PC Games are not played in HD on Monitors, it's just widescreen, right?

[jlippo]

Originally Posted by AlphaWolf_HK

- Imperfect color

CRTs are/were superior in terms of color including perfect blacks and quite nice brightness.
It was also reasons why artists didn't use LCD's for a long time.

Originally Posted by CaptNKILL

Yep. I've been playing games at at least 1024x768 since 1999 on a Voodoo 3.

Heck, there were some Dos/VESA games which supported resolutions up to 1600x1200.
Yes, the framerate was not 'perfect' with a pentium1, but it was possible.

[MaXThReAT]

Originally Posted by AlphaWolf_HK

What's with this talk about LCD's being a downgrade? A few things to point out:

Bad things about CRT's:
- Imperfect geometry
- Imperfect color
- Imperfect gamma
- Over time the corners will fade out of focus as the display ages, starts to occur within a year.
- My 21" CRT weighs more and uses more energy than my 46" LED backlit LCD
- Where the hell would I fit a CRT this large? (see pic)

- Imperfect geometry
Flat Screen CRT, Perfect.
- Imperfect color
What!?
- Imperfect gamma
Are you kidding.
- Over time the corners will fade out of focus as the display ages, starts to occur within a year.
True of both.
- Where the hell would I fit a CRT this large? (see pic)
Very True
http://www.displaymate.com/crtvslcd.html

Or just search color gamma LCD VS CRT, many results. They’re just flat but not quite caught up to CRTs... yet but almost now if you have the cash but who know where crts or something would be today. NOW CRTs are "obsolete" and have reached "end of support" so we can buy LCDs and plasmas. It's an up-slim downgrade side slide thing. Good for consoles through cuz now non of you can't display better unless you dropped $$ on a huge flat screen, AA doesn't work anymore. You don't know how pleased I am when a game natually supports 2048x1536@85Hz but lacks AA support. People are suckers.

I guess it comes down to the end of support thing. I just feel like CRTs should have been supported a lot longer than they have been by nvidiatel, AtiMD and MS. It's a forced rip off.

Originally Posted by t3hl33td4rg0n

Typical "HDTV" Displays
32" 1280x720 = 0.92 MP
42" 1920x1080 = 2.07 MP

As I see it, monitors get more pixels per square inch than a typical HDTV anyway.

Far more 22" 2048x1536 = 3.14 MP "in retard HD land," 3145728 pixels or 2073600 for the highest 1080 pixel count.


By the way. Nice background there, where did you find such a thing .
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/show...7&postcount=61

[JohnDio]

Still loving my LG F900P 19'' monitor

[ragejg]

What a coincidence, I just posted about this very topic @ rage3d a few hours ago... same issue, slightly different angle:

Originally Posted by ragejg

"It's easy to see that 16:9 1920x1080 is pushing its way in as a more popular (and more economical to manufacture) resolution for LCD monitors vs (16:10) 1920x1200. Benefits include lower cost, wider field of view and full pixel-perfect HD compatibility.

Well, for smaller monitors, is the same thing happening? Are 1600x900 19-21" LCDs becoming increasingly available with this resolution vs 1680x1050? I need some feedback.

It appears on the 17" front that (16:9) 1366x768 is becoming a bit more popular vs the 1440x900 standard as well, which IMO is the same situation as it is for the 1920 resolutions but in the 720p (768p) realm.

When I benchmark during a review, it's not that I have a boner for the HDTV resolutions, but I really like to cater to the newest and brightest standards for the respective price brackets. I'm working on something right now, and though I know that I'll be testing @ 1280x720 to cater to 720p gamers (there's more of them than you'd think) and 1920x1080 gamers (the most popular current resolution for budget enthusiasts looking for a 22" or larger for around $200-$300), I'd also like to represent the middle ground, and would rather do so with what will be the standard now and over the next year or so rather than what was the standard from 2005 to 2010..."

[Viral]

You'd have to be insane to buy 1600x900 over 1680x1050, they need some other res for that market. The plus side there is that 1920x1080 is finding its way into much smaller monitors than 1920x1200 did, just so they can say its Full HD or 1080P. So it seems most 20"-26" desktop monitors are 1080P nowadays... good for image quality, but not great for those with lower end hardware.

[ragejg]

Originally Posted by Viral

You'd have to be insane to buy 1600x900 over 1680x1050, they need some other res for that market.

Huh?

It's the same as 1920x1080 replacing 1920x1200 in the market... a bit fewer pixels, but better FOV in gaming, more economical, and closer adherence to HD standards. If I had to get a 18-20" LCD that was well-matched with a budget gaming card, 1600x900 would be perfect.

[nekrosoft13]

Originally Posted by ragejg

Huh?

It's the same as 1920x1080 replacing 1920x1200 in the market... a bit fewer pixels, but better FOV in gaming, more economical, and closer adherence to HD standards. If I had to get a 18-20" LCD that was well-matched with a budget gaming card, 1600x900 would be perfect.

if the only think you do is game on it, then it might be perfect, but if you use the computer for anything else, I would avoid it.

16:9 on large screens like 42+ inches, 16:9 is not really noticable. but on smaller screens is quite apparant how much screen estate you loose, for productivity is quite bad.

[ragejg]

Originally Posted by nekrosoft13

if the only think you do is game on it, then it might be perfect, but if you use the computer for anything else, I would avoid it.

16:9 on large screens like 42+ inches, 16:9 is not really noticable. but on smaller screens is quite apparant how much screen estate you loose, for productivity is quite bad.

IMO anything 768+ is usable. I even make do with 720 and large fonts on my HDTV (which I sit at more than my desk PC) ... so the difference between 900 and 1050-1080 is negligible to me.

[Yaboze]

IMHO, 1920x1200 is best for the PC. I like the extra heigth, games look good and it doesn't need crazy GPU power to run, like some of the higher resolutions. Plus, a 1080p movie or console hooked up looks good, even though it has 2 small black bars at the top and bottom, giving it a letterbox feel.

I always looked at the difference between HD and PC resolutions as this.... HD is 16:9 and PC 16:10 (or more square), although many LCD's these days are 16:9. HD is designed for watching video (movies) to emulate the movie experience. Watching a narrow screen that is tall is not pleasing to the eye, the widescreen view fits natural to our eyes and how we normally view things. Computer screens were always more square because of text, but now we watch video on our computers more than ever. We didn't do that 10-20 years ago. For graphics work, text and doing things other than movies, 16:9 is just not enough regardless of the resolution, you need more vertical real estate for a computer.

Think of a movie theater and how the screen is shaped versus a typical 8.5 x 11 piece of paper that you see every day at work or in your paper based mail

[nekrosoft13]

Originally Posted by Yaboze

IMHO, 1920x1200 is best for the PC. I like the extra heigth, games look good and it doesn't need crazy GPU power to run, like some of the higher resolutions. Plus, a 1080p movie or console hooked up looks good, even though it has 2 small black bars at the top and bottom, giving it a letterbox feel.

that doesn't bother me, since most big budget movies are not 16:9 anyway, even on 16:9 screens there are black bars.

and about "HD", it doesn't have anything to do with it being wide or not.

HD is simply higher resolution then previous standard of NTSC/PAL.

Simpsons Season 13 blu-ray is considered HD, and its 4:3.

[jeffmd]

HD is simply the resolution 1080, and its sister downscale resolution 720 (The later can be scaled to the former without much/any distortion from uneven pixel doubling). As for the best resolution to game in, it all depends on the game (does it have the high end graphics that can take advantage of high resolution?) and your system capabilities (My 8800 would have abit of trouble doing games in 1080p, 1680x1050 was its sweet spot I think).

With AA you also have the choice of using lower resolutions and then using AA to get back detail through downsampling.

[nekrosoft13]

Originally Posted by jeffmd

HD is simply the resolution 1080, and its sister downscale resolution 720 (The later can be scaled to the former without much/any distortion from uneven pixel doubling).

not true

High-definition video or HD video refers to any video system of higher resolution than standard-definition (SD) video, and most commonly involves display resolutions of 1,280×720 pixels (720p) or 1,920×1,080 pixels (1080i/1080p).