I just moved, and my apartment complex seems to have faulty grounding that causes my computer monitor to flicker like when you approach a fan to it. Needless to say, the flicker is killing my eyes. Which is too bad. I love the monitor as it was a birthday present from Greg here.
My stepfather offered to get me an LCD from Circuit City, but my worry is response time (I heard 16 ms is good) and native resolution. Meaning, I don't want to get blurry trails or have the game area displayed as a postal stamp in the middle of the screen, particularly with Dreamcast games.
Can anyone give me any pointers?
Thanks.
About LCD monitors.
About LCD monitors.
Don't hold grudges. GET EVEN.
-
Thunder Force
- Posts: 1773
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:21 am
- Location: research and development facility for Vasteel Technology.
16 ms was considered mediocre several years ago (12 ms was good), these days 8 ms for gaming seems fairly common. Although larger panels are still harder to make/find with good response times. Also, the advertised response time and the actual response time may differ significantly, so make sure you read actual product reviews of the model before spending the cash on the display.Specineff wrote:I heard 16 ms is good
And don't neglect to verify the manufacturer's dead pixel policy.
Since native resolution is always going to be larger than optimal for console gaming, it's also good to look for a high quality built-in scaling chip on the monitor (relatively rare...) if that's what you intend to use the monitor for.
"Thunder Force VI does not suck, shut your fucking mouth." ~ Shane Bettenhausen
*shrug* Best Buy has a few that advertise 5ms. Then again, these are brands I've never heard of.
Currently, I use a Dell Latitude laptop, and find that using the LCD takes a bit of getting used to. It's perfectly fine for games, but it's still nice to output to a normal CRT every once in a while. Things just seem...warmer...on a CRT.
Currently, I use a Dell Latitude laptop, and find that using the LCD takes a bit of getting used to. It's perfectly fine for games, but it's still nice to output to a normal CRT every once in a while. Things just seem...warmer...on a CRT.
Ignore these ratings. Most of them are bullshit.Damocles wrote:*shrug* Best Buy has a few that advertise 5ms. Then again, these are brands I've never heard of.
Once apon a time they used to rate refresh based on white-to-black-to-white-again. These days they measure them in grey-to-grey. "5ms" has just as much meaning as "really good". It's totally subjective to a lot of different things. Consider it a marketing term only, and thus utter crap.
The best way to judge these? Bring a console in and ask to test it on the TV. If the salesperson doesn't let you, then they obviously don't want your money and you should shop elsewhere.
-
bigbadboaz
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 4:08 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
I wonder if a line conditioner might solve the problem entirely rather than force you into buying a new monitor. Companies that make UPSes also make these devices (APC, CyberPower, Monster Power), which filter the power coming from your outlet and provide even, clean power for your electronics. Not sure if this would help a grounding issue, but it might be worth looking into. You could run all your consoles/PCs through it so your apartment's issues wouldn't affect them long-term.
Re: About LCD monitors.
1) Do you have a standard TV arial plugged into the TV andSpecineff wrote:I just moved, and my apartment complex seems to have faulty grounding that causes my computer monitor to flicker like when you approach a fan to it.
2) Does the problem go away if you remove it?
I've got a bad groundloop at my place when I have more than 1 TV plugged into the main arial (enough to zap me when I touch my VCR downstairs in the games room!). If I take the arial out of one of the TVs, the problem goes away for both.
I also recently made myself a cheap diode filter and problem solved.
Read this:
http://shoryuken.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94426
Ignore the fact that it's on a fighting game forum. Games are games, and we all face the same issues.
http://shoryuken.com/forums/showthread.php?t=94426
Ignore the fact that it's on a fighting game forum. Games are games, and we all face the same issues.
Last edited by elvis on Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
Read the link above. HDTVs will scale any signal to full screen, but sometimes there is a serious performance loss that goes with it. When playing a movie, this doesn't matter. Who cares how much lag there is between your DVD player and your screen as long as the audio and video sync.Specineff wrote:Gotcha. That's no problem. I have a dedicated RGB monitor for those systems. It's only the DC being displayed in a tiny 640x480 box what concerns me. Will an LCD monitor scale it up? I might to to the store and bring my DC and VGA box just to make sure.
Wiht games, it's a different story. Audio and video might sync, but there could be a half second lag between your inputs to the game and what's shown on screen, and that's all bad.
Again, read the thread I linked to. It's very helpful, and recommends better brands that support scaling and "game modes".
So even LCD computer monitors will suffer from that? Pffsh. Well, the DC outputs 480p, so according to that document it shouldn't be a problem. I'll test it with a monitor in the internet room of my apartment complex.
I might as well buy one of those Wells Gardner monitors that support both RGB and VGA up to 640 by 480 and be happy with it.
I might as well buy one of those Wells Gardner monitors that support both RGB and VGA up to 640 by 480 and be happy with it.
Don't hold grudges. GET EVEN.
I was going to suggest just that, but every time I do people whine about wanting their big/wide screen LCDs and Plasmas.Specineff wrote:I might as well buy one of those Wells Gardner monitors that support both RGB and VGA up to 640 by 480 and be happy with it.
IMHO, analogue still is king. CRTs produce a much better picture, and for folks like us who tend to play games on older systems, 4:3 CRTs give correct aspect ratio, and superior pictures at low resolution.
With a WG monitor you can use RGB/SCART output from old consoles, or RGB/VGA from new consoles, and the picture will look superb. Slap it in a wodden box with carry handles and fan-forced cooling, and you've got a superb quality monitor that's easy to rotate, and safe to use.
Plasma is nice for watching DVDs on. LCD IMHO looks ugly no matter what you do with it. Both suck for playing games.
Me personally, I'm waiting for OLED before I move away from CRT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED
I predict that in a few years there will be a big CRT renaissance -- in fact some would say it's already started to happen. It's like the 1990s revival of analogue vs. digital music kit all over again.
Back on topic, if you want an LCD that can best display DC VGA and other such games, it's best to look for the rare but extant models with a native resolution of 1280 x 960 -- that is, exactly double 640x480, meaning all the monitor has to do is draw four pixels for every one in the input. Simple conversion, and virtually no conversion artefacts, as the input signal is a direct fraction of the native resolution.
Back on topic, if you want an LCD that can best display DC VGA and other such games, it's best to look for the rare but extant models with a native resolution of 1280 x 960 -- that is, exactly double 640x480, meaning all the monitor has to do is draw four pixels for every one in the input. Simple conversion, and virtually no conversion artefacts, as the input signal is a direct fraction of the native resolution.
According to both the BYOAC kids and RetroBlast, 800x600 is hit and miss with WG monitors like the D9200. Some will do it, some won't. Officiaiily speaking, 31KHz is the maximum res th emonitor can do, which means 640x480@60Hz progressive scan. Anything over that is considered "overclocking" and probably not good for the longterm health of the monitor.Specineff wrote:Thanks for all your info, Elvis. I take it that if I try to feed a WG monitor an 800x600 image from my computer it will not take it, right?
OLED shmoLED, my money is on SED.elvis wrote:I was going to suggest just that, but every time I do people whine about wanting their big/wide screen LCDs and Plasmas.Specineff wrote:I might as well buy one of those Wells Gardner monitors that support both RGB and VGA up to 640 by 480 and be happy with it.
IMHO, analogue still is king. CRTs produce a much better picture, and for folks like us who tend to play games on older systems, 4:3 CRTs give correct aspect ratio, and superior pictures at low resolution.
With a WG monitor you can use RGB/SCART output from old consoles, or RGB/VGA from new consoles, and the picture will look superb. Slap it in a wodden box with carry handles and fan-forced cooling, and you've got a superb quality monitor that's easy to rotate, and safe to use.
Plasma is nice for watching DVDs on. LCD IMHO looks ugly no matter what you do with it. Both suck for playing games.
Me personally, I'm waiting for OLED before I move away from CRT:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED
SED = flat panel CRT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-co ... er_Display
Um... pass, as I've never been lucky enough to use an LCD monitor that high-resSpecineff wrote:Eps, a 1600 by 1200 monitor is about five times the same rez as 320x240, and 2.5 that of 640x480. Would a DC look like ass on it?
I'd guess that it'd be reasonable based on the small pixels making the conversion less obvious, but really that's just pulling an estimate out of my behind. Anyone? 
-
Thunder Force
- Posts: 1773
- Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:21 am
- Location: research and development facility for Vasteel Technology.
End results will wary wildly depending on the quality of the built-in scaling chip on the LCD. Also scaling something polygon-based, like Under Defeat, tends to look a lot better than scaling 2D desktops or equivalent sprite-based games.Eps wrote:Um... pass, as I've never been lucky enough to use an LCD monitor that high-res
"Thunder Force VI does not suck, shut your fucking mouth." ~ Shane Bettenhausen
I tested my DC with poly-based games, and though I prefer the crystal clear image of CRTs over the "glassy" look of LCDs, it looked great. The only problem was the aspect ratio, but that's because the monitor was one of those strange 1280 by 1024. Which are almost square. I'll get one of those 17 inch 1600 by 1200 which is the correct 4:3 aspect ratio.
On the other hand, the monitor might just be very sensitive to EM interference (it looks almost as when you get a fan close to one). So I might head to a thrift store and test one here. Preferrably a Sony or a Mitsubishi.
About the desktop, TF, there's no need to scale if the video card in my system can output it. And it can.
On the other hand, the monitor might just be very sensitive to EM interference (it looks almost as when you get a fan close to one). So I might head to a thrift store and test one here. Preferrably a Sony or a Mitsubishi.
About the desktop, TF, there's no need to scale if the video card in my system can output it. And it can.
Don't hold grudges. GET EVEN.
Hey, now that's cool. OLED is having all sorts of issues getting product life up to reasonable standards. SED looks like a winner!jpolz wrote: OLED shmoLED, my money is on SED.
SED = flat panel CRT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface-co ... er_Display
As much as I get excited by all these new TV screens, I can't help feel let down by the constant barrage of new technology that never seems to make it to store shelves.
Plus everything is pixel/digital-based these days, and that sucks if your input is a different resolution. Say what you like about analogue technology, but at least it's semi-adaptable to old and new formats.
Plus everything is pixel/digital-based these days, and that sucks if your input is a different resolution. Say what you like about analogue technology, but at least it's semi-adaptable to old and new formats.