Blanka i wont disagree that they might have used lcd if it was available in the 1970's
in my opinion lcd's still are'nt where they need to be, they're getting much better then say 8 or 9 years ago but anyway the point is they did'nt.. so if you want authentic get a arcade CRT, a tv would be a second choice.
lcd's dont handle scalling very well.. so those arcade producers would need to decide on a specific resolution for all games to look decent.
would they have used lcd.. maybe but crt can hande a wider range of resolutions with good quality in each, in this aspect the crt is actually superior in it's flexibility.
you can get those sharp blocky graphics on a CRT, just turn d3dfilter to 0, that will stop the blurring, or turn up prescaling.
thats not really authentic though.. sure you are seeing the graphics as they designed, but thats not how your eye's first experienced them..
the scan lines on a arcade monitor play an important role in smoothing out the image, yes blocky graphics still look blocky in the arcade but they look better with the scan lines breaking the image up ever so slightly.
the closest you can come on a vga/lcd is using scan lines to artificially insert those dark bands across the screen.. while this is better then nothing still is not authentic in it's look.
this is a matter of taste though.. if you prefer sharp blocky graphics then go with vga or lcd.
if you want the authentic look then go with an arcade monitor, if you can't afford or find a arcade monitor the older crt tv's are'nt bad i can live with a tv and they're free or cheap to get until the supply of them dry's up since they're quickly dropping production on them.
if we have this conversation in 10 years (probably closer to 5) im guessing it's not gonna be"what should i get, crt or lcd?" it's gonnna be "what size wide screen lcd can i fit in X x W"
yes it's bad enough that crt is dying to add insult to injury the 4.3 lcd has already died.. leaving us with 16.9 and 16.10 lcd's as the only real display technology on teh board right now.. oh except plasma (they sitll making those?) but we're not really any better off with those.
it really makes me ill how widescreen has invaded everything.. and not just because it's so "superior" no, WS lcd's are cheaper to produce in any givin size, this is because they measure diagonally so a 19 inch 16.9/16.10 has a lot less surface area then a 19 inch 4.3
but they can say wow im getting a 19 inch monitor for x dollars, and this other one 19inch (4.3) is like a 100 dollars more..
people buy the cheaper ws, soon the 4.3's loose favor because of their price and then we're stuck with crappy wide screens on computers which btw are used for reading a lot of the time.. so why you wanna shrink it's vertical height is beyond me.
i suppose it's better if you want to watch a ws movie.. on the other hand a computers primary job in most cases is not to sit and play movies.
and what they dont tell you is ws cuts the move vertically.. just like a fs cuts it horizontally.
go ahead and watch some movies that are in fs and ws, you'll see the difference, yes you gain some on the left and right with WS but you also lose some at the top and bottom of the screen over FS.
directors when they are shooting a movie have a monitor that shows both aspects with a overlay.. they keep the action in the center so that in most cases neither format will loose the important parts of the movie.
im sad to see 4.3 die on tv's.. but it really makes me ill when they have pretty much killed computer monitors.. my 21inch crt died, i need a 24.. really closer to a 26 inch ws get that same 4x3 area..
it would'nt be so bad if 4x3 lcd's was also available but they're becoming difficult to find especially above 19 inch.. there are a few still being made up to about 30 inch.. but they also cost several 1000 dollars last i checked.
sorry for the rant, but the subject truly makes me pissed, especially when i know theres nothing i can do about it.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
Send this topic
Print
Topic: CRT vs LCD... (Read 15611 times)
