23' 120hz IPS monitor

Quote:

---

My HDTV is 60Hz.
That means that plays 3D with 3D Glasses via PS3 or via PC?

And something else.
Can i see 3d with 24p!? As i told above i don't like Interpolation in movies.

---

Most LCD/plasma panel type 3D requires two frames of data to complete one frame of rendering.

To produce a 30hz/fps image you need 60hz/fps of input data. This is fine for movies and some slow games (depends on your eyes mostly). For games which you want to play at 60fps in 3D you need a true 120hz display.

I disable interpolation on everything when I can, it makes the image "swim" to me :shrug:

for gaming 23 inch is too small.............. 27 or 30 is where is`s at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSAlliN

Refresh Rate is the only bonus you get with that... :)

Unless you play only Quake 3 or similar shooters and like to watch movies in 3D - you get no other bonus, yet being TN you get some disadvantages like those related to viewing angles and color reproduction...

So yeah, the direction you're aiming is subjective - if coming from a CRT... If you don't care about viewing angles and color reproduction yet RR is very important then yeh, even a crappy TN panel with 120 Hz could be good enough...

It's same with audio - since usually gamers with those needs in terms of monitor, are interested in footsteps direction - and aim for Razer or similar products, wile those that care about sound quality go for AKG, ATH, Sennheiser, Beyerdynamic or similar products.
[/IMG]

---

It's not really a bonus because I was at 100Hz and 85Hz in 1600x1200 with my old screen. The bonus is more on the resolution where I don't have to rely on a second screen.

I used to move for many LAN (CS,Q3 UT, War3). I still play these games but less often and you can add TF2 and some others shooters. For SC2 and others games or just normal use, the color aren't that great like the view angle but I'm accustomed now and when I play it's not at 180° :D.
I can't imagine myself playing on a 60Hz screen. My eyes bleed even on the desk (scrooling and moving windows :sick:). I need at last 85Hz. I think I will only change my TFT if there is something cheap and better.

As for the audio I use a ATH-A700 which is awesome :yepp:
GO TO HELL RAZER WITH THEIR STUPID AND GEEK PRODUCTS ! :down:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jeager

It's not really a bonus because I was at 100Hz and 85Hz in 1600x1200 with my old screen. The bonus is more on the resolution where I don't have to rely on a second screen.

I used to move for many LAN (CS,Q3 UT, War3). I still play these games but less often and you can add TF2 and some others shooters. For SC2 and others games or just normal use, the color aren't that great like the view angle but I'm accustomed now and when I play it's not at 180° :D.
I can't imagine myself playing on a 60Hz screen. My eyes bleed even on the desk (scrooling and moving windows :sick:). I need at last 85Hz. I think I will only change my TFT if there is something cheap and better.

As for the audio I use a ATH-A700 which is awesome :yepp:
GO TO HELL RAZER WITH THEIR STUPID AND GEEK PRODUCTS ! :down:

---

You're wrong - you're judging LCD refresh rate as CRT refresh rate... setting CRT refresh rate at 60 Hz can affect your eyes that's true, but LCD it's an entirely different technology that only reflect in Frames per Second.

PS.Razer products are not for geeks... you'll see more gamers that didn't even finish high school because of gaming using those products, than you'll ever see geeks, which usually have higher standards - and being geek they get informed on what to buy... don't just settle with marketing "BS"... and another thing, geeks usually like rts's or rpg's, you'll rarely see one playing shooters like CS,Q3 UT - and the players of this shooters are the main target of Razer products. Beyond that, Razer products are "very good" for their purpose (shooters like CS,Q3 UT...) - the only problem with them is their quality... they look nice and used for office would last longer but gaming is kinda harsh on them and they need a string build.

Quote:

---

for gaming 23 inch is too small.............. 27 or 30 is where is`s at.

---

For general gaming yes - for professional gaming even "19 non wide is better (preferably a CRT what which can be set to 800 x 600).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSAlliN

[...]For general gaming yes - for professional gaming even "19 non wide is better (preferably a CRT what which can be set to 800 x 600).

---

why 800x600? what's so important about that resolution?

i did play on a pretty high level as well but never used such craptastic settings :p:

Quote:

---

For general gaming yes - for professional gaming even "19 non wide is better (preferably a CRT what which can be set to 800 x 600).

---

as for me, my 27 inch is much better than my old 24 inch at 1980 X 1200 :up:

I can see more.

Size matters...
The bigger, the best! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaZz!

why 800x600? what's so important about that resolution?

i did play on a pretty high level as well but never used such craptastic settings :p:

---

For a twitch shooter, 800x600 resolution gives a very large target area compared to a resolution of 1600x1200 or higher. At higher resolutions, targeting can be much like pixel hunting.

Much of gaming has gone much more towards visuals versus purely competitive gaming, where maximum kills are the goal.

When I used to play CS - 800 x 600 was ideal for me, yet others played at 640 x 480 and still do... Old Shooters gaming works best on CRT's ("17 - "19) - and in those situations it's not about quality but "results". It's not just about targeting but also "control"...

If you put a Quake legend on a "27 - "30 LCD monitor (one capable of 120 Hz) at a resolution of 1980 x 1200 or higher, you might see him get own shamefully by a random good player... Even strafing and bunny jumping would be hard for him...

http://www.pctunerup.com/up//results...8_Immagine.png

wrong or right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrea deluxe

[img]http://www.pctunerup.com/up//results/_201011/20101124233458_Immagine.png***[/img]

wrong or right?

---

Right. But take in mind that the extra field vision does not help you at all if you know the map and listen carefully.

Both wrong and right.

Display area will depend on the graphics engine. More pixels may just mean more detail with the same physical area shown.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrea deluxe

wrong or right?

---

Based on that drawing: Wrong! - more like:

640x480
http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/7645/cstrike640x480.jpg

1680x1050
http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/4...e1680x1050.jpg

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/4826/10313170.jpg

In specific shooters like those mentioned above ....even with 30 inch monitor (once capable of 120 Hz) at a resolution of 2560 x 1600 - you'll still get owned shamefully (64 - 3 or something like that) by a mediocre player with a 17 inch CRT and 640 x 480. :p:

nah, at 2560x1440 I can see way better the poor victims at a ridiculous long distance in black ops, even at the max fov :D

I remember using console commands to remove every last drop of detail from Quake 3 till I was left with 640x480 with all textures being flat shades of yellowy white :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSAlliN

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/4826/10313170.jpg

---

i don't care that much about CS, but doesn't it have a proper adjustable FOV? currently, i'm playing UT and BC2 only, and both have an adjustable FOV which. e.g. in UT it's 4:3 -> fov 90 = 16:10 -> fov 100, etc...

Didn't play CS in years, yet still have it on steam... Don't remember any command related to FoV - it does have a Wide/Non-Wide option but that's not FoV related. The thing is, most average users misinterpret the size of their screen and how those it work in practice ( you can take the drawing of Andrea deluxe - as example).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XSAlliN

[...]
( you can take the drawing of Andrea deluxe - as example).

---

you're right. didn't notice this posting...

i guess some people should read some basic widescreen and aspect ratio guidelines.
e.g. http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/FAQ
especially "Screenchange"

hor+ is what you ideally want to have. most of the games can be modded to hor+, some with editing configs others with 3rd party hacks (like widescreenfixer, just to name one).

I knew about that since the early days of Wide screens - learned about those differences live wile working in IT domain and had many as comparison with some CRT's from work. :).

Already made some screenshots as example with Warsow (which is based on an enhanced version of quake 2 engine - and can support resolutions up to 6144 x 1536):

640x480
http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/2...1125230243.jpg

1680x1050
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/887...1125230331.jpg

...and FoV 100. It's funny how some think they can see more than 2x that much on a wide screen. :)

the fov is definately wrong in that 16:10 pic. this is vert-. if the fov is set correctly, it's hor+...

if you know what you're doing, then you'll always have an advantage over 4:3 resolutions.

A lot of games though are vert-, which sucks. This applies to cell phones too, WebOS (HPalm Pre) on orientation change (portrait to landscape) scales the browser vert minus instead of horizontal plus. In the realm of browser scaling though it's much more of a debate as to which is superior.

Both have same FoV (100) - that's the bonus of non-wide resolution, so you have to add +10/20 value to cover same space, which is normal considering the aspect ratio and the resolution of wide and non wide monitors - unless we talk about games designed especially for Wide Resolutions.

If you like fast paced shooters like Quake - you should really try Warsow (it's free) - that guy moves like Purri (an old school Q2 legend) but not so skilled at aiming. :) The weird thing about Warsow and also had a similar experience with CoD 4 and MW2 - they have very little tearing (so rare and the effect is so weak that you rarely noticed it) with VSync off (with on - there is no tearing at all but Q2 engine works awful with it "ON" - as in noticeable input lag) playing Warsow at 120 FPS wile CoD had a random value not being capped at all, but that's also optimized with VSync in mic and runs smooth even with it ON.

Cleaned dust from my old Sony G520 Trinitron CRT and oh boy i got better in multiplayer fps games like MW2, BC2 etc, fast screen just makes hell of big difference.

Still i doubt i will go back to CRT's now that i have 3 x TN screens and 1 huge 30" IPS screen.

Im still using my 20" viewable CRT with 85hz refresh rate. It beats all LCD's options out there in terms of gaming. I'd like to have a larger CRT of about 24" that is also 16:9 @ 85-100hz but that isn't going to happen now days.

I'm quite happy with this monitor and the fact that I'm not locked in a native res like an LCD just to get the best picture quality. I can switch from 800x600 up to 1920x1440 without any quality degradation.

Also achieving 85fps in games today for a perfect 1:1 frame to hz ratio without any duplicated frames is easier to accomplish than say a 120hz LCD which would require 120fps constantly. Even still that 120hz LCD isn't going to look as smooth as a 60hz CRT fading of light due to Phosphor.

P.S. on my CRT, I can tell a distinctive difference in games from 60fps @ 60hz vs 85fps @ 85hz.

I personally prefer LCD's but both CRT and LCD monitors have their negatives.

On a CRT, high resolutions result in lower refresh rates (60hz - flickering effect) and also result in "pixel merging" where each individual pixel will begin to mesh into the other pixels and lose their clarity in the image.

On an LCD monitor, you have no flickering effect at any resolution/refresh rate. However, there is noticeable "ghosting" that doesn't happen on CRT monitors. Also, LCD's look like crap on lower resolutions.




IMO, CRT's are best for low-res, high performance gaming (high refresh rate, no pixel distortion). While LCD's are better for high-res gaming (high image clarity, wider field of view on widescreen 16:10 or 16:9 models)

I value image clarity over high refresh rates, so I like LCD monitors better. To each their own, though.