|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
muggie2dammit
Joined: 28 Oct 2004
Location: Ilsan, Korea
|
 Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 1:44 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Demophobe wrote: |
A CRT will most likely hurt your eyes when you can't get the refresh rate over 60Hz. That means you have to lower the resolution and up the refresh....common sense. That, or pay a bit for a monitor that can do more. Cheap is cheap.
LCDs are slowly coming around, but they are not the choice for professionals or even enthusiasts.
|
Actually, mine hurts my eyes when it's below about 75Hz, which I why I opted for a CRT which could do 1600x1200@85Hz. LCDs seem to be a lot easier on my eyes even at a lower refresh rate, though.
As for that, I just look at the refresh rate at the maximum resolution, and if the numbers look good, then that's fine for me.
One thing that many people have problems with in some games, and even watching videos, is ghosting. This used to be quite common on LCDs. Even on some modern ones it can be a problem. Well, I tried out a LCD monitor that some had criticised for ghosting, and they were right - using the D-sub. Plug in DVI, and the same monitor gave a clearer, more precise picture - and the ghosting almost completely vanished.
LCDs are getting better all the time.
Muggie2 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Demophobe
Joined: 17 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Derrek/Gollum wrote: |
| Demophobe wrote: |
Can't forget native resolutions too. Go buy a killer graphics card, only to find that at any other resolution besides 1024x768, it looks like total garbage. 3D, 2D...all terrible at a different resolution. |
Wow, you don't know anything about graphics cards, and you apparently don't know much about LCD Monitors, either???
Let me educate you, since you apparently are breathing a lot of hot air about something you neither own nor know much about.
LCD's have a "native resolution." Most 15" monitors (few buy these anymore) have a native resolution of 1024x768. 17" and 19" monitors are usually native at 1280x1024. At that resolution, and using DVI, the games look gorgeous.
Not choosing sides on which is better (I believe a good SONY non-LCD would be the way to go if you're crazy about games)... just educating you and correcting more of your biased know-it-all babble. I suggest you try some LCDs out instead of relying on old web articles and heresay. |
Well Derrek, it's good you are off the hill long enough to post...and apparently still physically able to, so you are ahead of the game.
Now...not only can you teach me nothing, but you continue to do nothing short of showing how your irrational hate gets in the way, making you look like a complete fool.
Yes...native resolutions is exactly what I was talking about, and going away from them makes LCDs look terrible. This was my point...perhaps next time I will use smaller words for you.
Most 17" LCDs have a native res of 1024x768, and even a GF3 could play most games at that res. So, I said, a GF7800 would be wasted on such a monitor, so why bother? Now, if the native res is 1280x1024 and one tries to play Doom 3 on the lowly graphics card that just can't do that res, one is stuck playing at a lower res, which looks awful.
Ugh...why do I try to explain things to you Derrek...you don't even make sense. Are you so literal? Can you infer nothing? Re-read my post and see how silly you are. In the future, do that first and save some bytes on the server, ok?
And why do you even log in as Gollum? Twisted...bi-polar man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gollum
Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 18, 2005 5:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Demophobe wrote: |
Most 17" LCDs have a native res of 1024x768
|
www.danawa.co.kr
Care to link me to a few?
And if anyone is seriously interested in enjoying a game like Doom 3, then they're going to have a better graphics card than one that is 4+ years old and can't hack 1280x1024, or with some older onboard sis graphics chips.
Just what the heck kind of card are you talking about? An old Geforce2 400 will do 2048x1536 (not well, of course). How many years old is that card?
And a card THAT old isn't going to be married to a digital monitor, anyway!
People interested in Doom 3 aren't going to be playing it with old, old equipment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gollum
Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 2:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Still waiting for links to all of these native 1024x768 LCD monitors of the 17" variation. I believe that your exact wording was "most."
Demophobe??? Oh DEMMMMOOOPHOBE??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jazblanc77
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gollum wrote: |
| Demophobe wrote: |
Most 17" LCDs have a native res of 1024x768
|
www.danawa.co.kr
Care to link me to a few?
And if anyone is seriously interested in enjoying a game like Doom 3, then they're going to have a better graphics card than one that is 4+ years old and can't hack 1280x1024, or with some older onboard sis graphics chips.
Just what the heck kind of card are you talking about? An old Geforce2 400 will do 2048x1536 (not well, of course). How many years old is that card?
And a card THAT old isn't going to be married to a digital monitor, anyway!
People interested in Doom 3 aren't going to be playing it with old, old equipment. |
Not to bud into the argument here but the Geforce 7800 (GF7800), is one of the newest cards out right now and is a rockin card.
That being said, this an article of great interest to me since I am in the market for a monitor right now. How about if you guys put up some links of your top picks. I have done my research but, it would sure be nice to see what other people have found... I really don't want to buy a junky monitor that will supercede the power of the rest of my system. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gollum
Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I was at Youngsan this week, and they are pushing some LCD with a photo of some top Korean game player guy. Saw several posters bragging about the 4ms refresh rate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jazblanc77
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
You must mean this one ... yeah that caught my eye as well. I would have hoped for around 400cd/�� though instead of the 300cd/�� that it offers with a 700:1 depth.
Then again this one is just as good with a minor difference of 600:1 depth and a huge price difference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gollum
Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, he wins the award for the "least sexy model" online. I don't know that I'd consider Starcraft a very intense game for use in monitor advertising *laugh*. I've read some negative press about LCDs with low refresh rates. They start to lose color depth or something.
I don't plan on game play, so I think I'll stick around 9ms or so, given the prices I want to spend. Heck, mine is 16ms now, and I don't notice anything. I don't play games, though.
Oh, as a note, I pretty much look at specs, and then ignore them. I go by how they look with a DVI connection, among other things. I liked a few Alphascans I saw. Also, TG had a "slim art" monitor (I think made by Erae) that looked really nice, but I won't buy that one because it only comes with a white frame (ick). If it were in black, I would have snatched it up right away. I think this was it: http://www.goyongsan.co.kr/newshop/scripts/readprod_1.asp?gg_code=2&g1_code=0037&gp_code=75555447
:
Last edited by Gollum on Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:17 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jazblanc77
Joined: 22 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You could also go for the same monitor at a similar price with a much much higher depth at 1200:1 and slower refresh rate at 8ms, here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gollum
Joined: 04 Sep 2003
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 6:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, that TG monitor is made by Erae:
http://www.goyongsan.co.kr/newshop/scripts/readprod_1.asp?gg_code=2&g1_code=0037&gp_code=75555447
Not the most impressive specs, but it looked really nice. Hey, it looks like they DO have it in black if you buy from Erae. I'll probably go that route if i upgrade.
I realize that it all comes down to the graphics card and connection they've got pumped into those things... connections, computers, and graphics cards are all over the board when you go from vendor to vendor at Youngsan or elsewhere. And often, they've got some cheap-ass splitter wiring several monitors together (can you say GHOSTING!)
Oh, on a side-note, my monitor also has a contrast ratio of only 350 to 1, but it looks a heck of a lot better than most monitors I see. That's why I take specs with a grain of salt -- especially contrast. Refresh rate... well, that is an entirely different animal. I also lean toward buying monitors that come with a very shiny glass front, as long as they don't glare too much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BigBlackEquus
Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Location: Lotte controls Asia with bad chocolate!
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am planning to buy a new LCD monitor soon. This old Samsung the school gave me is a clunker and often pops and shinks to half of the screen size.
So what is the deal on this native resolution stuff? Demophobe doesn't seem to be answering the question that Gollum insists on. Who is right? I am am curious if I can get a 17" LCD that looks good at 1024x768, because I run windows at that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
