Diablo-X =GCHQ= wrote:
The CRT is much better for gaming, and also none of the dead pixel crap, so why are they becoming obsolete? I
man...what decade are you in
| Gamecommunity =GCHQ= http://82.148.227.125:8080/ | |
| Hmm, CRT or TFT? http://82.148.227.125:8080/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=45793 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | Diablo-X [ Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Hmm, CRT or TFT? |
Ok so still deciding what new monitor to get..I like the look of the TFT, but that's where it's benefits stop as far as I'm aware. The CRT is much better for gaming, and also none of the dead pixel crap, so why are they becoming obsolete? I'm struggling to find a legit website that sells them now and resorting to amazon which is a horrible thing to have to do. Anyway, point is, what are the benefits of CRT over TFT and vice versa, and also why are CRT's becoming obsolete? |
|
| Author: | Johns [ Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Well you rarely get one that has a dead pixel anyway.. well not that i have had one and i have 4 in this house. and they are better quality and faster refresh rate. so really i you wouldn't notice a difference thats my opinion anyway |
|
| Author: | Caspius=GCHQ= [ Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Get a TFT, CRT's are yesterdays technology. |
|
| Author: | Diablo-X [ Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ok what about widescreen or normal? |
|
| Author: | Caspius=GCHQ= [ Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Diablo-X =GCHQ= wrote: Ok what about widescreen or normal?
Again get Widescreen, 4:3 is also slowly disapearing, it takes a little while to get use to at first because the screen is less in height than 4:3. I think once most people have gone widescreen TFT anything else looks archaic. Get a 22"+ though because of the height of screen issue. |
|
| Author: | elbow=GCHQ= [ Tue Sep 18, 2007 12:56 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Hmm, CRT or TFT? |
Diablo-X =GCHQ= wrote: The CRT is much better for gaming, and also none of the dead pixel crap, so why are they becoming obsolete? I
man...what decade are you in
|
|
| Author: | Apocalypse [ Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
CRTs have better display, colour, no dead pixels, no contrast issues. but... CRTs use 3 or 4 times the electricity, they're bigger/take up more space, they're heavier. They're are not exactly enviroment friendly. (radiation, lead) flatscreens are brighter, better for your eyes (or so they say), no flickering, no glare or shine on a flatscreen. |
|
| Author: | Diablo-X [ Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:27 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Apocalypse=GCHQ= wrote: CRTs have better display, colour, no dead pixels, no contrast issues.
but... CRTs use 3 or 4 times the electricity, they're bigger/take up more space, they're heavier. They're are not exactly enviroment friendly. (radiation, lead) flatscreens are brighter, better for your eyes (or so they say), no flickering, no glare or shine on a flatscreen. Thanks, I guess TFT is the way to go, and the flickering thing does feck up my eyes on my CRT atm  .
|
|
| Author: | Chadk [ Tue Sep 18, 2007 6:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
TFT is so much yesterday.
Get a TFT. The bigger size, the worse quality in regards to field of view, colours, etc. etc. |
|
| Author: | Bodopo [ Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Chadk=GCHQ= wrote: TFT is so much yesterday.
Get a TFT. The bigger size, the worse quality in regards to field of view, colours, etc. etc. yeh if you buy a cheap naffy one, the only way to find one that looks good is have a look at it, people's eyes work differantly so what you might think is amazing i might think is complete pooh and visa versa. Look for a high resolution (cant define high resolution - the bigger the screen the higher the res) with a nice colour definition, bright is good but also you want some nice blacks. to test this simple turn the screen off, a nice solid black is what you want. i dont know any better to explain it sorry 
|
|
| Author: | elbow=GCHQ= [ Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:58 am ] |
| Post subject: | |
Ignore refresh rate - if its single figures its fine, 12 is acceptable too, though not desirable....contrast ration of at least 700:1 and brightness of 300-350cd/m^2...as for colour quality you'll have to check review sites. |
|
| Author: | Disco_jim [ Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
I got a Dell 24" widescreen and its one of the better purchases I've made in recent years. Because its widescreen its only as high as a 19" 'square' monitor but that it big enough for me. How much are you thinking of spending? |
|
| Author: | Diablo-X [ Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Disco_jim wrote: I got a Dell 24" widescreen and its one of the better purchases I've made in recent years. Because its widescreen its only as high as a 19" 'square' monitor but that it big enough for me.
How much are you thinking of spending? Around £100 ish. |
|
| Author: | Diablo-X [ Tue Sep 18, 2007 1:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
elbow=GCHQ= wrote: Ignore refresh rate - if its single figures its fine, 12 is acceptable too, though not desirable....contrast ration of at least 700:1 and brightness of 300-350cd/m^2...as for colour quality you'll have to check review sites.
Like this? http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/128714/rb/0 Or this one looks hardcore http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/132511 |
|
| Author: | elbow=GCHQ= [ Tue Sep 18, 2007 2:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | |
Diablo-X =GCHQ= wrote: elbow=GCHQ= wrote: Ignore refresh rate - if its single figures its fine, 12 is acceptable too, though not desirable....contrast ration of at least 700:1 and brightness of 300-350cd/m^2...as for colour quality you'll have to check review sites. Like this? http://www.ebuyer.com/UK/product/128714/rb/0 the specs read good - read the reviews first though (haven't read them myself) |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ | |