Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Which gives better picture? high resolution or CR?

Tags:
  • Flat Panel Monitors
  • Resolution
  • LCD Monitor
  • Monitors
  • Peripherals
Last response: in Computer Peripherals
Share
September 10, 2006 7:34:23 PM

if I buy a LCD monitor....which would give me a nicer more detailed picture? I use my monitor for playing games most of the time but I occasionally watch movies as well.

a) a high resolution monitor ex. 1600x1200 only 1000:1 contrast ratio
b) 1280x1024 resolution but 2000:1 contrast ratio (LG's DFC monitors)


please explain why....thanks!

Fred :D 

More about : picture high resolution

September 10, 2006 10:04:19 PM

Quote:
if I buy a LCD monitor....which would give me a nicer more detailed picture? I use my monitor for playing games most of the time but I occasionally watch movies as well.

a) a high resolution monitor ex. 1600x1200 only 1000:1 contrast ratio
b) 1280x1024 resolution but 2000:1 contrast ratio (LG's DFC monitors)


please explain why....thanks!

Fred :D 


Higher resolution... pixels are smaller so images should be sharper.

Today's declaration of CR specs are more marketing huff than reality. If you saw a 2000:1 CR next to a 700:1, you might not be able to tell the difference.

Typical movie theater during a film is about 500:1.
September 11, 2006 1:22:01 PM

please compare for me again.....

1. 19 inch: resolution = 1280x1024 ...CR ratio = 2000:1
2. 19 inch: resolution = 1600x1200 ...CR ratio = 800:1
3. 20.1 inch: resolution = 1600x1200 ...CR ratio = 800:1

Which would produce a more detailed image without making the game characters too small to see!?
Related resources
September 11, 2006 1:41:56 PM

Quote:
please compare for me again.....

1. 19 inch: resolution = 1280x1024 ...CR ratio = 2000:1
2. 19 inch: resolution = 1600x1200 ...CR ratio = 800:1
3. 20.1 inch: resolution = 1600x1200 ...CR ratio = 800:1

Which would produce a more detailed image without making the game characters too small to see!?


1. There is no such thing as "19 inch, 1600x1200" (Well almost. There once was a Planar model, but don't know if it's still made.)

2. Can't determine what would be "too small" for you. The pixels of UXGA vs SXGA are only 13% smaller.

3. 1600x1200 should almost always be sharper.

4. Can't tell about contrast ratios.... quality will depend upon type of panel. Also, manufacturers are being "creative" about how they rate CR.... they understand that consumers THINK "much higher CR = much better picture", and are selling that point. Generally speaking, definitely NOT true.

ANY amount of ambient lighting significantly reduces the CR you see. So, unless you plan to take your computer into a dark closet, you're unlikely to ever experience CR >500:1, regardless of manufacturer claims.

Suggest you view monitors in person if possible. If you have to buy sight unseen, suggest you go by reviews and hope for the best.

Also let me suggest... if your video card will display the modern widescreen resolutions*, and you appreciate the merits of the Brite screen, check out the NEC 20WMGX2. It is nothing short of FABULOUS! And if you end up going for a conventional 19", check out the NEC 90GX2. (And no, I don't work for NEC... these are just 2 KILLER gaming monitors!)

*If not, and you're going with widescreen, you'll have to get a new video card anyway.

Good luck,
September 11, 2006 6:49:45 PM

Quote:
Which would produce a more detailed image without making the game characters too small to see!?
The size of the characters is a function of the resolution you are running. If you run a higher resolution, text in Windows will certainly drop in size - you would need to pick a larger text mode.

A game could be similarly affected, depending on how it renders the scene - most games will simply put in more pixels for the same "frame", so you won't see a smaller character, but a more detailed one instead.

The problem in gaming is that with the higher resolution, you need a graphics card that can deliver sufficient frame rate to run smoothly at that resolution. If you don't you will have choppy gameplay. Or, if you reduce the resolution, you will simply be enlarging the image on the LCD, further making it look blocky and terrible. Unless you can run your game at the LCD's native resolution, I would go with a CRT, as you won't have these issues on that type of a screen.
September 13, 2006 5:16:37 PM

Between a 19 inch (1600x1200) and a 20.1 inch (1600x1200) ....which would look more "detailed"?
September 13, 2006 5:19:40 PM

Between a 20.1 inch LCD (resolution 1600x1200) and a 24 inch LCD (which has a higher native resolution) ...which would give a more "detailed/sharp" image for game playing ?
September 13, 2006 6:27:41 PM

Quote:
Between a 19 inch (1600x1200) and a 20.1 inch (1600x1200) ....which would look more "detailed"?


There is no such thing as a 19", 1600x1200.
September 13, 2006 7:44:21 PM

Quote:
Between a 20.1 inch LCD (resolution 1600x1200) and a 24 inch LCD (which has a higher native resolution) ...which would give a more "detailed/sharp" image for game playing ?


The 20.1" *should* provide sharper image because its pixels are .255 mm. The 24" has .270 mm pixels. But unless you've got a real eagle-eye, you probably won't see a significant difference in your games.
September 13, 2006 8:07:35 PM

Again, I ask - can you even run your game (which one?) at the native resolution at a decent framerate? If not, then your decision is already made for you.
September 16, 2006 5:03:16 PM

I'm planning to get the x1950xtx (single card). Game? NWN2 and C&C3. Do you think it this card can play those games with full eye candy at (1600x1200)?
September 16, 2006 5:18:14 PM

What is the smallest pixel size at the moment? (which size monitor?)

There aren't that many reviews about Philips monitors in English. Most are in French or something. What do you think about Philip LCD monitors? I'm using a Philips 190X at the moment. I've tried reading about this monitor from the internet but there aren't that many reviews on it.

Do you have any recommendations for 20.1 inch LCD monitors? Samsung, Viewsonic, Philips, LG, BenQ .....Which would you go for?
September 16, 2006 5:30:11 PM

Quote:
What is the smallest pixel size at the moment? (which size monitor?)

There aren't that many reviews about Philips monitors in English. Most are in French or something. What do you think about Philip LCD monitors? I'm using a Philips 190X at the moment. I've tried reading about this monitor from the internet but there aren't that many reviews on it.

Do you have any recommendations for 20.1 inch LCD monitors? Samsung, Viewsonic, Philips, LG, BenQ .....Which would you go for?


Smallest pixel in a desktop monitor is the .255mm of the UXGA, 1600x1200, 20.1".

Personally, I like NEC, Samsung, LG/Philips. The cheapest ones have a TN panel.. fast, so good for gamers. For better contrast/color, look for PVA or SIPS panels.. though a bit more expensive.

If cost is not a primay concern, check out the NEC 20WMGX2... it's a 20" widescreen, .258mm pixel, SIPS panel, Brite Screen.... it's FABULOUS for games.



Best to see in person before you buy, if possible.
September 20, 2006 1:47:30 PM

Thanks for the info.

Can I ask another question?

What's the difference between Philips and LG/Philips monitors? They aren't the same? BTW I'm using a Philips 190X (19 inch). Are LG/Philips monitors better? :oops: 
September 20, 2006 2:01:02 PM

Quote:
Thanks for the info.

Can I ask another question?

What's the difference between Philips and LG/Philips monitors? They aren't the same? BTW I'm using a Philips 190X (19 inch). Are LG/Philips monitors better? :oops: 


Philips is a Dutch company. LG, Korean (the former Gold Star). They have a merged division, LG/Philips to produce flat panels. I don't know if the companies are fully merged.

We can still find LG monitors and Philips, too... so your guess is a good as mine.

One thing that makes LG monitors desirable is the use of higher quality SIPS or PVA panels in some models (most today are TN).
October 16, 2006 5:59:38 PM

There is no such thing as a 19", 1600x1200.[/quote]


err....I just found this from the Alienware website. How come they have a 17-inch LCD that has a resolution of 1920x1200???

Alienware configuration

17" WideUXGA 1920 x 1200 LCD with Clearview Technology [+$200 or $6/mo.]
Saucer Silver
Conspiracy Blue
Cyborg Green

???? :?
October 16, 2006 6:22:30 PM

That's in a laptop screen, not a 19" desktop. And the text on the laptop is going to be tiny,tiny, @ max resolution.

Pixels also have to be tiny, so graphics resolution should be superior.

For a 19" to be 1600x1200, it would require a panel with a specifically smaller pixel size... not currently made.... or at least not currently being put into 19" frames.
October 17, 2006 7:31:49 PM

"What if"....there was a 19" 1600x1200 LCD monitor.....would it look good? I mean, in your opinion, would that be better than 1280x1024??

Are there any 19" gaming laptops? Just wondering.... :D 

And what do you think about widescreens for gaming? Can it be adjusted to have the game cover just part of the screen (NO DISTORTION) and still be able to see the desktop?
October 17, 2006 7:48:23 PM

Sure it would be better... about 46% more pixels in the same area means they'd have to be smaller.

There have been only a few 19" laptops... that's big to be lugging around, and I imagine they're costly.

There are 17" laptops with WXUGA (1920x1200)... tiny pixels, sharp images.
October 20, 2006 12:09:48 AM

Quote:
please compare for me again.....

1. 19 inch: resolution = 1280x1024 ...CR ratio = 2000:1
2. 19 inch: resolution = 1600x1200 ...CR ratio = 800:1
3. 20.1 inch: resolution = 1600x1200 ...CR ratio = 800:1

Which would produce a more detailed image without making the game characters too small to see!?


don't worry about your characters being too small to see. games use vector graphics as opposed to raster graphics. i don't have the finger power to explain the difference. if someone wants to, go for it. long story short: don't worry about your characters getting smaller.
November 10, 2006 7:32:41 AM

Ooops....sorry for replying really late! Just checked my mail. :? Thanks for the confirmation tho...At least i can look forward to monitors that aren't too large and yet can give me nice detailed pics.

Cheers!
June 29, 2012 4:42:26 PM

Hose,

Of course there was 19" at 1600x1200. Why would you tell people it didn't exist?
I have old Dell Trinitrons that, I actually have a 17" dell trinitron that runs 1600x1200...
My old Viewsonic ran 2048x1536 at 21" ... The thing was manufactured in 1998 for crying out loud and still use it as a test machine.
Now look at current macbooks and lcd resolution, they are just now catching up in cost of the older CRT models.
I know this is an old bump but the information was so bad I felt impelled to reply.

These were pretty minimal requirement for anybody in design/cad/printing/publishing/photography more concerned with resolution and color accuracy/calibration
.
17" with a 1200 vertical res was pretty perfect, and for many designers... That is why you see current mac book pros for instance running 1920x1200 @ 17" widescreen.

The world of computers doesn't revolve around "gamers".
!