This is my only problem w/ LCDs. I want one for the space and performance, but the native resolutions lock you into top-of-the-line CPU/video card hardware if you play any type of new game. The non-native resolutions look like dung. And even in non-game software, all the controls are too damn tiny. Will LCD’s ever get to the point where you can pick and choose screen resolutions without a penalty in how they look?
It’s called scaling. And the FP2001 (and many modern LCDs) have pretty good scalers. I run games on mine at 1024x768 pretty regularly, and it looks fine. It dosn’t match a CRT, but it’s pretty darned good.
It’s called scaling. And the FP2001 (and many modern LCDs) have pretty good scalers. I run games on mine at 1024x768 pretty regularly, and it looks fine. It dosn’t match a CRT, but it’s pretty darned good.[/quote]
I agree the scaling is very good on the monitor. I found it also depends on the game. HL2 still looked good at 1280x960 but WoW seemed to leave the text somewhat blurry at the same resolution. Still at native resolution games are stunning.
Yeah, that’s right. On a CRT an 85Hz refresh rate will repaint the entire screen 85 times a second. You need high refresh rates because CRTs work by phosphor excitation: The e-beam throws energy into the phosphor which then re-radiates the energy out in an exponential decay process. This means that most of the brightness comes immediately once the e-beam leaves, and it decays very quickly so there’s no persistance in picture. Thus, if your refresh rate is slow enough, you can actually perceive the bright->dark->bright transitions with your eyes which is hard on them. If it was really slow enough (< 30 Hz or so) you would actually see the scan lines. However, to avoid this monitors go to interlaced modes at very slow frequencies, like telivisions, since I believe the slow scan rates are generally due to bandwidth deficiencies, not scanning problems.
Since LCDs have a constant backlight, their “refresh rate” actually represents the maximum rate at which they can change the entire scene, rather than the rate at which the scene is painted. I think the only time that you’re likely to care about LCD refresh rates is if you have extremely fast action on screen where the difference between painting at 60 or 75hz would lead to tearing; however I can’t think of any instances where it seems likely you’d be able to see something like that. 60Hz seems like a pretty solid lower limit beyond which our eyes just don’t process information fast enough to care anyway. (I’m sure there are studies out there, but 60Hz is 60 FPS effectively so long as the computer can keep up. Isn’t that considered the target goal for video cards to be considered continuously smooth for games and the like?)
Anyone? Is this even documented yet, or are manufacturing methods changing too quickly to give a prognosis? It’s like waiting 20 years to find out the long term effects of Lazik before I take the plunge.
Never seen it nor heard of it. I think pixels that work when the monitor hits the shelves will work forever, more or less.
Anyone? Is this even documented yet, or are manufacturing methods changing too quickly to give a prognosis? It’s like waiting 20 years to find out the long term effects of Lazik before I take the plunge.[/quote]
I haven’t seen it. The main failure mode, after a long period of time (five years or more) are the fluorescent backlights.
I recently bought two Benq FP71E+ displays. I am very impressed with them. They’re fast 8ms displays with zero pixel defects and amazingly vibrant colors. Even better the screen area is almost the same as that of my old 19" Sony Trinitron CRT they replaced but they only take up 10% of the space of my old CRT’s.
I looked for the Dell’s here in Australia but there were no good deals. Dell does sell the 2005FPW but at AUD$950 it was more than the AUD$836 I paid for both of the Benq’s.
For the price of a decent 17-19" LCD monitor, I bought a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB, a 22" CRT with a better picture than any other monitor I have ever seen. LCDs don’t even come close, both in terms of price and picture quality. Until they do, I’ll stick with CRTs.
Can anyone recommend a 20" CRT that’s not incredibly deep? I’m looking for a CRT for a friend (he’ll run it at 800x600, which is why I want a CRT rather than an LCD), but he has a constricted space. 14" deep is about as deep as it can go.