 |
 |
|
|
Administrator
1265 posts
Registered:
Jan 2006
I would like that I-know-what-im-talking-about ppl could correct/complete the wiki article. Renzo, ive made that comment made on my personal experience, ofc I just own one pc  I have a 22' tft and i dont own a powerful gfx card (i was with voodoo3 until last year) - i find better results on 800*600 on my gf6200 card never argue with an idiot. they'll bring you back to their level and then beat you with experience.
Moderator
1329 posts
Registered:
Apr 2006
Wouldn't a large native resolution limit the refresh rate to 60Hz? Imho a much bigger drawback in competitive gaming than aesthetical image quality issues. I'll requote myself: ...quite many of 75Hz TFTs actually disregard every 5th frame resulting in no more than 60Hz refreshrate (or frame update)... If your monitor can't do more than 60Hz at it's native resolution, it's highly unlikely that it can do it properly at any resolution. (yes, I have such a monitor and I saw huge load of TFTs like this at the university when working there last year) I would like that I-know-what-im-talking-about ppl could correct/complete the wiki article. I already wrote something there yesterday, but I wanted to give some explanation before making any this big disagreement.
Member
135 posts
Registered:
Jan 2006
Native resolution should be used ALWAYS. Bullshit. I prefer 75 Hz over 60 Hz (not possible to get 75 Hz @ native @ 226bw) and I prefer 800+ fps over 200+ fps. Also when using native resolution in games you will get the sharpest/best possible image Why would I want it? Why so many div0 r still using 320/240 or 640/480 or play with no textures/etc. ? They just like it and don't care if it's sharp/best possible. If you have the money to buy a 20-22" widescreen, I'm sure you have money to buy recent enough gfx card (150-250 euros) to make the best out of it. I've bought 22" not for QW but for work, playing QW on it is just a result of the decision. I don't need new GFX for work. Besides, cards which can get you ~1000 fps in 1680x1050 don't cost 150E. Most people would have to change also CPU/mobo. Not to mention I know 4858123 other things where I can spend this money better.
Moderator
1329 posts
Registered:
Apr 2006
Bullshit. I prefer 75 Hz over 60 Hz (not possible to get 75 Hz @ native @ 226bw) and I prefer 800+ fps over 200+ fps. Why would I want it? Why so many div0 r still using 320/240 or 640/480 or play with no textures/etc. ? They just like it and don't care if it's sharp/best possible. Everybody can have/keep their preference. However there is still difference in having shitty graphics enabled vs having scaled unsharp/otherwise messed up graphics. I've bought 22" not for QW but for work, playing QW on it is just a result of the decision. Color limited TN-panel with rather small 1680*1050 resolution, for work? Well, TN-panels are better than CRTs for text and charts at least...
Member
284 posts
Registered:
Oct 2006
Native resolution should be used ALWAYS. Bullshit. I prefer 75 Hz over 60 Hz (not possible to get 75 Hz @ native @ 226bw) and I prefer 800+ fps over 200+ fps. Also when using native resolution in games you will get the sharpest/best possible image Why would I want it? Why so many div0 r still using 320/240 or 640/480 or play with no textures/etc. ? They just like it and don't care if it's sharp/best possible. If you have the money to buy a 20-22" widescreen, I'm sure you have money to buy recent enough gfx card (150-250 euros) to make the best out of it. I've bought 22" not for QW but for work, playing QW on it is just a result of the decision. I don't need new GFX for work. Besides, cards which can get you ~1000 fps in 1680x1050 don't cost 150E. Most people would have to change also CPU/mobo. Not to mention I know 4858123 other things where I can spend this money better. Well there's a big difference in playing with whatever resolution on CRT, like most of your div0 do than with tft. TFT native res is fucking crisp, whereas all other resolutions are more blurry / less sharp. But you are correct in the sense that ppl play with qw setups that look like pixel vomit and all the power to them But it is stupid to compare the picture quality of native to non-native when you are actually comparing fps and hz that you can't get at native with your tft. This is exactly the reason why I have 1280x 19" tft, so that I can get 75hz at native resolution. higher than 75hz... My screen can do 85hz or more from what I remember with below native resolutions, but this is not recommendable since you want to stick close to fps limit steps. 85 simply didn't feel as good + it had the disadvantage of requiring below native res. And btw. the hz amount doesn't really help that much in the input lag chain even if it was 160hz, since there are bigger problems with tft's atm. and probably forever with this technological foundation.
Member
135 posts
Registered:
Jan 2006
there is still difference in having shitty graphics enabled vs having scaled unsharp/otherwise messed up graphics. When it comes to graphics I prefer the smoother one. Doesn't matter if it's a bit more shitty. Picture @ LCD is sharp only when it's still. All movement takes that sharpness away even when LCD got '2ms'. Color limited TN-panel with rather small 1680*1050 resolution, for work? Well, TN-panels are better than CRTs for text and charts at least... 1680x1050 small resolution? Perhaps for a graphic. I ain't one. Anyway it's not even a standard YET in regular offices, 1024x768 is still most common. I've bought LCD mainly because it's supposed to do less damage to my eyes than CRT I had (and it was a good one, 120 Hz in 1280x960|1024). I wanted screen big, fast and with reasonable other parametres. It's overally very good, colors are better than I though they would be, but speed is worse than I'd like it to be. Still, no big choice out there yet.
Moderator
1329 posts
Registered:
Apr 2006
I do some graphics (almost daily) so I got myself a AS-IPS panel (nec 20wgx2, test1 test2) because of the color quality and stuff. It works for most of the games, with some "noticeable" input lag (for me at least, nothing too fancy) but with QW it's a mess, total no-go. Also the desktop area is just too small for me at 1680*1050 so that's the reason for having a quality 21" CRT warming up my room during cold winters.
Member
355 posts
Registered:
Jun 2006
I've bought LCD mainly because it's supposed to do less damage to my eyes than CRT I had (and it was a good one, 120 Hz in 1280x960|1024) Holy hell? What brand and model was it D:!?
Member
569 posts
Registered:
Feb 2006
anyways i got an iiyama 19" crt that can do 154hz in 1024*768. Not using it anymore, if anyone in stockholm is interested? 
Member
229 posts
Registered:
Aug 2007
I had viewsonic 22". It was excellent for gaming. 1600x1200 105hz, 1920x1280 98hz and 640x480 245hz. I used powerstrip to tweak out max hz. I recommend. It broke 2 years ago and I need to use 19" 12ms TFT now. This sucks.
Url for that viewsonic
http://www.viewsonic.com/support/desktopdisplays/crtmonitors/proseries/p225f/ TEAM QUAD [need nothing]
shaga loses another friend
shaga discovers blast radius
QUAD
Moderator
1329 posts
Registered:
Apr 2006
I had viewsonic 22". It was excellent for gaming. 1600x1200 105hz, 1920x1280 98hz and 640x480 245hz. I used powerstrip to tweak out max hz. I recommend. It broke 2 years ago and I need to use 19" 12ms TFT now. This sucks.
Url for that viewsonic
http://www.viewsonic.com/support/desktopdisplays/crtmonitors/proseries/p225f/ When I check the specs from your url (it's the bigger brother of my current CRT, p227f) I see these values: Frequency Fh: 30~127kHz; Fv: 50~160Hz How can you use 245Hz when the max vertical frequency is 160Hz for the given tube? I'm pretty sure it will not sync above 160Hz because of the electronics that prohibit out-of-spec/overscan frequencies.
Member
462 posts
Registered:
Jan 2006
My screen can do 85hz or more from what I remember with below native resolutions, but this is not recommendable since you want to stick close to fps limit steps. 85 simply didn't feel as good + it had the disadvantage of requiring below native res. Obviously you wont be getting any benefit for going over FPS limit, but you could get 77Hz for 77FPS with TFT then? In theory that combined with very low latency should work, but if the picture becomes messy in movement then I guess it might still suck for playing...
Administrator
384 posts
Registered:
Dec 2006
I've tried setting 77hz on my TFT but it doesn't work (custom refresh rate defined in nvidia gfx driver), 75hz seems to be max
Member
355 posts
Registered:
Jun 2006
I bought an LCD a few weeks ago for home. It's a 19 inch LG L1933TR-SF and I'm loving it. Such an amazing picture. Yes there is some ghosting and I do notice it, but I can easily play without it avoiding my play :>
Administrator
384 posts
Registered:
Dec 2006
The funny thing about ghosting with regard to QW is that although it is a very fast-paced game (and hence likely to be susceptible to ghosting), it is also a game where many players have simplified graphics settings so a slight blurring of the image doesn't really matter so much in the heat of combat.
Member
6 posts
Registered:
Sep 2007
imho i use a 19" tft (5 ms) at a resolution of 1280*1024 (75 hz) with 313 fps - it works really great
Member
12 posts
Registered:
Nov 2007
For those of you who can still find the syncmaster 940bf (2ms version, not the 4ms version), it's the best LCD available for gaming that I've tested.
It's not the greatest monitor in terms of contrast ratio or size, but there's no noticeable ghosting or input lag. After switching from my CRT it took virtually no time for me to get used to it at 1280x1024 @ 75hz. I was even able to force 80hz at its native res.
If you're looking for a good LCD just so a google product search for Samsung 940bf.
Administrator
1864 posts
Registered:
Feb 2006
or the syncmaster 931bf thats the 2ms version of 930bf, i have the 4ms version, it got no ghosting either....
Samsung FTW \o/
Member
59 posts
Registered:
Jan 2006
hey guys.
just wndering what would you recommend 206bw or 2032bw ??
Member
518 posts
Registered:
Jan 2006
Member
59 posts
Registered:
Jan 2006
226bw! ftw hahaha yeah or maby that or maby i'll go with 2232bw. it is 226bw with some new features.
Member
247 posts
Registered:
Jan 2006
i got 206bw and it rox
Member
447 posts
Registered:
Jan 2006
I have an LG L226WTQ. It's a lot of screen for the money although it suffers from some background light leakage. Teamplay is nothing. Aim is everything. OBEY YOUR AIM
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/9017/end2ub.jpg
Member
121 posts
Registered:
May 2006
what a coincidence .. i just dropped by here cuz i was in doubt about wich TFT would be better LG L226WTQ or Samsung's 2232BW ... i can't figure why L226WTQ says it has 10.000:1 contrast.. and Samsung's wich is rather better on other stuff ( resolution , 22', ) got only 3000:1 dynamic and 1000:1 static ...
i currently own a LG Flatron L1752S 8ms 1800:1 and i'm wondering if a better monitor would do good to my shaft.. since its a bit crappy right now..
thnx
Member
123 posts
Registered:
Mar 2006
I have a 24" BENQ G2400WD, and I can not praise it highly enough. Using full screen stretch I can still lg the same vs bots as I did before. Just turn on overdrive(AMA in the options menu) and LG away. Here is comparison to a CRT from it's sister monitor the V2400W which has very similar features but I can't find any hard reviews on the model I have yet(it's fairly new). The CRT is on the left, and the BENQ on the right
http://www.bexox.com/images/BenQV2400W/IMG_1740.JPG
http://www.bexox.com/images/BenQV2400W/IMG_1744.JPG
http://www.bexox.com/images/BenQV2400W/IMG_1717.JPG
http://www.bexox.com/images/BenQV2400W/IMG_1701.JPG
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824014173
Member
43 posts
Registered:
Jan 2007
All LCDs are 60Hz, it's in the core of current LCD technology. No exceptions. Even if you can force somewhere 75Hz or 80Hz or 100Hz, it will not work the same way as CRT. Wait for a couple of years, there is a good chance that 120Hz technology will come from TV sets. Input lag, which is the most important thing for QW, can be checked at tftcentral or digitalversus: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/images/lg_l227wt/input_lag_graph.jpg http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&ma1=36&mo1=224&p1=2104&ma2=48&mo2=304&p2=2943&ph=12 LG bot, CRT vs LCD
Administrator
2058 posts
Registered:
Jan 2006
So my 85Hz LCD is just 60Hz?
Member
355 posts
Registered:
Jun 2006
So why does my LCD feel "smoother" at 75hz instead of 60hz? I just disabled Reforce and in qw, I did:
bind z "set blah1 $rand;if $blah1 < .5 vid_displayfrequency 60 else vid_displayfrequency 75;wait;vid_restart"
bind x "echo $blah1"
I was able to tell whether it was 60hz or 75hz 100%, and I even went from 1280x1024 (native res) to 800x600 and 640x480 and still knew which one it was. Are you sure that 60hz restriction isn't just limited to certain LCDs who only run in 60hz at their widescreen native res?
Member
43 posts
Registered:
Jan 2007
So my 85Hz LCD is just 60Hz? Afraid so. We logically came to ask ourselves about the optimum frequency of normal LCDs. Most support 60 or 75 Hz. We did a blind test of 6 monitors at the two frequencies. In the first case, there is theoretically one image every 16.7 ms and for the other this figure is 13.3 ms. Compared to our example of increasing from 50 to 100 Hz, we should logically get closer to the reaction time of 100 Hz at 75 Hz with our LCD monitors….but this isn´t what we found.
We found the following:
# 2 didn´t support 75 Hz and we would have a black or unstable image.
# 2 said that they supported 75 Hz, but when we measured the time between images we realised that they were in fact at 60 Hz.
# Finally, the last two really ran at 75 Hz…partially. In fact the monitors really displayed four images and then skipped the fifth. The sixth one was displayed normally. When we looked at the results, we realised that this skipped 5th image was to resynchronise the monitor at 60Hz. In fact, it really displayed 4 images in 67 ms whether it was at 60 or 75 Hz.
But to be honest manufacturers told us that none of the current LCDs would be able to support 75 Hz. http://www.behardware.com/articles/641-5/1rst-lcd-at-100-hz-the-end-of-afterglow.html If you have digital camera and can hook up CRT along with LCD you can check how much frame shots differ on some clock like this. If difference will be 15-16ms, it means it's effectively 60Hz.
Member
43 posts
Registered:
Jan 2007
So why does my LCD feel "smoother" at 75hz instead of 60hz? I just disabled Reforce and in qw, I did:
bind z "set blah1 $rand;if $blah1 < .5 vid_displayfrequency 60 else vid_displayfrequency 75;wait;vid_restart"
bind x "echo $blah1"
I was able to tell whether it was 60hz or 75hz 100%, and I even went from 1280x1024 (native res) to 800x600 and 640x480 and still knew which one it was. Are you sure that 60hz restriction isn't just limited to certain LCDs who only run in 60hz at their widescreen native res? Could it just feel smoother because retinal persistence is less when you have 5th black frame? But in such case you aren't actually getting any extra information comparing to 60Hz. By the way, what frequency LCD itself reports in the menu when you set it 75Hz from QW? At Samsungs it's Menu button -> Information.
|
 |
 |
|
News