Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Crysis is best played with a CRT monitor.

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 1, 2008 5:01:59 PM

I have a CRT monitor and 8800GTS 640MB.I play crysis in high settings at 10x7 with "4xsuper sampling".It gives me very good performance and it looks better than 1280x960 with 2xMSAA.And it performs better than 12x9 with 2x normall AA.The trees look "almost jaggieless" while in motion.It looks vastly superior to 1280x960 with 2xAA.Super sampling in that res just kills the performance.

And thankz again to a CRT monitor i can play crysis quite well in DX9 very high at 10x7 with 2x supersampling.2xSSAA in 10x7 brings a very slight performance decrease and without super sampling the trees look really bad in 10x7 especially in very high.Perhaps 8800GTX could have allowed me 4xSSAA in very high but my card runs out of breath with that setting.

I think people are missing out by playing crysis on LCD's.
April 1, 2008 5:31:59 PM

Crysis is the only game that needs to be played at such low resolutions to keep the IQ up. Every other game runs fine at my 22" lcd's native res with the 8800gt. Im not willing to put my old crt up at 1280x1024 just to play Crysis on a 17" screen.
Related resources
April 1, 2008 5:34:23 PM

My desk definitely isn't missing the big bulky CRT. Then of course there are other games that look awsome at high widescreen resolution (Oblivion with everything maxed and HDR @ 1680x1050 for example).
April 1, 2008 5:53:05 PM

10x7 seems like an awfully high resolution. I might try a lower res wide screen mode like 64x1 which has 6 fewer pixels, never suffers from jaggies, and is much easier to anti-alias.
April 1, 2008 5:56:17 PM

I play at 16x10 on high in dx10 with the same card. It looks much much better in dx10 than it does in dx9. I have no hiccups or distortions of any kind and get good frame rates.

I had a crt and now have an lcd. I ain't looking back. You should buy one You should also pick up a copy of vista so you can see the difference for yourself.
April 1, 2008 6:28:09 PM

Yes, but can you notice a difference between LCD and CRT when you are playing with yourself?
April 1, 2008 6:29:33 PM

You dont have a buy a small screen.You can buy a 21" CRT monitor.So you can do high resolution gaming when you have the horsepower to.My 17" CRT can do 1600x1200 at 75hz but i am not asking anyone to play on a small screen if they dont want to.

And i did try 8x6 with 8xSSAA but it just looks garbage so 10x7 is the lowest you wanna go.

And i am running dual boot and no in DX10 it doesnt look any better in high settings.Very high does look a bit better but the performance is unplayable.

And crysis is certainly not the only game.Dirt also runs like poo and lowering resolution helps especially in a racing game maintaining fps is critical.
April 1, 2008 6:31:39 PM

deuce271 said:
Yes, but can you notice a difference between LCD and CRT when you are playing with yourself?
??
April 1, 2008 7:23:58 PM

deuce271 said:
Yes, but can you notice a difference between LCD and CRT when you are playing with yourself?
rofl ...
April 1, 2008 7:45:52 PM

LOL!!!!!

Playing crysis on a small monitor. Great solution.

This is like lowering SAT scores so all of the stupid kids in America can get passing grades.
April 1, 2008 8:07:43 PM

This is awesome...
April 1, 2008 8:15:08 PM

Too bad I didn't know you a few years ago, I would have given you 3 great CRTs that I couldn't literally give away. I had to beg people to take them, let alone get any money for them. I currently have an LG L227WTG that I will put up against just about anything. It's the first monitor that a CRT has nothing on. I run crysis at 1440x900 and it looks great.
Anonymous
April 1, 2008 8:16:24 PM

amazing post OP
April 1, 2008 8:27:16 PM

I personally play Crysis on a 24 inches LCD @ native 1920*1200, and it look totally awesome. I only get around 20fps, but never get a lag, and no headaches neither. Whay in hell would I want to go back to my old 19" CRT?

I agree that I'll keep the game installed for next year with my future VPU. But there is no way it look as good @ 1024*768 as it does at full HD, even tough not with AA. At that resolution there is no jaggies at all, believe me.

My 2 cents!
April 1, 2008 8:30:03 PM

Thinker_145 said:
You dont have a buy a small screen.You can buy a 21" CRT monitor.So you can do high resolution gaming when you have the horsepower to.My 17" CRT can do 1600x1200 at 75hz but i am not asking anyone to play on a small screen if they dont want to.

And i did try 8x6 with 8xSSAA but it just looks garbage so 10x7 is the lowest you wanna go.

And i am running dual boot and no in DX10 it doesnt look any better in high settings.Very high does look a bit better but the performance is unplayable.

And crysis is certainly not the only game.Dirt also runs like poo and lowering resolution helps especially in a racing game maintaining fps is critical.


My 21" does 1600x1200@87hz

Ive yet to find a game that looks better on LCD than on my CRT's. Ive tried Crysis (DX9 and 10)and oblivion and lotro (dx9 and 10) on a samsung 206bw and a 0.20 dot pitch 19" crt and a 0.24 dot pitch trinitron 21" screen. Both the CRT's are capable of gaming at 2048x1536 at 60hz and 75hz respectively The trinitron screen has by far the best colour of the three followed by the 19" followed by the samsung, the trinitron screen though I find the dot pitch annoying, the 19" CRT with the 0.20 with 4xaa makes jaggies completely a thing of the past. Literally invisible to the eye! With nvidia digital vibrancy turned up the 19" crt can put out a very respectable colour range, just never quite matching the contrast of the trinitron. The ability to scale my resolution to match the games requirements is great, whilst many games I play at 2048x1536 I can play with resolution all I want to get the performance I want out of games with the right level of eye candy.

The samsung LCD is a decent enough monitor viewing angle isues aside, but it can never compete with the lower dot pitch, better colour, better scaling CRT's I have here. I find the pixel size of the samsung lcd fairly hideous compared to my CRT's and it does spoil the experience for me. Unfortunately the CRT's are not getting any younger and Ive lost one of the 19" screens already this year, and my trinitron screen seems to have some slight discolouration in one corner of the screen etc etc, Its next to impossible to find replacement new CRT's these days. I foresee a future with LCD's for me but not willingly :( , hence I tried the samsung LCD and was dissapointed :(  (I also use sony and sharp LCD screens for windows work - they are well suited to that but horrible to game on)

Old high end CRT's still have the best of image quality out there in my opinion and the best flexibility, they use more power and take up more desk space, but thats something Im quite prepared to live with for the better picture. High end CRT's should not be confused with the cheap CRT's that abounded for many years any more than the best of todays screens should be assumed to perform the same as the worst.
April 1, 2008 9:08:22 PM

cisco said:
Too bad I didn't know you a few years ago, I would have given you 3 great CRTs that I couldn't literally give away. I had to beg people to take them, let alone get any money for them. I currently have an LG L227WTG that I will put up against just about anything. It's the first monitor that a CRT has nothing on. I run crysis at 1440x900 and it looks great.



I've seen so many dirt cheap and free CRTs on craigslist, probably 2-3 day for Ann Arbor MI. There was even a guy selling two top of the line 21" CRTs for $40 a piece, and he probably had trouble off loading them. My first LCD was a used 17" samsung and it was head and shoulders above the 17" Sony Trinitron I was using, and I think LCDs are great for gaming too.
April 1, 2008 9:28:52 PM

The only real advantage that LCD's have over CRT's is that they are much easier on the eyes.

But really i run 100Hz and 85Hz while gaming and i dont get any stains most of the time.
April 1, 2008 10:04:34 PM

Really? Thats the only reason you can think of? How about not having an 80lb monitor taking up a 3 ft square area on your desk. Or worse, 2 of them. I have a 24" widescreen lcd and a 19" lcd and I can't imagine having to go back. My 8800 gt runs crysis perfectly on almost all high settings at 1920 x 1200. There is really no downside.

If you don't want to spend the money on an LCD, thats fine, but don't pretend that LCDs aren't better in pretty much every way that matters.
April 1, 2008 11:30:43 PM

Oh yes I prefer the built in speakers on my monitor cuz you know they save space and yes i prefer my laptop anyday over my desktop.Oh wait......

What's stoping you from buying a new desk or what's stoping you from buying a new table for your keyboard and mouse like i did.Or maybe you can just buy a stand for your monitor.Ever thought about that?

Seriously this space saving thing is a joke.Now if you dont live in your own house and are in college or something then that's fine but for the majority it really isnt a problem if they give it a thought.

And i am sorry but 8800GT playing crysis at 19x12.Lol 8800GT is not good enough for that res for other more demanding games let alone crysis.
April 2, 2008 2:33:05 AM

I'll keep my 28" LCD, thanks.
April 2, 2008 3:00:58 AM

Heyyou27 said:
I'll keep my 28" LCD, thanks.


Seconded.

Proper calibration of an lcd helps as well. I love the real esate my 28" gives me, gives immersive a new benchmark.
April 2, 2008 3:44:34 AM

Thinker_145 said:
Oh yes I prefer the built in speakers on my monitor cuz you know they save space and yes i prefer my laptop anyday over my desktop.Oh wait......

What's stoping you from buying a new desk or what's stoping you from buying a new table for your keyboard and mouse like i did.Or maybe you can just buy a stand for your monitor.Ever thought about that?

Seriously this space saving thing is a joke.Now if you dont live in your own house and are in college or something then that's fine but for the majority it really isnt a problem if they give it a thought.

And i am sorry but 8800GT playing crysis at 19x12.Lol 8800GT is not good enough for that res for other more demanding games let alone crysis.


You make me laugh! Give it up. A new desk for your keyboard and mouse, maybe they should just get a bigger house to make room for their 21" CRT. :pt1cable:  Saving space is good for everyone. No one wants two desktops for their computer set up. Just because you think CRTs are awesome and that 8800gt can't play games at 19x12 doesn't make it true. I've never met one person who wanted to go back to a CRT once they got a LCD. Next you're going to say that a 25" CRT tv is much better than having a 42" Hi-def tv.
April 2, 2008 4:08:32 AM

It all depends on what you are willing to settle for...and the reasons you bought it. And talking CRT versus LCD is a waste of breath until you start talking about Shadow Mask / Aperture Grille with CRT's and TN versus other LCD panel types. TN is "bottom of the barrel" on professional level LCD's and you won't see anyone whose livelihood depends upon accurate color reproduction using one. But 99% of all gamers are using TN LCD's. That's why the Displaymate chart is useful....well it's useful as long as picking the best type for your usage is what is really important.

I do much of my "draft" work on a 1920 x 1200 LCD , but when I do my final color adjustments for my work, I look at it on a CRT. A $500-$600 LCD 28" will pale along side a hi end CRT. Spend the cash for a $2k - $5k+ 30 bit color LCD from Eizo and now you can get close to a $1-2k CRT but it's response time won't be all that impressive for gaming. The CRT OTOH will be a fine gamer as well.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000I8QEWW/ref=nosim/?tag=pric...
http://www.pcnation.com/web/details.asp?affid=306&item=...

With CRT's you had to pick between Shadow Mask for sharp text and clean lines in vector based graphics versus aperture grille for color production. With LCD's, the problem is that what is good for accurate graphics work is generally poor for gaming. S-PVA panels are now beginning to offer nice compromise between the two but it is still a compromise. The gamer takes home the LCD monitor the local graphics / photo joint uses and he'll hate it for it's response time.

And personally, I find 28" too big for the desktop. At 1920 x 1200 I have to sit too far back from the screen than I am comfortable doing....otherwise I find the grainyness and dot pitch too annoying. Being able to see the individual pixels is distracting. Given a choice between a 22" 1920 x 1200 and a 24, 26, 28, 30" of same resolution, I'd take the 22" every time. All other things being equal, the image will ba sharper and clearer on the smaller screen with less jaggies and graininess.
April 2, 2008 4:42:28 AM

This thread is lunacy
April 2, 2008 6:08:05 AM

^Seconded

(Btw OP: you can stop by at my place and pick up my old 2 ton Sony 22" CRT monitor; back in the time when the millennium was still young it was sait that it was quite a treat...)
April 2, 2008 6:38:29 AM

<only uses a CRT when he is fixing systems. Other than that, is happy his new 26" LCD takes up less desk space than his old 17" CRT but offers way more work space.
April 2, 2008 7:46:45 AM

lol amazing OP...

i was having a crappy day till i read this x) cheers!
April 2, 2008 7:56:17 AM

Crysis is one game/application/Digital image dispalyed by a magic box that looks better on a crt disply. I see people argue about crt vs lcd all the time. It's not an something that is open to opinion. CRTs have better image quality. LCDs do not currently hold a candle to them. I was opposed to getting a LCD for years for that very reason despite wanting a WS monitor. Also up until the past year or so anything beyond a 1280x1024 or 1440x900 LCD cost in excess of $600.

Finally this past november i splurged on a birthday present to myself and got a 1920x1200 24inch Soyo LCD for $300. But as i do 3D modeling and animation along with Adobe PS work i still keep my monsterous, back breaking CRTs around.

Two 22inch Flat Screen Sun Workstation monitors and a 21inch Compaq Qvision 210 which has the old but wonderfully useful BNC connectors. Despite all of them being rated at 1600x1200 RR, i can get the Sun montiors up to 2560x1920 @ 60hz and the compaq can squeeze out 2560x1600 though i keep it 2048x1536 @ 85hz.

It should really be simple in realizing why CRTs would have better image quality....they have dynamic resolution settings. LCDs are limited to what ever their marketed resolution is, that is physically how many pixels exist in the screen, hence why if you have a 1600x1200 LCD you can not increase the resolution beyond that....well you can but it does the annoying crap where the desktop is bigger then the displayed image and you have to scroll around to see everything. By the same standard, if you set your 1600x1200 LCD to a smaller resoluton, it is emulated. It's still 1600x1200 pixels, it's just acting like it's zoomed in on a smaller portion of the screen.

CRTs have better color vibrance, and higher contrast, LCDs are catching up but not anywhere near as close. LCDs are however a clearer display. They're great for things like programming, drafting as the previous poster said, and watching HD video. Basically anything that requires you to look at text, or plot out dimensions for long periods of time, anything that isn't effected by the screen only refreshing 30-60 times a seccond and doesn't matter if it takes 5-20ms for the screen to respond some times.

It's great having a high resoltion LCD that only wieghs 12lbs. But i'm still a long way off from getting rid of my 89lb sun monitors or my 70lb Compaq =D
April 2, 2008 10:32:59 PM

Always love these pointless debates... everyone should know that CRTs are better than LCDs when it comes to quality... but we make sacrifices for size and weight....

The same thing with laptops vs desktops... yes, we all know the best laptop can't hold a candle to the best desktops, but the are SMALLER!!

The difference is, research into improving CRT displays is virtually nonexistant, as everyone is either working on LCDs or Plasmas - much higher profit margins.

So eventually, LCDs actually have a chance to surpass CRTs... hasn't happened yet - but here's hoping :) 
April 3, 2008 12:01:54 AM

predatorgsr said:
Really? Thats the only reason you can think of? How about not having an 80lb monitor taking up a 3 ft square area on your desk.


I don't live in a dorm or my parents' basement, why would I care once it's in place? And I use computers, I don't need 'desk space' for other things, mouse/rollerball, keyboard, coffe cup / beer holder and I'm good to go.

Quote:
If you don't want to spend the money on an LCD, thats fine, but don't pretend that LCDs aren't better in pretty much every way that matters.


What like image quality w/ colour/gamma scaling and refresh rate and resolution scaling? All of which are game-centric features. Light and Thin aren't features that equal better gaming.

Seriously unless that's an HDR panel you're pushing it's not going to be getting close to any big Trinitrons or Diamondtrons.

Some people prefer LCDs and that's fine, but no reason to get all ignorant and pretend your comfortable Lexus has the same features as a Porsche or big Bulky Lambo. Of course if you're rocking that HDR Buggatti then maybe I'd say the "better in every way that matters" would apply to that select few.

PS, if anyone has a nice 'old' 24" WS Trinitron around that they're 'upgrading' to an LCD, I'd be more than happy to take it off your hands, like iOCm I prefer a solid CRT to check my photo/video work.
April 3, 2008 2:05:44 AM

predatorgsr said:
If you don't want to spend the money on an LCD, thats fine, but don't pretend that LCDs aren't better in pretty much every way that matters.


Matters to who ?

A 15 year old out to impress his friends ?
A high power exec ?
An avid gamer ?
A guy who makes a living in photoshop ?
A business dude who prepares financial reports all day ?

Why can't the answer just be that you choose the monitor which works best in your situation ? Like most things, there is no best for every situation

Displaymate makes the software which is used to test / calibrate every monitor that exists. Here's their take.

http://www.displaymate.com/crtvslcd.html

CRT wins in 11 categories. LCD wins in 5

LCD Weaknesses:

-Each panel has a fixed pixel resolution format determined at the time of manufacturer that can not be changed. All other resolutions require rescaling, which generally results in significant image degradation, particularly for fine text and graphics.
- Have a fixed resolution and aspect ratio. For panels with a resolution of 1280x1024, the screen aspect ratio is 5:4=1.25 which is noticeably smaller than the 4:3=1.33 aspect ratio for almost all other standard display modes. For some applications may require switching to a letterboxed 1280x960, which has a 4:3 aspect ratio.
- Have difficulty producing black and very dark grays. Not suitable for use in dimly lit and dark environments.
- Bright-end of the intensity scale is easily overloaded, which leads to saturation and compression. When this happens the maximum brightness occurs before reaching the peak of the gray-scale or the brightness increases slowly near the maximum. Requires careful adjustment of the Contrast control.
- Lower contrast than CRTs due to a poor black-level. Don't believe the published contrast ratios. Real world operational values are substantially lower.
- Have an irregular intensity scale and typically produce fewer than 256 discrete intensity levels. For some LCDs (read "just about every TN type" ) portions of the gray-scale may be dithered.
- The internal Gamma of the panel is very irregular. Special circuitry attempts to fix it, often with only limited success. Affects the accuracy of the gray-scale and color mixtures.
- Pleasing images but not accurate because of problems with black-level, gray-scale and Gamma. Reduced color saturation at low intensity levels due to a poor black-level. Generally not suitable for professional image color balancing.
- Limited viewing angle. Brightness, contrast, gamma and color mixtures vary with the viewing angle. Can lead to contrast and color reversal at large angles. Need to be viewed as close to straight ahead as possible.
- Slower response times and scan rate conversion result in severe motion artifacts and image degradation for moving or rapidly changing images.
- Considerably more expensive than comparable CRTs.

CRT Weaknesses:

- The CRT beam produces images with softer edges that are not as sharp as an LCD at its native resolution. Imperfect focus and color registration also reduce sharpness. Generally sharper than LCDs at other than native resolutions.
- Subject to geometric distortion. Most CRTs have user controls that can reduce or eliminate the distortion. The more controls available the less distortion you're likely to see.
-Relatively bright but not as bright as LCDs. Not suitable for very brightly lit environments.
- Give off electric, magnetic and electromagnetic fields. There is considerable controversy as to whether any of these pose a health hazard, particularly magnetic fields. The most authoritative scientific studies conclude that they are not harmful but some people remain unconvinced.
-Large, heavy and bulky. Consume a lot of electricity and produce a lot of heat.

Personally, I use a laptop for everyday convenience but we have 3 desktop LCD's, 3 laptops w/ LCD'sand 2 CRT's. The LCD's are great for draft and every day prep working, but if there's any colors involved such as in a report, all final graphical editing is done on a CRT as it far more closely matches printed output than the LCD's do. The LCD I'm using was $1,000, one CRT (Eizo) was $1,100 and one CRT (Eizo) was just under $2,000. I'm not about to go out and buy a $5,000 Eizo LCD to replace it so I can come close to the color reproduction on the CRT.

If I spend 80 hours preparing a report or a set of CAD plans for a building, I'm quite happy to use the LCD for the first 78 hours.....but my final editing, formatting and "color work" gets done on the CRT. For example I was doing a site plan for a 9,000 sq.ft house on the ocean in "The Hamptons" last week. I wanted to show "water" in two different shades to distinguish ponds from pools. Working on my LCD I went for a blue and a more coral like blue. The latter came out more green than blue when printed. The other part of it is that depending on where the body of water was on the screen, they all looked different shades as on LCD's color changes with viewing angle.

I do find one non tangible aspect of LCD's tho that doesn't appear in any list.....their smaller bezels do give a better feeling of "immersion" as I will generally sit closer and the edges are almost outside the field of vision. Then again, maybe if I painted the CRT cases black, it wouldn't be as noticeable.

The footprint bit I don't really understand. Unless you are using a wall mounted monitor both actually take up the same amount of "usable" desk space. I don't get any use out of the empty space behind my LCD's and width's are comparable. All of our puters are on desk "returns" (the skinnier part of an L shaped desk) and they are only 18" deep.
April 3, 2008 2:23:49 AM

Have to disagree bud, i can play crysis at 1680 x1050 on an LCD and it looks much better than 1024 x768 with 4xaa on a CRT, and BTW this is your opinion so it might piss people off if u state "Crysis is best played with a CRT monitor"
Also have to disagree with the post above me, dont get me wrong, CRT's have their advantages but games just look much better on a 16:10 wide screen at 1680 x1050 or 1920 x 1200. Also yes its true that LCD's suffer from some response time issues, however good models have virtually no motion blurring of any kind. Also having wide screen also gives you an advantage because you can see more of whats going on at once, this is well worth any disadvantages
April 3, 2008 2:52:29 AM

Everyone has seen your pictures of your pc setup 100 times already soldier
April 3, 2008 3:17:05 AM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
Some people prefer LCDs and that's fine, but no reason to get all ignorant and pretend your comfortable Lexus has the same features as a Porsche or big Bulky Lambo. Of course if you're rocking that HDR Buggatti then maybe I'd say the "better in every way that matters" would apply to that select few.

My 19" Trinitron looks like total crap. It's bluish in the top left and redish in the top right. I much prefer the look (particularly colour vibrancy) of my dads NEC 20WGX2. I'd still rather use this 20kg beast though, the resolution scaling suits my x1950 pro nicely.
vip3569 said:
Everyone has seen your pictures of your pc setup 100 times already soldier

No joke! :lol: 
April 3, 2008 3:53:39 AM

LOLLLLL!!!

i love ur signature randomizer x) where is thunderman? i haven't seen him flame Intel for awhile... :T i'm starting to get sad :( 
April 3, 2008 7:15:06 AM

papasmurf211 said:

Also have to disagree with the post above me, dont get me wrong, CRT's have their advantages but games just look much better on a 16:10 wide screen at 1680 x1050 or 1920 x 1200... Also having wide screen also gives you an advantage because you can see more of whats going on at once, this is well worth any disadvantages


OK, but still then the best monitor for gaming then would be;
http://www.microdata.odessa.ua/docs/SonyFW900.pdf
http://www.superwarehouse.com/Sony_FW900_FD_24_CRT_Moni...


24" Widescreen Sony Trinitron running at 1920x1200 @ 85hz, and you can up/lower res from there. :sol: 

Randomizer, yeah, if they die they die although I think if you turned of that giant magnet the blue/red tinge would go away. :kaola: 

My P260 at work is treated with kid gloves (full off every night) cause I don't want to give it up.

We have a few of those Sonys in the Geomatics lab and I just wish I could 'borrow' one. :whistle: 
April 3, 2008 7:32:48 AM

Quote:
CRTs LOL Thats so 1999. Step up to the real world, 24" LCD or better and 1080p with Blu Ray... CRTs had their time.


I have a BluRay/HD-DVD players and a 30" CRT HDTV in the bedroom (had a 34" Tosh before getting the Projector in the living room), and I doubt Blade Runner looks better on that muddy LCD than on the nice true black CRT. Now a Pioneer Kuro... that's another story. :sol: 

And there's no way your LCD would come close to competing with the image on that 24" Sony above running true 1080P at 72hz - 24p synced.

BTW, what do you do with 1080P content, stretch your image on that thing or run with black bars?
B-E-A-Utiful. [:mousemonkey:1]
April 3, 2008 12:38:35 PM

papasmurf211 said:
Have to disagree bud, i can play crysis at 1680 x1050 on an LCD and it looks much better than 1024 x768 with 4xaa on a CRT, and BTW this is your opinion so it might piss people off if u state "Crysis is best played with a CRT monitor"
Also have to disagree with the post above me, dont get me wrong, CRT's have their advantages but games just look much better on a 16:10 wide screen at 1680 x1050 or 1920 x 1200. Also yes its true that LCD's suffer from some response time issues, however good models have virtually no motion blurring of any kind. Also having wide screen also gives you an advantage because you can see more of whats going on at once, this is well worth any disadvantages
Have you played crysis on a CRT at 10x7 with 4xsuper sampling and NOT normall AA.

On my CRT things look better at 10x7 with 4XSSAA instead of 16x12 with no AA.The performance difference betweem the 2 is not even funny.16x12 with 2xAA looks better than my settings but not with no AA.
April 3, 2008 12:43:35 PM

TheGreatGrapeApe said:
I have a BluRay/HD-DVD players and a 30" CRT HDTV in the bedroom (had a 34" Tosh before getting the Projector in the living room), and I doubt Blade Runner looks better on that muddy LCD than on the nice true black CRT. Now a Pioneer Kuro... that's another story. :sol: 

And there's no way your LCD would come close to competing with the image on that 24" Sony above running true 1080P at 72hz - 24p synced.

BTW, what do you do with 1080P content, stretch your image on that thing or run with black bars?
B-E-A-Utiful. [:mousemonkey:1]
Lol PWNED.
April 4, 2008 4:06:58 PM

As Jessie Venturer said in Predator "I ain't got time to bleed", I ain't got time to be lookin for jaggies on trees in any FPS :sol: 
April 20, 2008 12:32:45 AM

Plasma anyone? 42" Panny 1080P here.

I play Crysis at 1600x900 using setting 4 on that mod (forgot the name, comes with TOD change and all. 5 different levels of quality). Frame rate was tolerable to good (floating area ran really well). Haven't tried it with SLI yet.

Maybe I should trade back for my dual 22" trinitron's. No, because that would be stupid!!!!!!

Screw Crysis anyway, it's not efficient.

Come over and play Audiosurf with Premium graphics, 4xAA @ 1920x1080 or Lost Planet DX10 all settings maxed except shadows at med. 1440x900 (that's before SLI too. Res will be higher shortly). COD4 will be @1080P next time I play it too.

Maybe you'd rather stay home with your cute little CRT!
April 22, 2008 2:33:25 PM

I bought two of those FW900 a while back. Someone had a whole pallet of them that they got from some business that went under. I couldn't tell you how Crysis looks on them though as it just seems like another crappy FPS game that isn't good for much aside from benchmarking.

Awesome monitors, but they weigh upwards of 100 lbs. Everyone should have at least two for LAN parties :p 
April 22, 2008 2:50:14 PM

I'll never go back to CRT on the fact that LCD's don't give me eye-strain/headaches. Not only that they use less energy which is a plus since going green in the thing.
April 22, 2008 2:59:53 PM

wait till thunderman gets back.anywaywhat type of contribution do you think you are giving the the earth?did you know lcds are more green than crts?please ,dont be selfish and soo selfcontributing.think of our one and only planet.
April 22, 2008 4:03:22 PM

area61 said:
wait till thunderman gets back.anywaywhat type of contribution do you think you are giving the the earth?did you know lcds are more green than crts?please ,dont be selfish and soo selfcontributing.think of our one and only planet.


Not that I am opposed to using LCDs or changing to an LCD to save energy, but what happens to your CRT when you get your new LCD? Don't forget the impact of disposing of old electronics. Fortunately, there are many electronic recyclers popping up (at least in my area) so cheap or free "proper" disposal is easy to find.
April 22, 2008 4:06:25 PM

Funny, its earth day too.
!