New Tt case
- Thread starter Raikiri
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 1,384
- Location
- Cornwall
Neon said:
LMAO!!! mint reply
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 1,384
- Location
- Cornwall
PinkFloyd said:pwned
Well and truely hehehe.
The build should not be too bad, just a little behind Antec and better than Coolermaster post December.
Nothing to be worried about from the armour+ really, none of the, wow the screws are all threaded type events like the old thermaltake, got there act together and are the best maker of gaming cases, although this one is poking into Aurora territory, and maybe the Lanboys.
Nothing to be worried about from the armour+ really, none of the, wow the screws are all threaded type events like the old thermaltake, got there act together and are the best maker of gaming cases, although this one is poking into Aurora territory, and maybe the Lanboys.
PinkFloyd said:pwned
If you can find me a TFT that runs at 2304 x 1440 at 80MHz like my Sony GDMFW900 then i'll buy one. Until then I'll stick with this. 80MHz is 0.8ms refresh, and it's a single gun Trinitron tube, so the alignment is perfect. No stuck pixels and it's a broadcast monitor quality Sony so it'll run and run.
The image quality on most TFT's is absolutely awful, not to mention the poor off-axis viewing. I have TFT's for where I need the space, but for long-term use, CRT's are definitely still better quality.
Yes, it does need a big desk, but the image quality is just outstanding. Needs SLI and 4Gb of RAM to drive Far Cry at that though.
pwned? Nope. Just confident enough in high quality old school technology not to have to have the newest thing out there, just because it's new.
CRT's still have a place, especially at the high end.
However in the mainstream I think WJA96 should admit that bar exceptional gear, the mainstream TFT's are now of a higher standard that the CRT's.
I know my £250 2005 TFT beats my 17' £450 2001 CRT by a fair way, especially in the eye strain department.
However in the mainstream I think WJA96 should admit that bar exceptional gear, the mainstream TFT's are now of a higher standard that the CRT's.
I know my £250 2005 TFT beats my 17' £450 2001 CRT by a fair way, especially in the eye strain department.
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 1,384
- Location
- Cornwall
WJA96 said:
TFT's are not exactly new technology :s
One things for sure, high end TFT's are ten times better than any CRT – TFT’s win just on aesthetics alone. Also to have widescreen, dvi and so on…TFT’s are better.
TFTs are VERY new technology compared to CRTs. Look at all the problems with them - uneven lighting, sticky pixels, 'patching' (where you can clearly see a square or rectangle of the screen is slightly different to the rest), poor refresh rates, the inability to display colours accurately because the anti-glare filters don't transmit all the wavelengths, sensitivity to vibration (try standing a big TFT on a desk with an inkjet printer and watch it bobble about as the printer runs) and the very real issue of viewing angle cut-offs.
I have widescreen, you only need DVI because at the sync rates available on a TFT you can see the flicker otherwise, and for image quality there just is no comparison between a top-end TFT and a top-end CRT.
In full-motion video (such as games) it is possible to see transition effects on TFT's that are simply never present on CRTs. Remember cheap CRTs? They ran at about 60HZ and you could see the flicker. Look at a TFT without DVI and that's what it's like. You're driving a digital screen with an analogue video source and the conversion makes the image quality degrade. DVI is one of the great marketing ploys of all time. They take out the analogue to digital conversion circuitry, drive the TFT directly and charge you more for it!
With a CRT there is no possibility that your graphics card can draw the screen faster than the TFT, whereas the whole point of the most expensive TFTs is that they run just about quick enough to avoid being able to see the screen smearing.
Finally, dot pitch is very poor on TFTs. A 22" widescreen panel (the equivalent true viewing area of my 24" CRT monitor has big, clearly visible pixels. The CRT, because of the way it works, has area of differential glow. I helps massively to fool your eyes into seeing reality rather than a screen.
I suspect you are talking from a position of ignorance ie. you've never seen a professional CRT (this thing costs over £1500 so I could have several big TFTs for the same money).
I have a 30" TFT in the living room, 20" TFTs in the bedrooms and a mixture of 19" and 20" TFTs for the various computers around the house, but when I want to look at a really high quality screen, I look at the CRT in preference to everything else. You really should open up your mind and accept the possibility that TFT technology is not as well developed (YET) as CRT technology. You will be surprised, I promise you.
I have widescreen, you only need DVI because at the sync rates available on a TFT you can see the flicker otherwise, and for image quality there just is no comparison between a top-end TFT and a top-end CRT.
In full-motion video (such as games) it is possible to see transition effects on TFT's that are simply never present on CRTs. Remember cheap CRTs? They ran at about 60HZ and you could see the flicker. Look at a TFT without DVI and that's what it's like. You're driving a digital screen with an analogue video source and the conversion makes the image quality degrade. DVI is one of the great marketing ploys of all time. They take out the analogue to digital conversion circuitry, drive the TFT directly and charge you more for it!
With a CRT there is no possibility that your graphics card can draw the screen faster than the TFT, whereas the whole point of the most expensive TFTs is that they run just about quick enough to avoid being able to see the screen smearing.
Finally, dot pitch is very poor on TFTs. A 22" widescreen panel (the equivalent true viewing area of my 24" CRT monitor has big, clearly visible pixels. The CRT, because of the way it works, has area of differential glow. I helps massively to fool your eyes into seeing reality rather than a screen.
I suspect you are talking from a position of ignorance ie. you've never seen a professional CRT (this thing costs over £1500 so I could have several big TFTs for the same money).
I have a 30" TFT in the living room, 20" TFTs in the bedrooms and a mixture of 19" and 20" TFTs for the various computers around the house, but when I want to look at a really high quality screen, I look at the CRT in preference to everything else. You really should open up your mind and accept the possibility that TFT technology is not as well developed (YET) as CRT technology. You will be surprised, I promise you.
Neon said:
HD is another marketing joke. Have you ever seen American TV? It runs at very low standards to make the sets very cheap and easy to manufacture. The picture quality was terrible. HD was the upgrade. In the US, HD is discernably better than the standard analogue broadcast TV. In comparison to the standard used in the UK, where the BBC engineers dictated a long time ago that Britain was going to have a high standard, even if it meant only the rich could afford it, the impact of going from analogue broadcast TV to HD broadcast TV is significantly less on a CRT screen.
On a big digital screen (TFT), it definitely helps because you get significantly fewer artifacts as the screen rescales to fit the lower resolution picture onto it's native resolution. But they could only sell you HD because you were annoyed with the artifacts in the first place. Because they sold you a TFT.
It is a bit better for image resolution, the big downside being that you can either get a digital signal or you can not. If you can, the picture is as good as your display can show, if not - no picture at all. Just like DAB radio. When it works, it's fabulous, when it doesn't you're looking at the wife/gf for entertainment.
Oh, and if anyone can explain why a widescreen TV still shows black bands at the top and bottom of widescreen movies and/or makes everyone look all squashed and fat, I'll not start a new thread elsewhere ranting about that!
Yewen said:
The BBC seem to think so.
Yewen said:
Not always, but in general, yes.
Yewen said:
17' screen for £450? Bargain. That's one big desk my friend.
' = Feet = Approximately 0.31m
" = Inches = Approximately 2.5cm
It's important you understand the difference or you'll see a lot of disappointed women in your life.
[Sorry for the mild personal attack humour, but I'm in the CRT owner's Bunker here!]
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 14 Mar 2005
- Posts
- 1,384
- Location
- Cornwall
WJA96 said:
Wow you need to get out more...
TFT's are the way forward though whichever way you look at it, they will only get better. My TFT plays games perfectly for me so there’s no reason to look at CRT's (that’s not ignorance)
CaSh_MoNeY said:Wow you need to get out more...
TFT's are the way forward though whichever way you look at it, they will only get better. My TFT plays games perfectly for me so there’s no reason to look at CRT's (that’s not ignorance)
No, it's not ignorance, but you'll have to forgive me for defending what I know to be a superior piece of equipment. TFT's are getting better every day - and the prices are being forced down across all screen technologies, so that is a good thing, but the best CRT's are very much better than the best TFT's at the moment. As I said, I'm lucky enough to have the opportunity to have both and to be able to compare.
And yes - I do need to get out more.
