• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

is this a good display for gaming?

jarosh

Member
Sony 19" TFT S95A S

52cee206fe7f8a9be42338f1a34600f3.jpg


Contrast Ratio: 700:1
LCD Response Time: 16 ms
Viewing Angle: H: 170, V: 170

native: 1280 x 1024

it's pretty cheap (at least considering my location):
$240

it used to be $285 everywhere.



and then there's this one:

imax LM-19E

imax-LM-19E.jpg


same price... $240

same specs except for the response time, which is supposedly 8 ms.

BUT it's kind of an obscure brand. imax... dunno
apparently it's on sale too and used to be $285
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Neither response time is fast enough to avoid ghosting, but of course, it isn't a problem that everyone can see or is bothered by.

No LCD is GOOD for gaming, but they will work out decently well. If you are looking for that kind of display, you really should go with a CRT...unless you have no room to spare.
 

jarosh

Member
thanks. i can see where you're coming from but i really don't want a crt.

i gotta say though that i played through hl2 on a 40 ms 17" display from 2002. so EVERYTHING is going to be an improvement for me...
 
I use an lcd widescreen 19" with 8ms reaction time, and I honestly have superb visuals on the vga wire, and my monitor isn't even native with the 360 (1440 x 900)

But I also use the monitor for my work and pc gaming.
 

Pimpbaa

Member
LCDs can be great for gaming. Hard to say which to get though. Sony LCDs can be fantastic (mine is awesome, better than any CRT that's for damn well sure), but that response rate is a bit slow. It's too bad you couldn't check out that other monitor personally to see the quality of it. If i had to make a choice without being able to see them beforehand, I guess I'd go with the imax, due to the 8ms (I very rarely see any ghosting on my 8ms, and when I do it's minimal).
 

elostyle

Never forget! I'm Dumb!
The responstime is fine. Mine has one that is much higher and it's no problem. Getting a CRT isn't a good idea I think, you will hate looking at it if you're used to a good LCD from a laptop or somewhere else. Your eyes will go eeeewww.

I would op for a 20" though, they are not much more and you get 1600x1200. I don't like 1280x1024 since it isn't 4:3.

I like the 2001FP very much. Have a (rather old by now) samsung 213T.
 

Pimpbaa

Member
elostyle said:
The responstime is fine. Mine has one that is much higher and it's no problem. Getting a CRT isn't a good idea I think, you will hate looking at it if you're used to a good LCD from a laptop or somewhere else. Your eyes will go eeeewww.

I would op for a 20" though, they are not much more and you get 1600x1200. I don't like 1280x1024 since it isn't 4:3.

I gotta disagree here. 1280x1024 looked wierd to me on CRTs, but they look fine on LCDs. Plus it's harder to get good framerates at 1600x1200 (he's getting a geforce 7600gt I think). 1280x1024 is a better choice for gaming for him.
 

elostyle

Never forget! I'm Dumb!
Pimpbaa said:
I gotta disagree here. 1280x1024 looked wierd to me on CRTs, but they look fine on LCDs. Plus it's harder to get good framerates at 1600x1200 (he's getting a geforce 7600gt I think). 1280x1024 is a better choice for gaming for him.
Well if you _only_ game on it then 1280x1024 is good, but better yet would be a widescreen monitor. If you do any webbrowsing or whatever (photoshop jarosh?) then I would get a 1600x1200 one but check beforehand how good lower resolutions look on it and if the interpolation used can be tweaked. Mine for instance doesn't really do that and doesn't even cleanly double 800x600 :(
 

DaCocoBrova

Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
They both suck due to them being 4:3, IMO.

LCDs with super low response times don't have the best IQ. Brights wash out easier.
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
Pimpbaa said:
I gotta disagree here. 1280x1024 looked wierd to me on CRTs, but they look fine on LCDs. Plus it's harder to get good framerates at 1600x1200 (he's getting a geforce 7600gt I think). 1280x1024 is a better choice for gaming for him.
1280x1024 is a bogus resolution anyway (not even 4:3). I never did figure out why it was so popular.

CRTs handle a broad range of resolutions while LCDs only handle one resolution well.

I'm not suggesting CRT for the original poster either, just correcting some facts here.
 

Pimpbaa

Member
DaCocoBrova said:
They both suck due to them being 4:3, IMO.

LCDs with super low response times don't have the best IQ. Brights wash out easier.

How low is super low? Cause mine is 8ms and it's incredibly vibrant.
 

DaCocoBrova

Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
8ms and under. You won't notice it unless you have the same scene displayed on a 8-bit and a 6-bit monitor.

This may shed some light:

Speed Versus Color

LCD monitors have encountered a bit of a problem when it comes to dealing with color and speed. Color on an LCD is comprised of three layers of colored dots that make up the final pixel.


To display a given color, current must be applied to each color layer to give the desired intensity that generates the final color. The problem is that to get the colors, the current must move the crystals on and off to the desired intensity levels. This transition from the on to off state is called the response time. For most screens this was rated around 25ms.

The problem is that many LCD monitors are used to watch video or motion on the screen. With this 25ms time frame for transition from on to on states, pixels that should have transitioned to the new color levels trail the signal and result in an effect know as motion blurring. This isn't a problem if the monitor is being used with applications such as productivity software, but with video and motion it can be jarring.

Since consumers were demanding faster screens, something needed to be done to improve response times. To facilitate this, many manufacturers turned to reducing the number of levels each color pixel render. This reduction in the number of intensity levels allows the response times to drop but has the drawback of reducing the overall number of colors that can be rendered.

8-Bit vs. 6-Bit

Now color depth was previous referred to by the total number of colors that the screen can render, but when referring to LCD panels the number of levels that each color can render is used instead. This can make things difficult to understand, but to demonstrate, we will look at the mathematics of it. For example, 24-bit or true color is comprised of three colors each with 8-bits of color. Mathematically, this is represented as:

* 2^8 x 2^8 x 2^8 = 256 x 256 x 256 = 16,777,216

High-speed LCD monitors typically reduce the number of bits for each color to 6 instead of the standard 8. This 6-bit color will generate far fewer colors than 8-bit as we see when we do the math:

* 2^6 x 2^6 x 2^6 = 64 x 64 x 64 = 262,144

This is far fewer than the true color display such that it would be noticeable to the human eye. To get around this problem, the manufacturers employ a technique referred to as dithering. This is an effect where nearby pixels use slightly varying shades or color that trick the human eye into perceiving the desired color even though it isn't truly that color. A color newspaper photo is a good way to see this effect in practice. (In print the effect is called half-tones.) By using this technique, the manufacturers claim to achieve a color depth close to that of the true color displays.

How to Tell if an LCD is 8-Bit or 6-Bit

This is the biggest problem for individuals who are looking at purchasing an LCD monitor. Most manufacturers do not list the color depth of their display. Even fewer will list the actual per-color depth. If the manufacturer lists the color as 16.7 million colors, it should be assumed that the display is 8-bit per-color. If the colors are listed as being 16.2 million or 16 million, consumers should assume that it uses a 6-bit per-color depth. If no color depths is listed, it should be assumed that monitors of 12ms or faster will be 6-bit and the 20ms and slower panels are 8-bit.

Does it Really Matter?

This is very subjective to the actual user and what the computer is used for. The amount of color really matters to those that do professional work on graphics. For these people, the amount of color that is displayed on the screen is very important. The average consumer is not going to really need this level of color representation by their monitor. As a result, it probably doesn't matter. People using their displays for video games or watching video will likely not care about the number of colors rendered by the LCD but by the speed at which it can be displayed. As a result, it is best to determine your needs and base your purchase on those criteria.
 

Pimpbaa

Member
elostyle said:
Well if you _only_ game on it then 1280x1024 is good, but better yet would be a widescreen monitor. If you do any webbrowsing or whatever (photoshop jarosh?) then I would get a 1600x1200 one but check beforehand how good lower resolutions look on it and if the interpolation used can be tweaked. Mine for instance doesn't really do that and doesn't even cleanly double 800x600 :(

Why would you need 1600x1200 for web browsing? I don't even maximize my browser window on my 1280x1024 screen.
 

jarosh

Member
rafman400 said:
i would get this one if i were you

http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16824116355

3ms response time
1280x1024
19"
$258
that one is $390 here!

elostyle said:
The responstime is fine. Mine has one that is much higher and it's no problem. Getting a CRT isn't a good idea I think, you will hate looking at it if you're used to a good LCD from a laptop or somewhere else. Your eyes will go eeeewww.

I would op for a 20" though, they are not much more and you get 1600x1200. I don't like 1280x1024 since it isn't 4:3.

I like the 2001FP very much. Have a (rather old by now) samsung 213T.
i'm working with a dual monitor setup. so resolution isn't the problem anyway. and i kinda want both screens to be 1280x1024 for obvious reasons.

Pimpbaa said:
LCDs can be great for gaming. Hard to say which to get though. Sony LCDs can be fantastic (mine is awesome, better than any CRT that's for damn well sure), but that response rate is a bit slow. It's too bad you couldn't check out that other monitor personally to see the quality of it. If i had to make a choice without being able to see them beforehand, I guess I'd go with the imax, due to the 8ms (I very rarely see any ghosting on my 8ms, and when I do it's minimal).
yeah it really sucks that i can't check out the image quality of the imax. and it's only available online. i can take a look at the sony one in a store nearby. but that's not the one i'm suspicious about...

damn. i really don't know which one to buy.

DaCocoBrova said:
8ms and under. You won't notice it unless you have the same scene displayed on a 8-bit and a 6-bit monitor.

This may shed some light:
yeah i'm not gonna care about anything below 8 ms anyway. i'm not THAT picky. but i guess there IS a noticeable difference between 8 and 16.
 

Pimpbaa

Member
DaCocoBrova said:
8ms and under. You won't notice it unless you have the same scene displayed on a 8-bit and a 6-bit monitor.

This may shed some light:

I thought you were talkin about vibrancy of the colors. Anyway, I did notice my old monitor was 6-bit (banding in dark colors). I think my new one is 6-bit as well, but it does a much better job at hiding it.
 

RevenantKioku

PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS oh god i am drowning in them
I'm looking to replace my honking 19" CRT with an LCD. I really don't care what the size is, but I don't want to spend too much. (Sub $200) Mainly used for piping my consoles through my TV-in card and playing that way. Suggestions? Is it even possible?
 

DaCocoBrova

Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
If you're going to try and save $$ buying any electronics, buy used. It makes no sense to cut corners buying someting new as you get what you pay for.
 

RevenantKioku

PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS oh god i am drowning in them
Well ja, but I'm just saying I'd be happy with a 15" LCD and you folks would probably find one better/faster than me.
I suck at internets. :(
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
RevenantKioku said:
I'm looking to replace my honking 19" CRT with an LCD. I really don't care what the size is, but I don't want to spend too much. (Sub $200) Mainly used for piping my consoles through my TV-in card and playing that way. Suggestions? Is it even possible?
Good lord, that is one horrible sounding solution. Using a cheap LCD to play low resolution games piped through a capture card?!? I'd sooner use a 20 year sold RCA CRT than that...yikes.

What on earth has prompted you to try using such an awful setup?
 

DaCocoBrova

Finally bought a new PSP, but then pushed the demon onto someone else. Jesus.
dark10x said:
Good lord, that is one horrible sounding solution. Using a cheap LCD to play low resolution games piped through a capture card?!? I'd sooner use a 20 year sold RCA CRT than that...yikes.

What on earth has prompted you to try using such an awful setup?


*cough*DScaler*Cough*
 

dark10x

Digital Foundry pixel pusher
DaCocoBrova said:
*cough*DScaler*Cough*
*cough*Was stuck using DScaler in Japan for a while on a GOOD LCD and f*cking hated it*cough*

It delivers decent image quality (with tweaking) and can actually display 60 fps (with occasional hiccups even on a P4-3.6GHz)...but it still looks nowhere near as attractive as a proper TV. When you factor in a POOR quality LCD, as he was suggesting, you're just looking at a bottom of the barrel setup. :)

There are certainly some instances where DScaler can be of use, but there is only so much you can do with a scaler and viewing those results on a PC display isn't really attractive. When you throw in the lack of perfect motion AND a low quality LCD, things look even worse.
 

RevenantKioku

PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS PEINS oh god i am drowning in them
dark10x said:
Good lord, that is one horrible sounding solution. Using a cheap LCD to play low resolution games piped through a capture card?!? I'd sooner use a 20 year sold RCA CRT than that...yikes.

What on earth has prompted you to try using such an awful setup?
Well, the LCD is only on my mind due to space issues. The current setup with the 19" CRT really isn't that bad, although I'm sure it'd make one as you choke and die.
I do it to easily capture video and take screen shots, which I've recently found to be rather addicting.

And I actually DO use DScaler, so if anyone has any tips on how to get it performing better, that'd be swell.
 

BlizzyAzz

Member
RevenantKioku said:
Well, the LCD is only on my mind due to space issues. The current setup with the 19" CRT really isn't that bad, although I'm sure it'd make one as you choke and die.
I do it to easily capture video and take screen shots, which I've recently found to be rather addicting.

And I actually DO use DScaler, so if anyone has any tips on how to get it performing better, that'd be swell.

Also don't forget a 17" LCD = 19" CRT screensize wise so you should easily get one below 200$

Maybe this is something for you:
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage...t&productCategoryId=cat01010&id=1138083961430

Westinghouse 17" Flat-Panel TFT-LCD Monitor
Model: LCM-17V8

Free your desktop of clutter with this ultrathin LCD monitor that can be wall mounted to save valuable workspace.

* Ultrafast 8 ms response time

* 450:1 contrast ratio; 300 cd/m² brightness

* 1280 x 1024 maximum resolution; 150° horizontal and 130° viewing angles

Sale: $129.99
 

jarosh

Member
WOW

how the hell could i work on that shitty old display for years. this thing is blowing my mind.

bought the sony one
 

Rabid Pancake

TheTrin's underpaid lackey
16ms is fine for gaming. I play many hours of UT2K4 on a 23 inch Sony PremierPro SDM-P234/B and there is no ghosting. It's only 1,200USD, 1,000 flat if you look hard enough.

B0002II7QE.01-A1NDBS7YGOPBD6.LZZZZZZZ.jpg


If you can find one, the NEC MultiSync FE2111SB-BK is one of the best monitors ever made, I use it for color reference in Photoshop. Though it's a little small resoultion by today's standards.
 
Pimpbaa said:
Why would you need 1600x1200 for web browsing? I don't even maximize my browser window on my 1280x1024 screen.
I use a 1440 x 900 monitor and full screen browsing has never been better :lol
 
Top Bottom