| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
MC_Renzy
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 04 Nov 2001
Posts: 226
|
I was considering on making the switch from a 15" crt to a 15" lcd. I was told that LCD monitors don't strain your eyes like a crt does, regardelss of how high you increase the refresh rate of the crt. This alone makes me want to purchase one right away. There's just one thing I need help on. What specs am I looking for when buying an lcd? I don't want anything bigger then a 15"(figure bigger would be harsher for the old eyes, also save money) and I don't run a higher resolution then 800x600. My main concern is eyestrain. Is dot pitch a factor in this? Is a lower pitch better? What else should I look for? Anyone here make the switch from crt to lcd? Notice any difference? Thanks very much for any help. |
Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:26 pm |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
Dot pitch isn't really relevant for a LCD. Generally you would look at Contrast Ratio (> 400:1 these days), Response time (16ms is the best on the market) and viewing angle (the wider the better). Generally any 16ms or perhaps 20ms LCD is likely to be pretty good because they will be new-generation panels.
The individual pixels can die in LCD monitors and some models/brands don't warrant them until you have >5 pixel failures, so you might want to look for "zero pixel defect" warranties or similar language. Make sure the warranty covers the backlight because sometimes that's excluded.
Otherwise - go have a look and make sure you will be satisfied. 15" non-widescreen LCDs have a native resolution of 1024x768 and running then at 800x600 does not look as sharp - some LCDs look OK at lower resolutions and some look dreadful but never as sharp 1024x768. A 15" LCD is actually bigger than a 15" CRT so this might compensate and 1024x768 might be fine but if you're going to run 800x600 - view it in person.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Wed Feb 04, 2004 8:59 pm |
|
|
Korplem
Swashbuckler
Joined: 23 Dec 2002
Posts: 853
Location: Pearl Harbor, HI |
Make sure that it is TFT. Now a days most of them are, though.
Anyway, about pixels dieing... Mine is about 3 years old and I have two bad pixels. When the screen is showing black one pixel displays a dull red and another displays a dull green. They aren't very noticable.
_________________
If soot stains your tunic, dye it black. This is vengeance.
-The Prince of Nothing |
|
Wed Feb 04, 2004 9:41 pm |
|
|
Danicek
The Old One
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 5922
Location: Czech Republic |
LCD is really good for eyes. I tried it. However it is still not good for "quick" games. Mainly FPSs look not really good on LCD.
However after whole day before CRT and before LCD, it is huge different. Your eyes are much less tired ect.
About technical facts: Dhruin wrote everything you will need. I can also say that 800 * 600 is not good resolution nearly for all 15inch LCDs.
However 15inch LCD is close to 17inch CRT, so you will probably use 1024*768. |
|
Thu Feb 05, 2004 6:36 am |
|
|
MC_Renzy
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 04 Nov 2001
Posts: 226
|
Where would one go to find info on the best 15" lcd monitor for gaming? I found a review on Toms Hardware stating that the Samsung 152T is best. Unfortuantly ity has a 25 ms response time but it says that it runs games fine and theres hardly any ghosting effect. This is odd because on his 17" LCD reviews, newer models, he states that there all terrible for gaming. Any ideas why this is? Is there any other place to get updated info on the 15"'s? Thanks very much for the help so far. |
|
Thu Feb 05, 2004 7:25 am |
|
|
Chekote
Where’s my Banana?!?!
Joined: 08 Mar 2002
Posts: 1540
Location: Dont know, looks kind of green |
quote:
Originally posted by MC_Renzy
I don't want anything bigger then a 15"(figure bigger would be harsher for the old eyes, also save money) and I don't run a higher resolution then 800x600. My main concern is eyestrain.
Not sure what you mean, but let me clarify:
Getting a bigger LCD doesnt mean it will be worse on your eyes.
I presume you are concerned about the text becoming small because of the higher resolution. But if you think about it, the resolution is getting higher, but the screen is also getting physically larger. So the text etc would most likely stay approximately the same physical size.
Heres an example: (measurements are not accurate, just for demonstration purposes).
15" LCD 800x600 - Text is 4mm high
15" LCD 1024x768 - Text is 3mm high
17" LCD 1024x768 - Text is 4mm high
17" LCD 1280x1024 - Text is 3mm high
19" LCD 1280x1024 - Text is 4mm high
19" LCD 1600x1200 - Text is 3mm high
As you will notice from the list, you can get any of the three screen size, and as long as you choose an appropriate resolution when using it, the text wont get any smaller and thus wont be any harder on your eyes. You just get more screen realestate to work with.
I personaly would recommend a 19" @ 1280x1024. They are reasonably priced (about $600), and the extra room you get on the screen is nice.
The point mentioned earlier about the native resolution is a very good one. It is recommended that you get a screen that has a native resolution matching the resolution you are going to use most. If that isnt possible, then get a screen with as high a native resolution as possible. The lower the native resolution, the worse its going to look when you run it at another res.
For example, I have ran an 1024x768 LCD at 800x600 and it looked awful, but I also ran a 1600x1200 LCD at 1024x768 and it looked almost perfect. (The higher natice res gives it more pixels to use to adapt to alternative resolutions).
I hope that helps, sorry if I rambled 
_________________
IMHO my opinion is humble
Last edited by Chekote on Thu Feb 05, 2004 9:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Thu Feb 05, 2004 2:23 pm |
|
|
MC_Renzy
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 04 Nov 2001
Posts: 226
|
Just put a down payment on a BenQ FP591. Picking it up tommorrow. Would of got the 17" but there just to bloody expensive. The Fp591 has a 16ms response rate and from what I read, ghosting is not noticable, even in high fps games. Guess I'll just have to get use to 1024x768. Gonna be tough at first leaving my usual 800x600. Also, gonna suck playing games like thief 1 and 2 now. They only support 640x480 and 800x600. |
|
Thu Feb 05, 2004 8:20 pm |
|
|
Chekote
Where’s my Banana?!?!
Joined: 08 Mar 2002
Posts: 1540
Location: Dont know, looks kind of green |
If its any consolation, the non-native resolution problems are no where near as noticeable when playing games and watching FMV. Its mostly when reading text since the characters look realy messed up.
_________________
IMHO my opinion is humble |
|
Thu Feb 05, 2004 9:17 pm |
|
|
MC_Renzy
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 04 Nov 2001
Posts: 226
|
Yep your right. Now using the new lcd monitor BenQ and it works great at both 800x600 and 640x480, even when at the desktop or surfing the web. Also, I can't notice any ghost effect at all. Guess it has to do with it being at 16ms. Theres just three things I am unsure of(not in manual). Is it safe to not run the monitor on its native resolution? Shouldn't shorten its life right? What about bit rate? Windows still allows me to choose 32bit but I heard these things only support 24. Windows doesn't even give me that option. Only 16 and 32. Both seem to work fine. Not sure if its ok to leave it on 32. Also, I have a choice of choosing 60, 70 or 75 hertz. Does that matter at all? I tried all of them and there seems to be no troubles. Thanks alot for the help so far. |
|
Fri Feb 06, 2004 2:03 am |
|
|
Chekote
Where’s my Banana?!?!
Joined: 08 Mar 2002
Posts: 1540
Location: Dont know, looks kind of green |
All the LCD's I use have 25ms refresh rate, and I cant even notice any ghosting on those either, even when playing fast paced games like UT.
Mhz Refresh rates have no relevance when using an LCD so it doesnt matter what you set it to. The refresh rate is handled by the monitor itself, you cant change it.
The color depth should be at 32bit. The LCD's will display the colors as best they can. Using it at 16bit would be just plain crappy. I am not 100% sure, but I have a feeling that the newer LCD's can do better than 24bit color nowadays.
Non-native resolution doesnt hurt the screen at all. Native resolution is just the amount of physical pixels the screen has in width and height. If you use anything other than that then the screen needs to compensate by attempting to "emulate" the other resolution. It doesnt put any extra strain on the screen.
Your LCD screen should last you a lot longer than CRT's. They put out less heat so the components wont break down so fast. I have a Dell 15" LCD on my laptop which is coming up to 4Yrs old, and its working perfect. Had one problem shortly after I bought it, but it was fixed and I havent had any problems since.
_________________
IMHO my opinion is humble |
|
Fri Feb 06, 2004 3:13 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
quote:
Originally posted by Chekote
Your LCD screen should last you a lot longer than CRT's.
This should be generally true, the only real caveat being the backlight which has a finite (although usually long) life. While a CRT might diminish over the years, a LCD will typically give you perfect performace until it falls over.
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Fri Feb 06, 2004 9:29 am |
|
|
MC_Renzy
Fearless Paladin
Joined: 04 Nov 2001
Posts: 226
|
You guys are great. Thanks so much for the info. Just have one last question and I'll be good to go. Right now I am using the DVI output on my geforce 2 ultra. Because of this, I cannot resize the monitor screen. Is this normal? Should note though, with DVI the screen always fits perfectly, regardless if changing resolutions or using DOS. Your probably thinking now, why the hell would he want to resize when it fits perfectly. Well, with my old crt I always had a border around it. When you've had something set for so long, it's hard to make the change. Another thing, I don't notice any ghosting while playing games or surfing but I do notice my mouse fades when I move the cursor across the screen slightly fast. Same for everyone else with lcd?
Last edited by MC_Renzy on Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:35 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
Fri Feb 06, 2004 9:58 am |
|
|
Korplem
Swashbuckler
Joined: 23 Dec 2002
Posts: 853
Location: Pearl Harbor, HI |
In my monitor's menu (using the buttons on the monitor) there are several options to create a border but they probably arent exactly what you want. Not the Height and Width buttons, I'm talking about selecting options on the software side. Sorry, I'm pretty tired so I can't think of a good way to describe that but I hope that helps. 
_________________
If soot stains your tunic, dye it black. This is vengeance.
-The Prince of Nothing |
|
Fri Feb 06, 2004 10:44 am |
|
|
Danicek
The Old One
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 5922
Location: Czech Republic |
quote:
Originally posted by Chekote
All the LCD's I use have 25ms refresh rate, and I cant even notice any ghosting on those either, even when playing fast paced games like UT.
It probably depends on personal opinions, however playing FPSs - especially multiplayer is only reason I do not want LCD.
There are not really "noticable" ghost effects, however whole feeling of game is much less comfortable for me. |
|
Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:33 am |
|
|
Dhruin
Stranger In A Strange Land
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 1825
Location: Sydney, Australia |
Can't say that I've ever seen the ability to set a "border" - having perfect geometry is one of the *advantages* of an LCD. 
_________________
Editor @ RPGDot |
|
Fri Feb 06, 2004 12:51 pm |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 13, 2019 5:12 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
