Main > Main Forum

Old LCD Monitors vs. New LCD Monitors

<< < (3/8) > >>

dkersten:
While I agree that older LCD's are far from the best monitor to play games on, saying they are unusable for games is a stretch. 

I have a 100" screen with a nice 1080p projector.  With bluray content it looks unbelievably fantastic.  Yet 95% of the time when I check on what my kids are watching on it, they are on the non-HD channels, watching in a double letterboxed screen (4:3 in a letterboxed 16:9, letterboxed to 4:3 because it is not an HD broadcast) making the screen half the size and the resolution 4 times less than they can get with a different channel.  It looks like crap to me.  But the point is, they don't care, and they don't really even see the difference.  Just because the content they are watching is not ideally suited for the screen and projector doesn't mean they can't watch it or enjoy it.

Also, keep in mind that while playing a first person shooter on an older LCD with horrible lag and a terrible refresh might be noticeable compared to a CRT or a newer LCD, those are games that require both good resolution and the lowest latency possible to gain the edge when competing at the top level.  Arcade games are HARDLY requiring super smooth scrolling, sub 3ms latency, and perfect color reproduction.  And if you are one of those gamers who thinks you can pick out all the details when the action is most intense in a game like raiden fighters, well, then you are right up there with the audiophile who thinks he can pick out those subtle differences between a $100,000 pair of speakers and a $50,000 pair of speakers. 

For the record, I worked in car and home audio for many years, and worked with $100,000 speakers and $5,000 speaker wires, and while there was indeed a difference between each, to 99.99999% of people, that difference is so negligible in practice that it is completely irrelevant.  I also can't tell you how many elitist "audiophiles" walked into the store and heard something playing and commented on how much better all that expensive equipment made everything before realizing that they were listening to a $250 pair of speakers hooked up with lamp cord. 

Technically, everyone here is right.  Older LCD's, and even newer ones that don't employ lightboost or g-sync are usually not as good as a decent CRT from 15 years ago for gaming.  But at the same time, that doesn't matter to MOST people, and MOST people won't even notice the differences even if they are pointed out.

When it comes down to it, your eyes are the best judge for what works and what doesn't, and if a 5 year old LCD that cost you $20 on craigslist works for what you want to use it for, then it works and nobody will ever be able to tell you different.  If it isn't good enough for YOU, then YOU should get something better.

One last note here:  This argument spawned from a thread about how cheap you could make an arcade cabinet.  Since when does the cheapest solution have to also be the best possible solution?  Nobody can argue that even the crappiest LCD still WORKS well enough to play a game, and if it is free and you can't afford better, isn't that better than not having an arcade at all?

HaRuMaN:
X2, isn't it just your opinion that we don't care much if the display is missing a color range, or its not completely accurate? Isn't it your opinion that motion blur, visual to controller delays, visual distortions, are more important?

I have to ask though, since pretty much all LCDs made use VESA mounting, why would you need to rip apart a cabinet to mount a different LCD?  Just unscrew one and put the new one in its place.

Malenko:
Thankfully I have X2 blocked so I dont have to read his drivel (I suggest you do the same); I'm sure there's some off base comparison to food, or martial arts, or cars in it. Definitely something about how his opinion is fact and yours is just opinion.  That being said I need to address this:


--- Quote from: dkersten on July 24, 2014, 12:07:26 pm ---While I agree that older LCD's are far from the best monitor to play games on, saying they are unusable for games is a stretch. 

I have a 100" screen with a nice 1080p projector.  With bluray content it looks unbelievably fantastic.  Yet 95% of the time when I check on what my kids are watching on it, they are on the non-HD channels, watching in a double letterboxed screen (4:3 in a letterboxed 16:9, letterboxed to 4:3 because it is not an HD broadcast) making the screen half the size and the resolution 4 times less than they can get with a different channel.  It looks like crap to me.  But the point is, they don't care, and they don't really even see the difference.  Just because the content they are watching is not ideally suited for the screen and projector doesn't mean they can't watch it or enjoy it.

Also, keep in mind that while playing a first person shooter on an older LCD with horrible lag and a terrible refresh might be noticeable compared to a CRT or a newer LCD, those are games that require both good resolution and the lowest latency possible to gain the edge when competing at the top level.  Arcade games are HARDLY requiring super smooth scrolling, sub 3ms latency, and perfect color reproduction.  And if you are one of those gamers who thinks you can pick out all the details when the action is most intense in a game like raiden fighters, well, then you are right up there with the audiophile who thinks he can pick out those subtle differences between a $100,000 pair of speakers and a $50,000 pair of speakers. 

For the record, I worked in car and home audio for many years, and worked with $100,000 speakers and $5,000 speaker wires, and while there was indeed a difference between each, to 99.99999% of people, that difference is so negligible in practice that it is completely irrelevant.  I also can't tell you how many elitist "audiophiles" walked into the store and heard something playing and commented on how much better all that expensive equipment made everything before realizing that they were listening to a $250 pair of speakers hooked up with lamp cord. 

Technically, everyone here is right.  Older LCD's, and even newer ones that don't employ lightboost or g-sync are usually not as good as a decent CRT from 15 years ago for gaming.  But at the same time, that doesn't matter to MOST people, and MOST people won't even notice the differences even if they are pointed out.

When it comes down to it, your eyes are the best judge for what works and what doesn't, and if a 5 year old LCD that cost you $20 on craigslist works for what you want to use it for, then it works and nobody will ever be able to tell you different.  If it isn't good enough for YOU, then YOU should get something better.

One last note here:  This argument spawned from a thread about how cheap you could make an arcade cabinet.  Since when does the cheapest solution have to also be the best possible solution?  Nobody can argue that even the crappiest LCD still WORKS well enough to play a game, and if it is free and you can't afford better, isn't that better than not having an arcade at all?

--- End quote ---

I can reply in 1 word:

AMEN!
 :applaud: :cheers:

shponglefan:

--- Quote from: Xiaou2 on July 24, 2014, 10:14:26 am ---Experience doesnt make truth.

 For example,  if I say I didnt hear the distortion in the CD I just bought...     or  I didnt taste the spice note in the meal just served to me..   or I didnt see 3d effect in the Imax3d movie...

 Does not make these experiences factual.    Sure, its a fact I tried them.. and documented my experiences...   but its based on my personal physical qualities, such as hearing, sight (eye spacing, visual acuity.. ), taste receptors (food),  and even sensory to brain translation issues.   As well as personal opinions.
--- End quote ---

I think you need to wind back to what I was originally posting to.  The original post was, "Games are basically unplayable on them if you care about quality even a little".  This is not true in my experience, and I stated such.

You then stated:


--- Quote ---But many LCDs are in fact poor for fast moving games...  most especially LCDs made maybe between 3 to 6 yrs ago..  also dependent on the brand / components.   Many of them also have poor contrast and poor color representation.   And due to the age... the Backlight is probably getting near the end of its lifespan...  so it will be darker than you would like, and the light could cut out at any time.
--- End quote ---

Again, I have not experienced these same issues with older 4:3 LCDs.  In fact, I've had an old (5+ years) Samsung 4:3 LCD last longer than some of the newer widescreen LCDs!  Now obviously it does come down to the individual LCD monitor as quality varies.  But to paint all 4:3 LCDs with the same broad brush is a mistake, imho.

And please note that I never claimed 4:3 LCDs were the best option. Simply that it's a perfectly viable option if you have a suitable 4:3 LCD.  Which again, is based on my experience utilizing them.

shponglefan:

--- Quote from: dkersten on July 24, 2014, 12:07:26 pm ---While I agree that older LCD's are far from the best monitor to play games on, saying they are unusable for games is a stretch. 

I have a 100" screen with a nice 1080p projector.  With bluray content it looks unbelievably fantastic.  Yet 95% of the time when I check on what my kids are watching on it, they are on the non-HD channels, watching in a double letterboxed screen (4:3 in a letterboxed 16:9, letterboxed to 4:3 because it is not an HD broadcast) making the screen half the size and the resolution 4 times less than they can get with a different channel.  It looks like crap to me.  But the point is, they don't care, and they don't really even see the difference.  Just because the content they are watching is not ideally suited for the screen and projector doesn't mean they can't watch it or enjoy it.

Also, keep in mind that while playing a first person shooter on an older LCD with horrible lag and a terrible refresh might be noticeable compared to a CRT or a newer LCD, those are games that require both good resolution and the lowest latency possible to gain the edge when competing at the top level.  Arcade games are HARDLY requiring super smooth scrolling, sub 3ms latency, and perfect color reproduction.  And if you are one of those gamers who thinks you can pick out all the details when the action is most intense in a game like raiden fighters, well, then you are right up there with the audiophile who thinks he can pick out those subtle differences between a $100,000 pair of speakers and a $50,000 pair of speakers. 

For the record, I worked in car and home audio for many years, and worked with $100,000 speakers and $5,000 speaker wires, and while there was indeed a difference between each, to 99.99999% of people, that difference is so negligible in practice that it is completely irrelevant.  I also can't tell you how many elitist "audiophiles" walked into the store and heard something playing and commented on how much better all that expensive equipment made everything before realizing that they were listening to a $250 pair of speakers hooked up with lamp cord. 

Technically, everyone here is right.  Older LCD's, and even newer ones that don't employ lightboost or g-sync are usually not as good as a decent CRT from 15 years ago for gaming.  But at the same time, that doesn't matter to MOST people, and MOST people won't even notice the differences even if they are pointed out.

When it comes down to it, your eyes are the best judge for what works and what doesn't, and if a 5 year old LCD that cost you $20 on craigslist works for what you want to use it for, then it works and nobody will ever be able to tell you different.  If it isn't good enough for YOU, then YOU should get something better.

One last note here:  This argument spawned from a thread about how cheap you could make an arcade cabinet.  Since when does the cheapest solution have to also be the best possible solution?  Nobody can argue that even the crappiest LCD still WORKS well enough to play a game, and if it is free and you can't afford better, isn't that better than not having an arcade at all?

--- End quote ---

^ This.

As an aside, I've noticed that certain posters have a very myopic view of what constitutes proper arcade gaming.  So these types of discussions always seem to spawn from topics re: suitable monitors, computers, controls, etc.

I think some people don't understand that user wants/needs are variable and that what isn't an acceptable solution to one person may be a perfect solution for another.


Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version