[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nebby /img/forum/go_quote.gif The reason you can't do this for games as described from wiki:

In other words, I think computer games need at least 60fps to counteract the inaccurate on screen drawing that they do

I guess we can't blame them for having to show us higher resolution images at 24bit color

Quote:

Persistence of vision should be compared with the related phenomena of beta movement and phi movement. A critical part of understanding these visual perception phenomena is that the eye is not a camera: there is no "frame rate" or "scan rate" in the eye: instead, the eye/brain system has a combination of motion detectors, detail detectors and pattern detectors, the outputs of all of which are combined to create the visual experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistence_of_vision

 

[PiccoloNamek]

I just finished reading that whole article. It should be noted that I was talking about games and computer screens, not film and movies.

 

[Nebby]

Yes, but the quote you replied to was referring to "movies and animations"

For games as long as you can get a locked in 60fps, there's nothing to gain with more fps. But it's keeping that magic 60fps that is tough. That's for fps' though, other genres tend to be more forgiving of the fps. I hope you're not one of those freaks that thinks they can see 100fps?

 

[PiccoloNamek]

No, I can't see 100fps. But I can hear a 22kHz tone.

 

[ChickenGod]

Never!

 

[FallenAngel]

A properly tuned CRT will ALWAYS look better than any Plasma/LCD, even when you get to $10,000 panel levels. The color levels are just better suited.

This though doesn't change the fact that CRTs tire your eyes out more and I have no problems with a Dell 2405fpw, it looks nicer than the crappy CRT at work, but no still no competition to the properly configured 24" Sony Trinitrons I used before. More of a convenience for me now, I don't do image editing and I my CounterStrike Source looks great on this LCD.

Oh, and about refresh rate, it doesn't matter as much in LCDs because the screen (under most circumstances) doesn't need to be refreshed completely.

Response times are tricky as well since companies like to ******** a lot. Those 8ms LCD panels don't always mean 8ms the same thing. Some will say something stupid like 8ms from black to white, but it'll be 25ms to go from one shade of gray to another.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nebby /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, but the quote you replied to was referring to "movies and animations" For games as long as you can get a locked in 60fps, there's nothing to gain with more fps. But it's keeping that magic 60fps that is tough. That's for fps' though, other genres tend to be more forgiving of the fps. I hope you're not one of those freaks that thinks they can see 100fps?

And the first playable "video game" was 8fps

I do think this "persistance of vision" has something to do with it. Simple animation and simple graphics can get fluid animation at just 8fps. Higher resolution and bit depths just need more fps. I hate to think what the fps might be for 96bit HDR games (if they get invented)

 

[ken36]

No.

 

[adanac061]

yes , recently. I prefer crt by a long shot (dell trinitron) much better quality than my samsung lcd.

 

[F1GTR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by FallenAngel /img/forum/go_quote.gif A properly tuned CRT will ALWAYS look better than any Plasma/LCD, even when you get to $10,000 panel levels. The color levels are just better suited.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Redo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif It's not really refresh rate that gamers look for in a LCD: it's response time. A CRT is having to continually draw an image, and each pixel will dim once the electron gun moves on. It's having to directly "refresh" the image with those refresh rates. LCDs, on the other hand, continually keep a pixel's luminosity. So it's the response time of the entire monitor that updates the image. Many early 20+" LCDs had a measly 8ms response time: very slow.

Refresh rate and response times are two different things. LCD's aren't one silky continuous movement because 60hz isn't fast enough to put all the weight on the response time. 120hz would be a much more realistic number so the LCD would be one consistent fluid response time machine.


And yes, the human eye can discern between 60fps and 100fps in games easily. Even a 160hz screen with 160fps feels smoother than 100fps on 100hz screen. However, 60hz, be it LCD or CRT, is very sluggish for games. Like I said, I can not play 60hz on my LCD, I have to use 75hz (which makes things noticeably smoother).

 

[nalth]

Uh, CRT.. noisy, unpractical and blurry. Don't see the point why I should ever go back. Even though I had a good CRT (Samsung 959NF or something like that) it was no match for a lcd. Used them both side by side for a while but soon realized that the CRT didn't offer me anything that would make up for the drawbacks it had.

 

[vcoheda]

lcd for years. have never looked back.

 

[003]

No. I came from a VERY good CRT as well, the Lacie electronblueIV 19", 120+Hz refresh rates, diamondtron display, flat tube , etc...

I think most people that are put off by LCDs switched to over hyped but not so great brands such as viewsonic because of the 1/2ms advertised response times and such.

I did a lot of research and ended on an LG L2000C. Still right up there with the best LCDs you can get.

 

[Seaside]

003, looks like you did your research. LG monitor in general is quite good.
And I bet its not a TN pannel, isn't it?