Main > Main Forum

Looking at building my own, but wonder about evolution

Pages: << < (6/6)

RandyT:


--- Quote from: Zobeid on February 28, 2008, 03:41:51 pm ---I haven't noticed most of the problems you describe on my 22" Cinema Display.  It's been fantastic for MAME.

I'm especially puzzled by the comment about running at non-native resolution. . .  That makes old games look much better, not worse!  The scaling makes everything fuzzy, instead of having harsh edges and jaggy pixels visible everywhere.   (And vector games also look quite good, incidentally.  They can run at native resolution.)

I don't have any problem with viewing angle.  I think it would be a problem in a cocktail cabinet, but in a stand-up cabinet I just don't see how it would be.

--- End quote ---

I think this is because you have a good "high resolution" (1920x1200 or pretty much "1080p") LCD with some of that fancy, built-in scaling I mentioned earlier.  There's a pretty wide gamut of LCD specs out there, and the good ones are $$$.  The big brother to yours (30") shows a native resolution of 2560 x 1600 pixels(!)  With good scaling, this should provide a very nice representation of a "low res" image.

The view angles are, again, one of those things that have greatly improved on more expensive units, but can still suffer badly at the low-end.  The upshot is that the display industry is actually heading toward something that will still suit this community's needs.  It's just going to take a while before it's available inexpensively.

RandyT

Zobeid:


--- Quote from: RandyT on February 28, 2008, 05:03:19 pm ---I think this is because you have a good "high resolution" (1920x1200 or pretty much "1080p") LCD with some of that fancy, built-in scaling I mentioned earlier.  There's a pretty wide gamut of LCD specs out there, and the good ones are $$$.
--- End quote ---

Mine is 1600x1024, and it was $$$. . . .  but it's the original 1999-2000 Cinema Display, so it's ancient in computer terms.

When I got it, it was very bright and the black level was poor.  Nowadays the backlight has aged and it's no longer capable of putting out very high brightness, but the good side is that blacks actually look black.  I think it looks better now than it did when new.  I never had a CRT last this long without going fuzzy, dark or distorted in some way.


u_rebelscum:


--- Quote from: RandyT on February 28, 2008, 05:03:19 pm ---The view angles are, again, one of those things that have greatly improved on more expensive units, but can still suffer badly at the low-end.  The upshot is that the display industry is actually heading toward something that will still suit this community's needs.  It's just going to take a while before it's available inexpensively.
--- End quote ---

I hope so, but I'm not as optimistic about it ATM.  There are three* different LCD technologies.  (*A lot more if you include the different genereations of each tech.)  I hate the cheapest tech, but it seems to be winning ATM.

In gerenal (AKA not always true, but often past on as if):
- The cheapest has the fastest refresh rate.
- The cheapest's "burnt out" pixels are bright red, green or blue (dependong on which is burnt); the others' burnt out pixels show as black and are less obvious.
- The cheapest has a lower color count (usually 14bit vs 16bit.
- The cheapest has the lowest viewing angles and sometimes reverse ghosting (look like negatives) at high angles, especially vertically.  The others don't reverse much, but see next.
- One of the others can have purplish blacks, especially deep blacks at angles.
- The cheap LCD PC monitors use the cheap tech.  (Example: all 22" widescreen LCD do, and all those I've seen suck.)

IMO, there is no LCD PC monitor good at more than five criteria of what I want in a PC monitor: color quality, contrast, blackness, viewing angle, resolution, size, refresh rate, and price, yet.  The cheap ones meet the last three but not most of the others; while the more expensive (and IMO better techs) sometimes can meet five of the first six but not the last two.  Sadly, I think the last two or maybe three are the driving forces the public buys (or the industry pushes, depending on the slant ;)).  (And ya, I wish the last was no object for me, but it is.)
(I rate PC monitors differently than TVs, mind you.)


Remember, each tech has a wide range of actual quality, so I suggest try it out with your own eyes before buying.

Pages: << < (6/6)

Go to full version