If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
LCD larger size -- what for ??
you must be one of those people with the 20"+ rims on their car...
or one of those truck guys with big-ass monster tires. needless to say, everything in Proportion - otherwise you look like a fool. "dizzy" wrote in message ... Lawrence Lugar wrote: That's what i'm saying...you're only atmost, what - 1 and a half feet away from a computer monitor? it's ridiculous, for the people who have 24"+ computer monitors on their desks. I have a 19" wide format LCD...and it's more than plenty large enough For you. 19" wide is a puny monitor. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
LCD larger size -- what for ??
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!!!! |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
LCD larger size -- what for ??
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-- |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
LCD larger size -- what for ??
In article , "Lawrence Lugar" wrote:
you must be one of those people with the 20"+ rims on their car... or one of those truck guys with big-ass monster tires. needless to say, everything in Proportion - otherwise you look like a fool. Well i agree with the other poster, 19" is way too small for usefull things like video and graphics editing. I'd need glasses after squinting at that small of a monitor. "dizzy" wrote in message .. . Lawrence Lugar wrote: That's what i'm saying...you're only atmost, what - 1 and a half feet away from a computer monitor? it's ridiculous, for the people who have 24"+ computer monitors on their desks. I have a 19" wide format LCD...and it's more than plenty large enough For you. 19" wide is a puny monitor. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
LCD larger size -- what for ??
In article , Gorby wrote:
GMAN wrote: 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!!!! I have a 22" wide screen and I'm running it at native (1680x1050). I'm over 50 now and these high resolutions are terrific in games, but I'm having great difficulty text nowadays. Tiny text is real difficult to see. But is I change the resolution the text becomes blurred. So it's a lose - lose for me. I've even tried playing with the settings in windows (going to 120% text size) but that makes the icons look strange. What do you people do? Or do I assume you all have brilliant microscopic vision! You can change the size of fonts and not change the size of the icons. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
LCD larger size -- what for ??
GMAN wrote:
In article , Gorby wrote: GMAN wrote: 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!!!! I have a 22" wide screen and I'm running it at native (1680x1050). I'm over 50 now and these high resolutions are terrific in games, but I'm having great difficulty text nowadays. Tiny text is real difficult to see. But is I change the resolution the text becomes blurred. So it's a lose - lose for me. I've even tried playing with the settings in windows (going to 120% text size) but that makes the icons look strange. What do you people do? Or do I assume you all have brilliant microscopic vision! You can change the size of fonts and not change the size of the icons. Sorry! I must have not explained it correctly! I clicked on the desktop and got to properties. There is a part allowing Text to be made 120% larger. It does that, but other apps look strange, especially browsers. Currently I simply Control + to make the text larger in Firefox. What I would love, is like inside the games where as you increase resolution objects get more "clear", but don't become smaller. I love the extra real estate on larger screens, but would be happy to have slightly less real estate with larger fonts and icons (all in relation with each other) |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
LCD larger size -- what for ??
* 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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
LCD larger size -- what for ??
* Ant:
Is there a way to prevent stretching with VGA connections? It only seems to work with DVI. Basically, stretching is a function of the monitor (scaler unit) and not of the gfx card. However, with DVI the scaling can be done by the GPU alternatively as DVI is just a pixel stream. So if your monitor's scaler unit can be set to avoid stretching you're out of luck. Benjamin |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
LCD larger size -- what for ??
your starting to ask the question "do i need a larger LCD and in the back of
your mind you already know the answer". you can come up with any number of reasons to prove to your self you need one or you don't need one but in the end your going to get a larger LCD no mater what. my e-penises 1 - 19" lcd 1 - 22" lcd 1 - 24" lcd "KlausK" wrote in message ... "Beladi Nasrallah" wrote in message ... So, here is my question: why should I go for a higher-resolution and higher-size monitor ? You don't have to. You could play FPS games on a 12" monitor. However, if you played games at 1920x1200 or 1920x1080, you would want a bigger monitor and a more powerful graphic card. I have a Sony 23" monitor (1920x1200) and an LG 47" LCD TV (1920x1080). I thought 23" was all I needed until I started to play games on the 47". |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
LCD larger size -- what for ??
In article , "mangyrat" wrote:
your starting to ask the question "do i need a larger LCD and in the back of your mind you already know the answer". you can come up with any number of reasons to prove to your self you need one or you don't need one but in the end your going to get a larger LCD no mater what. my e-penises 1 - 19" lcd 1 - 22" lcd 1 - 24" lcd LMAO!!! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
size of physical memory is given by size of address registers in CPU or size of address bus?? | Arunaabh | Intel | 4 | May 6th 06 06:05 PM |
Larger HD on Win XP? | Terry Pinnell | Storage (alternative) | 20 | July 19th 05 08:24 AM |
True Image 8 restoring to larger size hd drive | SLB | Storage (alternative) | 3 | December 6th 04 07:01 PM |
Backup file got larger and larger!? | E. E. Herbert | Dell Computers | 0 | November 25th 04 03:57 AM |
Larger Ink Bottles | Matthew Lock | Printers | 3 | July 9th 03 03:56 AM |