LCD larger size -- what for ??

In article , Ant wrote:
On 3/17/2008 11:01 AM PT, GMAN typed:

In article kQwDj.92394$pM4.51323@pd7urf1no, Backspace
wrote:
Beladi Nasrallah wrote:

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



More screen real estate. I wouldn't go any larger than 22" though
because then you run into issues with trying to run games at too high of
a native res and the games will perform poorly. 22" uses 1680x1050 and
my 8800GT video card can handle that res with most games fine. Any
higher res and I think it would really start to degrade performance.

Thats where you are mistaken.These class of video cards just start getting
their breaths at that resolution and quite happily perform at 1920x1200 and
higher. Maybe not if you get the 256mb versions but the 512/640/768 versions
fly.

I have much higher performance at 24" with my 880GTS 640mb at 1920x1200 than
i
did at 1024x768 with same card on a 20inch CRT.

Are you saying my old current Athlon system with Athlon 64 X2 4600+ 939
system with 2 GB of RAM, XP Pro. SP2 (IE6.0 SP2 and all updates), EVGA
GeForce 7950 GT KO (512 MB; PCIe), latest beta NVIDIA driver, etc. would
be have faster FPS higher than my native 1280x1024 screen resolution?
This is with everything cranked up like FSAA and anisotropic for games
like Crysis, World in Conflict, etc.
Some of these newer cards are optimized for the higher resolutions. In the old
days when i had an old ATI 980o Pro card, it ran much faster in 32bit mode
than in 16 bit mode. Many of the nvidia cards at the time performed crappy
in 32bity mode in things like Unreal Tournament, but switch them to 16bit
mode and they flew. Its not true anymore but back then ATI's 32bit drivers
were more mature than nvidias.

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
* 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


I don't argue with you regarding how each person define 'good' image
quality - it's all depend on the eyes. The same thing as speakers: a
certain brand might sound good to some but sound bad to other - it's
all in the ears. Same with video movie, a certain compression
quality would look good to some but would consider bad to other.

I don't care how well interpolation of the LCD now a day but currently
I am using a 24" Dell LCD at work and the quality of the image/Windows
text look pretty bad in any lower resolutions other than its native
resolution. In 2D Window image/text, I want my letters clear and
sharp: 'i or I', 'l or L", 't or T" take only one pixel vertical or
horizontal in width - no beeding shadow into the next pixel or what
ever - I would notice it instantly. Can any other lower resolution
can do that? Same with image quality in game - perhaps it's not too
obvious in FPS because you spend most of the game time running and
shooting; but if you pause the game and look closely at the image then
you would certaintly tell the diffrent in 'bad' and 'good' image.

As long as the LCD hardware do some kind of image re-processing or
some tricks try to make it look "as" good as in its native resolution
then it is not the same - it's all in the eyes. Some can easily be
tricked, but some are not.

* :

I don't argue with you regarding how each person define 'good' image
quality - it's all depend on the eyes.

That's BS. With pixel-type displays like LCD the degradation primarily
depends on the ratio of the the used resolution and the native
(physical) resolution of the display.

Of course it also depends on what an individual finds "acceptable" and
what not. But this definitely has nothing to do with the eyes.

The same thing as speakers: a
certain brand might sound good to some but sound bad to other - it's
all in the ears.

Again BS. The difference is not in the ears, it's only in the mind.

I don't care how well interpolation of the LCD now a day but currently
I am using a 24" Dell LCD at work and the quality of the image/Windows
text look pretty bad in any lower resolutions other than its native
resolution. In 2D Window image/text, I want my letters clear and
sharp: 'i or I', 'l or L", 't or T" take only one pixel vertical or
horizontal in width - no beeding shadow into the next pixel or what
ever - I would notice it instantly. Can any other lower resolution
can do that?

Yes, one that is an even fraction of the native resolution.

Same with image quality in game - perhaps it's not too
obvious in FPS because you spend most of the game time running and
shooting; but if you pause the game and look closely at the image then
you would certaintly tell the diffrent in 'bad' and 'good' image.

Maybe, maybe not. But besides that even in games it depends on the ratio
of used resolution and native resolution it's usually considered to be
pretty stupid to pause games just to search for signs of image
degradation. If you don't like how the scaled down image looks then
either play at native resolution or change your display to something
your gfx card can handle at it's native resolution. Or use a CRT if you
can live with the drawbacks. Simple as that.

As long as the LCD hardware do some kind of image re-processing or
some tricks try to make it look "as" good as in its native resolution
then it is not the same - it's all in the eyes.

Again, that's BS. Like with music it's all in the mind.

Benjamin

Rookie wrote:

But for everyday web browsing, writing texts and even viewing the
occasional dvd, everything above 19" 4:3 is quite big.

But a 19" widescreen is *smaller* than a 19" 4:3.

A 19" 4:3 is a decent size. A 19" widescreen is on the puny side,
IMO.

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

That's BS. With pixel-type displays like LCD the degradation primarily
depends on the ratio of the the used resolution and the native
(physical) resolution of the display.

Of course it also depends on what an individual finds "acceptable" and
what not. But this definitely has nothing to do with the eyes.

The same thing as speakers: a
certain brand might sound good to some but sound bad to other - it's
all in the ears.

Again BS. The difference is not in the ears, it's only in the mind.


Again, that's BS. Like with music it's all in the mind.

Benjamin

So, according you, hearing of sound and seeing of images are not based
on the ears and eyes, but it's all in the mind !!! Based on this,
everybody should have the same hearing level and same level of
'seeing' - only the mind that does all the trickery with what you hear
and see. Right? So please explain to me why there are people with
hearing aids device or corrective lenses. Why a 80 years old doesn't
have the same hearing and seeing 'power' as one in his/her teen?

So I guess why should some spend thousand of $$$ for a pair of
speakers while a $100 one would sound the same to all. Or why some
would spend more on a high-end LCD while a cheapest brand would give
the same image?

Sir, your arguement is full of hole !!!

Ant wrote:

Heh, that is why I stuck with 19" LCD monitor. Even that has issues like
in World in Conflict, Crysis, etc. with my GeForce 7950 GT KO (512 MB;
PCIe). If I had a slightly bigger monitor, 1600x1200 would be my next
native resolution and that's a big jump.

Yea, you would do better to get 16:9 22" @1680x1050 instead of 4:3
@1600x1200.

Backspace wrote:
Ant wrote:

Heh, that is why I stuck with 19" LCD monitor. Even that has issues
like in World in Conflict, Crysis, etc. with my GeForce 7950 GT KO
(512 MB; PCIe). If I had a slightly bigger monitor, 1600x1200 would be
my next native resolution and that's a big jump.

Yea, you would do better to get 16:9 22" @1680x1050 instead of 4:3
@1600x1200.


Why would he be better to get a 16:9 22" 1680x1050(WS) instead of a
1600x1200 (Assumed 22")?

Backspace wrote:
Ant wrote:

Heh, that is why I stuck with 19" LCD monitor. Even that has issues
like in World in Conflict, Crysis, etc. with my GeForce 7950 GT KO
(512 MB; PCIe). If I had a slightly bigger monitor, 1600x1200 would be
my next native resolution and that's a big jump.

Yea, you would do better to get 16:9 22" @1680x1050 instead of 4:3
@1600x1200.


After asking folk why the hell they think they need anything bigger than
a 22" WS I am now very tempted by the price and quality of this 24"...

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...odid=MO-026-OK

Shawk wrote:
Backspace wrote:
Ant wrote:

Heh, that is why I stuck with 19" LCD monitor. Even that has issues
like in World in Conflict, Crysis, etc. with my GeForce 7950 GT KO
(512 MB; PCIe). If I had a slightly bigger monitor, 1600x1200 would be
my next native resolution and that's a big jump.

Yea, you would do better to get 16:9 22" @1680x1050 instead of 4:3
@1600x1200.


After asking folk why the hell they think they need anything bigger than
a 22" WS I am now very tempted by the price and quality of this 24"...

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...odid=MO-026-OK


Well, we men always obsessed with size - the bigger the better.

Any way, joking aside, bigger screen in Windows is a feast to the
eyes, unless you don't mind to run FPS at a lower resolution. For
some reason, so far no one mention about how tire you hand have to
move the mouse back and forth using a large WS LCD. I'm using a
Dell 24" widescreen at work for just Windows application development
and my hand so tire after a while of moving the mouse back and forth
to minimize/maximize/close/open multiple windows. Even when I have the
mouse speed set to nearest fastest workable speed and highest
acceleration.

At home, I can move the mouse back and forth for hours / or playing
game with a standard 4:3 19" LCD without getting my hand tire. Any
suggestion regarding this issue?

wrote in message
...

Shawk wrote:
Backspace wrote:
Ant wrote:

Heh, that is why I stuck with 19" LCD monitor. Even that has issues
like in World in Conflict, Crysis, etc. with my GeForce 7950 GT KO
(512 MB; PCIe). If I had a slightly bigger monitor, 1600x1200 would be
my next native resolution and that's a big jump.

Yea, you would do better to get 16:9 22" @1680x1050 instead of 4:3
@1600x1200.


After asking folk why the hell they think they need anything bigger than
a 22" WS I am now very tempted by the price and quality of this 24"...

http://www.overclockers.co.uk/showpr...odid=MO-026-OK


Well, we men always obsessed with size - the bigger the better.

Any way, joking aside, bigger screen in Windows is a feast to the
eyes, unless you don't mind to run FPS at a lower resolution. For
some reason, so far no one mention about how tire you hand have to
move the mouse back and forth using a large WS LCD. I'm using a
Dell 24" widescreen at work for just Windows application development
and my hand so tire after a while of moving the mouse back and forth
to minimize/maximize/close/open multiple windows. Even when I have the
mouse speed set to nearest fastest workable speed and highest
acceleration.

At home, I can move the mouse back and forth for hours / or playing
game with a standard 4:3 19" LCD without getting my hand tire. Any
suggestion regarding this issue?

Get a mouse with a higher DPI sensor for work. Not all mouse are equal when
it comes to speed, the higher dpi will mean it can be set at a lower speed
setting and achieve the same as your current mouse.