BF2S Forums CRT to LCD

AFSG_Halo wrote:

Hi guys. I did the search for LCD's and found alot of useful information on the subject except for one thing.
I have recently purchased a 19'' LCD monitor to replace my 19" CRT. I am running the CRT at 1024 X 768 @ 85mhrz. I also run BF2 at these settings.
My question is this: Should I change the display settings to something else before I hook up the LCD to avoid any conflicts with the display or should I just plug in the new LCD and go from there? The new monitor can handle higher resolutions and it has a response time of 8ms and 700 to 1 contrast ratio.
Thanks in advance for any advice.

In all honesty you should be fine. However Id be on the same side and adjust back to 800x600 16bit, then make the adjustments once everything is loaded ok.

Thanks for the advice guys. I got the new monitor today and boy is she pretty! I didn't realize how much color I was actually missing out on! The game is running really well. The monitor automatically adjusts each time a different game is loaded. I will experiment with it a bit though.

Mine's just an 17", but the viewing size of a 19", apparently (LG Flatron L1750SQ), has an 8ms response time and stuff, BF2 just looks so much more beautiful on it, got it for cheap too, 300 Australian. Normal resolution is 1280x1024, makes it look the best, even recommends that setting.

Last edited by I2elik (2006-01-31 19:43:32)

IMO you shoulda spent your money on a really nice CRT monitor - they have bigger max res and faster refresh rates - I have a 17" CRT monitor right now and my 15" flat panel LCD couldn't hold a candle to it.

BEE_Grim_Reaper wrote:

Well... for work I prefer TFT displays (these things are actually called TFT not LCD.... LCD Displays in older Laptops had the nasty habit to "blur" when rapid movement was displayed) since they do not flicker. Actually it does not matter wether you set the display to 60 Hz or 75 Hz, the quality remains the same. However there is a severe degradation of sharpness the greater the distance from the native resolution (also the maximum resolution) is.

For gaming purposes, I do prefer the CRT. I can set that to any resolution I want without having trouble of loosing image quality.

No offence but CRT sucks for games from now on, because of their colors, they have a bigger lack of colors comapring to the TFT ( LCD ) whatever you wish to call it. I've had a Proffesional ( however you spell that word ) LG 913F ( something like that ), which had RGB connections for sharper colors and more correct colors, and yet it wasn't close to the colors I see now on my Samsung SyncMaster 913B ( both LG and my Samsung are 19" ).
It's true that TFTs have lower resolutions and lower refresh rates but 75Hz and 1280 x 1024 is good for everything and I don't see a problem with it.

Last edited by bad-dog (2006-02-03 03:01:07)

How can u say CRT sucks have a look at the those LCD's they can't handle games. my old man is a Tv/moniter  technician. i also work with him as a store man. i have to order in so many replacements for those crapy LG LCD's.

bad-dog wrote:

No offence but CRT sucks for games from now on, because of their colors, they have a bigger lack of colors comapring to the TFT ( LCD ) whatever you wish to call it. I've had a Proffesional ( however you spell that word ) LG 913F ( something like that ), which had RGB connections for sharper colors and more correct colors, and yet it wasn't close to the colors I see now on my Samsung SyncMaster 913B ( both LG and my Samsung are 19" ).
It's true that TFTs have lower resolutions and lower refresh rates but 75Hz and 1280 x 1024 is good for everything and I don't see a problem with it.

The thread seems to be straying away... but I'd like to nitpick this piece here.

I'd have to disagree that CRT would suck for games.  For the moment, I still believe games do look better on CRTs than on panels.  The color reproduction of a CRT is still unmatched by those on the panel side of things.  And while I have two monitors of two completely different class (CRT and LCD, or whatever you wish to dub it as), I use the CRT specifically as the primary display and for gaming.

There are only a handful of things that makes using panels better than CRT for the most part... however, if you truly desire something that is suitable for gaming, then a panel is definitely not the option one should consider.  Contrast ratio will be a key factor as well as response time, color reproduction, as well as interface.  When a game desires a scene to be dark, it has to be dark with the blackest of black.

The concept of refresh rate on panels is misleading.  Panels do not have a refresh rate at all, since they operate on a completely different method than CRT.  If you are using a panel with an analog connection of any kind, then you are not seeing the full clarity of what those panels have to offer, regardless of the kind of analog connection you use (be it DB-15 or BNC-5).

I'd say something more... but I'll stop here for now.

I love the CRT's, sure they are heavy but very reliable , I've had my 21' visionmaster crt since 1997 no problems yet. At the time I paid $1000 which was a great deal back then, & been worth every penny.

I think, the quality of color-reproduction is purely subjective. But it is a fact that the dot matrix of modern CRT currently beats anything that TFT has to offer (why do ppl call these still LCD? These things are not frigging LCD's... and most of you haven't ever seen a real LCD display before).

However, there is another downside on TFT's... Ever heard of the phenomenon "Pixel-Error"? That's right... in a TFT one or more pixels or sub-pixels can fail.... giving you nice colored red, blue, green, yellow, white or black pixel while all others display the correct picture. Now if the tube of a CRT monitor fails, all goes usually black... and if you device is still under warranty, you will get a replacement in no time. However as with TFT, the manufacturers have a fault tolerance. That means that each TFT must have a certain amount of pixel errors before you are eligible for an exchange....