Why do serious gamers buy LCD monitors.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Mm I just recently bought a 22' LCD monitor from my 19' Samsung.. I prefer the LCD, it doesn't take up as much room which is very nice, and its a much larger monitor.. I like the widescreen as well.. To be honest I do not notice a huge difference between the two.. Yes I put them side by side and had dual monitors and swapped both images.. The CRT did look better in color by alittle.. But I thought the color difference was pretty negliable when compared to the much larger screen... Even with the TN panel I have looked indepth in both games (bioshock) and just regular black screen.. There is very very little black light bleed that is hardly noticable. That being said I am by no means saying its better, I my self just prefer the LCD over the CRT now a days. Thinker_145

True but if you have a 8800 or so you will be able to play at that res with out sacrficing any graphics except in a very few games.. Such as Crysis..

Here's another factor to think about... DVI input. I know there are probably some CRTs with it, but many good LCDs have it standard. My Samsung SyncMaster 940BW through DVI looks far better than my old CRT Syncmaster did with VGA. Plus, my LCD is much smaller. Yes, a CRT would have better image (though not mind blowing I'm sure), but it would also devour half of my desktop.

As long as the picture looks servicably good, it doesn't detract from the game.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="F1_2004"]

Thinker, what the hell's the point of your thread? To slag people off for not having the best & most expensive hardware possible for gaming?

Yes we all know you can spend twice as much on an awesome gaming monitor. Does that mean you're not a serious gamer if you decide to spend half that amount on a cheap 20" TN LCD?

Why do you not have a quad core CPU? No 8800GTX SLI? No 4GB DDR3 RAM? No 10k RPM HDD? Gee, you must not be a serious gamer, because all those things will give you a much better performance than your current rig. This same logic applies to spending $400+ on a good CRT when you can spend 1/2 of that on an equal-sized LCD.

Thinker_145

I got a 17" CRT which cost me $130.:|

Thats a really really small display, I would go at least 19 inch even for a crt..

Well we are OK with our LCD monitors. Why can't that be good enough for you?

I could never be satisfied playing any game on a 17" monitor. But I am not questioning you on your choice of monitors.

Just face it, when you take everything into consideration, LCD's, even the cheap ones, are better than CRT's for a lot of people. Me included.

And my main argument is not even image quality.It's the native resolution crap of LCD's.And the horrendous viewing angles but that is only assosiated with cheap LCD's.Thinker_145

Yeah I know, I am ALWAYS playing games sitting at some strange viewing angle.:roll: I never actually sit in front of my monitor.

And the native resolution is not as bad as people make it out to be.

[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"] Mm I just recently bought a 22' LCD monitor from my 19' Samsung.. I prefer the LCD, it doesn't take up as much room which is very nice, and its a much larger monitor.. I like the widescreen as well.. To be honest I do not notice a huge difference between the two.. Yes I put them side by side and had dual monitors and swapped both images.. The CRT did look better in color by alittle.. But I thought the color difference was pretty negliable when compared to the much larger screen... Even with the TN panel I have looked indepth in both games (bioshock) and just regular black screen.. There is very very little black light bleed that is hardly noticable. That being said I am by no means saying its better, I my self just prefer the LCD over the CRT now a days. sSubZerOo

True but if you have a 8800 or so you will be able to play at that res with out sacrficing any graphics except in a very few games.. Such as Crysis..

And my main argument is not even image quality.It's the native resolution crap of LCD's.And the horrendous viewing angles but that is only assosiated with cheap LCD's.Thinker_145

And some games support windowed mode so you can play non-widescreen games at lower resolutions without the image being stretched so stop your *****ing,if you like your CRT,good for you! If us TN panel-lovers like our TN panels,good for us! Why can't you get the fact that not everyone wants/like CRT,even if its has less colors and poor viewing angles and the native resolution problem.

Hey Thinker, I noticed according to your sig you don't have a sound card. You know you can get much better sound with a sound card, so why aren't you using one?opamando

[QUOTE="opamando"]Hey Thinker, I noticed according to your sig you don't have a sound card. You know you can get much better sound with a sound card, so why aren't you using one?Thinker_145

But the sound quality would be so much better even at lower levels. So I ask you the question, Why do serious gamers use onboard sound? You don't know what you are missing.

Actually I think the title of this thread should be, "My parents won't get me a LCD, so now I have to prove to myself that my 17" CRT is better than any LCD could be."

[QUOTE="Thinker_145"][QUOTE="opamando"]Hey Thinker, I noticed according to your sig you don't have a sound card. You know you can get much better sound with a sound card, so why aren't you using one?opamando

But the sound quality would be so much better even at lower levels. So I ask you the question, Why do serious gamers use onboard sound? You don't know what you are missing.

Actually I think the title of this thread should be, "My parents won't get me a LCD, so now I have to prove to myself that my 17" CRT is better than any LCD could be."

And well actually my father adviced me on getting a LCD(since he thinks it is TEH liquid crystal display and TEH best) instead of a CRT and we had an argument over that as well.

Because I'd have no physical space for a CRT, and there is no such thing as a widescreen CRT.codezer0

Yes there is. http://www.amazon.com/Sony-GDM-FW900-Widescreen-Trinitron-Monitor/dp/B00004YNSR

Wow, I've never seen so many posts in a row that completely ignore the necessity of gaming at lower resolutions. Older games don't support widescreen gaming (many *cannot* even with registry hacks), and certain titles are only fullscreen (such as Battlefield 2142). Plus, realistically, is not financially feasable for most people to upgrade their PCs often enough to maintain high-resolutions in every game they buy.

subrosian

[QUOTE="Thinker_145"]And my main argument is not even image quality.It's the native resolution crap of LCD's.And the horrendous viewing angles but that is only assosiated with cheap LCD's.Indestructible2

And some games support windowed mode so you can play non-widescreen games at lower resolutions without the image being stretched so stop your *****ing,if you like your CRT,good for you! If us TN panel-lovers like our TN panels,good for us! Why can't you get the fact that not everyone wants/like CRT,even if its has less colors and poor viewing angles and the native resolution problem.

You simply CANT CANT CANT look "STRAIGHT INTO THE MONITOR" all the time when you play games. And at TN panel even SMALLEST vertical head move will EVEN MORE DESTROY already crap colours.

U cant obviously look straight in a monitor all the time.Like taking a rest backseet during a cutscene or something.And comcon you cant keep your head in the same position for hours on end.

My father has a high end hp laptop.Everything is good about it except that the 15.4" widescreen LCD looks so bad it's not even funny.The viewing angles on that are just PATHETIC.

You simply CANT CANT CANT look "STRAIGHT INTO THE MONITOR" all the time when you play games. And at TN panel even SMALLEST vertical head move will EVEN MORE DESTROY already crap colours.domke13

Enjoy being IGNORANT to the FACTS?

1:1 pixel mapping and fixed aspect ratio scaling are options available in nvidia and ati drivers these days. You don't even need a monitor to support that anymore.

Some games are like Lost Planet are only widescreen.

Gog

Yes you do, as the nVidia scaling doesn't work under the versions of Vista I've tested it on, nor is it available on other operating systems (outside of Windows XP). It's also important if you're hooking up a console like a PS3 or 360 to your monitor - without the scaling built into the monitor, you can be left high-and-dry.

Lost Planet is one of the most poorly executed ports on the PC - it's somewhat irrelevant as a game, as it's both incredibly mediocre and performs too poorly to be played comfortably on anything but ultra high-end hardware.

I think the problem is two fold; size and availabilty. I have a 21inch trintron crt monitor that I picked up for $45 brand new a few months ago. Yes its awesome. But new trinitrons or high quality crts are hard to find. A medium quality crt is spanked by a lcd, which can come in sizes of 30+ inches and are widely available. Secondly, lcds take up less space. Way less space. Lcds also win the text war. By a huge margin. But a crt has three pluses which makes it the gaming champion. First, better color. Secondly better response times. And finally play anything from 640x480 to 1880x1440 on my screen all they all good equally good. jkmetalf

You missed a huge point, namely that LCDs are much easier on the eyes. Seeing as how people nowadays spend thousands of hours a year in front of their PC, this is pretty important.

[QUOTE="subrosian"]

Wow, I've never seen so many posts in a row that completely ignore the necessity of gaming at lower resolutions. Older games don't support widescreen gaming (many *cannot* even with registry hacks), and certain titles are only fullscreen (such as Battlefield 2142). Plus, realistically, is not financially feasable for most people to upgrade their PCs often enough to maintain high-resolutions in every game they buy.

9mmSpliff

That's idiotic, your implication would require that people *only* game on their PC, or that they never want the option of running older games at higher resolutions. People do use their PCs for other things, and it's pretty hard to multitask on a system with only a 1024 x 768 display. A larger, higher resolution monitor for many people is also purchased because it makes things like typing up a paper while chatting on AIM easier to do - it lets them keep two documents open side-by-side, or browse the web while flicking through their music library.

-

I highly recommend you all take a look at BeHardware.com's yearly LCD breakdown - they take the calibration technology to monitors, though they've essentially given up beating the "TN's poor viewing angles, poor homogeniety, poor colors, et cetera" into the ground, it's worth your time to hear it from professionals.

They also have a couple dozen articles on the various technical problems that are coming out of *every TN-film LCD* and some discussion on how viewing angles were re****fied using 10:1 instead of 5:1 to inflate the statistics for TN technology. It's worth taking a look - I was able to find a couple of sub-$400 VA panels thanks to them, which are lightyears ahead of anything TN-fim does in terms of a good all-purpose & gaming monitor.

[QUOTE="jkmetalf"]I think the problem is two fold; size and availabilty. I have a 21inch trintron crt monitor that I picked up for $45 brand new a few months ago. Yes its awesome. But new trinitrons or high quality crts are hard to find. A medium quality crt is spanked by a lcd, which can come in sizes of 30+ inches and are widely available. Secondly, lcds take up less space. Way less space. Lcds also win the text war. By a huge margin. But a crt has three pluses which makes it the gaming champion. First, better color. Secondly better response times. And finally play anything from 640x480 to 1880x1440 on my screen all they all good equally good. F1_2004

You missed a huge point, namely that LCDs are much easier on the eyes. Seeing as how people nowadays spend thousands of hours a year in front of their PC, this is pretty important.

You've missed the entire point - there are three types of LCD substrates - TN, PVA / MVA, and IPS. They are not created equal, with TN being inferior by such a large degree that the marketing efforts for TN panels should be considered fraud.

subrosian,do you really got to have everyone think the same as you? Just becauseyou hate TN panels with a passionmeans everyone has to have the same ****ing mindset as you?

[QUOTE="F1_2004"]

[QUOTE="jkmetalf"]I think the problem is two fold; size and availabilty. I have a 21inch trintron crt monitor that I picked up for $45 brand new a few months ago. Yes its awesome. But new trinitrons or high quality crts are hard to find. A medium quality crt is spanked by a lcd, which can come in sizes of 30+ inches and are widely available. Secondly, lcds take up less space. Way less space. Lcds also win the text war. By a huge margin. But a crt has three pluses which makes it the gaming champion. First, better color. Secondly better response times. And finally play anything from 640x480 to 1880x1440 on my screen all they all good equally good. subrosian

You missed a huge point, namely that LCDs are much easier on the eyes. Seeing as how people nowadays spend thousands of hours a year in front of their PC, this is pretty important.

You've missed the entire point - there are three types of LCD substrates - TN, PVA / MVA, and IPS. They are not created equal, with TN being inferior by such a large degree that the marketing efforts for TN panels should be considered fraud.

I am aware of that, but what does any of that have to do with the fact that LCDs in general, including TNs, are much easier on the eyes than CRTs?

U cant obviously look straight in a monitor all the time.Like taking a rest backseet during a cutscene or something.And comcon you cant keep your head in the same position for hours on end.

My father has a high end hp laptop.Everything is good about it except that the 15.4" widescreen LCD looks so bad it's not even funny.The viewing angles on that are just PATHETIC.

Thinker_145

It's not like there's a tiny window you have you keep your head in to see a good picture. How much do you think people are moving around? At most it's a couple degrees off the center. Most people who sit in a chair in front of their monitors will have NO problems whatsoever.

subrosian,do you really got to have everyone think the same as you? Just becauseyou hate TN panels with a passionmeans everyone has to have the same ****ing mindset as you?

Indestructible2

Everyone who's involved in seriously reviewing monitors has come to the same conclusion I have. It's not magic, it's not a matter of opinion, it's not an issue of "taste" - TN-Film LCDs have poor color, homogeniety, vertical viewing angles, backlighting, et cetera. Even when a TN-monitor is released (such as the Samsung 226bw s) that temporarily offers decent quality (still with the color band viewing angle issues, but otherwise not terrible) it is quickly replaced with lower-end, lower-quality panels (samsung 226bw a, c, and newer s) quickly.

You're getting this information free of charge so you can make smart buying decisions, if you resent someone informing you of how the cost-first LCD market has led to some shoddy business practices (using dynamic contrast as contrast, falsely labeling 6-bit panels as having 16.7 colors, pretending the vertical viewing angle of TN is 160-degree when in reality it's closer to 100 with immediate color shifting in as little as 5 degrees, or using deceptive response times without any type of input lag factor displayed) then I have to question whose side you're really on.

The consumer has been lied to with TN-Film, and the product you received is shoddy. It's a damn shame there are fewer alternatives left - and none I've seen in widescreen under $500 (not counting mail in rebates or refurbs). There are a few 5:4 VA panels in the $300 price range that I'm personally looking at right now.

So relax - I'm sorry if it bothers you to find out a technology sucks, but it does.

[QUOTE="Thinker_145"]

U cant obviously look straight in a monitor all the time.Like taking a rest backseet during a cutscene or something.And comcon you cant keep your head in the same position for hours on end.

My father has a high end hp laptop.Everything is good about it except that the 15.4" widescreen LCD looks so bad it's not even funny.The viewing angles on that are just PATHETIC.

Fignewton50

It's not like there's a tiny window you have you keep your head in to see a good picture. How much do you think people are moving around? At most it's a couple degrees off the center. Most people who sit in a chair in front of their monitors will have NO problems whatsoever.

It's a very tiny window and I personally had problems if I so much as shifted my posture - yes, sitting dead center in front of the monitor in a task chair, perfectly still. For gaming, where we adjust our posture to be comfortable during long sessions, the color shift is noticeable - and for desktop usage it's absolutely unbearable. For those of us who sit with our eyes below the top of the monitor, the screen is dark all the time, and to make matters worse, you *don't* have to move your head to see the problem.

Look at the corners of the screen (just move your eyes) and the color shifts (as the angle the light is hitting your eye from has changed). The vertical viewing angles suck out loud.

[QUOTE="Indestructible2"]

subrosian,do you really got to have everyone think the same as you? Just becauseyou hate TN panels with a passionmeans everyone has to have the same ****ing mindset as you?

subrosian

Everyone who's involved in seriously reviewing monitors has come to the same conclusion I have. It's not magic, it's not a matter of opinion, it's not an issue of "taste" - TN-Film LCDs have poor color, homogeniety, vertical viewing angles, backlighting, et cetera. Even when a TN-monitor is released (such as the Samsung 226bw s) that temporarily offers decent quality (still with the color band viewing angle issues, but otherwise not terrible) it is quickly replaced with lower-end, lower-quality panels (samsung 226bw a, c, and newer s) quickly.

You're getting this information free of charge so you can make smart buying decisions, if you resent someone informing you of how the cost-first LCD market has led to some shoddy business practices (using dynamic contrast as contrast, falsely labeling 6-bit panels as having 16.7 colors, pretending the vertical viewing angle of TN is 160-degree when in reality it's closer to 100 with immediate color shifting in as little as 5 degrees, or using deceptive response times without any type of input lag factor displayed) then I have to question whose side you're really on.

The consumer has been lied to with TN-Film, and the product you received is shoddy. It's a damn shame there are fewer alternatives left - and none I've seen in widescreen under $500 (not counting mail in rebates or refurbs). There are a few 5:4 VA panels in the $300 price range that I'm personally looking at right now.

So relax - I'm sorry if it bothers you to find out a technology sucks, but it does.

I'm having a hard time understanding how this is different from every other piece of technology out there. A dual-core CPU is good, but a quad-core is better and more expensive. A 7900GS is good, but a 8800GT is better and more expensive. A Honda Civic is good, but a BMW 7-Series is better and more expensive.

A 22" widescreen TN LCD is good, but a 22" widescreen MVA/IPS is better and more expensive. You don't go up to a Honda dealership and go crazy over the bullcrap they're trying to peddle to their customers when compared to a BMW, do you? Why do you feel lied to and deceived when the same thing happens with monitors - you've got the cheap and decent monitors, and you've got the better & more expensive monitors.

If you've got the money, you pay for the better quality, otherwise you settle for what you can get. Such is life. Show me an MVA or IPS panel at the same price as a TN panel of the same size, or pay me for the difference in prices, or shut up.

[QUOTE="Fignewton50"][QUOTE="Thinker_145"]

U cant obviously look straight in a monitor all the time.Like taking a rest backseet during a cutscene or something.And comcon you cant keep your head in the same position for hours on end.

My father has a high end hp laptop.Everything is good about it except that the 15.4" widescreen LCD looks so bad it's not even funny.The viewing angles on that are just PATHETIC.

subrosian

It's not like there's a tiny window you have you keep your head in to see a good picture. How much do you think people are moving around? At most it's a couple degrees off the center. Most people who sit in a chair in front of their monitors will have NO problems whatsoever.

It's a very tiny window and I personally had problems if I so much as shifted my posture - yes, sitting dead center in front of the monitor in a task chair, perfectly still. For gaming, where we adjust our posture to be comfortable during long sessions, the color shift is noticeable - and for desktop usage it's absolutely unbearable. For those of us who sit with our eyes below the top of the monitor, the screen is dark all the time, and to make matters worse, you *don't* have to move your head to see the problem.

Look at the corners of the screen (just move your eyes) and the color shifts (as the angle the light is hitting your eye from has changed). The vertical viewing angles suck out loud.

It really sounds like your entirelly too nit picky.. Firstly you can always shift the LCD, after all they wiegh 10 to 15 lbs to where you can sit back comfortably.. Secondly, the color variation is not that bad.. You guys make it sound like if you move alittle bit the entire screen goes black..... To me its perferctly acceptable.. Now would I like it better? Of course but this does not say that its garbage.. I also find it pretty sad that you put it in these kind of situations such as the lcd above you.. Well it would not have this problem if the stand was correctly configured to look DIRECTLY at you..

Yet again this is not to say they are better then CRT's, many prefer CRT.. To me though I prefer LCD more.. Now when they come with the new ones great.. About some other arguments:

A) older games like starcraft don't support widescreen because it looks like garbage.. Yeah I never knew we played the game for its cutting edge graphics.

B) those older games have numerous mods that widescreen support..

C) Seeing as Crysis is the most graphic intensive game we have seen upcoming in the next 2 years I would not be too worried about not reaching native resolution.

D) A widescreen alittle lower then the native is alright it might sacrifice some image but it by no means looks bad at least in my eyes.

To me you guys are completely blowing some of this stuff out of perspective.. But it kills me that you go after the most rediculous thing such as changing your head where it "suddenly" magically looks awful.. And this is coming from a guy using a 17' monitor where we could complain all day that you have to sit close most times to even see whats happening in this dang age.. Not to mention most 17" monitors have a crap range of resolutions on top of that.. In the end its cherry picking, I prefer the easier on the eyes, smaller factor, light design etc etc over the CRT.. Not to mention it completely depends on what games you play on top of that..

And one more advantage CRT's have is that their max res is more than of a LCD of similar size which means you can get a crisprier image on a CRT than a LCD.Thinker_145

I'm guessing TN panels are for gaming due to their good response times.

IPS panels are more for photoshop stuff, where every pixel color counts.

I regretted getting one of those cheapass TN monitors.

Recently I was reminded of why CRTs should die, when I sprained my back carrying a 19" up the stairs....

[QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"]

subrosian,do you really got to have everyone think the same as you? Just becauseyou hate TN panels with a passionmeans everyone has to have the same ****ing mindset as you?

F1_2004

Everyone who's involved in seriously reviewing monitors has come to the same conclusion I have. It's not magic, it's not a matter of opinion, it's not an issue of "taste" - TN-Film LCDs have poor color, homogeniety, vertical viewing angles, backlighting, et cetera. Even when a TN-monitor is released (such as the Samsung 226bw s) that temporarily offers decent quality (still with the color band viewing angle issues, but otherwise not terrible) it is quickly replaced with lower-end, lower-quality panels (samsung 226bw a, c, and newer s) quickly.

You're getting this information free of charge so you can make smart buying decisions, if you resent someone informing you of how the cost-first LCD market has led to some shoddy business practices (using dynamic contrast as contrast, falsely labeling 6-bit panels as having 16.7 colors, pretending the vertical viewing angle of TN is 160-degree when in reality it's closer to 100 with immediate color shifting in as little as 5 degrees, or using deceptive response times without any type of input lag factor displayed) then I have to question whose side you're really on.

The consumer has been lied to with TN-Film, and the product you received is shoddy. It's a damn shame there are fewer alternatives left - and none I've seen in widescreen under $500 (not counting mail in rebates or refurbs). There are a few 5:4 VA panels in the $300 price range that I'm personally looking at right now.

So relax - I'm sorry if it bothers you to find out a technology sucks, but it does.

I'm having a hard time understanding how this is different from every other piece of technology out there. A dual-core CPU is good, but a quad-core is better and more expensive. A 7900GS is good, but a 8800GT is better and more expensive. A Honda Civic is good, but a BMW 7-Series is better and more expensive.

A 22" widescreen TN LCD is good, but a 22" widescreen MVA/IPS is better and more expensive. You don't go up to a Honda dealership and go crazy over the bullcrap they're trying to peddle to their customers when compared to a BMW, do you? Why do you feel lied to and deceived when the same thing happens with monitors - you've got the cheap and decent monitors, and you've got the better & more expensive monitors.

If you've got the money, you pay for the better quality, otherwise you settle for what you can get. Such is life. Show me an MVA or IPS panel at the same price as a TN panel of the same size, or pay me for the difference in prices, or shut up.

Agreed with this.

[QUOTE="F1_2004"][QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"]

subrosian,do you really got to have everyone think the same as you? Just becauseyou hate TN panels with a passionmeans everyone has to have the same ****ing mindset as you?

Bebi_vegeta

Everyone who's involved in seriously reviewing monitors has come to the same conclusion I have. It's not magic, it's not a matter of opinion, it's not an issue of "taste" - TN-Film LCDs have poor color, homogeniety, vertical viewing angles, backlighting, et cetera. Even when a TN-monitor is released (such as the Samsung 226bw s) that temporarily offers decent quality (still with the color band viewing angle issues, but otherwise not terrible) it is quickly replaced with lower-end, lower-quality panels (samsung 226bw a, c, and newer s) quickly.

You're getting this information free of charge so you can make smart buying decisions, if you resent someone informing you of how the cost-first LCD market has led to some shoddy business practices (using dynamic contrast as contrast, falsely labeling 6-bit panels as having 16.7 colors, pretending the vertical viewing angle of TN is 160-degree when in reality it's closer to 100 with immediate color shifting in as little as 5 degrees, or using deceptive response times without any type of input lag factor displayed) then I have to question whose side you're really on.

The consumer has been lied to with TN-Film, and the product you received is shoddy. It's a damn shame there are fewer alternatives left - and none I've seen in widescreen under $500 (not counting mail in rebates or refurbs). There are a few 5:4 VA panels in the $300 price range that I'm personally looking at right now.

So relax - I'm sorry if it bothers you to find out a technology sucks, but it does.

I'm having a hard time understanding how this is different from every other piece of technology out there. A dual-core CPU is good, but a quad-core is better and more expensive. A 7900GS is good, but a 8800GT is better and more expensive. A Honda Civic is good, but a BMW 7-Series is better and more expensive.

A 22" widescreen TN LCD is good, but a 22" widescreen MVA/IPS is better and more expensive. You don't go up to a Honda dealership and go crazy over the bullcrap they're trying to peddle to their customers when compared to a BMW, do you? Why do you feel lied to and deceived when the same thing happens with monitors - you've got the cheap and decent monitors, and you've got the better & more expensive monitors.

If you've got the money, you pay for the better quality, otherwise you settle for what you can get. Such is life. Show me an MVA or IPS panel at the same price as a TN panel of the same size, or pay me for the difference in prices, or shut up.

Agreed with this.

How the f*** is this topic still alive?

LCD:
+ Small form factor
+ Low power consumption
+ Easy on the eyes
- Lower colour reproduction then CRT
- Expensive

CRT:
+ High colour reproduction
+ Scalable resolutions
- Burns the eyes
- High power consumption
- Not ergonomic

The fact that it burns the eyes puts CRT's out of consideration for gaming. Who the hell wants to squint and strain their eyes while playing games?

Further, I don't think many people really give a damn or notice the difference between 10 billion colours on screen or 16 billion colours. :|

Further, I don't think many people really give a damn or notice the difference between 10 billion colours on screen or 16 billion colours. :|

Wesker776

Not while gaming online that's for sure!

[QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"]

subrosian,do you really got to have everyone think the same as you? Just becauseyou hate TN panels with a passionmeans everyone has to have the same ****ing mindset as you?

F1_2004

Everyone who's involved in seriously reviewing monitors has come to the same conclusion I have. It's not magic, it's not a matter of opinion, it's not an issue of "taste" - TN-Film LCDs have poor color, homogeniety, vertical viewing angles, backlighting, et cetera. Even when a TN-monitor is released (such as the Samsung 226bw s) that temporarily offers decent quality (still with the color band viewing angle issues, but otherwise not terrible) it is quickly replaced with lower-end, lower-quality panels (samsung 226bw a, c, and newer s) quickly.

You're getting this information free of charge so you can make smart buying decisions, if you resent someone informing you of how the cost-first LCD market has led to some shoddy business practices (using dynamic contrast as contrast, falsely labeling 6-bit panels as having 16.7 colors, pretending the vertical viewing angle of TN is 160-degree when in reality it's closer to 100 with immediate color shifting in as little as 5 degrees, or using deceptive response times without any type of input lag factor displayed) then I have to question whose side you're really on.

The consumer has been lied to with TN-Film, and the product you received is shoddy. It's a damn shame there are fewer alternatives left - and none I've seen in widescreen under $500 (not counting mail in rebates or refurbs). There are a few 5:4 VA panels in the $300 price range that I'm personally looking at right now.

So relax - I'm sorry if it bothers you to find out a technology sucks, but it does.

I'm having a hard time understanding how this is different from every other piece of technology out there. A dual-core CPU is good, but a quad-core is better and more expensive. A 7900GS is good, but a 8800GT is better and more expensive. A Honda Civic is good, but a BMW 7-Series is better and more expensive.

A 22" widescreen TN LCD is good, but a 22" widescreen MVA/IPS is better and more expensive. You don't go up to a Honda dealership and go crazy over the bullcrap they're trying to peddle to their customers when compared to a BMW, do you? Why do you feel lied to and deceived when the same thing happens with monitors - you've got the cheap and decent monitors, and you've got the better & more expensive monitors.

If you've got the money, you pay for the better quality, otherwise you settle for what you can get. Such is life. Show me an MVA or IPS panel at the same price as a TN panel of the same size, or pay me for the difference in prices, or shut up.

That's what I've been telling you.

Except in terms of processors, comparing a TN-panel to CRT or S-IPS is like comparing a Pentium 2 to a Core 2 Duo.

TN panels aren't good, they're POS - truly and deeply, the worst monitors you can buy *period*. They're not the honda civic of monitor world, they're a one-wheeled Pinto with the gas tank on fire and a rabid monkey in the passenger seat.

With every other bad purchase on this forum, people step in and say "he's right" - someone wants to buy a GeForce 6100 and people say "no, that's not a gaming card, you need to get something better". Well guess what? TN aren't gaming monitors - they're barely functional as monitors *period*. The quality (performance) is unacceptably low.

Were TN panels a type of car, they would be so dilapadated they wouldn't be considered street legal.

If all you're concerned about is size and brightness, why not get a six foot canvas and backlight it with a floodlight? Seriously - enough of the bs.

"my TN monitor is better than CRT"

No, it isn't - it never has been, it never will be - it's not even in the same ballpark. Introducing an extra 3 ~ 4 frames of delay to your game, throwing color fidelity and image stability out the window, removing proper viewing angles, and having nothing even resembling a balanced image, along with poor blacks & greys - is unacceptable.

But y'know what? You be happy with TN if you want, what I won't let you do is spread lies about its capabilities. You want to own a TN? Then do so and don't post about it. However the moment you start spewing non-sense trying to minimize the difference between a technology that is vastly inferior to every other display technology on the planet, you'll hear from me.

How the f*** is this topic still alive?

LCD:
+ Small form factor
+ Low power consumption
+ Easy on the eyes
- Lower colour reproduction then CRT
- Expensive

CRT:
+ High colour reproduction
+ Scalable resolutions
- Burns the eyes
- High power consumption
- Not ergonomic

The fact that it burns the eyes puts CRT's out of consideration for gaming. Who the hell wants to squint and strain their eyes while playing games?

Further, I don't think many people really give a damn or notice the difference between 10 billion colours on screen or 16 billion colours. :|

Wesker776

262,144 colors vs 16,700,000 colors - big difference.

CRTs don't burn. LCDs are *far* worse for your eyes, you are starring at an always-on backlight.

You also don't seem to get this isn't about LCD vs CRT. This is about *one type* of LCD (TN-Film) being a vastly inferior technology compared to VA / IPS LCD and CRT technology.

[QUOTE="Wesker776"]

How the f*** is this topic still alive?

LCD:
+ Small form factor
+ Low power consumption
+ Easy on the eyes
- Lower colour reproduction then CRT
- Expensive

CRT:
+ High colour reproduction
+ Scalable resolutions
- Burns the eyes
- High power consumption
- Not ergonomic

The fact that it burns the eyes puts CRT's out of consideration for gaming. Who the hell wants to squint and strain their eyes while playing games?

Further, I don't think many people really give a damn or notice the difference between 10 billion colours on screen or 16 billion colours. :|

subrosian

262,144 colors vs 16,700,000 colors - big difference.

CRTs don't burn. LCDs are *far* worse for your eyes, you are starring at an always-on backlight.

I'm guessing TN panels are for gaming due to their good response times.

IPS panels are more for photoshop stuff, where every pixel color counts.

I regretted getting one of those cheapass TN monitors.

Recently I was reminded of why CRTs should die, when I sprained my back carrying a 19" up the stairs....

mocax

Actually the response times on TN panels are incredibly deceptive - it is only the fastest translation response time, not the overall response from each possible color transistion. An 8ms IPS panel will have less ghosting than a 5ms TN panel - marketing teams made TN panels into the "fast gaming monitor" so they could sell them. The "fast" is a low of crap, and as most TN panels have significant input lag (2 ~ 3 frames) it's not exactly a legitimate statement to call TN-Film monitors "fast gaming screens".

I am sorry you got a TN panel, hopefully the next cheap monitor technology (OLED) will kill them off once and for all in the next few years.

[QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="Wesker776"]

How the f*** is this topic still alive?

LCD:
+ Small form factor
+ Low power consumption
+ Easy on the eyes
- Lower colour reproduction then CRT
- Expensive

CRT:
+ High colour reproduction
+ Scalable resolutions
- Burns the eyes
- High power consumption
- Not ergonomic

The fact that it burns the eyes puts CRT's out of consideration for gaming. Who the hell wants to squint and strain their eyes while playing games?

Further, I don't think many people really give a damn or notice the difference between 10 billion colours on screen or 16 billion colours. :|

Indestructible2

262,144 colors vs 16,700,000 colors - big difference.

CRTs don't burn. LCDs are *far* worse for your eyes, you are starring at an always-on backlight.

I'm terribly sorry then, you might want to check with an optometrist to see if there's something that can be done. You either have a fair degree of color blindness (quite possible if you're male - check with an optometrist first) or you have some damage to the nervous structure of the eye or visual centers of the brain that's preventing you from discerning colors properly.

If you're looking at this site on my monitor, there's a smooth black to light gray gradient on either side of the forum (centered in the screen). If you're looking on a 6-bit monitor, that has significant banding (it looks chunky). If you are unable to see that banding on a 6-bit monitor, you're one of the unfortunate men cursed with a genetic defect. Have your girlfriend take a look at it, she's much more likely to be able to see it, if for some reason you are unable to.

I'm terribly sorry then, you might want to check with an optometrist to see if there's something that can be done. You either have a fair degree of color blindness (quite possible if you're male - check with an optometrist first) or you have some damage to the nervous structure of the eye or visual centers of the brain that's preventing you from discerning colors properly.

If you're looking at this site on my monitor, there's a smooth black to light gray gradient on either side of the forum (centered in the screen). If you're looking on a 6-bit monitor, that has significant banding (it looks chunky). If you are unable to see that banding on a 6-bit monitor, you're one of the unfortunate men cursed with a genetic defect. Have your girlfriend take a look at it, she's much more likely to be able to see it, if for some reason you are unable to.

subrosian

I'll do you a favor,i'll leave this thread for good,i know i can be ignorant,but you have FAR surpassed me in ignorance.

Just because my eye's aren't the same as yours i'm suffereing from mild color blindness or have damage to my nervous system? :roll:

I'll do you a favor,i'll leave this thread for good,i know i can be ignorant,but you have FAR surpassed me in ignorance.

Indestructible2

A lot of men have color blindness, it's something you're better off finding out now, especially if you have aspirations of doing anything aviation-related. It's not the end of the world, but it is possible that if you're having difficulty discerning color banding that others notice, it's because you're not able to distinguish between shades. From your own discreption, you either really don't pay attention to colors, or your eyes aren't sensitive to them.

There's no shame in that - but it would hurt your ability to ascertain and discuss image fidelity with regard to color.

The only ignorance here today is ignoring the reality of the shortcomings of TN-Film monitors. It's tiresome hearing people claim their TN-Film monitor is "better than CRT". Bigger and brighter? Yes. Better? No. In every measure of image fidelity they are far behind, and far behind with deltas that are well within the "irritatingly obvious" range of vision. If you've chosen bigger and brighter, so be it, but don't you dare try and claim TN-Film is the workhouse technology that CRT was.

[QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="Wesker776"]

How the f*** is this topic still alive?

LCD:
+ Small form factor
+ Low power consumption
+ Easy on the eyes
- Lower colour reproduction then CRT
- Expensive

CRT:
+ High colour reproduction
+ Scalable resolutions
- Burns the eyes
- High power consumption
- Not ergonomic

The fact that it burns the eyes puts CRT's out of consideration for gaming. Who the hell wants to squint and strain their eyes while playing games?

Further, I don't think many people really give a damn or notice the difference between 10 billion colours on screen or 16 billion colours. :|

subrosian

262,144 colors vs 16,700,000 colors - big difference.

CRTs don't burn. LCDs are *far* worse for your eyes, you are starring at an always-on backlight.

I'm terribly sorry then, you might want to check with an optometrist to see if there's something that can be done. You either have a fair degree of color blindness (quite possible if you're male - check with an optometrist first) or you have some damage to the nervous structure of the eye or visual centers of the brain that's preventing you from discerning colors properly.

If you're looking at this site on my monitor, there's a smooth black to light gray gradient on either side of the forum (centered in the screen). If you're looking on a 6-bit monitor, that has significant banding (it looks chunky). If you are unable to see that banding on a 6-bit monitor, you're one of the unfortunate men cursed with a genetic defect. Have your girlfriend take a look at it, she's much more likely to be able to see it, if for some reason you are unable to.

How do you even notice this while playing games?

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="Indestructible2"][QUOTE="subrosian"][QUOTE="Wesker776"]

How the f*** is this topic still alive?

LCD:
+ Small form factor
+ Low power consumption
+ Easy on the eyes
- Lower colour reproduction then CRT
- Expensive

CRT:
+ High colour reproduction
+ Scalable resolutions
- Burns the eyes
- High power consumption
- Not ergonomic

The fact that it burns the eyes puts CRT's out of consideration for gaming. Who the hell wants to squint and strain their eyes while playing games?

Further, I don't think many people really give a damn or notice the difference between 10 billion colours on screen or 16 billion colours. :|

magicalclick

262,144 colors vs 16,700,000 colors - big difference.

CRTs don't burn. LCDs are *far* worse for your eyes, you are starring at an always-on backlight.

I'm terribly sorry then, you might want to check with an optometrist to see if there's something that can be done. You either have a fair degree of color blindness (quite possible if you're male - check with an optometrist first) or you have some damage to the nervous structure of the eye or visual centers of the brain that's preventing you from discerning colors properly.

If you're looking at this site on my monitor, there's a smooth black to light gray gradient on either side of the forum (centered in the screen). If you're looking on a 6-bit monitor, that has significant banding (it looks chunky). If you are unable to see that banding on a 6-bit monitor, you're one of the unfortunate men cursed with a genetic defect. Have your girlfriend take a look at it, she's much more likely to be able to see it, if for some reason you are unable to.

How do you even notice this while playing games?

To be moreaccurate. Yes, I see a lot of color bending in 3D games, but that's not because my monitor sux, only because texture compression. :roll:

Bending or banding... i dont think were talking about the same thing.