no.no> wrote:
> >> LOL!
> >> But they're still better than CRT?
>
> > Yup, I think so.
>
> > None of us have the exact same eyesight. I like sharp images with deep
> > colors, two things that quality LCD's are very good at reproducing.
> > I've had my fair share of CRT's and was very happy with them while
> > they lasted.
>
> Yeah, well it's religion I guess
> I've a LCD as main screen just in case you've wondered.

Very true. I had pretty similar situations while I was a car stereo
installer. Things that sounded right to me were off to others, same
thing went the other way too. Out of the 7 of us in the shop only 4 or
so could agree on any given system.

Its all a matter of taste when it comes down to it.

Matt
 >> Stay informed about: Widescreen gamer looking for gaming resolution tips: how d.. 

"Paul" <nospam.DeleteThis@needed.com> wrote in message news:fd7ei5$5vr$1@aioe.org...
> PW wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have a 22 inch Samsung 225BW with a native resolution of 1680x1050.
>> I just bought C&C Tiberium wars. I have tried 1024x768, 1280x1024,
>> and 1680x1050. But, whatever resolution I choose seems to not make a
>> difference. I would like to see more of the map and also have the
>> buildings, troopers, etc get smaller.
>>
>> Any ideas? Is the best alternative going back to a CRT monitor (I
>> don't have room on my desk to set up both). WinXP
>> eVGA NVidia 7950GT (512MB RAM)
>> Latest NVida beta drivers for BioShock
>> 2GB RAM
>> Yada, yada, yada
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> -pw
>
> They mention running at 1920x1080 here.
> http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/command-conquer-3-tiberium-wars/777472p1.html
>
> Paul

My Samsung 244T 24" runs at 1920x1200 native, so that seems close.

Ed
 >> Stay informed about: Widescreen gamer looking for gaming resolution tips: how d.. 

"ShutEye" <no.DeleteThis@no.no> wrote in message news:fda5iq$u93$1@news.datemas.de

[...]

>> As fast as a CRT (a 2ms VX922 is identical to my Philips 109S4).
>
> True. This doesn't make it better though.

It might be technically true but it's misleading. You're not comparing
apples with apples. Speed of pixel state switching isn't the only issue
with motion blur (often wrongly called ghosting). Speed of pixel decay is
also important. If the speed a pixel switched states was all that mattered
then any LCD faster than 25ms would be the equal of a CRT but they aren't.
The combination of pixel state switching speed, pixel decay rate and the
human eye mean that in this particular respect CRTs still beat LCDs hands
down.
 >> Stay informed about: Widescreen gamer looking for gaming resolution tips: how d.. 

>>> As fast as a CRT (a 2ms VX922 is identical to my Philips 109S4).
>>
>> True. This doesn't make it better though.
>
> It might be technically true but it's misleading. You're not comparing
> apples with apples. Speed of pixel state switching isn't the only issue
> with motion blur (often wrongly called ghosting). Speed of pixel decay is
> also important. If the speed a pixel switched states was all that
> mattered then any LCD faster than 25ms would be the equal of a CRT but
> they aren't. The combination of pixel state switching speed, pixel decay
> rate and the human eye mean that in this particular respect CRTs still
> beat LCDs hands down.

Should've wrote "true enough"
I can't SEE any difference.
 >> Stay informed about: Widescreen gamer looking for gaming resolution tips: how d.. 

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

> * Mr.E Solved!:
>
>> http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=98338
>>
>> 24" Widescreen CRT, infinitely better than any flat panel for gaming.
>
> Can't confirm that, and I have been using 24" Widescreen CRTs for over 9
> years (until 2000 I had the Sony W900, then from 2000 to 2005 I had the
> FW900). Of course reaction times are way faster than any TFT but that's
> it basically. The FW900 is extremely fragile when it comes to RGB
> convergence, and it's alsmost impossible to get 100% perfect convergence
> over the whole screen area. Especially in the corners are divergences.
> At that time it was one of the best CRTs but still it wasn't perfect,
> and at that time I played most games on my SGI 1600SW Widescreen TFT
> which definitely *was* perfect. I later got rid of the FW900 completely
> in favour of a Dell 2005FPW. Despite it's smaller screen size gaming was
> much more fun with it than with the bulky FW900.
>
> The predecessor W900 was even worse, more like a fishglass. The W900 was
> primarily made for moving content and less for static applications like
> DTP, image editing, word processing or something like that. The FW900
> was better, though, but still not very good for static applications.
>
> Besides that, production of these beasts stopped around 2001 or so. I'd
> not recommend anyone to waste money on a over 6 year old CRT which
> probably already has several thousand operating hours on it's tube. And
> at the quality of todays TFTs there hardly is any reason to waste money
> on such dinosaurs.
>
> Benjamin

I had no idea you were a gamer of distinction Benjamin. I am pleased you
made this point right away: "reaction times are way faster than any TFT
but that's it (electrically - Mr.E) basically". Since we both know how
critical that is to fps gaming.

One argument against CRTs used to be the lack of widescreen, now it
seems to be : Bulk (which has nothing to do with picture quality),
cachet (also nothing to do with picture quality), and convergence errors
which can be a drag unless set properly, and only then so with text in
the corners of the screen....which can happen often with games so it
does need to be checked.

You can buy the FW900 for short money across today, shipping is nearly
half again the cost of the display!
 >> Stay informed about: Widescreen gamer looking for gaming resolution tips: how d.. 

* Mr.E Solved!:

> I had no idea you were a gamer of distinction Benjamin. I am pleased you
> made this point right away: "reaction times are way faster than any TFT
> but that's it (electrically - Mr.E) basically". Since we both know how
> critical that is to fps gaming.

Well, I know this is something being discussed, but personally, I think
the whole reaction times thing is just overestimated. Sure, when looking
at the first gegeration TFTs with >25ms screen lag was an issue, but
todays TFTs with 12ms or less should be fast enough for 3D games.

> One argument against CRTs used to be the lack of widescreen, now it
> seems to be : Bulk (which has nothing to do with picture quality),
> cachet (also nothing to do with picture quality), and convergence errors
> which can be a drag unless set properly,

That's the problem, it can't be set properly on the FW900. Even Sony
couldn't do that, and if you look at the service manuals you'll notice
that the allowed tolerances are huge.

> and only then so with text in
> the corners of the screen....which can happen often with games so it
> does need to be checked.

Well, I did notice the convergence issues in some games, and it can get
quite annoying. Besides that, probably only very few users use their
computer only for gaming and nothing else.

> You can buy the FW900 for short money across today, shipping is nearly
> half again the cost of the display!

Right, but I still think they are just a waste of money today. If you're
after one because of curiosity then well, it might be worth the money
for you. But to use one as a primary monitor isn't really a good idea.

Benjamin
 >> Stay informed about: Widescreen gamer looking for gaming resolution tips: how d..