Games can run clear on tvs at low res, why not computer monirotrs?
polycounter lvl 11
I always though it was interesting that a 32 inch lcd can run a game at 1024x768 pretty clear, but a 1600x900 monitor can't run a pc game at 1024x768 and it be clear, instead its stretched and blurry.
Is there any way to have this effect on monitors? Perhaps mimicking the pixel density through an emulator of somesort?
Is there any way to have this effect on monitors? Perhaps mimicking the pixel density through an emulator of somesort?
Replies
is it a 720p or 1080p tv?, do you have any latency-expensive modes running on the tv?
Is it aspect-correct on both the tv and monitor? (4:3 on 16:10/9)
What Justin said. Sit far away from your monitor, and it will be just as clear. Monitors are also sharper than TVs are, because you're meant to sit really close to them. Are you sure you have the proper aspect ratio for your monitor as well? It shouldn't be stretched. Running 4:3 on a 16:9 monitor is going to be stretched, obviously.
Try sitting right next to the TV, and having it exactly encase view, you'll start noticing color bleeding, blurred pixels at edges as so on and forth. If anything, I would say how come TV screens aren't as sharp as monitors, especially the bloody expensive ones in 5K range.
Could the pc interpret it in a way that 1 pixel = 4 of the real pc pixels? Im pretty sure tvs when not viewing hd run at 1024x768 and at 22 fps from what I read in a magazine, so that could also be the reason.
For example, gta 4 on xbl = "thisdude shot somedude" shows up clear, and gta 4 runs at 1024x768 on 360s, but if I run it on that res on my monitor those words are blurry
My monitor runs fine, its a 1600x900 monitor and to run games clear I obviously put it at 1600x900, but im saying tvs are much bigger and the xbox runs games at 1024x768 for performance, and it shows up clear. But if I run a game at 1024x768 on my monitor the text and the game is blurry.
Does the tv just have bigger pixels? and this is why its clear? Then why cant a 1600 monitor do 4 pixels = 1 game pixel? That would cut the res in half but it would bleed and be stretched
Anymore detail on the hardware you using?
i dum
lcd monitors are fixed resolution displays, meaning that they have a finite amount of pixels vertically and horizontally. in order to use a lower resolution on that fixed resolution display, it must scale the video source up using a chip to resample it to the bigger resolution of your display. these chips are focused on generic video scaling, so while they work ok for scaling DVDs up to 1080p, all chips in modern displays fail miserably at doing this for games and other content where you need extreme sharpness and text readability. the only way to properly scale a low resolution source to an "HD" resolution is to purchase a high-end video processor like the XRGB or similar, because they are designed to scale games and similar content while retaining pixel perfect accuracy.
the reason why you don't notice the horrific scaling on your TV is, like what everyone else has said; because you are sitting a good bit away from it, so you don't notice just how terrible it actually looks. with a small computer monitor, you're right up against your screen, so you really notice it. the scaler chip in your monitor could also likely be worse than the one in your TV, depending on how high end your TV is.
also don't forget that the majority of "720p" LCD sets are actually 1024x768 or 1366x768 and scale ALL content, providing a terrible picture for every single source you can think of. true 1080p displays are actually 1920x1080 though, so you don't need to worry about that.
however, all of this processing also introduces input lag, to the point of making games with strict timing (music games) unplayable without tons of calibration. i've seen LCD TVs with nearly 120ms of input lag!
this is where CRTs shine. CRT displays are NOT a fixed resolution and work on vertical lines. when you feed a lower, non-native resolution to a multisync CRT, it actually spaces out the lines instead of interpolating them up to the native resolution like an LCD. by doing this, you keep an absurdly crisp image no matter the source resolution.
in order to space out the lines though, the display essentially "turns off" certain lines, creating an effect known as scanlines. for instance, if you feed a 240p signal to a trisync arcade monitor with a native resolution of 480p, every other line will be turned off, making scanlines! CRT computer monitors (like the sony FW900 which is the best in the world) have such a high number of vertical lines that running a source with a lower resolution will give scanlines that are so minuscule that you can't even see them, so the picture will be just as crisp as the native resolution.
there is no processing involved with CRT resolution changes, thus absolutely zero input lag, which is why CRTs are still used in arcades for music games.
TLDR: want the best picture possible for DVD video, PC monitor use, HD game consoles, and HDTV/bluray movies? get a sony FW900 24" CRT. you will never go back.
hopefully now you understand why LCDs suck so hard at low resolution. if you have any other questions i am an absurd perfectionist autist when it comes to displays so feel free to ask.
BRAAAAAAMMMPHHHHH
Instead of buying a terrible, huge, heavy CRT that will fade and lose color/contrast over the years, simply view content in your native resolution. Don't play games at 1024x768 on a 1920x1200 LCD.
I guess some people will never get over that awesome turn on/degauss BRAMMMMPPPPHHHHH noise.
keeping with the idea that it is aspect correct: it doesn't have to scale, it's pixel perfect!, while the same content watched on your bigger monitor will have to fall back on scaling.
And now considering you're talking about this odd resolution, whatever are you doing that requires 1024x768?, playing an old game?
But yeah, the problem is only a problem when dealing with old content, such as the era when games were locked in resolution, any newer games or content can be set at a specific resolution, and any old content can be post processed to look good on that super high res screen.
Out of all your mad crt rambling, this is a good one, and the main difference between having a tv and a pc monitor, the tv is built and equipped to process less interactive content, while the monitor is built around highly interactive content such as moving a mouse around, which is why most tv's comes with a "game mode" that turns of all post processing for lower latency, and even the games themselves (like music rhythm games) coming with a latency compensator feature.
Lanzcos FTW
120Hz CRT FTW
Quake3 on a 120hz LCD isn't the same for some reason
The only real problem with CRTs to me is the red pollution on cyans so cyans don't look cyan
Seconded. LCD Monitor at native res is the way to go.
As for TVs LCDs are pretty terrible in terms of accuracy, they fuck with contrast, add a sharpen filter, and enlarge and chop off edges even in cases where the resolution should match. And because of all this they often have bad lag. Enjoy your first person shooter with a tenth of a second of lag built in. Blargh
So the verdict is, tvs have bigger, and fewer pixels.
jeff, i've never had any problems with my monitor lol, in any game
it'll cost about $100 to ship though because FUCK CRTS ARE YOU GODDAMN SERIOUS?
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=952788
I just laughed at myself for thinking "wow, awesome image quality on that crt" as I was looking at pictures on my lcd.
also:
if i knew you are all horny for them, i would have kept it^^
btw. those are around 40$ now
edit: lol 400 bucks for triniton, i got both triniton monitors i had back than for nothing (college gave them away)
I think there's even driver support for this, like, in nvidia settings you can choose how lower resolutions should be handled before it is output to the monitor.
ololololol
bramph!!!!!
It's a nice sound that goes better together with a whrrrrrrrRRRRRRRRRRRRRtonk ..... BEEP and a DOTDATDATDOTDOTDATDAT - EEE-EEE-EEEBROFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF ehUH eh UH BROFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF - Welcome! you've got mail. HONK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! UHUHUHUHUHUHUHOH*glassbreak*
Apparently, you can't Michael Winslow a typical '90s internet user's computer on text over the internet
If you mostly play XBox and PS3 games, play them on a native 720p TV or projector ;
If you mostly watch Blurays, watch them on a native 1080p TV or projector ;
If you play games on the PC, play them at the full native res of your PC screen.
That about sums it up! Everything else would look stretched, or blurred, or something in between...
BTW and as a side note, for a sharp PS2 image I am getting awesome results out of my 720p projector and the component cables, because projectors can do things that TV can't : they can blow up a picture thanks to optics, and not through a fixed pixel "grid". So for 480p content I can simply set the beamer to 1:1 (with the 480p image sitting in the middle of the full 720p frame) and simply make the image bigger by turning the dial. Super smooth! I would recommend this to any retro gamer.
I didn't know about this, thanks
My monitor is 1366x768 and almost all new games support this resolution so I get crystal clear/crisp quality. Older games like Morrowind or Red Alert 2 can only go up to 1024x768. They do look blurry because of my screen (it's a laptop too).
Get morrowind graphics extender and you'll be able to up your resolution
That's not what we were talking about, there's settings to make any resolution not stretch, but instead just be a smaller box on the screen, and retain 1:1.
anyhow..
BRAAAAAAAAAWWWWTHMTH
In all seriousness though:
A. Most CRT monitors are no longer being produced
B. You'll have to pay a premium for a decent, newish quality CRT
C. The half life on CRT's means that, if you get one of the many, very old crts that are out there, you'll likely have one that has faded a good deal
D. So, for the cost of getting a "premium" CRT, you can afford a mid-range - high end LCD, with a quality M/PVA, IPS, or E-IPS panel. My Dell 2408WFP is a *VA panel and out performs any CRT i've ever used as far as color and contrast goes.
E. When you consider the cost for things like paying for the back surgery you'll need after hauling a 24" CRT around, and buying a desk roughly 5 feet deep just to have enough space to comfortably work, its just not worth it.
Oh, but you don't have native resolution problems with a CRT, so I guess that makes up for the wide number of terrible issues CRTs have.
9 out of 10 14-year-old professional counter strike players swear by CRTs though, because of the basically imperceivable input lag difference, they totally pwn all the noobs. So that is something to consider.
i got my fw900 for $50 and i see people get them for free quite often... you just need to stop being lazy and look beyond the surface.
so... why are you looking for a 15+ year old CRT? CRTs go soft after 24/7 use for 15+ years. if the owner takes care of it anywhere near decently, you can keep it sharp with great color for 20+ years. anyone who knows anything about arcade hardware knows this as a truth, since there are original 80s arcade monitors with great color still looking sharp as a knife. like with anything, know what to look for before you blindly buy something.
i didn't know you could get a high end LCD for under $150!
i've used an NEC 20WMGX2 for years and my folks have the dell U2311H now at their main computer, and the blacks are still crushed in comparison to the fw900, even after calibration with an x-rite eye-one display 2. the colors are close, but no matter the adjustments i simply cannot get the black level anywhere near the CRT, the "IPS glow" is still very apparent, as is the motion blur in fast games.
old man.
run out of legitimate-sounding claims? just resort to being a dick, that always works for you!
we do art here at this forum. if you're making art and ONLY making art, go for an IPS/*VA display, it'll work great for you. if you do art and a little bit of gaming, maybe an IPS display is great for you too; but if you are a crazy person like me who does art, AND enjoys games with strict timing, fast motions at whatever resolution you want, why not go for the very best if you have room for it?
i'm not saying CRTs are the best for everyone's situation, just that they are still king as far as all-round displays go for someone who might care a little more about quality you do, and that if you find a newer sony or eizo CRT in great condition, pick it up; you won't be sorry.
whatever, haters gonna hate. OP's question has been answered and we probably shouldn't drag this on.