🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 00:16:27 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
<no-spam@never.spam> wrote:

>LED Monitor Misery .
>The Hardware change this game playing household has put of &
>dreaded for years recently came to pass.
>I had to get an LED Computer Monitor as the Dell 20" 4x3 CRT was looking 
>increasingly unreliable.
>Been in use around 5 years.
>My TV is also 4x3 CRT so 16x9 looks horrid
>
>I researched thoroughly & decided I HAD to have 16x10 ... IPS ,
>only realistic candidates were 24" 1920 x 1200.
>There are around 6 possibilities available. all around �250 UK = approx. 
>$400 USD.
>The best choice I settled on with 2 very full tech. reviews
>finding v. good input lag & good as-best 5ms response.
>is @@@ BenQ BL2411PT 24" @@@ which I have brought.
>
>Its not widely available in USA, the alternative best in this group IMO is
>"ASUS VS24AH-P Black 24" 5ms  LED Backlight LCD Monitor IPS"
>@@@@
>
>So had it for 2 months or so & it IS gorgeous picture quality.
>Solid sharp image looks like its painted /printed paper.
>Can look almost edge on without viewing angle problems.
>No moving switches - touch sensitive points on front panel corner.
>My other dread re. playing at non native resolution's  is in fact OK.
>16 x 10 is a very good choice as you can set almost any resolution & it will
>look decent enough....4x3 ..16x9 the 'fill screen' feature makes it just a 
>little fat or thin.
>
>
>BUT !  But ..in games I'm so aware of 'blurring' .
>You'll find  it difficult to believe but tho I've been 'into' personal 
>computers since there beginning - 35 years,
>& with PC's for 25 years I've never before had an
>extended game playing session on LED Monitor until now.
>I have used them for Internet & I maintain 2 friends machines but not 
>gaming.
>
>I'm trying to convince myself its because the new screen is much larger & 
>more detailed than
>the 20" CRT & the extra width emphasises left to right blur effects.
>
>I start Borderlands 2 & look down & around its sharply designed open 
>landscapes
>& think "God can I stand this blur ?" but get into the game & forget all 
>that.
>Maybe an hour later I pause & Blur doesn't look so bad now  !
>
>Try assorted Frame rates (with frame limiter & various V. synch 
>combinations)
>its all the same 100+ fps ....60...20 fps even .. IT's BLURRY
>
>Try switch off 'Fill Full screen' so 1280 x 1024 is a square just in the 
>middle....
>...yes better, or rather less noticeable Blur.
>
>Well I'm just going to have to learn to live with it .
>Eye sight is wonderfully versatile.
>Human awareness seems to be ither in a analytical judgmental technical 
>'Mode'
>or lost in concentrating on the content.
>If you can play the game without being distracted then whatever the tech. 
>measurement's
>its is OK.
>(\__/)
>(='.'=)
>(")_(")  mouse (But Ahh!...120Hz ....'Lightboost')


Probably the only new monitor I would buy right now for gaming, if I
had to, is a G-SYNC modded ASUS VG248QE and there are only a handful
of places that sell them, and the modification voids the warranty on
the monitor.  You can buy the monitor and mod it yourself if you enjoy
being the one to void the warranty. 

But, G-SYNC is an Nvidia technology so if you have an AMD card you'd
have to change that too.  Several months ago I was really optimistic
about G-SYNC, but now adaptive-sync has been added to the DisplayPort
1.2a standard,which means that's probably what we will all be using in
the future.

The VG248QE is supposed to be impressive as far as fast (non-blurring)
monitors go even if you don't have an adaptive sync solution worked
out.  I think part of your existing problem is you're gaming on an IPS
based panel and TN panels are superior for gaming.

But really, I'm not the one to ask since I'm still plugging along on
my CRT for gaming.  I've got no shortage of LCDs that I use for
getting work done and audio production, but none of them are even
remotely in the same league as my antiquated CRT for gaming, and I've
got 2 more CRTs in storage in case this one goes tits up, although
they've been in storage for a while so who knows how that would go.

Even if I went for the VG248QE tomorrow, even if I were happy with
blurring, I would miss having the flexibility of resolutions without
quality degradation that I'm used to from a CRT.

It's actually quite sad that such an ancient technology got replaced
by such a vastly inferior solution.  Every time I've played games on
an LCD, I found it so uninspiring I completely lost interest in
gaming.  The exception might be games like MMORPGs or strategy games
that don't really require the rapid speed of a first person shooter or
have lots of text on the screen in small fonts.

Now as far as TVs go, it's a different story entirely.  I'm was
thrilled to have gotten rid of my old CRT many years ago. You're
missing a lot by not having a modern TV and an HD signal, even though
it's easy to not realize how much until you make the switch.  I
personally think plasma provides a better picture than LCD/LED TVs but
the latest models narrow the gap somewhat, and I could live with a
good quality LED TV if plasma was no longer an option.  Plasma is not
bad at all for console gaming, which I don't do much of but have been
known to play on occasional game of GTAV or fighting games that aren't
available on PC.  I don't know how gaming on a large LED TV would
compare to plasma with an arrangement like Steam big screen gaming,
etc., someone who has tried each would have to comment.

On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:16:00 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>The VG248QE is supposed to be impressive as far as fast (non-blurring)
>monitors go even if you don't have an adaptive sync solution worked
>out.  I think part of your existing problem is you're gaming on an IPS
>based panel and TN panels are superior for gaming.

I recently upgraded from a 23 inch TN to a 27 inch IPS and I will
never go back. Color is just so much better on the IPS. White is
brilliant white, not gray for instance. Images 'pop' on this display.
I can see details on websites that were completely lost on my last
monitor.

As for ghosting and blurring issues, I don't notice anything like that
and I played Borderlands on this monitor for over a month. But this
monitor isn't supposed to suffer from blurring effects from the
reviews I read which is why I chose it. Either Trimble's monitor is
just bad in this regard (in which case he should replace it) or he is
just sensitive to it.

For the record, I moved from a cheap TN to a cheap IPS so I think my
comparison is fair.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 09:36:13 -0400, Mike S. <Mik...@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 21:16:00 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
><rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The VG248QE is supposed to be impressive as far as fast (non-blurring)
>>monitors go even if you don't have an adaptive sync solution worked
>>out.  I think part of your existing problem is you're gaming on an IPS
>>based panel and TN panels are superior for gaming.
>
>I recently upgraded from a 23 inch TN to a 27 inch IPS and I will
>never go back. Color is just so much better on the IPS. White is
>brilliant white, not gray for instance. Images 'pop' on this display.
>I can see details on websites that were completely lost on my last
>monitor.
>
>As for ghosting and blurring issues, I don't notice anything like that
>and I played Borderlands on this monitor for over a month. But this
>monitor isn't supposed to suffer from blurring effects from the
>reviews I read which is why I chose it. Either Trimble's monitor is
>just bad in this regard (in which case he should replace it) or he is
>just sensitive to it.
>
>For the record, I moved from a cheap TN to a cheap IPS so I think my
>comparison is fair.

IPS monitors look superior to TN all things being equal (especially
when it comes to viewing angle...tilting the monitor, etc), it's just
that they are slower.  For doing work I want IPS, and for gaming if I
can't have a CRT I would want a TN to eliminate blurring.

The degree to which blurring is a problem varies from game to game,
between individual gamers' eyesight differences, and with individual
panels (all TN panels are not equal nor are IPS).

The VG248QE is currently considered the holy grail of gaming monitors
for those who play fast paced games, and it is a TN panel.

Mike S.  <Mik...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>As for ghosting and blurring issues, I don't notice anything like that
>and I played Borderlands on this monitor for over a month. But this
>monitor isn't supposed to suffer from blurring effects from the
>reviews I read which is why I chose it. Either Trimble's monitor is
>just bad in this regard (in which case he should replace it) or he is
>just sensitive to it.

I think Trimble's blur problems come mostly from not playing games at
the native resolution of his monitor, so they're getting scaled up.
That never looks all that great on any LCD panel.

					Ross Ridge

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //	  

On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:59:43 -0400, Ross Ridge
<rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

>Mike S.  <Mik...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>As for ghosting and blurring issues, I don't notice anything like that
>>and I played Borderlands on this monitor for over a month. But this
>>monitor isn't supposed to suffer from blurring effects from the
>>reviews I read which is why I chose it. Either Trimble's monitor is
>>just bad in this regard (in which case he should replace it) or he is
>>just sensitive to it.
>
>I think Trimble's blur problems come mostly from not playing games at
>the native resolution of his monitor, so they're getting scaled up.
>That never looks all that great on any LCD panel.

Partially yes, and the reason why he is not playing at his native
resolution is (likely I'm guessing) that 1920x1200 puts quite a strain
on a GPU, so you need some serious graphic horsepower to play the
latest and greatest titles at reasonable frame rates.  1920x1200 is my
preferred work and reading resolution on a single monitor but gaming
on it is counter productive, IMO.  A lot of cutting edge titles barely
make it at 1280x1024 even on my GTX690.  Playing them at 1920x1200 at
a 60hz refresh rate would be absolute misery for me too.

>From what I can tell Trimble the  BL2411PT is an awesome monitor
designed for business use.  Keep it for business but get a gaming
monitor for gaming.  

Trust me when I say they are completely different types of hardware.

On Fri, 20 Jun 2014 21:59:43 -0400, Ross Ridge
<rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

>Mike S.  <Mik...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>As for ghosting and blurring issues, I don't notice anything like that
>>and I played Borderlands on this monitor for over a month. But this
>>monitor isn't supposed to suffer from blurring effects from the
>>reviews I read which is why I chose it. Either Trimble's monitor is
>>just bad in this regard (in which case he should replace it) or he is
>>just sensitive to it.
>
>I think Trimble's blur problems come mostly from not playing games at
>the native resolution of his monitor, so they're getting scaled up.
>That never looks all that great on any LCD panel.
>
>					Ross Ridge

I'm not running the most cutting edge PC, so I often run at lower than
native res (making sure to keep the aspect ratio). I'm wondering if he
is either very sensitive to it, or there is a another issue
compounding his problem. 

I'm running a Samsung 2220WM, which isn't even a great monitor and his
situation is way worse than mine.

Tim O  <timo56...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I'm not running the most cutting edge PC, so I often run at lower than
>native res (making sure to keep the aspect ratio). I'm wondering if he
>is either very sensitive to it, or there is a another issue
>compounding his problem. 

Well, speaking for myself I really don't like any sort of scaling except
integer scaling of old low resolution games.  I have my monitor set to
not do any scaling and display lower than native resoluion with 1:1 pixel
mapping, though if the resolution is low enough I'm pretty much forced
to scale things just so things aren't too small.  Even on my PlayStation
3 I notice when games don't use the native resolution of my TV (1080p).
(And yah, I do have a few of less graphically intense PS3 games that
manage to render at 1080i/p.)  I do get used to the scaling when I'm
forced to use it, but those are the times I miss my old CRT the most.

						Ross Ridge

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //	  

Trimble Bracegirdle <no-spam@never.spam> wrote:
>I am running at native 1920 x 1200 with nearly every game.
>I have the MMO 'The Secret World' at 1680 x 1050 because the text is small.
>Lower than native looks fine - in fact the slightly lower definition helps 
>disguise the BLUR.

Hmm.. what sort of cable do you connect your monitor to your PC?  VGA,
DVI, HDMI or DisplayPort?

						Ross Ridge

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //	  

If you want to test your monitor the best I've found - Lagom LCD test - a 
Web Page set of tests.
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/conclusion.php

And to download "pixperan"  as in 'pixperan_english.zip' a tiny User made 
test prog.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")  mouse (I've Got A Jam Doughnut)

On Saturday, June 21, 2014 8:10:22 PM UTC-7, Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
> If you want to test your monitor the best I've found - Lagom LCD test - a 
> 

I've got a fairly old LCD, it does the job, but I've had it for quite some time, so I'm used to it.  I really notice it if scaling.  Give it about 6 months and it will be less noticeable as you get used to it.

You could get a Plasma HD TV to use as a monitor and not have the problem.  The only issues would be having to worry about burn in, and fairly large power usage.  You'd want to have the screen blank or screen saver after a very short period of time.  Or you could set it up as a secondary monitor with a black background or only plug it in/turn it on when in use.  

Of course looking around I could only find them as small as 42" and starting around $350, so that would be much larger

- Justisaur

>>>" Give it about 6 months and it will be less noticeable as you get used 
>>>to it.">>>
 >>> You could get a Plasma HD TV to use as a monitor and not have the 
problem. <<<

Thanks  Justisaur.
I considered Plasma but don't think its practical in general as you said.
& wouldn't fit in my situation.
Googling "Plasma Computer monitor" produces no products for sale - only 
TV's-
The general opinion seems to be that Plasma is very on the way out.

Tho I will need to replace my CRT TV sometime soon (its 12 1/2 years of 
heavy use)
God knows how it keeps going.
May be then Plasma.
@ I think & hope I will get used to Blur ...Eyesight is wondrous versatile.
As it is I forget it when I'm into the game play.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")  mouse (Sausages & Mash !) 

On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:09:44 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"
<no-spam@never.spam> wrote:

>>>>" Give it about 6 months and it will be less noticeable as you get used 
>>>>to it.">>>
> >>> You could get a Plasma HD TV to use as a monitor and not have the 
>problem. <<<
>
>Thanks  Justisaur.
>I considered Plasma but don't think its practical in general as you said.
>& wouldn't fit in my situation.
>Googling "Plasma Computer monitor" produces no products for sale - only 
>TV's-
>The general opinion seems to be that Plasma is very on the way out.

I bought my last plasma a couple of years ago, a Panasonic, a model
which theatre-heads were calling the best looking TV you can buy
period.  And it is fantastic.  I don't know why Panasonic exited the
plasma market, I wasn't even aware they did until I started looking at
what's available in stores now.  Panasonic seems to be focusing on LED
and now Samsung seems to be picking up momentum in plasmas.  Wha???

http://www.cnet.com/news/panasonics-exit-from-plasma-will-sour-tv-value-sweet-spot/

That said I wouldn't buy a plasma TV as a computer monitor - first of
all they don't come in small enough sizes the last time I looked. Also
while burn-in is less of a problem with modern plasmas, PCs tend to
leave UI windows and text in the same place for a lot longer than TV
watching or most games, so any time you use something for a purpose
other than which it was designed, it's asking for pain.  I'm typing
this now on an 8 year old LCD (IPS panel) that is starting to have
serious image retention issues (yes, burn in can occurr on LCD and
even CRT), and it is no fun to deal with.

Plasma are quite fast though, and I haven't tried hooking up a PC to
either of my plasmas but both of them work great for the console games
I've run on them -- no blurring.

If either one of my Panny plasmas (both of which have been rock solid)
went tits up tomorrow, I really don't know what I would get for
replacement TV.  I'd have to start from scratch in terms of research I
suppose.  Looking at some big box stores websites, they say they still
have some large Panasonics in stock but they are gouging folks for
between $5,000 and $8,000 for them!  I should e-bay my TV for 4x what
I paid for it since it is now a rare and exotic item :)  No way I love
it.

Amazing how monitor and TV progress seems to be about the only
technology that is constantly going backward and getting worse over
time instead of better.

On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 5:25:12 PM UTC-7, Rin Stowleigh wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:09:44 +0100, "Trimble Bracegirdle"

> 
> Amazing how monitor and TV progress seems to be about the only
> technology that is constantly going backward and getting worse over
> time instead of better.

Supposedly the LCDs are still getting better.  

Really it's all getting better in terms of bigness, space required and price, which is really what most people care about.  

I hate that they keep getting wider and shorter... soon you'll be looking at a single line of pixels that wraps around the room.

>>>"Amazing how monitor and TV progress seems to be about the only
technology that is constantly going backward and getting worse over
time instead of better."<<<<

Remember all those long years into the early 2000's when we ALL (well with 
rare exceptions)
had 14"  5 x 4 CRT Monitors .
The 16 x 9 dominance for Monitors is now generally admitted to be less than 
ideal
forced on the market because of early construction limitations.
If it was started from scratch I'd nominate 4:3 or 16:10 for desktop.
The closer we are to a screen the better it is to be more square.
Whilst 50 ft away Cinema (Movie) theatre look good super wide.

Still have my very, very old 14" CRT Monitor - some dusty corner place
Might well get it out to compare to LCD.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")  mouse (I say 'Whim' !) 

On Thursday, June 26, 2014 2:21:11 PM UTC-7, Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
> >>>"Amazing how monitor and TV progress seems to be about the only
> 
> technology that is constantly going backward and getting worse over
> 
> time instead of better."<<<<
> 
> 
> 
> Remember all those long years into the early 2000's when we ALL (well with 
> 
> rare exceptions)
> 
> had 14"  5 x 4 CRT Monitors .
> 
> The 16 x 9 dominance for Monitors is now generally admitted to be less than 
> 
> ideal
> 
> forced on the market because of early construction limitations.
> 
> If it was started from scratch I'd nominate 4:3 or 16:10 for desktop.
> The closer we are to a screen the better it is to be more square.
> Whilst 50 ft away Cinema (Movie) theatre look good super wide.
> 
> Still have my very, very old 14" CRT Monitor - some dusty corner place
> Might well get it out to compare to LCD.

You can always buy a CRT on ebay, I see some even listed as 'new in box'.  

Of course forget about warranty, and the shipping is going to be killer, still might be less than an LCD monitor.  I'd be tempted to do it myself, but space is an issue.

- Justisaur

On Fri, 27 Jun 2014 08:35:16 -0700 (PDT), Justisaur
<just...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, June 26, 2014 2:21:11 PM UTC-7, Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
>> >>>"Amazing how monitor and TV progress seems to be about the only
>> 
>> technology that is constantly going backward and getting worse over
>> 
>> time instead of better."<<<<
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Remember all those long years into the early 2000's when we ALL (well with 
>> 
>> rare exceptions)
>> 
>> had 14"  5 x 4 CRT Monitors .
>> 
>> The 16 x 9 dominance for Monitors is now generally admitted to be less than 
>> 
>> ideal
>> 
>> forced on the market because of early construction limitations.
>> 
>> If it was started from scratch I'd nominate 4:3 or 16:10 for desktop.
>> The closer we are to a screen the better it is to be more square.
>> Whilst 50 ft away Cinema (Movie) theatre look good super wide.
>> 
>> Still have my very, very old 14" CRT Monitor - some dusty corner place
>> Might well get it out to compare to LCD.
>
>You can always buy a CRT on ebay, I see some even listed as 'new in box'.  
>
>Of course forget about warranty, and the shipping is going to be killer, still might be less than an LCD monitor.  I'd be tempted to do it myself, but space is an issue.
>
>- Justisaur

Even if new, I wouldn't pay too much for one without understanding the
date of manufacture and that it's been sitting in storage in unknown
humidity levels for a long time.

About 14" monitors - I think early 90s was the last time I had one
that small.  Started using a 15" around the time Doom really took off,
then a 17" Sony around mid 90's (Quake era).  21" a few years after
that.

On 6/27/2014 11:35 AM, Justisaur wrote:

> Of course forget about warranty, and the shipping is going to be
> killer, still might be less than an LCD monitor.  I'd be tempted to
> do it myself, but space is an issue.

I work from home so the heat generated by CRT's is more of an issue than
space where I live actually. My electric bills are high enough as they
are already, don't need the extra wattage needed for CRT's and AC's
running 24/7 during the summer. Still have a 15" Digital brand (remember
those?) CRT lying around working perfectly but it hasn't seen any action
in about 8 years now, it's strictly for emergencies only.

Justisaur <just...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On Thursday, June 26, 2014 2:21:11 PM UTC-7, Trimble Bracegirdle wrote:
>> >>>"Amazing how monitor and TV progress seems to be about the only
>> 
>> technology that is constantly going backward and getting worse over
>> 
>> time instead of better."<<<<
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Remember all those long years into the early 2000's when we ALL (well with 
>> 
>> rare exceptions)
>> 
>> had 14"  5 x 4 CRT Monitors .
>> 
>> The 16 x 9 dominance for Monitors is now generally admitted to be less than 
>> 
>> ideal
>> 
>> forced on the market because of early construction limitations.
>> 
>> If it was started from scratch I'd nominate 4:3 or 16:10 for desktop.
>> The closer we are to a screen the better it is to be more square.
>> Whilst 50 ft away Cinema (Movie) theatre look good super wide.
>> 
>> Still have my very, very old 14" CRT Monitor - some dusty corner place
>> Might well get it out to compare to LCD.
>
>You can always buy a CRT on ebay, I see some even listed as 'new in box'.  
>
>Of course forget about warranty, and the shipping is going to be killer, still might be less than an LCD monitor.  I'd be tempted to do it myself, but space is an issue.

I looked into some of those a couple years back.

They were "new" only in the sense that they had never been sold to
anyone, but they were manufactured back when CRTs were still common, and
have been sitting in a warehouse somewhere (and probably not a good
warehouse, since they'd have their valuable stuff in those, not their
obsolete tech.)

Oh look, from 4/13/2010
11 New 1975 Norton Commandos Found in Belgium!
http://www.motorcycleclassics.com/black-side-down-new-nortons-found-in-belgium.aspx#axzz35ysPWILk

Xocyll

MetalGuru  <inv...@chainmail.com> wrote:
>I work from home so the heat generated by CRT's is more of an issue than
>space where I live actually. My electric bills are high enough as they
>are already, don't need the extra wattage needed for CRT's and AC's
>running 24/7 during the summer. Still have a 15" Digital brand (remember
>those?) CRT lying around working perfectly but it hasn't seen any action
>in about 8 years now, it's strictly for emergencies only.

LCDs only have an energy efficiency over a same sized CRTs in the smaller
range sizes, like you with your 15" CRT.  As the size increases the
relative efficiency goes down.  If you replaced your CRT with a bigger
LCD monitor then you might actually have increased your electricity usage.

					Ross Ridge

-- 
 l/  //	  Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo]  rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/  http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/ 
 db  //