..for ns- and do you like it?

I'm debating between getting a 2ms LCD, or sticking with CRT's. I can't imagine there's any ghosting left at 2ms but I guess it's possible. People who have actually *used* one might know better.

For LCD's I haven't really got a good one in mind, so please advise.

For CRT's I was looking at IBM's P275, or Sony's GDM-FW900 - both are discontinued, so they'd be a pain to find, but they both looked pretty good. Maybe there's an easier one to come by now that's as good?

Also, I heard that glare guards are only needed to reduce eyestrain on CRT's, but I also heard that glare guards don't do anything except reduce brightness, and that you can accomplish the same reduction in eyestrain by turning your brightness slightly down. Anyone know anything about this?

Thanks for your time.

I would get a new LCD but the ones with the gaming-recommended technology have bad viewing angles which is a huge pet peeve of mine. I'll probably just get one with the nice looking tech and use my old CRT for gaming if the lag is as bad as they say.

I've been gaming using LCD screens for years, ghosting has never been a problem for me. Anything below 15ms is supposed to look smooth and anything under 10ms definitely will. 2ms? the manufacturers are just showing off. That said I have seen ghosting on one particularly cheap an nasty model, even though it claimed to have a respectable refresh rate. Beware of cheap trash. Try it out in-store if in doubt (and then buy cheaply online).

I'm running 3 LCD screens at the moment, a pair of LG 1720B's and a Belinea 21" widescreen. One screen for the start bar, desktop icons and IM, one for coding, web surfing and the big one for gaming, graphics and movies.

I would buy LG again, the Belinea was a bit more awkward to set up (although that could have just been the widescreen format).

Get an LCD. You gain desk space, the image is sharper and it doesn't fry your eyes. Just make sure not to take any old screen. Check reviews, low latency doesn't mean it's a good screen. Often, bad screens have bad color fidelity, or the lighting isn't the same everywhere on screen. if it matters to you, the side view can be important (this is especially true on large screens, but overall this means that people sitting next to you will see a degraded image)

A problem with LCD screens is that you usually want to stick with native resolution, or the image quality is often reduced (it's very true on my screen, but it's already a couple of years old, so that might not be true anymore..?)
Which means that a large screen means large graphic card if you want to play recent games.


People who see ghosting on recent LCD's are the same people who hear the difference between a 320kbps and 256kbps mp3 file while listening on their stock earphones in a noisy subway. That means that regular humans won't feel the difference.

depends what you are after

CRT
- colours and contrast on a nice CRT cant be beated by lcd's, unless you go for an lcd/plasma tv($$$$)
- if your crt can do 100-120hz refresh rate then you are set, its amazingly smooth. again lcd's can't do that unless your getting a lcd/plasma tv that does 100hz. WHile even 8-2ms LCD monitor does no create any noticable ghosting, it doesn't feel as smooth when you are looking around or scrolling in a game, or even moving a window around in windows. on a crt or expensive tv you can clearly read everything in the window while moving it about, where as lcd you can't, it appears blurry.
If you are really competetive in your fps, then it really helps your aim. (provided you have a smooth frame rate to match the resfresh rate)

of course if you can get a crt anywhere i'd be suprised, don't get a 2nd hand one, colours and contrast will be dead.

LCD
-nice and small and usually have usb ports and other accesories on them if that floats your boat.
-the image clarity and sharpness in the native resolution is amazing. however be aware that if you can't run your games playably at the native resolution which is usually pretty high these days, then your going to have to run them in a lower res, which is IMO lcd's biggest down fall - everything on in native res, becomes incredibly blurry.



of course if you are get an lcd/plasma tv you have the best of both worlds, pefectly crisp image, smooth, fluid images and panning, high res,excellent contrast and colour. only problem is they cost way too much.

Why not wait until NS2 comes out? monitors will be bigger and cheaper, and apparantly OLED and Flat CRT's should be on the market in 6-12 months time. Which have all of the benefits of expensive tv's.

But if you really have to, then i'd go with something like a 19-24" widescreen LCD, with a low 2ms refresh rate. If you aren't a podantic or competetive gamer(for smoothness), then you won't look back. I'd stick to brands like Samsung, or BenQ, but as suggested above, have a look instore, and then check some reviews before buying and of course we'll need a photo of what you bought to satisfy our inner consumers

Thank you, Chrome Angel, for answering the question in the topic of the thread.

To the others, I've done the research, I don't really need you to google for me, but thanks anyway.

ok remind me not to waste 15 minutes of my time giving out free advice then........ didnt use google anyway, was talking about personal experience.

Are you looking for pretty much the largest possible CRT size and refresh rates?
Have you tried craigslist? I've seen several times now people giving away CRT monitors, including the pretty good Sony ones.

Personally, I still use an old stock 19'' 75Hz CRT - have used it throughout my ns days, always complained about my computer components over my monitor. A new LCD monitor is probably in order for ns2, if I still play games at that time. There was a point where ghosting was a real issue.. these days it seems to be more about dead pixels and repetitive exchange loops (at the store). Anything 6ms and lower in response time should be more than sufficient for gaming purposes. What size are you looking for?

I swear by CRT. I have a 19" ViewSonic studio CRT monitor. Its native resolution is 1600x1200 at 75 hertz though can to 85 hertz. The main thing with CRTs is make sure that you can run at 70 hertz or better or they are bad for your eyes. Thats not really an issue these days and if its a flat screen you can almost be cretin that it runs at 75 native. Yes, they do take up more table space but they produce a much better picture at a higher refresh rate then any LCD that I have ever seen.

I have a Samsung 226BW, 2 ms response time. In terms of ghosting, reaction speed, etc, CRT definitely is still superior. LCDs are inherently inferior to CRTs for FPSes, because the always-on nature makes the human eye perceive things as blurry. CRTs don't have this problem because the screen is actually blank the majority of the time, which allows your eye to "reset".

Oh, and not many CRTs are still being manufactured. Try Craigslist if you want one.

Sorry to offend you Schkorpio, it's just not what my post is about.



The links in the op should have been to an IBM 21" and a Sony 24" widescreen, so that's about the range I'm looking for. It seems that the largest glare filter you can get is 21", so I'll probably opt for that.

And yes, I've tried craigslist, but I was looking for that behemoth Sony at the time, maybe I'll give them another shot.



Interesting, I'd never heard that before.

You should really consider reviews made by professional websites rather than customers. Most customers just buy a screen, unpack it and plug it in, then find the pictures pretty and give it a thumb up. Normal people don't have the whole bench of tests to tell you precisely how a screen compares to others in the same category. I can't test colorimetry, overdrive, vision angles, ghosting, as precisely as them. I can say "yeah the blues look blue, I can see the screen when I'm about a few feet left or right from my seat, and I can lower my head only about so much, and I can't notice any excessive blur in game" but I can't tell you how it compares to others in the same category.
If you want, I can tell you that I have some well-reviewed Belinea 22" screen at home and I'm really satisfied with it. In front of me I currently have a 19" CRT (Sony G420) which I'm not so satisfied because the image appears to be shimmering about (and yes I know how to set up a screen). But is that going to help you more than a benchmark comparing dozens of screens?


Underwhelmed, what exactly is this "eye resetting" you're talking about?

A CRT works by having three vacuum tubes (one per color) shooting electrons, which are deflected onto a grid and light up a grille, pixel by pixel. The deflecting mechanism makes the electron rays move around the screen really fast, but your retinal persistence allows you to see the image as a whole, while in fact the image is drawn dot by dot.
If you've ever used an oscilloscope, the principle is more or less the same. Use a large time period and you see a dot moving around. When you progressively diminish the period, you'll see the dot accelerating until it blurs into a line, while in fact it's still a dot moving across the screen.
This effect is BAD for your eye. This is especially true at low frequencies (you see your screen flickering) but also exists at high frequencies. This is because your eye hates looking at something which varies rapidly in luminosity.

An LCD works by having a grid of crystals open and close up, allowing more or less light (coming from a neon behind the screen) through. This means that the image changes as a whole each time it's refreshed (latency being the time crystals take to open or close after receiving an electrical impulse).
It's more or like how a real object changes, objects in every day life don't get drawn dot by dot; if you move something around, the previous status (object at place A/Image 1 appears) leaves place to the second status (object at place B/Image 2 appears)

If anything, the LCD method of display is more natural, the problem being that the crystals take so much damn time to change state.



A thing to consider is that most companies abandoned production of high end CRT's (as you've noticed) which means that they have more or less stopped evolving.