kipanderson Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Hi, Question, how good can CMBB look on a TFT screen when compared to a conventional monitor? The reason I ask is that when I have seen CMBB on a TFT screen it looked nothing like as good as it does on my 17” monitor. It is not the size of the screen, but the quality of the picture that was the problem. Is this the general rule with TFT screens, or does CMBB look OK on the best? I have a standard Dell 17” monitor using a GForce3 200, 4x Antialiasing and 8x Anisotropic settings. Could a TFT screen equal the quality of the picture? All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWB Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Do you have the resolution set properly--most 17" LCDs display at 1280x960. If you have the resolution set lower they will not be nearly as crisp. I have seen CMBB on a number of screens. It looks fine on a poperly tuned LCD. By far the best picture was on a 20'x16' screen with a massive digital projector. WWB 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 I'm running CM:BB on a 17" Iiyama TFT at 1280x1024, and it looks fab. Get one - definilobob. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 A different monitor implies a different PC. Are you sure you're not just seeing the difference in basic graphics capability for the computer? When I look at the game on my old G3 mac at home it doesn't look half as crisp as on my robust system at work (don't tell the boss ). [ July 16, 2003, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirReal Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 I recently swapped my old 21" Nokia for a 20" LG 2010P (16ms TFT @ 1600x1200). I'm driving the panel with a digital DVI-D cable from the graphics card, and the picture is somewhat better than it was on the Nokia. No doubt this is due to the TFT display and DVI-D cable combo; when using a regular monitor cable the focus will be worse than the Nokia could display. /SirReal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lumbergh Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Originally posted by kipanderson: Could a TFT screen equal the quality of the picture? All the best, Kip. Sure, but for the price of your Dell monitor you'd end up with a crappy tft that would not look as good. Shell out for a nice LCD and you'll love it. Plus it is much easier on the eyes for reading text on the screen, a big bonus for anyone who spends large amounts of time hacking stuff into your pc, which I suspect most people do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPS Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 I use LG 17" TFT (782LS) 1280x1024 and it is ok. And as mentioned above, great for reading text. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jiggles Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 The picture on my TFT is far superior to that on my CRT. As discussed above, you have to make sure you're talking about a decent LCD, and that's it's being driven at it's native resolution. If those two are true, a CRT can't touch an LCD. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted July 17, 2003 Author Share Posted July 17, 2003 Hi, Guys, thanks for your answers. It was a genuine… “I do no know the answer so I will ask the blokes on the forum, some of them will know” Clearly the conclusion is that a quality TFT screen, with the correct graphics card, is as good, or better, than a traditional monitor. In these times, very useful to know. Thanks, All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rune Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Kip, Adding one more bit of information. If you go with a LCD screen, get one that supports DVI-D, which is the digital interface. All the new nvidia cards support DVI-D, and the picture is much sharper then my monitors. It is a standard here in the states, I will assume it is the same overseas, but I could be wrong. Rune 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirReal Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Originally posted by rune: Kip, Adding one more bit of information. If you go with a LCD screen, get one that supports DVI-D, which is the digital interface. All the new nvidia cards support DVI-D, and the picture is much sharper then my monitors. It is a standard here in the states, I will assume it is the same overseas, but I could be wrong. Rune You're not wrong. It's the same standard. There's also DVI-I, which is almost, but not quite, the same cabling. DVI-I supports both analog and digital signals. DVI-D supports only digital signals. The contacts are compatible, though. Also, when buying a DVI cable (-D or -I) make SURE it's shielded, and not longer than you need! A non-shielded cable, or one that is too long (10m or more) will prevent you from using higher resolutions such as 1600x1200. /SirReal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted July 17, 2003 Author Share Posted July 17, 2003 Hi, Once again, thanks for all the hints. I knew this forum was the place to come for this sort of information. Quicker, and better, then reading tens of out of date reviews! All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Carr Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 I had heard that a good conventional CRT type monitor will always beat an LCD monitor. Is it the experience on the forum that this is not the case? A salesman once told me to avoid LCD monitors if you are going to be using the monitor for gaming because they don't handle graphics as well. If you can believe what a salesman tells you. I just recently purchased a 21" Sony Trinitron CRT monitor for my rig. I would recommend this monitor to anyone. The picture is clear, crisp and big. I checked a few larger LCD's but after I was told that they don't handle graphics as well I stopped looking. The cost on a larger LCD was also prohibitive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Originally posted by Jack Carr: I had heard that a good conventional CRT type monitor will always beat an LCD monitor. Is it the experience on the forum that this is not the case? A salesman once told me to avoid LCD monitors if you are going to be using the monitor for gaming because they don't handle graphics as well. If you can believe what a salesman tells you. I just recently purchased a 21" Sony Trinitron CRT monitor for my rig. I would recommend this monitor to anyone. The picture is clear, crisp and big. I checked a few larger LCD's but after I was told that they don't handle graphics as well I stopped looking. The cost on a larger LCD was also prohibitive. I think it's not graphics per se that are worse, but the refresh rate - if I understand it correctly, a TFT monitor won't refresh as quickly as a CRT, which is important for FPS type games...and less so for other games. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine59 Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 I have been using an LCD for a little over a year now and I see two significant issues related to "gaming". First, it is actually a "response time" issue rather than refresh rate per se. I have no idea what response time is based on but apparently CRTs have a very low one while LCDs are typically 25-40ms. Those speeds cause a blurring or shadowy effect on fast moving images. SirReal mentions his LG LCD has a 16ms response time. I haven't found any larger size LCDs for sale yet in the US that have anything under 25. In CMBB, I don't notice this artifact unless I'm moving the camera around real fast but in FPSs it is a minor distraction to me. Secondly, as others have mentioned, any resolution below the "native" really degrades the image. LCD's larger than 20" typically have a 1600x1200 or higher native resolution and until I get a new PC that resolution begins to slow my refresh rate down too much, not to mention some games don't support that high a resolution. I have a 19" LCD which runs at 1280x1024 and that has worked fine. So, ideally I'd like an LCD with a 10ms response time and that can present multiple resolutions without image degradation but I'll never go back to a CRT. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirReal Posted July 19, 2003 Share Posted July 19, 2003 Originally posted by highlife: First, it is actually a "response time" issue rather than refresh rate per se. I have no idea what response time is based on but apparently CRTs have a very low one while LCDs are typically 25-40ms. ... Right... there are 16ms panels to be had right now, but none faster, I think. 16ms gives you 60 fps, fast enough even for FPS games. A panel with 1600x1200 will smooth resolutions that don't divide evenly. Fortunately, 800x600 does divide evenly, so one can use that resolution for games, if needed. The 16ms version of LG 2010P was only available in the european market when I bought it (three weeks ago). It's the only 16ms, 20", 1600x1200 panel that I could find. /SirReal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.