CRT Vs LCD for driving cabs

[twistedsymphony]

(this topic was split from flash951's Final Lap thread found here: http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php/topic,140713.0.html - BadMouth)

Eh crts are over.  As soon as mame got hlsl support to simulate a crt screen, I ran out of excuses to hold on to them.

ASPECT RATIO!
... if you're building a custom cab that's one thing but they don't make 4:3 LCDs over 20" and even if you black barred a wide-screen LCD it wont physically fit inside the a cabinet designed for a CRT unless you're willing to down-size the display area.

With scan-line generators and display lag getting better LCDs are much better candidates for replacing CRT. I'd be willing to give up CRTs in my cabs but the fact remains that if I wanted to install a an LCD in my 25" midway cab, a de-cased widescreen monitor capable of producing a 25" 4:3 image would STILL be about 2" too wide to physically fit in the cabinet.

...on the other hand, the cabinet is big enough that if I wanted to I could up-grade to a 27" CRT.

Not until they start manufacturing 4:3 LCDs will they be a suitable replacement for CRTs in classic arcade machines.

[Howard_Casto]

Which would be a perfectly valid point if we weren't talking about racing games. 

Most modern racing games, even the emulated ones, have a widescreen option.  Anything ran in model 2 can be run widescreen via  bit of scripting.  Anything in model 2, supermodel and demul can be ran at a resolution much higher than a crt via hardware acceleration. 

Also I buy 16:10 (note I didn't say 16:9) monitors and buy them oversized so the "wide" part of the screen goes into the bezel area.  Then you get a screen of the same equivalent 4:3 size.  I've got that in my original mame cab now... it's not as big of a deal as you are making it out to be.  Depending upon the model you might have to de-case it, but we've done worse. 

[flash951]

I've put a 25" 4:3 CRT in both my two cabinets, because it's the biggest than can fit in between. In my opinion, one big benefit using CRT is that it can run all native resolutions, while LCD is only made for one resolution, so everything needs to be scaled and distorted. Another thing with LCD is that the affordable models seems to have small color space, for example, if you have display very light grey og very dark grey, it will turn out as "burned out" white or black. For my work PC, home and office, I use expensive 4:3 21" LCD's, I work with graphic design and has photo as a hobby. Also all affordable LCD has to get calibrated and corrected. I've have an X-rite to calibrate my monitors and make a "correction" color profile on my PC. On CRT I don't bother, it's OK for games already.   


The CRTs I use are only standard resolution 15 khz, still the picture when running 800x600 interlaced on m2 games are just what I consider perfect, pleasant to look at.

[Howard_Casto]

Lol except that the m2 emulator doesn't render at 15khz so your point is invalid.  Native resolutions are also invalid.  Emulators can output any resolution you desire with zero overhead so long as the emulator's render size isn't changed (most have the option to set this).  Also modern video cards and modern lcds handle the "one native resolution" issue just fine via software.  This isn't the year 2000.  I'll take your word for it on the colorspace thing, but considering in terms of racing games you have your choice of 8 bit paletted color or modern racers optimized for lcds anyway I don't see how it would make a heck of a lot of difference.  Again all valid points... if we weren't talking about a racing cab.

I'm not trying to get into an argument, you guys just seem to be taking offense at the fact that crts are over, which they are.  Again I'm not suggesting you throw one out if it's still working, they are a perfectly acceptable monitor, but when it comes time to replace a broken one.....

[flash951]

I agree that some of my arguments are not valid for 3D games and the newer games obviously, of course. I just wanted to share some of my personal experiences and thoughts, and it's not arguments read somewhere else.

[twistedsymphony]

Also I buy 16:10 (note I didn't say 16:9) monitors and buy them oversized so the "wide" part of the screen goes into the bezel area.  Then you get a screen of the same equivalent 4:3 size.  I've got that in my original mame cab now... it's not as big of a deal as you are making it out to be.  Depending upon the model you might have to de-case it, but we've done worse. 

I looked extensively at swapping 16:10 LCDs into my Virtual On cab (which is a Sega twin unit), even with decasing the math flat out doesn't work in terms of getting the same viewable area.

27" 4:3 CRT has a viewable height of 16.25"

16:10 LCD with a viewable height of 16.25" ~ 31" diagonal with a 26" viewable width

...cabinet only has 24" of usable space width wise due to the design of the cabinet's internal structure... and that's if you want to relocate the speakers wich are on either side of the monitor.

I find your comment surprising because I've yet to find a single cabinet who's dimensions are amicable to a wide-screen (even a 16:10) swap without shrinking image height in the process. Racing cabs seem to be even worse than most because they put such large monitors in them to begin with.

[Howard_Casto]

Seriously you are complaining about an inch?  I think with mine it was 0.255 inches smaller, but regardless the benefits far outweigh the one drawback. 

Here's the thing.  Something about this hobby that people don't realize is that these uber large monitors are actually bad for your eyes where we sit so close to them.  In the arcade you are playing for a minute or two, no big deal, but when you are playing for hours at a time your eyes have to dart around to see the whole screen causing eye strain.   I had a 27 inch crammed into my mame cab for a while and couldn't figure out why it was hurting my eyes.  When I later put a 25 inch crt in there I immediately noticed the difference. 

But it doesn't matter... we've derailed flash's post and I'm sorry for that. 

[twistedsymphony]

Seriously you are complaining about an inch? 

You need to check your math 24" of width space in a 16:9 monitor translates to a 24" 4:3 image in what used to be a 27" cab.

I realize you're all about "upgrading" things but when it comes to arcade games, I, and many others are all about making the experience as authentic as possible.

[dkersten]

You are correct about the height, but I agree with Howard on all the other points.  At some point you have to weigh the pros and cons and decide for yourself. 
That is when you take a 48" lcd and turn it vertical and then black out the top and bottom to get the max width and height with all the benefits of an LCD for racing games while still fitting in your 24"wide space, lol.

It really isn't a matter of which is "better", it is a matter of which is "better for you".

[twistedsymphony]

That is when you take a 48" lcd and turn it vertical and then black out the top and bottom to get the max width and height with all the benefits of an LCD for racing games while still fitting in your 24"wide space, lol.

That's rarely a viable solution because on most machines the marquee is directly above the monitor and the steering controls are directly below it. Even on non-racing upright cabs there is usually some substantial cabinet reinforcement directly below the monitor area, or the monitor is angled such that the bottom of such a large monitor would run into the control panel box.

You are correct about the height, but I agree with Howard on all the other points.  At some point you have to weigh the pros and cons and decide for yourself. 
...
It really isn't a matter of which is "better", it is a matter of which is "better for you".

I never said that CRTs were universally better than LCDs, I don't think anyone else in this thread is claiming that either. My only point through this entire discussion has been that in order for LCDs to be a 100% replacement in a cabinet that was designed for a CRT it needs to be in a 4:3 form factor... THATS IT...

fitting a wide-screen LCD into a cabinet designed for a 4:3 CRT has a lot of challenges that usually leaves you with less viewable screen area and/or giant ugly black out bezels. This isn't about the technology, it's purely about using the right parts to fit the cabinet. If they started making 27" 4:3 LCDs tomorrow I'd order a 6 of them and retrofit half my arcade collection. Widescreen monitors simply wont fit properly most cabs (ei: in a way that looks factory, and form-fit to the cab)... flash951's cab included.

[dkersten]

It is arguable that any time you replace the guts of an arcade you have already sacrificed "originality" and you no longer can truly stand on the argument of a "100%" replacement.   

It's like saying that you HAVE to use the original tires and wheels on that 67 mustang you are restoring, even though you put a Chevy 350 motor and drive train in it.  Your argument can't be won because it is a matter of taste and opinion.

I wasn't trying to fuel the argument, just to point out that this is a very subjective choice and it is what matters most to you that will decide which way you should go. 

Personally I think that the height of the "play field" is the only factor that would influence my decision any more.  And with most race games supporting wider aspect ratios (and in some cases requiring it), it isn't as clear of a decision as it might be if you were making a reproduction of one specific arcade game.  I am with you on buying and using 4:3 27" LCD's though, for anything arcade that is what I would pick first if it existed, but it doesn't, so you compromise. 

[BadMouth]

I had a CRT TV in the old driving cab connected via S-video and it was a blast to play.
The next incarnation (if it's ever completed) will use an LCD or three.

With the CRT TV, it did feel more authentic and gave me the same feeling as playing in the arcade.
PC games up through about 2005-2006 also looked and played great on it (old NFS series, Outrun C2C).
On newer games I felt like I was at a disadvantage because of not being able to see as far into turns.
They're still playable, but that and the widescreen support in Model 2/3 are my main reasons for moving on.

LCDs aren't without their issues.  The screen blur bugs me sometimes and screen tearing is just obnoxious.
The tearing can usually be fixed with vsync, but not always.

In the end, it's a personal decision.  Given the choice between a 4:3 monitor and 16:9 monitor of the same width at the same distance, I'd probably choose the 4:3 for the sake of having more screen area in my field of view.

[DGP]

23.1 4:3 LCD...

http://www.ebay.com/itm/PLANAR-WS231-23-1-LCD-1600x1200-with-Power-Cord-/231159641244?pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item35d230349c

 

Jason

[Howard_Casto]

Nice find. 

I kind of get by twistedsymphony's response that he thinks lcds should be a drop in replacement.  Yeah that's not what I meant.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  It takes a lot of work to retro-fit a lcd into a classic cab, you are going to have to ditch the bezel and make a custom one, you might have to relocate the speakers, ect.  My point though was at least for a general purpose racing cab, it's well worth it. 

I mean this is all personal preference in terms of what games you like, but for me (and I'm thinking a lot of people) classic arcade racers don't hold up as well as more modern racing games.  In terms of the old stuff, that is going to be in 4:3 in mame, you've got Outrun and it's sequels, maybe the Crus'n games, Ridge racer and that's about it.  Yeah there are some other classics, but they either need a optical wheel, or you won't play for more than 2-3 minutes at a time.  In terms of arcade stuff, what most people (myself included) want to play is model 2 and beyond.  Well all of those games support widescreen. 

It isn't just an aesthetic change either.... when you switch to 16:9 you can see more to the left and the right, they don't crop out the sky but rather widen the horizon.  It effects gameplay.  I'm not trying to be "that guy" but while you might get more image on a 4:3 in the same space, a lot of that image might not actually be useful for gameplay. 

And even putting those aside you are going to want to play at least some pc games on your rig and because the draw distance and everything else expect a widescreen, high-resolution monitor it would probably be worth it to upgrade for that single game if you like it enough. 

I guess what I'm saying is for a general purpose mame cab chances are 90% of what you'll play on it are actual arcade games that ran on a low resolution, 4:3 monitor.  On a racing cab it's typically more general purpose use.  The time spent playing 4:3 games on it might be less than 30%. 

[dkersten]

That Planar 4:3 is easily the biggest 4:3 LCD available , but it has 2 big problems.  First, that bezel is nearly 2 inches wide on each side.  Second, they are out of production and hard to find one without bad pixels.  But if you are limited to under 24" of width, you won't get a taller LCD. (it is taller than a 16:10 24" panel by just over an inch)

If your cab is 25" or wider you can get a 27" LCD and then you are splitting hairs as the difference in height is negligible, and quality and availability are worlds better.

[Malenko]

If your cab is 25" or wider you can get a 27" LCD and then you are splitting hairs as the difference in height is negligible, and quality and availability are worlds better.

Nooooooooope.  I have a 28" LCD in my MK Cab, and even though it fill more horizontally by like 4 inches, its still smaller vertically than the 25" CRT that came with it from the factory:


The bezel lines up almost perfectly with the wood on the sides of the cab for the glass rest.

http://www.nicetaco.com/tv.aspx

generically speaking:
25" 4:3 TV is just under 20" wide and a ball hair over 15" tall
28" 16:9 TV is about 24 1/2" wide and about 13 3/4" tall
Also, it means my 28" LCD will display a 4:3 source at 18.2" wide and 13.7" tall, which is smaller than a 25" monitor (mathematically speaking, its about the same as a 23" 4:3 monitor)

so that means even though its over 4 1/2" wider its still over an inch shorter.  All that being said, I went LCD for this build for a ton of reasons.  Takes up less room in the cab, I can fake the CRT effects close enough with some filters , lighter, and the LCD was easy to find cheaply.  I have a medium res 27" arcade monitor I *almost* put in there. But its just going to live its life as a spare for the faster than speed cab. peep the nicetaco link, it really makes the math easier.

[dkersten]

Sorry I was referring to strictly LCD's, the Planar 23.1" is negligibly taller than the 27" 16:9 LCD, and I think you can find 27" 16:10 screens that are taller.

 I agree that you can get a taller 4:3 when you go CRT, but for that argument I default to what Howard is saying about racing games in particular.  The only optical game I will spend any time playing is Championship Sprint, and I don't have any nostalgic memories of playing it with scanlines.. When I build my sit down racer, I will primarily play more modern games that take advantage of higher res monitors, widescreen, and even 3 screen setups.  Anything I play with that setup that looked better on a CRT will still be "good enough" for me.

But then I am not a hardcore CRT fan.  I see them as heavy, expensive, and unreliable.  Sure, I would love to build one cabinet exclusively for the "ultra classic" arcade games that uses a CRT, but aside from that I am perfectly happy with using LCD's.

[Malenko]

I need to stress again that Im actively using a LCD in my MAME rig ,lol.


As for racing cabs, I think if you can use an LCD and it doesnt affect the game much, then great, use it.  I cant use on in my faster than speed cab because I'll loose a bunch of vertical real estate. And while its true a lot of games support widescreen format (like the model 2 stuff and even virtua racing) if you have one of those cabs like mine that are dedicated you'll have large bezels to hide the difference in screen height. If you are rolling your own cab (PUN!) then I sya go for the LCD


I have a sim driving rig (cheapie Playseat and a Fanatec Forza Wheel and Pedal combo), that I also use to play MAME/Model 2 on, its hooked up to a wide screen TV. Its great, but its not a cab

[flash951]

In my Final Lap cab, it's only 19" inch originally, the original monitor had a good picture so I suspect it must have been replaced once because of the bad state the rest of the cab was in. So a 16:9 widescreen had been an easy fit in that particular cab, if the original monitor went broke. But I went for the biggest CRT I could fit, and it was a struggle to mount, because of the limited space, in addition the first 25" CRT TV tube I mounted was bad and had to be replaced. I had to make custom mount for the TV picture tube and make the "behind the glass" bezels and cut out a new glass with an outside bezel anyway, in my case.

[Howard_Casto]

If your cab is 25" or wider you can get a 27" LCD and then you are splitting hairs as the difference in height is negligible, and quality and availability are worlds better.

Nooooooooope.  I have a 28" LCD in my MK Cab, and even though it fill more horizontally by like 4 inches, its still smaller vertically than the 25" CRT that came with it from the factory:


The bezel lines up almost perfectly with the wood on the sides of the cab for the glass rest.

http://www.nicetaco.com/tv.aspx

generically speaking:
25" 4:3 TV is just under 20" wide and a ball hair over 15" tall
28" 16:9 TV is about 24 1/2" wide and about 13 3/4" tall
Also, it means my 28" LCD will display a 4:3 source at 18.2" wide and 13.7" tall, which is smaller than a 25" monitor (mathematically speaking, its about the same as a 23" 4:3 monitor)

so that means even though its over 4 1/2" wider its still over an inch shorter.  All that being said, I went LCD for this build for a ton of reasons.  Takes up less room in the cab, I can fake the CRT effects close enough with some filters , lighter, and the LCD was easy to find cheaply.  I have a medium res 27" arcade monitor I *almost* put in there. But its just going to live its life as a spare for the faster than speed cab. peep the nicetaco link, it really makes the math easier.

Going by your own math that you posted.  That's a difference of 1.25 inches or two diagonal inches, which is negligible.  Also that's a 16:9... you were supposed to get a 16:10.    If you put a 30 inch 16:10 in a 27 inch space the difference is only half an inch.  Also if you can manage to find an inch and a quarter extra space in the width you can cram a 32 incher in there and it'll actually be slightly larger in 4:3 mode than the 27 incher.  I'm not saying that 16:10 displays are easy to come by, you have to hunt around, but they are worth the extra effort. 

From your comment I also think that you don't get what I meant about widescreen mode.  When a game supports both modes, widescreen mode doesn't crop the sky and foreground to make the 16:9 aspect, rather it extends the left and right of the horizon.  So no, even if the screen is physically smaller, you see MORE in widescreen mode. 

[Malenko]

From your comment I also think that you don't get what I meant about widescreen mode.  When a game supports both modes, widescreen mode doesn't crop the sky and foreground to make the 16:9 aspect, rather it extends the left and right of the horizon.  So no, even if the screen is physically smaller, you see MORE in widescreen mode.

I know what widescreen mode is, I play virtua racing and the like in widescreen mode on my current set up (as stated above). My comment was directed more at the gaps above and below the monitor that most dedicated cabs have when they replace the 3:4 CRT with a widescreen monitor. I cant seem to locate a 16:10 calculator that gives all the info I need.  I personally dont feel that over an inch of vertical loss is "negligible".

I dont feel that you can paint replacing a CRT with an LCD with such a wide brush, its more of a case by case thing. I also stated that if youre rollin your own (aka building your own) cab then LCD is the way to go. 

[SailorSat]

Guys you serious about border space?
Take a 16/10 and install it vertical... Most cabinets have more than enough space on top and bottom anyway ^^

[Malenko]

Guys you serious about border space?
Take a 16/10 and install it vertical... Most cabinets have more than enough space on top and bottom anyway ^^

then how do you rotate the signal from the PCB?

[Howard_Casto]

PCB?

Dude we are talking about mame.  How come every time you are losing an argument you bring up pcbs? 

[Malenko]

PCB?

Dude we are talking about mame.  How come every time you are losing an argument you bring up pcbs? 

Meh, if its strictly MAME (err Model 2) then an LCD is probably the better choice, depending on the cab. A 16:10 wouldn't fit vertically in my FTS cab (no room with the steering below, and no room above with the way the marquee is in the cab) . a 16:10 and or 16:9 horizontally would loose a ton of real estate vertically.


Now that being said, the monitor that's in there would be pretty hard to replace (cost effectively, its a Tri-Sync) and if the cab was gutted I would probably find a way to make the LCD work. In fact if this cab dies or becomes a giant pain in ---my bottom---, I will put an LCD in there and find a way to interface the steering.


Note: if you quote me, remove the pic link, its distracting :*

[twistedsymphony]

I kind of get by twistedsymphony's response that he thinks lcds should be a drop in replacement.  Yeah that's not what I meant.  Nothing could be further from the truth. ...

I'm not saying it should be a drop-in replacement. even swapping CRTs isn't a drop in replacement because the mounting brackets are rarely in the same location model to model there are different depth clearances etc.

All I'm saying is that I want the LCDs to have the same available visible area as the CRT it's replacing... that's it.

I don't know how no one seems to understand the point I'm trying to make, I went back and re-read the first post I made in this thread and seems like I was perfectly clear on the point I was trying to make there...

Someone brought up an analogy of restoring a car and keeping the original factory tires. That's ridiculous, and if they think that's what I'm arguing they've completely missed my point. To use that analogy All I want is to replace the original tires with new tires that are the same size...  but instead the only "tires" on the market are complete wrong and the only ones that fit are too small.

----------------

I find it laughable that the ONLY point I've been trying to make through this whole discussion is that I dislike that Widescreen LCDs (even after substantial modifications) don't properly fit in old cabs... that seems to be the only thing that everyone agrees on and yet everyone is providing opinions regarding image quality and "tastes" yet not ONCE has anyone in this thread even argued that CRTs are better in that regard.

[twistedsymphony]

Guys you serious about border space?
Take a 16/10 and install it vertical... Most cabinets have more than enough space on top and bottom anyway ^^

Show me 1 sit-down racing cab that has enough space to mount a 44" LCD vertically (what you'd need to produce a 27" 4:3 image) without the screen interfering with the marquee or poking out the top of the cab, or interfering with the  steering wheel electronics or poking out the bottom of the cab into your knees.


I can save you some trouble because I've already measured it out in a Sega Twin unit and in a Midway/Atari Style driving cab (San Fran Rush), it doesn't even come close to working in either of those unless you're willing to cut a hole in the top or bottom of the cab for it to stick out.

[Malenko]

amen twisted.

[yotsuya]

amen twisted.

Amen x2 Twisted!

[dkersten]

Twisted, I do get exactly what you are saying.  And I don't disagree that when it comes to useable screen size in a classic arcade game, a 4:3 is the way to go, and since the largest 4:3 LCD you can get is only 23.1 inches, if the cabinet had a 25-27" CRT, you would be compromising by using an LCD.  I don't think anyone is disputing this.  And when you already have a CRT to replace it with, it is a "no-brainer".  I believe the question is one of acceptability and of what you can GAIN from using an LCD.

However, the analogy about using the original tires on a classic car, while not perfect, still stands.  Those original tires might be period correct, they might even aesthetically look best to someone who appreciates the car in it's original form.  But they are very difficult to come by, and don't have the advantages that a modern tire has. 

And the other side of that analogy holds as well:  If you have already modified the car for performance reasons and it is no longer "original", what is the point in keeping the exterior of the car "original" too, particularly if it degrades performance?

Bottom line: If need to replace your 25-27" CRT in a racing cab, and already modified the cab in other ways (ie to use emulators to run multiple games), then the ONLY thing you are losing with an LCD is some vertical real estate, and the gains of an LCD may outweigh that aspect.  Hence, it is an acceptable solution even to some of the "hardcore CRT lovers". 

[Malenko]

However, the analogy about using the original tires on a classic car, while not perfect, still stands.  Those original tires might be period correct, they might even aesthetically look best to someone who appreciates the car in it's original form.  But they are very difficult to come by, and don't have the advantages that a modern tire has. 

No X2, it doesnt. Your version of the analogy makes no sense, his does. Your performance one, makes even less sense (did I mention I'm a gearhead too?)

He is saying that he'd be more more inclined to replace a CRT with an LCD if they made a bigger 4:3 LCD, how is that so hard to understand?

You are saying "you lose vertical screen size with a widescreen LCD, that's no big deal"
He is saying "you lose vertical screen size with a widescreen LCD, that's a big deal"

We all understand your perspective, do you understand ours?

[ed12]

i beg u guy's to look at rickn company
they make a exact drop in lcd for 90% of the driving cab's
4:3 to be exact

ed

[Malenko]

i beg u guy's to look at rickn company
they make a exact drop in lcd for 90% of the driving cab's
4:3 to be exact

ed

This is just a post for the sake of debate, me thinks. 

[ed12]

no i think not
www.niemandisplays.com/
go look for yourself

ed

[Malenko]

no i think not
www.niemandisplays.com/
go look for yourself

ed

this thread in general, I know about nieman. Also:

Sizes vary depending on availability... please inquire.
Aspect ratio varies based on size...
Greater than 19" 16:9 aspact ratio.
Less than 19" 4:3 aspect ratio but may be available in16:9 - Please inquire!!

[dkersten]

However, the analogy about using the original tires on a classic car, while not perfect, still stands.  Those original tires might be period correct, they might even aesthetically look best to someone who appreciates the car in it's original form.  But they are very difficult to come by, and don't have the advantages that a modern tire has. 

No X2, it doesnt. Your version of the analogy makes no sense, his does. Your performance one, makes even less sense (did I mention I'm a gearhead too?)

A) I am NOT X2, please don't insult me like that. I made the original analogy.
B) The analogy makes perfect sense.  If you have ever hung out with "car guys" there will always be those "restoration snobs" who insist that if you don't use the original bias ply tires, you don't have a restored car, you have a modified car and it doesn't belong with the truly "restored" cars.  The MAJORITY of arguments about CRT's vs. LCD's have to do with maintaining the original look of the arcade game.  The "CRT snobs" who will go with a CRT under ANY circumstances and argue it over an LCD until blue in the face are just like those "restoration snobs".  The original analogy was aimed at the idea that you have to keep the arcade cabinet "original" when in fact everything inside was already replaced, and the cabinet will be used for other games.  It is like putting bias ply tires on your 67 mustang when you already put a non-stock motor in it.  But I also believe that the analogy holds with your argument as well.  Those same snobs will ignore the fact that modern tires have enough advantages to outweigh the few advantages of sticking with a CRT.  By ignoring the facts that Howard has elaborated on regarding racing games, AND ignoring that you already have a modified cabinet, you are indeed sticking bias ply tires on your 67 mustang that is already modified and saying that you have a reason for it that trumps all other reasons.  It may not be the reason I used the analogy to begin with, but it still fits.

If you don't get the analogy, then you have never met a car guy who is anal about originality to the same point that some CRT fans are anal about arcades.  Personally, I could care less.  I only entered this argument to say that BOTH sides are right, that you can't get the vertical space with an LCD, but that Howard has a very good point in that you don't really NEED it in racing games, and that you can gain a LOT with an LCD because you can take advantage of modern improvements to even the older games.

He is saying that he'd be more more inclined to replace a CRT with an LCD if they made a bigger 4:3 LCD, how is that so hard to understand?

It isn't, I was pretty specific when I agreed that when dealing with a 25-27" CRT you cannot get the same vertical real estate as you can with any LCD.  I don't dispute it..

You are saying "you lose vertical screen size with a widescreen LCD, that's no big deal"
He is saying "you lose vertical screen size with a widescreen LCD, that's a big deal"

No, I said that you lose height and have to decide for yourself if that outweighs the pros/cons.  And I said specifically that with a 24" 16:10 LCD you lose an inch over a 23.1" 4:3 LCD, in response to someone posting the 23.1" Planar LCD, which is the biggest 4:3 LCD available.  I never said that it was OK to lose an inch, Howard did, but I did agree that "FOR ME" losing an inch of height to gain 3 inches of width is acceptable for race games.  And Howard's argument was in response to the argument of losing an inch vertically and NOT GAINING ANYTHING HORIZONTALLY;  and argument that is NOT completely true in racing games - most widescreen modes add more screen, not just stretch the existing.

In case it isn't perfectly clear:  I do not dispute that you cannot get the same vertical height with an LCD as you can with a CRT given that you are restricted to 24-25" of width.

We all understand your perspective, do you understand ours?

Perfectly.  And if the ONLY thing you care about is the height of the screen, then all other arguments are invalid because things like resolution, quality, price, availability, ease of use, wider game views, and the ability to play modern racing games are all unimportant to you.

I always read this thread (and the one it came from) as an argument about whether it is OK to replace a CRT with an LCD in a racing cabinet, not as whether a CRT has more height than an LCD of the same width.  If that had been the whole argument, then it didn't deserve a new thread.  Nobody can dispute it.

[Malenko]

A)you cant say you arent X2 then reply with a wall of text. 


My points are:
Not all racing games support widescreen mode
Most racing cabs don't allow for a very large widescreen monitor (some however DO)
Its impossible to mount a widescreen monitor vertically in a racing cab and have it fill the same space of screen real estate as a 27" 4:3 which also means if even if you could, you are limited to emulation only.
Your analogy is not only terrible, its unneeded.

Ive also stated using an LCD should be done on a cab by cab basis, and that if you are designing a cab and not retrofitting, an LCD is the better choice.
feel free to counter point, but lets leave the Xhaolin toe stabs to the pros 

[dkersten]

I don't disagree with your points, other than the analogy thing but whatever, if you don't agree it isn't going to make me cry, lol.

well, that and the insult of calling me X2.. I didn't go off on a tangent involving martial arts, and I don't think that my opinions are fact.  I DID expand on my analogy only because I wasn't sure you understood what my point was.  And I am sure that some people get it.

So your reasons for using bias ply tires CRT's are all valid, and I still believe that Howards reasons not to are valid as well.  And I hope we can all agree that one benefit of using large CRT's is that you can get more height than an LCD the same width, and put that one to bed.   

[Malenko]

I'd never call anyone X2 in a mean way, not even X2.

[yotsuya]

All I know is that if the 4:3 CRT in my racing cab dies, I'm either replacing with another CRT or it's GTFO.

[twistedsymphony]

I always read this thread (and the one it came from) as an argument about whether it is OK to replace a CRT with an LCD in a racing cabinet, not as whether a CRT has more height than an LCD of the same width.  If that had been the whole argument, then it didn't deserve a new thread.  Nobody can dispute it.

If that's what you got out of it then you weren't paying attention. let me give you the cliff notes.

1. Howard stated that there were "no excuses" for not using an LCD

2. I said that Aspect Ratio (what you're calling "screen height") is still a good excuse for wanting to continue using CRTs. I never said it was the end-all-be all reason, simply that it still exists as a reason not to swap.

That's it, thread over. This was all in the first post, I don't know how you missed it.  We weren't ever debating whether or not it was "ok" to swap them, simply that LCDs don't fit properly while maintaining the original image size; something I might add isn't really debatable or open to opinion because all it takes is 5 minutes with a tape measure and calculator to prove or disprove.

If you took anything else away other than that it's purely imagined.

[BadMouth]

I took it as people arguing CRT Vs LCD, so I split it out and titled it as such.

 

[dkersten]

Yeah, sorry, I was talking about the thread that started this one. No need to rehash what started the discussion though, even if we weren't all on the same page.  In the end it is just a matter of what you want for you, regardless of whether the cab is original or not.

[yotsuya]

GO TO BED, DAVE!   

[jennifer]

     Its kind of a no brainer anymore,  Lcd"s have become the future, for a host of reasons, as where Crt"s are old school, and parts are becoming issue.... What finally sold me was Blazing angles, (Yes I realize it"s a flight sim. and not a driver) But sitting in that plane and flying over London not once did I ever think about Dpi or viewing angles, and finally just enjoyed the game.

[dkersten]

GO TO BED, DAVE!   

It was only 1:45am here, lol.  And I didn't have to work today (woot woot). 

[twistedsymphony]

I took it as people arguing CRT Vs LCD, so I split it out and titled it as such.

 

you were right to split it out, the thread was sufficiently derailed

Yeah, sorry, I was talking about the thread that started this one.

all of the screen discussion from the original thread was moved into this one, so I'm not sure what else you were talking about.

     Its kind of a no brainer anymore,  Lcd"s have become the future, for a host of reasons, as where Crt"s are old school, and parts are becoming issue.... What finally sold me was Blazing angles, (Yes I realize it"s a flight sim. and not a driver) But sitting in that plane and flying over London not once did I ever think about Dpi or viewing angles, and finally just enjoyed the game.

LCDs are the obvious choice for modern and future games, but we're talking about old-school CRTs for use with old-school games that were designed for an old-school display format (4:3).

I like your anecdote about Blazing Angles, but that kind of thing is exactly the reason I think maintaining a proper aspect ratio and screen size is important.

Personally if I'm playing a game that was meant to be played in 4:3 and it's being stretched to fit a widescreen display, it's distracting to me, I can't lose myself in the game because my mind keeps concentrating on all the visual flaws caused by screen stretching... the same thing happens to me when there is some kind of weird border around the screen to fill in the gap for a smaller sized display... it's not something I WANT to pay attention too but it's something my mind can't help but latch on to and it prevents me from simply enjoying the game.

[Boomslang]

I fitted 32" LCD monitors in my daytona 2 cabs and they look great. Of course I had to modify the bezel to do it but I was more then happy with the result at the end.

[twistedsymphony]

I recently started putting together a dedicated LCD cabinet (Vewlix clone) for Taito Type X and other modern games... I wanted to make sure I was using something with as low lag as possible. and I found this great site: http://displaylag.com/

if anyone is interested this guy uses a Leo Bodnar Lag Tester which produces a 1080P image over HDMI and uses a laser to time how long it takes the output to appear on the display.... accurate to within 1/10th of a milisecond.

For reference 16ms is 1 frame at 60FPS so any display that's running 16ms of lag 1 frame of delay, 32ms of lag is 2 frames of delay 48ms of lag is 3 frames of delay etc.

From what I've read most high level players can detect lag over 8ms and the human body is capable of reacting within 20ms (from the time you see something to the time you can react by pushing a button).

Definitely a site worth checking out the next time you choose a display. I have to say though I was quite dissapointed with how crappy most HDTVs are in this regard. It seems the best displays are all PC monitors 27" and below.

The LCD they use at the annual EVO Fighting game tournament is a 23" ASUS VH236H which is one of the best rated LCDs at 10ms of input lag.

[BadMouth]

I recently started putting together a dedicated LCD cabinet (Vewlix clone) for Taito Type X and other modern games... I wanted to make sure I was using something with as low lag as possible. and I found this great site: http://displaylag.com/

if anyone is interested this guy uses a Leo Bodnar Lag Tester which produces a 1080P image over HDMI and uses a laser to time how long it takes the output to appear on the display.... accurate to within 1/10th of a milisecond.

For reference 16ms is 1 frame at 60FPS so any display that's running 16ms of lag 1 frame of delay, 32ms of lag is 2 frames of delay 48ms of lag is 3 frames of delay etc.

From what I've read most high level players can detect lag over 8ms and the human body is capable of reacting within 20ms (from the time you see something to the time you can react by pushing a button).

Definitely a site worth checking out the next time you choose a display. I have to say though I was quite dissapointed with how crappy most HDTVs are in this regard. It seems the best displays are all PC monitors 27" and below.

The LCD they use at the annual EVO Fighting game tournament is a 23" ASUS VH236H which is one of the best rated LCDs at 10ms of input lag.

Have you gathered any notion of how the lag spec reported by the manufacturer measures up against the results they are getting?
The one in my standup cab is supposedly 5ms, not that I checked any spec other than the price when I bought it.

EDIT: a quick browse of the third best monitor (I'm shopping for 27 inchers) tested shows a claimed spec of 5ms, the site has it rated at 9ms.  Good to know.
Seems the top rated monitors are old discontinued models. 
I'm sure there are newer equivalents, but it would be nice to know the exact model was tested.

[twistedsymphony]

Have you gathered any notion of how the lag spec reported by the manufacturer measures up against the results they are getting?
The one in my standup cab is supposedly 5ms, not that I checked any spec other than the price when I bought it.

Most manufacturers don't ever list "input lag"... they list "response time" which is a completely different measurement.

"response time" is the amount of time it takes for one pixel to change colors, originally it was how long it took to go from black to white but since there was no standard many manufacturers list "gray to gray" time which is the amount of time it takes to change from one shade of gray to the next... obviously easier to do than black to white and thus looks better on a spec sheet.

Response time is important as a large amount of time will result in ghosting, but it completely ignores all the time it takes to perform the digital processing and decryption of the input signal before it actually reaches the display part of the display.

Most Hometheater and AV review outlets have agreed on the Leo Bodnar test as the standard for determining input lag... the way the test works it also takes into account (black to white) response time. it's a COMPLETE view of the lag in a display. It's also important to note that part of the standard is to take an average based on 3 locations on the screen, the top , center and bottom as the lag at the top is generally much shorter than the lag at the bottom.  AFAIK there aren't any manufacturers who have ever listed the standard LB tested lag of their display. DisplayLag.com was started by a competitive fighting game player who's taken it upon himself to buy one of these testers and go out to the store and test every display he can get his hands on.

Input lag will ALWAYS be higher than the "response time" listed by the manufacturer. For reference that EVO monitor with 10ms of input lag per the LB test is listed as having a 2ms response time from the manufacturer. Obviously the bulk of the lag isn't in the response time but rather the digital processing of the input signal. 120Hz or 240Hz and other high refresh rate displays generally have really good response time because they have to in order to get those kinds of rates, but again it completely disregards the lag caused by digital signal processing.

I've heard a lot of people claim that using VGA as opposed to DVI/HDMI reduces lag as it tends to bypass a lot of the slower digital processing in LCDs but I've yet to see any tests to confirm this... Unfortunately the LB testers that exist are digital only.

[BadMouth]

Thank you for the thorough explanation.
 
I was just looking at response times (thinking it was lag) vs price and hoping not to end up with a blurry mess.

[twistedsymphony]

I've been promoting the ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- out of that site since I found it.  Since lag is really only important to gaming, and not to many people seem to know or even realize that no good lag figures exist from the manufacturer.

The guy Running Displaylag.com has done a great job but even with a few hundred displays tested it's still a pretty small list compared to whats on the market.

I've been debating buying a LB tester myself, they're not cheap but they're not unreasonably expensive either: http://www.leobodnar.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=212

I'm mostly interested to see how the displays in my house stack up, and playing around with settings to see if I can effect the lag for better or worse. but at ~$115 it's right at that price where I'm not sure if it's worth it.

... of course a poor-mans lag tester is to use RockBand 2's built in lag tester, I believe the developers put a sensor in the official guitar to automatically calibrate the video and audio lag. A lot of Fighting game players would use this to determine which LCD displays were worth using.

... the other popular lag-testing technique is to have a PC outputting to VGA then split the VGA signal to both a CRT and an LCD that you're testing. The assumption being that the CRT would be essentially "lagless" then setup a timer app on the PC that display miliseconds and take a series of photographs of both displays at the same time... this would give you an image with different numbers on them so you can see how far behind the LCD was lagging compared to the CRT.

[dkersten]

Interesting site, but a couple comments/opinions:

"Input Lag" as he describes it (from what I read) is the combined latency between when the image is sent and when it is displayed, so it would be the sum of the actual input lag (the time it takes for the signal to get processed and start changing pixels) plus the response time of the panel itself.  And if he is actually measuring ONLY the input lag and not the overall lag, then response time of the panel will ADD to his measurements, and since each panel type can vary GREATLY in response time (which is not just affecting ghosting, it affects how fast the pixel comes on, which matters a lot if you are actually aiming at something on the screen)

Panel type: He classifies the screens as LED, IPS LED, Plasma, or 3D LED.. I am not sure why since, as I said, certain panels are going to be way faster and make a huge difference in overall latency.  "LED" is the backlighting, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the panel response or the input lag.  3D screens simply are higher refresh with more processing involved, so perhaps input lag will be affected if running in a 3D mode, but you can have a number of different panel types that are "3D", and other than using the 3D capability to enable Lightboost (not available on TV's anyway), the fact that the panel can do 3D has no bearing on computer gaming latency.  In general, you mostly get TN and IPS panels. TN panels have poorer color quality and worse off angle viewing, but have far faster response times than IPS panels.  This is one of the many reasons "gaming" monitors are TN panels at this point, despite the TN panel's lower picture quality.

On TV's, HDMI is the typical connection, and it plugs into a processor, which is where most of the lag comes from.  The "gaming" mode bypasses a lot of this, but particularly with HDMI and PC gaming, there is added processing time when dealing with HDMI.  On an old CRT monitor, you already have analog RGB info in the VGA connection, a few analog adjustments, and not much else before it hits the tube, so processing is minimal in comparison.  But as stated earlier in the thread, CRT tech is dead and parts are becoming scarce.  LCD monitors (as opposed to TVs), still have less processing, usually using native VGA connections (or DVI, which bypasses a TON of processing).  Most TV's with VGA or DVI inputs are using processors to convert it so it can go through the same processing as an HDMI goes through, then on to post processing, all before hitting the panel.  So even in gaming modes there is a lot more going on.  The irony is, the panels are virtually the same between a monitor and a TV, but the overall lag will be higher in most cases just because of design.  A TV <> Computer monitor, but then we knew that from your first post about this.

Input lag in video/theater applications is countered easily by adjusting the audio delay that almost every decent device has.  Who cares if there is even a few seconds of lag when watching a video, as long as you sync the audio and video, it doesn't matter because there is no human input for you to compare to.  But for computers, audio sync isn't the factor that matters.  If I were to buy the tester you are talking about, I would do it so I could measure my theater display and adjust the audio latency to match, not so I could benchmark my monitor.  But that is just me I guess.

For "gaming" that is actually affected by input lag (primarily FPS games), monitors specifically for gaming are superior.  The recent Nvidia based G-Sync monitors are geared toward both super low input lag (pre-processing is minimal and designed to be super fast) and super low response times (e.g. TN panels as opposed to IPS).  But for quite a while now, Lightboost (which uses 3D processors in monitors to add extra frames of white in between frames to lower the ghosting effect of LCD's) has been around, and it also uses TN panels because of the superior response time (and hence less overall latency).  BUT, I see that this website reviews almost no monitors, and from what I saw, no "gaming" monitors at all.  This is probably because his testing equipment can't handle displayport or VGA.  (This is still a good site for determining the best TV to buy for gaming with I guess, if you are looking to game on a big screen)

To me, focusing on input lag for anything other than competitive FPS gaming is like worrying about the octane rating of your gasoline in a regular car.  Sure, there are some benefits that almost every person in the world will never notice unless you are using some device to measure it, but when it comes down to it, the difference is academic, and not really useful in the "real world".  Even if you are playing an FPS game at home with some competitive players, you still have a 50-250 ms latency to the server, so an extra 10 ms doesn't "multiply" the effect of lag as that website says, it simply adds to it, in a negligible percentage.

BUT, if it is important to you, then spend the money to buy the Asus 27" ROG G-Sync monitor which will give you a TOTAL latency around 5-7ms (input lag plus panel response time) AND it will match the frequency to your frame rate.  And if you aren't so concerned with the occasional screen tear, switch from G-Sync to LightBoost and enjoy ghost-free "CRT-Like" performance.

Personally though, $800 to play an arcade game that was originally played on a crappy CRT with phosphor glare and scan lines and lens distortion (which we like to recreate with HLSL) is overkill, but who am I to judge what is best for other people?   Bottom line for me is I just finished a cab with a cheap 32" TV as the monitor, and in MAME games, I didn't see anything different than any other LCD, and it played just as well.  Also, not one single game I play will stretch and distort.  If it is a 4:3 game, it plays in a 4:3 window and just doesn't use the extra screen. 

I guess my overall opinion is this:  Do what works best for YOU.  But if you are focused on one small performance aspect of a system, like input lag of the monitor, then you better focus on every other aspect of performance or you simply come across as a "snob".  Get the fastest monitor you can find, but don't forget to load up the computer with an overclocked core i7, titan GPU, 512gb SSD, ultra low latency DDR3 ram, and shorter throw buttons and joysticks so you have faster response time.  THEN take the time to train your body, eyes, mind, etc. to be quick enough to actually take advantage of the extra 5-10ms you gained by reducing lag.  OR, just don't worry so much about a fraction of a fraction of a second when playing Pac Man.  I go for not worrying about it, but again that is just me.

[twistedsymphony]

"Input Lag" as he describes it (from what I read) is the combined latency between when the image is sent and when it is displayed, so it would be the sum of the actual input lag (the time it takes for the signal to get processed and start changing pixels) plus the response time of the panel itself.  And if he is actually measuring ONLY the input lag and not the overall lag, then response time of the panel will ADD to his measurements, and since each panel type can vary GREATLY in response time (which is not just affecting ghosting, it affects how fast the pixel comes on, which matters a lot if you are actually aiming at something on the screen)

That's not entirely correct. while you are indeed correct in how he technically defines "input lag" the listings on the site are LB Lag numbers which DO INCLUDE response time. if you look at the link to the LB tester it clearly says that it measures "input lag + response time". Considering how the lag tester works it'd be impossible for it to NOT include response time because it can only see what the dispaly outputs and the output is limited by the response time.

Panel type: He classifies the screens as LED, IPS LED, Plasma, or 3D LED.. I am not sure why since, as I said, certain panels are going to be way faster and make a huge difference in overall latency.  "LED" is the backlighting, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the panel response or the input lag.  3D screens simply are higher refresh with more processing involved, so perhaps input lag will be affected if running in a 3D mode, but you can have a number of different panel types that are "3D", and other than using the 3D capability to enable Lightboost (not available on TV's anyway), the fact that the panel can do 3D has no bearing on computer gaming latency.  In general, you mostly get TN and IPS panels. TN panels have poorer color quality and worse off angle viewing, but have far faster response times than IPS panels.  This is one of the many reasons "gaming" monitors are TN panels at this point, despite the TN panel's lower picture quality.

I'm pretty sure he only lists the screen types as a convenience for the user... if so, for instance you're specifically looking for a 3D TV then you can limit the results by that and see which 3D displays has the least lag. You're right that different display technologies generally have different response times but that's inconsequential to the lag listings in the database because, again, the response time is included in the lag numbers.

On TV's, HDMI is the typical connection, and it plugs into a processor, which is where most of the lag comes from.  The "gaming" mode bypasses a lot of this, but particularly with HDMI and PC gaming, there is added processing time when dealing with HDMI.  On an old CRT monitor, you already have analog RGB info in the VGA connection, a few analog adjustments, and not much else before it hits the tube, so processing is minimal in comparison.  But as stated earlier in the thread, CRT tech is dead and parts are becoming scarce.  LCD monitors (as opposed to TVs), still have less processing, usually using native VGA connections (or DVI, which bypasses a TON of processing).  Most TV's with VGA or DVI inputs are using processors to convert it so it can go through the same processing as an HDMI goes through, then on to post processing, all before hitting the panel.  So even in gaming modes there is a lot more going on.  The irony is, the panels are virtually the same between a monitor and a TV, but the overall lag will be higher in most cases just because of design.  A TV <> Computer monitor, but then we knew that from your first post about this.

HDMI and DVI (D) are the same protocol, you can use a straight through connector to change one plug end to the other and neither the display nor the source device knows the difference. The same can be said about VGA and DVI (A) Most of the lag associated with HDMI processing comes from that fact most HDMI connections even on gaming and PCs are encrypted for copy-protection reasons (you have the MPAA along with Sony and the Blu-Ray committee to thank for that) which adds more crap that needs to be done (decrypting the signal). Technically DVI can be encrypted the same way but it was rarely used until Blu-Ray came about and they started forcing manufacturers to include encryption in order to support that drive type.

The LB Tester only supports HDMI natively, I'm not sure if it includes encryption or not. I'd love to see a VGA variant to determine how different the lag is based on the different input types.

Input lag in video/theater applications is countered easily by adjusting the audio delay that almost every decent device has.  Who cares if there is even a few seconds of lag when watching a video, as long as you sync the audio and video, it doesn't matter because there is no human input for you to compare to.  But for computers, audio sync isn't the factor that matters.  If I were to buy the tester you are talking about, I would do it so I could measure my theater display and adjust the audio latency to match, not so I could benchmark my monitor.  But that is just me I guess.

I'm bit into home theater myself. I hadn't considered it's use for audio sync... that's not a bad idea.

For "gaming" that is actually affected by input lag (primarily FPS games), monitors specifically for gaming are superior.  The recent Nvidia based G-Sync monitors are geared toward both super low input lag (pre-processing is minimal and designed to be super fast) and super low response times (e.g. TN panels as opposed to IPS).  But for quite a while now, Lightboost (which uses 3D processors in monitors to add extra frames of white in between frames to lower the ghosting effect of LCD's) has been around, and it also uses TN panels because of the superior response time (and hence less overall latency).  BUT, I see that this website reviews almost no monitors, and from what I saw, no "gaming" monitors at all.  This is probably because his testing equipment can't handle displayport or VGA.  (This is still a good site for determining the best TV to buy for gaming with I guess, if you are looking to game on a big screen)

I'd say that Fighting Games depend on low lag as much if not more-so than FPS. there are many attack windows in those games that are literally 1-2 frames large and many people who play them competitively often watch footage frame by frame to find these windows and learn where there are openings for improving their game. Both the LB tester and DisplayLag.com were developed by members within the competitive Fighting Game Community.

The LB tester only support HDMI and the displays tested are only what the owner of Displaylag.com has been able to access and test personally. If those G-Sync displays aren't available for in-store testing or don't support HDMI then you wont seem them on that site... at least not until there is a Display port version of the LB tester.

It's also worth noting that while the FPS community prefers PC, consoles are still the preferred platform for fighting games and as of right now there aren't any consoles that support display ports or this g-sync technology. (seems very promising I'd be interested in trying it out myself).

To me, focusing on input lag for anything other than competitive FPS gaming is like worrying about the octane rating of your gasoline in a regular car.  Sure, there are some benefits that almost every person in the world will never notice unless you are using some device to measure it, but when it comes down to it, the difference is academic, and not really useful in the "real world".  Even if you are playing an FPS game at home with some competitive players, you still have a 50-250 ms latency to the server, so an extra 10 ms doesn't "multiply" the effect of lag as that website says, it simply adds to it, in a negligible percentage.

As I said low lag is vital among competitive fighting game players. Enough such that they're always on the same hardware (not over a network) and they even use wired controllers instead of wireless.

Rythm games are another genre were timing is very important. I'm actually big into Dance Dance Revolution circles and many players avoid using LCDs altogether due to lag reasons. Even some newer arcade machines that come equipped with LCDs from the factory are swapped out for hard to find wide-screen CRTs to help improve display lag and thus improve their ability to perform better in-game.

Modern SHMUPs are another genre where timing is vital.

It seems to me that you're into FPSs and that's cool but that's not the end-all be-all of high precision gaming. There are many many places in the modern gaming world where low lag is very important.

BUT, if it is important to you, then spend the money to buy the Asus 27" ROG G-Sync monitor which will give you a TOTAL latency around 5-7ms (input lag plus panel response time) AND it will match the frequency to your frame rate.  And if you aren't so concerned with the occasional screen tear, switch from G-Sync to LightBoost and enjoy ghost-free "CRT-Like" performance.

Personally though, $800 to play an arcade game that was originally played on a crappy CRT with phosphor glare and scan lines and lens distortion (which we like to recreate with HLSL) is overkill, but who am I to judge what is best for other people?   Bottom line for me is I just finished a cab with a cheap 32" TV as the monitor, and in MAME games, I didn't see anything different than any other LCD, and it played just as well.  Also, not one single game I play will stretch and distort.  If it is a 4:3 game, it plays in a 4:3 window and just doesn't use the extra screen. 

As I stated in my first post about displaylag.com I found the site because I was interested in using it for Taito Type X games (http://www.system16.com/hardware.php?id=903)... If you're unfamiliar with that gaming hardware it's not a CRT arcade game, it's hardware that was designed to run in 720P on a Wide-screen LCD... and most of the games I plan on playing are Fighting Games (such as Blaz Blue and Street Fighter IV)... as well as SHMUPs (such as GigaWing Generations and Raiden IV) which is why I want a low-lag wide-screen LCD to go with it.... I don't know where you got the idea that I'll be playing "pac-man" on this screen (I'm not, if that was my interest I'd build a CRT machine for that)... I'm interested in the best possible machine to play modern HD fighting games and SHMUPs... and for that I need a low-lag LCD

You don't need to spend $800 on a bleeding etch G-Sync display along with the PC hardware to support. as you can see on the DisplayLag website there are quite a few "pretty good" monitors with less than 1 frame of lag that can be had for under $200. I only shared it because it's a pretty good guide help you select your next LCD... if you were planning on getting just a 32" whatever for your machine would you rather get the 26ms lag monitor for $200 or the 87ms lag monitor for $200? the decision at that point is pretty easy and it's an excellent resource for those kinds of decisions.

I'll probably use the site again when I go to build my Virtual Pinball machine. trying to find a low-lag 42" display is difficult and low display lag is vital when you're emulating the real world.

[dkersten]

Great responses!   

if you look at the link to the LB tester it clearly says that it measures "input lag + response time". Considering how the lag tester works it'd be impossible for it to NOT include response time because it can only see what the dispaly outputs and the output is limited by the response time.

Which is why panel type would be so important.. there can be a 10-20ms difference from a TN to an IPS, so on those PC monitors, it could triple the overall latency. 

You're right that different display technologies generally have different response times but that's inconsequential to the lag listings in the database because, again, the response time is included in the lag numbers.

True, but I would think anyone interested in "nuts and bolts" like this would like to see WHY one brand might be higher.. is it because of slow processors or because of the screen they use?  If you are making decisions based on latency, you could be sacrificing picture quality, and in the case of big screen games like DDR, off axis viewing would be just as important as response time.  Knowing the screen type (which in some cases can be the cause of the majority of the total lag) will also let you know that a particular manufacturer might use slower processors, so for models not listed, you would know to avoid the IPS versions of that model if you want lower latency.  It might be splitting hairs, but if I am going to use a website for specific performance specs on a device, I want to know the key contributing factors, not just the overall results.

HDMI and DVI (D) are the same protocol, you can use a straight through connector to change one plug end to the other and neither the display nor the source device knows the difference.

True again, but the point is, there are other processors involved when using HDMI vs DVI, for breaking out audio signal and copy protection, etc.  A monitor with a DVI (D) input won't have all that, and hence the input lag will be (theoretically) lower.  By not having the ability to test outside of HDMI, including computer monitors (particularly ones that use a pure DVI input with an HDMI connector for compatibility and not for full HDMI spec) is not a "fair" fight.  Of course the monitors will have lower latency, they don't have those extra processors.

I want to reiterate that as a site to determine the best TV to use with a PC in a gaming environment, this is a great site.  It just misses the mark in determining what a good gaming monitor is.

I'm bit into home theater myself. I hadn't considered it's use for audio sync... that's not a bad idea.

Frankly without reading the entire site, I thought this was half of what the site was for - video enthusiasts looking for the info on how to set their audio sync.  That and for people wanting to hook an x-box to their tv.

It's also worth noting that while the FPS community prefers PC, consoles are still the preferred platform for fighting games and as of right now there aren't any consoles that support display ports or this g-sync technology. (seems very promising I'd be interested in trying it out myself).

It seems to me that you're into FPSs and that's cool but that's not the end-all be-all of high precision gaming. There are many many places in the modern gaming world where low lag is very important.

To be completely honest, I have always viewed consoles as "for kids", and I have never even considered them as serious competitive gaming devices.  I have been to a few events for "extreme gaming" and it is always either PC based, or arcade based (ie Big Buck).  I didn't even know that console games had any kind of professional gaming leagues.  I am not into FPS, but of every genre I have played, it is the only one where I have seen that things like input lag, refresh speed, ghosting, screen tearing, and overall frame rate are actually important.  I myself was planning to purchase a G-Sync monitor back in April when the ROG was supposed to come out, and I might eventually get into the technology, I just no longer even play FPS games casually (or any game where a few milliseconds will make a difference or where I needed a powerhouse video card to play without stutters or screen tears) so it is no longer a priority. 

When I spent a few days really boning up on G-sync, Lightboost, Free-Sync, and all the technology associated with trying to get LCD's to perform like the high end CRT's of old, everything I read was geared toward competitive FPS gaming.  I have been to PAX and watched live world championships of LoL, I have heard of QuakeCon, and I have even competed in Big Buck tournaments at the bars around town, but I have never heard of competitive DDR, or even tournaments with console games.  That doesn't mean they don't exist, I just have never traveled in those circles, or even met someone who is involved.  In all the years of gaming, both hardcore and casually, competitive gaming has always been synonymous with PC's.  The last time I heard of console competition was the movie "the wizard", lol. 

Also, not one single game I play will stretch and distort.  If it is a 4:3 game, it plays in a 4:3 window and just doesn't use the extra screen. 

If you're unfamiliar with that gaming hardware it's not a CRT arcade game, it's hardware that was designed to run in 720P on a Wide-screen LCD... and most of the games I plan on playing are Fighting Games (such as Blaz Blue and Street Fighter IV)... as well as SHMUPs (such as GigaWing Generations and Raiden IV) which is why I want a low-lag wide-screen LCD to go with it.... I don't know where you got the idea that I'll be playing "pac-man" on this screen

Actually, in the post immediately prior to that one, you said:

Personally if I'm playing a game that was meant to be played in 4:3 and it's being stretched to fit a widescreen display, it's distracting to me, I can't lose myself in the game because my mind keeps concentrating on all the visual flaws caused by screen stretching... the same thing happens to me when there is some kind of weird border around the screen to fill in the gap for a smaller sized display... it's not something I WANT to pay attention too but it's something my mind can't help but latch on to and it prevents me from simply enjoying the game.

I assumed that your newer comments were an extension of this topic, which is why I was saying that 4:3 games don't stretch to wide mode on any mame game that I have ever played.  The black bars on each side are the same color as my bezels, so I don't ever notice them, and I only see the 4:3 screen. 

I also assumed that since you posted in this thread, you were making another argument for why LCD's are not as good as CRT's in arcade type games.  In my case, I didn't use a fast 32" monitor on my last cab, and I really don't know what the latency is, yet it still didn't affect my ability to play and enjoy it.  Granted, I am not a competitor in any kind of professional cyber athlete league, but then neither is anyone on this forum that I know of. 

You don't need to spend $800 on a bleeding etch G-Sync display along with the PC hardware to support. as you can see on the DisplayLag website there are quite a few "pretty good" monitors with less than 1 frame of lag that can be had for under $200. I only shared it because it's a pretty good guide help you select your next LCD... if you were planning on getting just a 32" whatever for your machine would you rather get the 26ms lag monitor for $200 or the 87ms lag monitor for $200? the decision at that point is pretty easy and it's an excellent resource for those kinds of decisions.

Usually when there is a noticeable discrepancy in any one area of technology, whether it be latency, picture quality, or build quality, there is also a noticeable discrepancy in price.  It is rare that you can find any one product that outperforms another in any drastic way for the same price unless there are tradeoffs in other areas.  I bought that 32" LCD because it was $220, local, and 1080p.  To find those criteria in something while also having 4x lower latency is simply not going to happen.  But even so, I would probably never notice the difference when playing pac man or even when playing Street Fighter.

I completely agree that when all other things are equal, pick the product with the best specs.  And I don't disagree that using good components is a good idea whenever you can afford to.  But I have adopted the philosophy that if you are going to focus on performance in any part of a system, it is a complete waste of time if you aren't going to follow through with it on the entire system, unless that one part you are focusing on is the "weak link".  I don't see input lag as the weak link in a gaming system, unless that system is specifically designed for competition, in which case every other area where latency can be lowered would be just as critical.  The guy that has a basic desktop computer but took the time to pick out the lowest latency monitor because it is best for competition is the same guy who puts a spoiler on a stock Honda so it will perform better on the track or the guy who buys the $400 running shoes because they are the ones that the Olympic sprinters use (even if he only goes for a walk once a week). 

The weak link in competitive gaming is the player.  You said in your first post about lag that a person can only react so fast (20ms).  The thing is, a talented player who has spent many hours training to react can take advantage of better technology, whereas the average person probably can't react even a tenth as fast.  Unless you are a trained "cyber athlete", you probably will never notice or be able to take advantage of a lower latency monitor.

Finally, while I don't disagree that finding the lowest latency monitor is good (as long as it fits all your other criteria, including budget), I have to point out something about competition.  You don't gain an edge when everyone else is using the same hardware.  In fact, if you train on superior hardware and all other things are equal, if you end up competing against someone who has trained on the hardware you will compete on, you lose your advantage.  If every player has to deal with an extra 10ms of latency, the playing field is still equal, and the player is the only difference.  At the very outermost extremity of competition, where both players are limited in their ability because of the hardware (and the competition is a draw in every respect), improving the hardware will allow one player to be superior to the other.  But in the end, it isn't the car that wins the race, it is the driver. 

[twistedsymphony]

... I would think anyone interested in "nuts and bolts" like this would like to see WHY one brand might be higher.. is it because of slow processors or because of the screen they use?  If you are making decisions based on latency, you could be sacrificing picture quality, and in the case of big screen games like DDR, off axis viewing would be just as important as response time.  Knowing the screen type (which in some cases can be the cause of the majority of the total lag) will also let you know that a particular manufacturer might use slower processors, so for models not listed, you would know to avoid the IPS versions of that model if you want lower latency.  It might be splitting hairs, but if I am going to use a website for specific performance specs on a device, I want to know the key contributing factors, not just the overall results.

That's a good point and I totally agree. I don't believe that low-lag should be the one and only factor that drives your purchase but I think a resource like displaylag.com gives you a good starting point to find the displays that are better in that regard and weed out the displays that are worse. and then once you have a few candidates you can select your display based on the total feature set that best fits your needs.

For instance the cabinet I'm putting together calls for a 32" LCD... so once I found that site I filtered down to the 32" displays they had listed, then took down the model number and read up on reviews and opinions and prices on those displays before I bought one .... it gave me a starting point to work from.

By not having the ability to test outside of HDMI, including computer monitors (particularly ones that use a pure DVI input with an HDMI connector for compatibility and not for full HDMI spec) is not a "fair" fight.  Of course the monitors will have lower latency, they don't have those extra processors.

I think that part of the decision to only test via HDMI at 1080p is that is arguably the most common setup and it ensures that all displays are being tested in the same exact way. I absolutely agree that there is benefit to utilizing other input types like unencrypted DVI, VGA and Display Port, but realistically those are all different lag readings... there are enough differences in the signal format alone that you can't fairly compare say VGA lag on one display to DisplayPort lag on another.

I want to reiterate that as a site to determine the best TV to use with a PC in a gaming environment, this is a great site.  It just misses the mark in determining what a good gaming monitor is.

I'm bit into home theater myself. I hadn't considered it's use for audio sync... that's not a bad idea.

Frankly without reading the entire site, I thought this was half of what the site was for - video enthusiasts looking for the info on how to set their audio sync.  That and for people wanting to hook an x-box to their tv.

I would encourage you to contact the guy who runs it, I personally had a few ideas for making it better that I was planning on contacting him about.

Somewhere on his site he mentions that his point in creating the site is to help bring to light the lag problems that a lot of displays have and hopefully encourage display manufacturers to start properly listing those specs and working to improve that aspect of their displays... which is something I can personally get behind.

To be completely honest, I have always viewed consoles as "for kids", and I have never even considered them as serious competitive gaming devices.  I have been to a few events for "extreme gaming" and it is always either PC based, or arcade based (ie Big Buck).  I didn't even know that console games had any kind of professional gaming leagues.  I am not into FPS, but of every genre I have played, it is the only one where I have seen that things like input lag, refresh speed, ghosting, screen tearing, and overall frame rate are actually important.  I myself was planning to purchase a G-Sync monitor back in April when the ROG was supposed to come out, and I might eventually get into the technology, I just no longer even play FPS games casually (or any game where a few milliseconds will make a difference or where I needed a powerhouse video card to play without stutters or screen tears) so it is no longer a priority. 

When I spent a few days really boning up on G-sync, Lightboost, Free-Sync, and all the technology associated with trying to get LCD's to perform like the high end CRT's of old, everything I read was geared toward competitive FPS gaming.  I have been to PAX and watched live world championships of LoL, I have heard of QuakeCon, and I have even competed in Big Buck tournaments at the bars around town, but I have never heard of competitive DDR, or even tournaments with console games.  That doesn't mean they don't exist, I just have never traveled in those circles, or even met someone who is involved.  In all the years of gaming, both hardcore and casually, competitive gaming has always been synonymous with PC's.  The last time I heard of console competition was the movie "the wizard", lol. 

A big part of the reason consoles are the preferred platform for Fighting games is because it ensures that there is no variation... a PS3 is a PS3 is a PS3, it always renders at the same resolution and frame rate, where as a with a PC you can have vastly different specs that cause the game to function differently depending on the hardware configuration. Controllers/Joysticks need to be approved for use so the only real opportunity gamers have to improve the hardware they're using is in the display (and headphones). The EVO fighting game tournament is every year in August... you should check it out next year if you have a chance, they usually have 3 or 4 twitch streams to cover the whole 3-day competition http://shoryuken.com/category/evo-2/

Competitive DDR, SHMUPs and other modern arcade games is always based on arcade hardware, but due to the extreme cost of owning an actual DDR machine many competitors buy only the PCB to train on with the rest using homebuilt equipment, so finding stuff that is as close to the arcade as possible is the most important to them. A lot of those games aren't big in the US though, which is why you might not be as familiar with them.

I assumed that your newer comments were an extension of this topic, which is why I was saying that 4:3 games don't stretch to wide mode on any mame game that I have ever played.  The black bars on each side are the same color as my bezels, so I don't ever notice them, and I only see the 4:3 screen. 

I also assumed that since you posted in this thread, you were making another argument for why LCD's are not as good as CRT's in arcade type games.

This thread started because I was advocating that you should pick the "right display for the job", stating that if you had an original arcade cabinet designed for a large 4:3 CRT... you should replace it with a 4:3 display because a 16:9 simply wont fit without some significant compromise. That discussion had ended about a month ago... then someone bumped it and having recently discovered displaylag.com while searching for an LCD (to play games designed for an LCD). I thought it was an appropriate place to share.

if you look at the dates you'll see that despite my posts only being a few posts apart they are actually a month apart time wise.... so if you just recently found this thread I can see why you might have been confused.

In my case, I didn't use a fast 32" monitor on my last cab, and I really don't know what the latency is, yet it still didn't affect my ability to play and enjoy it.  Granted, I am not a competitor in any kind of professional cyber athlete league, but then neither is anyone on this forum that I know of. 

Usually when there is a noticeable discrepancy in any one area of technology, whether it be latency, picture quality, or build quality, there is also a noticeable discrepancy in price.  It is rare that you can find any one product that outperforms another in any drastic way for the same price unless there are tradeoffs in other areas.  I bought that 32" LCD because it was $220, local, and 1080p.  To find those criteria in something while also having 4x lower latency is simply not going to happen.  But even so, I would probably never notice the difference when playing pac man or even when playing Street Fighter.

You'd be surprised. once you start playing "2D" or "2.5D" (as is the case with most modern fighting game) with even a passing level of proficiency you'll start to notice the effects of display lag.  Maybe not directly but I can regularly score over 100,000 in Donkey Kong on my emulation cabinet running an Arcade CRT. but playing that same game with the same PC hardware with an PC LCD (over VGA) I'm lucky if I can break 40,000 because the game is just "harder" all of the windows of opportunity to make jumps and avoid obstacles are shortened by the lag caused by the display....

The lag isn't noticeable but it's enough that puts you off your game. I've seen fighting game players have the opposite problem, they're used to playing on a laggy display and when they get to competition and using a really fast monitor they get destroyed because so much of fighting games is predicting what your opponent is going to do and if your prediction is executed too EARLY it ends up costing you.

I completely agree that when all other things are equal, pick the product with the best specs.  And I don't disagree that using good components is a good idea whenever you can afford to.  But I have adopted the philosophy that if you are going to focus on performance in any part of a system, it is a complete waste of time if you aren't going to follow through with it on the entire system, unless that one part you are focusing on is the "weak link".  I don't see input lag as the weak link in a gaming system, unless that system is specifically designed for competition, in which case every other area where latency can be lowered would be just as critical.  The guy that has a basic desktop computer but took the time to pick out the lowest latency monitor because it is best for competition is the same guy who puts a spoiler on a stock Honda so it will perform better on the track or the guy who buys the $400 running shoes because they are the ones that the Olympic sprinters use (even if he only goes for a walk once a week). 

I agree, however when you're talking about competitive gaming on console or arcade it's not about having "better" hardware it's about having the "right hardware" there's nothing you can do to improve the performance of your Xbox, and you're limited to only a handful of approved controllers... so when you're picking a display you'd be best served to find one with lag that matches the monitor you're going to be using once you get to competition.

[dkersten]

I don't disagree with you for the most part, I just don't completely agree with your philosophy or the importance you put behind the conclusions you have come to.  It isn't anything personal, so I hope you don't take it as such.  Since being here I have ended up in 3 different discussions regarding the benefits of "superior" monitors in arcade gaming, and I just don't buy into it.  I used to, and I spent the money to stand behind my beliefs, but looking back I realize that it was a whole lot of "benchmarking" without much (if any) "real life" benefit.

I could continue to discuss the minutia of latency in displays, but I think it is a moot point.  When it comes down to it, TV's don't make good gaming monitors, and this site spends a lot of time proving that. 

Bottom line is I just don't feel (based on somewhat extensive experience with the technology and with gaming) that the input lag of your display is making that much of a difference in your ability to play the game and get enjoyment out of it.  I am far from a pro in any game, but I am usually in the top half of any group I play with or against, and I just haven't spotted a difference between a game played on a decent computer monitor with low latency vs a game played on a television screen.  There are too many other "weak links" in a system to worry about something this minor.

If you can find a "better" monitor with all other things being equal (including price) because of your research on this site, then I applaud you.  Usually, as I said before, it is rare if not impossible to find two products at the same price point with the same set of features and specs that are drastically different in just one area.  Typically if you are finding a TV with monitor-like latency, you are paying a premium for that or you are losing out on other qualities. 

I hope whatever you pick out works well for you.  I'll stick to the $220 model with the 3/8" bezel and 1080p resolution that I can buy locally, at least for an arcade monitor.

[twistedsymphony]

I don't disagree with you for the most part, I just don't completely agree with your philosophy or the importance you put behind the conclusions you have come to.  It isn't anything personal, so I hope you don't take it as such.  Since being here I have ended up in 3 different discussions regarding the benefits of "superior" monitors in arcade gaming, and I just don't buy into it.  I used to, and I spent the money to stand behind my beliefs, but looking back I realize that it was a whole lot of "benchmarking" without much (if any) "real life" benefit.

My desire for a low lag display comes from personal frustration with playing games on high lag displays  if I'm not enjoying my time playing a game then there's no point in playing it.

I'm not sure what you think my "philosophy" is but the whole discussion of lag in this thread was me simply saying "hey guys, there's a nice resource you can use to help pick out a display".... nothing more, nothing less.

I could continue to discuss the minutia of latency in displays, but I think it is a moot point.  When it comes down to it, TV's don't make good gaming monitors, and this site spends a lot of time proving that. 

I completely agree, however once you go above 27" "monitors" become prohibitively expensive and the only reasonably priced options are HDTVs... my goal with look at lag is NOT to find "the best display" but rather to find the one that "sucks the least" within my price range and size requirements.

Bottom line is I just don't feel (based on somewhat extensive experience with the technology and with gaming) that the input lag of your display is making that much of a difference in your ability to play the game and get enjoyment out of it.  I am far from a pro in any game, but I am usually in the top half of any group I play with or against, and I just haven't spotted a difference between a game played on a decent computer monitor with low latency vs a game played on a television screen.  There are too many other "weak links" in a system to worry about something this minor.

I don't don't think you've ever played on a truly terrible display with over 100ms of display lag. it's rage inducing almost immediately... my only goal with looking at lag when selecting a display is to try to avoid this.... if you don't think there are displays that bad, then go look at that database and sort it to show the highest lag displays first... trust me, when the screen is a 1/10th of a second behind most games become unplayable.

If you can find a "better" monitor with all other things being equal (including price) because of your research on this site, then I applaud you.  Usually, as I said before, it is rare if not impossible to find two products at the same price point with the same set of features and specs that are drastically different in just one area.  Typically if you are finding a TV with monitor-like latency, you are paying a premium for that or you are losing out on other qualities.

I completely disagree... with PC monitors you might be paying a premium for low lag, but with HDTVs it seems to be the complete opposite. The cheap, bare-bones TVs seem to be the fastest ones because they don't have any video processing crap slowing it down. Manufacturers strip out all of the features that are designed to "enhance" the image quality, features they charge a premium for... and as a result it's the expensive models that are slow because they're loaded with lag inducing processing.

I hope whatever you pick out works well for you.  I'll stick to the $220 model with the 3/8" bezel and 1080p resolution that I can buy locally, at least for an arcade monitor.

To go along with my previous point I bought a Samsung UN32EH4003... it's the lowest lag 32" display listed on displaylag.com at 26ms.. and it's also one of the cheapest 32" display I could find at only $200 new.  I didn't base it on lag alone, I looked at the 10 lowest lag monitors listed there, the Samsung was not only the lowest lag but also the cheapest, and I read reviews from other gamers who had used it. I'm sure if I wanted to spend $600 I could get an 8ms "monitor" but as I said before... I'm just looking for the display the sucks the least and fits my size requirement and price range.

[TipsyMcStagger]

I recently started putting together a dedicated LCD cabinet (Vewlix clone) for Taito Type X and other modern games... I wanted to make sure I was using something with as low lag as possible. and I found this great site: http://displaylag.com/

Thanks for the link. I picked up a couple of Asus MX279H for my driving cab partially based on them being the best fit but also decent specs. Very happy to see them up the top of the list  Hopefully i'll have the L2M2 boards sorted soon and get my cab up and running.