LCD larger size -- what for ??

I have an 19" LCD monitor with the resolution 1440 x 900, and I play
such games as Half-Life 2 DM, Team Fortress 2, Bioshock, FEAR, Dark
Messiah and Silent Hunter 4.

So far, I felt that the screen size (19") was al'right for the first-
person shooter (FPS) games, as I could hold all of the screen in the
periphery of my vision. Well, maybe I felt something slightly larger
(say, 20") could make game more exciting. The resolution seemed to be
al'right. I could not imagine going for a higher resolution (and yeah,
my graphics card was 7600GT).

But I heard many people said a larger screen (such as 24" or even
30") will make all the difference. I fail to see that. I presume a
19-20" screen is good for FPS, and a larger screen would be better for
simualtion or role-playing game (such as Civilization or Oblivion).
Maybe it was the kids' equivalent of a larger penis for a man.

I also wonder if a higher resolution (such as 1920 x 1200) will
improve _significantly_ the gameplaying experience. I used to play
HL2DM on a 17" widescreen 1680 x 1050. I think I can see the enemy at
the same distances.

So, here is my question: why should I go for a higher-resolution and
higher-size monitor ?

"Beladi Nasrallah" wrote in message
...
I have an 19" LCD monitor with the resolution 1440 x 900, and I play
such games as Half-Life 2 DM, Team Fortress 2, Bioshock, FEAR, Dark
Messiah and Silent Hunter 4.

So far, I felt that the screen size (19") was al'right for the first-
person shooter (FPS) games, as I could hold all of the screen in the
periphery of my vision. Well, maybe I felt something slightly larger
(say, 20") could make game more exciting. The resolution seemed to be
al'right. I could not imagine going for a higher resolution (and yeah,
my graphics card was 7600GT).

But I heard many people said a larger screen (such as 24" or even
30") will make all the difference. I fail to see that. I presume a
19-20" screen is good for FPS, and a larger screen would be better for
simualtion or role-playing game (such as Civilization or Oblivion).
Maybe it was the kids' equivalent of a larger penis for a man.

I also wonder if a higher resolution (such as 1920 x 1200) will
improve _significantly_ the gameplaying experience. I used to play
HL2DM on a 17" widescreen 1680 x 1050. I think I can see the enemy at
the same distances.

So, here is my question: why should I go for a higher-resolution and
higher-size monitor ?



I recently upgraded from a 19" LCD to a 22" widescreen and it was well worth
it. If I had loads of money I would have gone for a 24".

The biggest improvement was in Battlefield 2 - I presume because it is
easier to appreciate it in vehicular combat. TF2 is much improved and
watching movies is now a pleasure and viable alternative to watching on our
main, 32" LCD, screen.

Schrodinger schrieb/wrote/escribió:
I recently upgraded from a 19" LCD to a 22" widescreen and it was well worth
it. If I had loads of money I would have gone for a 24".

I don't own a LCD monitor, so here's my current knowledge:
As far as I know LCD monitors have a fixed screen resolution. Lower
resolutions can be obtained by extrapolation (interpolation?), which
makes the graphics worse. I once saw this at a friend's.

So, if I buy a large monitor, say 22", I need to have a good graphics
card that is capable of displaying the given resolution fast enough.
Otherwise I would have to switch to a lower resolution which would
result in bad graphics.

Or am I wrong here?

M.

"Michael Pachta" wrote in message
...
Schrodinger schrieb/wrote/escribió:
I recently upgraded from a 19" LCD to a 22" widescreen and it was well
worth it. If I had loads of money I would have gone for a 24".

I don't own a LCD monitor, so here's my current knowledge:
As far as I know LCD monitors have a fixed screen resolution. Lower
resolutions can be obtained by extrapolation (interpolation?), which makes
the graphics worse. I once saw this at a friend's.


They can sometimes look a bit softer, but I can't say I notice the
difference as there's so much else going on. After all, you'd probably want
to use FSAA at lower resolutions anyway.

So, if I buy a large monitor, say 22", I need to have a good graphics card
that is capable of displaying the given resolution fast enough. Otherwise
I would have to switch to a lower resolution which would result in bad
graphics.

Or am I wrong here?


I would certainly say that you need a card that can drive your games at,
say, 1680 x 1050 to make it worthwhile. Battlefield 2 is a good example
here as it doesn't support that resolution, but using another app -
widescreen fixer - the ratios look ok. Despite it not being in the native
resolution it still looks great.

I suppose it's very subjective. I haven't regretted changing from CRT even
though I did so several years ago.

Also, if you use your PC for other stuff the LCD is, IMO, easier on the
eyes.

* Michael Pachta:

I don't own a LCD monitor, so here's my current knowledge:
As far as I know LCD monitors have a fixed screen resolution. Lower
resolutions can be obtained by extrapolation (interpolation?),

interpolation (extrapolation is something different)

which
makes the graphics worse. I once saw this at a friend's.

So, if I buy a large monitor, say 22", I need to have a good graphics
card that is capable of displaying the given resolution fast enough.
Otherwise I would have to switch to a lower resolution which would
result in bad graphics.

Or am I wrong here?

No, basically you're right. However, the effects of interpolation was
much worse with the first generation of displays (usually 15" and 17"
displays with 1024x768 or 1280x1024) on which lower resolutions such
like 800x600 or 640x480 look really bad. But on modern high resolution
displays with 1440x900, 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 lower resolutions usually
don't look as bad as they did on the first generation displays.

Benjamin

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
* Michael Pachta:

I don't own a LCD monitor, so here's my current knowledge:
As far as I know LCD monitors have a fixed screen resolution. Lower
resolutions can be obtained by extrapolation (interpolation?),

interpolation (extrapolation is something different)

which
makes the graphics worse. I once saw this at a friend's.

So, if I buy a large monitor, say 22", I need to have a good graphics
card that is capable of displaying the given resolution fast enough.
Otherwise I would have to switch to a lower resolution which would
result in bad graphics.

Or am I wrong here?

No, basically you're right. However, the effects of interpolation was
much worse with the first generation of displays (usually 15" and 17"
displays with 1024x768 or 1280x1024) on which lower resolutions such
like 800x600 or 640x480 look really bad. But on modern high resolution
displays with 1440x900, 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 lower resolutions usually
don't look as bad as they did on the first generation displays.

Benjamin


"don't look as bad as they did on the first generation displays" - is
just as bad !!!
Any current LCD monitor is look as bad as the next one unless you run
game / windows at its native (and only) resolution - even in 2d Window
mode.

Now, here is a relationship that I can not understand: you spend a
bunch of money to get a nice 24" LCD; unless you spend another big
chunk of money to upgrade to to top of the line video card and faster
CPU inorder to play game (this is a game discussion group so I would
use game as sample, not a Windows 2d application group) some what
acceptable at its native resolution. Other wise, you would have to
lower the resolution and get a ****ty image. Now, why spend extra
money to get the big screen but then playing game at a lower
resolution? What have you gain in game playing wise ?

In article , Phil wrote:


Benjamin Gawert wrote:
* Michael Pachta:

I don't own a LCD monitor, so here's my current knowledge:
As far as I know LCD monitors have a fixed screen resolution. Lower
resolutions can be obtained by extrapolation (interpolation?),

interpolation (extrapolation is something different)

which
makes the graphics worse. I once saw this at a friend's.

So, if I buy a large monitor, say 22", I need to have a good graphics
card that is capable of displaying the given resolution fast enough.
Otherwise I would have to switch to a lower resolution which would
result in bad graphics.

Or am I wrong here?

No, basically you're right. However, the effects of interpolation was
much worse with the first generation of displays (usually 15" and 17"
displays with 1024x768 or 1280x1024) on which lower resolutions such
like 800x600 or 640x480 look really bad. But on modern high resolution
displays with 1440x900, 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 lower resolutions usually
don't look as bad as they did on the first generation displays.

Benjamin


"don't look as bad as they did on the first generation displays" - is
just as bad !!!
Any current LCD monitor is look as bad as the next one unless you run
game / windows at its native (and only) resolution - even in 2d Window
mode.
Exactly, why would i run my desktop in anything other than 1920x1200 if i have
that resolution available to me natively?



Now, here is a relationship that I can not understand: you spend a
bunch of money to get a nice 24" LCD; unless you spend another big
chunk of money to upgrade to to top of the line video card and faster
CPU inorder to play game (this is a game discussion group so I would
use game as sample, not a Windows 2d application group) some what
acceptable at its native resolution. Other wise, you would have to
lower the resolution and get a ****ty image. Now, why spend extra
money to get the big screen but then playing game at a lower
resolution? What have you gain in game playing wise ?

Many video cards from the last 2 or 3 years will handle 1920x1200 without even
breaking a sweat. Most of the $100 range of cards will do.


I always run the games i have in native mode. UT3 in 1920x1200 is , well
unreal!!!!

On 3/16/08 6:02 PM Phil brightened our day with:

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
* Michael Pachta:


I don't own a LCD monitor, so here's my current knowledge:
As far as I know LCD monitors have a fixed screen resolution. Lower
resolutions can be obtained by extrapolation (interpolation?),

interpolation (extrapolation is something different)


which
makes the graphics worse. I once saw this at a friend's.



So, if I buy a large monitor, say 22", I need to have a good graphics
card that is capable of displaying the given resolution fast enough.
Otherwise I would have to switch to a lower resolution which would
result in bad graphics.

Or am I wrong here?

No, basically you're right. However, the effects of interpolation was
much worse with the first generation of displays (usually 15" and 17"
displays with 1024x768 or 1280x1024) on which lower resolutions such
like 800x600 or 640x480 look really bad. But on modern high resolution
displays with 1440x900, 1680x1050 or 1920x1200 lower resolutions usually
don't look as bad as they did on the first generation displays.

Benjamin



"don't look as bad as they did on the first generation displays" - is
just as bad !!!
Any current LCD monitor is look as bad as the next one unless you run
game / windows at its native (and only) resolution - even in 2d Window
mode.

Now, here is a relationship that I can not understand: you spend a
bunch of money to get a nice 24" LCD; unless you spend another big
chunk of money to upgrade to to top of the line video card and faster
CPU inorder to play game (this is a game discussion group so I would
use game as sample, not a Windows 2d application group) some what
acceptable at its native resolution. Other wise, you would have to
lower the resolution and get a ****ty image. Now, why spend extra
money to get the big screen but then playing game at a lower
resolution? What have you gain in game playing wise ?


I have a 22" widescreen and I don't play Crysis at 1650. I think I'm
playing at 1280x720. It looks fine.

It's not incredibly cheap but you can get a 22" monitor for less than
$250 and you can get a 8800 GT for $230. With that combo and a half
descent CPU you can run just about everything but Crysis at native
resolution.

I also have a 46" HDTV that I play Xbox 360 games on in 1080P, that's
pretty awesome.

You don't really know what a big deal HD is until you've got it.

--
"Out here on the perimeter there are no stars"

Steve --Inglo--

* Phil:

"don't look as bad as they did on the first generation displays" - is
just as bad !!!

Nope, it isn't. Interpolated resolutions look suprorisingly well, and
especially in games it's often difficult to note that the display is not
running on it's native resolution.

Any current LCD monitor is look as bad as the next one unless you run
game / windows at its native (and only) resolution - even in 2d Window
mode.

Nope. How bad interpolated resolutions look depend on several factors,
with the display native resolution being the main factor. The higher the
native resolution of a LCD is the better look interpolated images.

Now, here is a relationship that I can not understand: you spend a
bunch of money to get a nice 24" LCD; unless you spend another big
chunk of money to upgrade to to top of the line video card and faster
CPU inorder to play game (this is a game discussion group so I would
use game as sample, not a Windows 2d application group) some what
acceptable at its native resolution. Other wise, you would have to
lower the resolution and get a ****ty image. Now, why spend extra
money to get the big screen but then playing game at a lower
resolution?

Simply because unlike you say interpolation isn't as bad on todays high
res monitors than it has been on the first generation low res TFTs.

Benjamin

In article , Michael Pachta wrote:
Schrodinger schrieb/wrote/escribió:
I recently upgraded from a 19" LCD to a 22" widescreen and it was well worth
it. If I had loads of money I would have gone for a 24".

I don't own a LCD monitor, so here's my current knowledge:
As far as I know LCD monitors have a fixed screen resolution. Lower
resolutions can be obtained by extrapolation (interpolation?), which
makes the graphics worse. I once saw this at a friend's.


Thats why you never run the monitor at anything different than its default.


So, if I buy a large monitor, say 22", I need to have a good graphics
card that is capable of displaying the given resolution fast enough.
Otherwise I would have to switch to a lower resolution which would
result in bad graphics.

Or am I wrong here?

M.
You should have a video card with suffucent ram. What video card are you
considering? Most recent cards from the last few years should be able to
handle a 22"