I've just replaced my 19" CRT with a 19" LCD. As I use my computer mostly for gaming, I needed a LCD that had a quick response time in order to keep up with what was being displayed on screen.

I settled on a Viewsonic VX922 with a response time of 2ms. I've played Oblivion, Half-life 2, and Flight Sim X on it and no problems at all. A little pricey, but well worth it.

These are good times indeed!....... getting a brand spanfreaking new 2ms 19" (name brand) LCD for roughly $250 & and the best is yet to come.

http://www.techonweb.com/products/p...

Plus a lot of LCD's are HD-Ready now with a DVI-D connection.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

I'm curious about buying an LCD sometime next year. I notice all LCD's list a "native resolution." Does this mean every game must be played at this resolution (e.g 1280X0124), but nothing higher or lower than that resolution?

1280 X 1024....my mistake.

The native resolution in a LCD means the highest maximum resolution of what an LCD can reach. Unlike CRT displays, the native resolution of an LCD displays are able deliver the best quality at the maximum resolution. While a CRT tends to lose it's quality the higher the resolution rate gets.

CRT's are pretty much dead now. They take up a lot more space then a LCD, a lot more heavier then an LCD and use more engery then an LCD. Not to mention that an LCD has a digital advantage and maxium resolution advantage over a CRT.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

Native resolution = the amount of pixels the LCD actually has, so the native resolution matches one to one to the pixel count of the LCD monitor. Native resolution will be the maximum resolution an LCD can do because it can't split a pixel. IE, if the native res is 1280x1024, it can't do 1600x1200 because there are more pixels in that resolution than there are in the monitor.

If you don't run lower than the native resolution, the monitor must use interpolation to "blow up" the image to fit the screen. This is like taking a picture with a low megapixel count and enlarging it, and you see pixelation.

"Not to mention that an LCD has a digital advantage and maxium resolution advantage over a CRT."

While in principle I agree that LCD's are better for most people, there are some caveats to LCD's and digital technology in general.

1. LCD's still are not as color accurate as some top end CRT's, particularly in shades of blue. For a gamer, this is not noticeable, but for graphic design artists who must have the best color accuracy, they often prefer a CRT. Digital alternatives to technology often have inherent shortcomings like this, although often minor as in this case.
2. An LCD is no more "digital" than a CRT inherently within those technologies. If you are referring to DVI, there are some CRT's with DVI hookups, such as the IBM P260, and some LCD's without them.

But to pile on more advantages about LCD's over CRT's for most users:

- Generate less heat and virtually no radiation
- Useable life span is more than twice the typical CRT
- Reduced eye strain

"Enough, enough bowing down to disillusion!
Hats off & applause to rogues & evolution!
The ripple effect is too good not to mention.
If you’re not affected, you’re not paying attention!"

Whoops, should read "if you run lower than the native resolution"...

DARN YOU, LACK OF AN EDIT BUTTON!

"Enough, enough bowing down to disillusion!
Hats off & applause to rogues & evolution!
The ripple effect is too good not to mention.
If you’re not affected, you’re not paying attention!"

"Native resolution will be the maximum resolution an LCD can do because........"

That is true only as integer factors are concerned ;-)

I have a 20.1" LCD from Dell that can do 1920x1080 & 1920x1200 even though its *native resolution* is 1600x1200.

Now, because the integer factor (1.78 & 1.60 respectively) of those other two resolutions aren't analogous to the 1600x1200's (1.33) - images displayed aren't no way near perfect as expected but still doable nonetheless.

I just like the fact that my LCD widescreen pc monitor is HD-Ready. When pc Blu-Ray players get a little cheaper all I have to do is throw that Blu-Ray player in my pc and i'm HD set.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

Don't forget HD-DVD...

Who knows who will win the format war...

"Enough, enough bowing down to disillusion!
Hats off & applause to rogues & evolution!
The ripple effect is too good not to mention.
If you’re not affected, you’re not paying attention!"

Blu-Ray will. because all the porn industry is going to Blu-Ray. I know that sounds funny that an industry like that would dictate which format will be the standard, but believe it or not movie industries wait to see what the porn industry does first, considering that the porn industry produce more of their video products then the movie industry does daily basis world wide.

Here is some examples.

In the early 80's the porn industry chose VHS over BETA max and VHS became the standard soon after that.

In the mid 90's the porn industry chose DVD over VCD's and DVD's became the standard soon after that.

There was an article about this not too long ago in popular mechanics mag about this.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

*door bell rings*

Did somebody order a pizza?

(who doesn't like Steven Colbert?) :-)

"Enough, enough bowing down to disillusion!
Hats off & applause to rogues & evolution!
The ripple effect is too good not to mention.
If you’re not affected, you’re not paying attention!"

"Who knows who will win the format war..."

And while those two are busy smashing themselves to pulp, the previously moribund EVD is gearing up to be the much cheaper & undisputed DVD successor in the land of the Great Wall......... LOL

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...

Actually, all formats are in the long run irrelevant. Videos will go the way of music and be stored on mass storage devices or streamed on demand.

"Enough, enough bowing down to disillusion!
Hats off & applause to rogues & evolution!
The ripple effect is too good not to mention.
If you’re not affected, you’re not paying attention!"

If I had the money to put stock into either Blu-Ray or HD-DVD I would put stock into Blu-Ray. Sony has put tons of money into this format/ I mean, the Porn industry is going that way, more and more movies are starting to pop-up in Blu-Ray format and I've seen more Blu-Ray players out on the market then HD-DVD players. Even your pc players are going Blu-Ray, Lite-On just came out with a Blu-Ray player along with pioneer. This leads me to believe that more companies are investing more money into Blu-Ray then HD-DVD, because they are seeing how the trend is going.

I think and this is my opnion based on from what I have seen, that Blu-Ray will become the new standard in 3 years for HD content.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

Thanks for the info psycho and cobra.

Does the same concept apply to modern DLP and LCD television sets? e.g. a 480 resolution signal does not look very good (pixelated) on newer TV's (DLP and LCD's), at least imo. The picture look's soft and pixels are easy to spot. In contrast, 480 signals look pretty darn good on old CRT interlaced tube sets. So...is the 480 signal being "blown up" to fit the native resolution of my newer type television (i.e. blowing up the 480 horizontal lines to fit my 720 line TV?)

As Hero mused earlier, the war is albeit futile in the long run since HVD should probably eclipse both Blue-Ray & HD-DVD in the very near future and something else thereafter.

But in the mean time, go porn.... oops!.... I mean.... go Blue-Ray!

Just imagine Porn in HD, Oops, I mean movies in HD. :)

In terms of HD in LCD using DLP it's not quite there yet in terms of Plasma quality. Plasma is still the best overall in terms of brightness levels, but then again plsama TV's lose their brightness level overtime. I have heard anywhere between 5 to 10 years depending upon how many times you use it.

If I had to rank which one is the best in terms of brightness. I would have to rank Plasma first, Tubes depending upon who makes it if it's HDMI second and LCD's with DLP a close last place. There are some very good tube TV's out there that are really good quality in terms of brightness levels. The one I think samsung makes it, it's a 32 inch widescreen tube TV and it looks really sharp. sharper then a lot of LCD's with DLP in them compared to the same size.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

"I would have to rank Plasma first, Tubes depending upon who makes it if it's HDMI second and LCD's with DLP a close last place."

There are Pioneer Elite plasmas, and then all other plasmas. Aside from the Elite, I'd take a premium LCD over any other plasma available. Ditto tubes. Ditto DLP...

Put any other TV against s Sony SXRD other than a Pioneer Elite plasma, and the Sony would win every time.

"Plasma is still the best overall in terms of brightness levels, but then again plsama TV's lose their brightness level overtime."

So do LCD's or DLP's due to using a lamp.

"Enough, enough bowing down to disillusion!
Hats off & applause to rogues & evolution!
The ripple effect is too good not to mention.
If you’re not affected, you’re not paying attention!"

LCD flat panels don't lose brightness, because they don't generate light themselves, unlike a rear projection display.

http://digitalhomeadvisor.com/doc/1...

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

From your very article...

"Instead, an LCD controls the light from a fluorescent panel behind the LCD. These lose brightness over time..."

"Enough, enough bowing down to disillusion!
Hats off & applause to rogues & evolution!
The ripple effect is too good not to mention.
If you’re not affected, you’re not paying attention!"

LCD panels don't lose brightness like plasmas do in the same snese. That's what i'm reffering to.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

I don't see the difference other than you can replace the bulb in most LCD and DLP's, while in most cases you can't do that to remedy the problem in a plasma.

"Enough, enough bowing down to disillusion!
Hats off & applause to rogues & evolution!
The ripple effect is too good not to mention.
If you’re not affected, you’re not paying attention!"

Well if you want to get technical even tube TV's lose their brightness contrast over a long peroid of time. You are pretty much not going to get away with fading brightness levels. It just boils down which one last long and obv it's tube followed by LCD and then Plasma.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI

LOL... I'm not trying to contradict everything you're saying, honest.

But LCD's last longer than tube TV's on average.

"Enough, enough bowing down to disillusion!
Hats off & applause to rogues & evolution!
The ripple effect is too good not to mention.
If you’re not affected, you’re not paying attention!"

No. No. I think you mis-reading it i'm just saying theoreticly.

AMD Athlon 64 X2 4600+ OC 2.7ghz
2GB Dual Channel DDR 3200
Nvidia 7900GT
SATA II 2x 300gig 7200rpm 16mb cache RAID-0
Gigabyte Nforce 4 SLI