Widescreen monitors - why?

Jokester said:
Human's natural field of view is a lot closer to the widescreen aspect ratio than it is to a standard ratio.
Click to expand...

^What he said^

It is defo more natural to the eyes. :)

It's funny tho, coz before I made the switch to wide I was always a stalwart defender of 4:3 aspect. But once bitten, forever smitten as they say :D
 
the choppyness of a tft on the half life 1 engine i.e. cs 1.6 is really bad in comparison to a 100hz crt, personally i wouldn't recommend the change if you are still interested in playing the game at a high level and require the smoothness.
 
harris1986 said:
exactly but i am a ex-professional gamer :S so therfore isn't crt better for me?
Click to expand...

Without a doubt, I'm surprised you need to ask :) There's some very quick TFTs around with low response times and very little lag (VX922 for instance), but they're still enough slower than a CRTs for a professional gamer to spot the difference. Also a TFT won't produce more than 60 unique frames per second, whereas a good CRT can produce 150-200 if you need it to. Could be the difference between first and second.
 
I won't ever buy a CRT again.

TFTs are just so much nicer. Sure a widescreen TFT wouldn't be the best monitor for 1.6 (since it doesn't fully support widescreen) but for newer games and everything else it would be awesome.

The main reason LANs use CRTs is that they are soo much cheaper and people who lug around thier own CRTs to LANs are just stubborn fools.

The two downsides to TFTs are the slightly lower Refresh Rate (which is slowly being rectified) and having to run in Native resolution for best picture quality. That's it.

For me they have better colours, they are much easier on the eyes (no headaches after hours of play) and give a much better image overall. It's especially nice not having a slightly curved image behind half a centimeter of glass that reflects everything in the room. Plus the space it saves is a cool bonus.
 
Last edited:
Smooth said:
I won't ever buy a CRT again.

TFTs are just so much nicer. Sure a widescreen TFT wouldn't be the best monitor for 1.6 (since it doesn't fully support widescreen) but for newer games and everything else it would be awesome.

The main reason LANs use CRTs is that they are soo much cheaper and people who lug around thier own CRTs to LANs are just stubborn fools.

The two downsides to TFTs are the slightly lower Refresh Rate (which is slowly being rectified) and having to run in Native resolution for best picture quality. That's it.

For me they have better colours, they are much easier on the eyes (no headaches after hours of play) and give a much better image overall. It's especially nice not having a slightly curved image behind half a centimeter of glass that reflects everything in the room. Plus the space it saves is a cool bonus.
Click to expand...

While I agree with most of what you're saying, and I use a TFT myself for those reasons, it wouldn't be accurate to describe the difference between say 150 Hz and 60 Hz as 'slight'. I've owned CRTs which could do 200 Hz. And while refresh rates on TFTs may be higher eventually, none of these improvements have found their way to the market yet. They all still work at 60 Hz internally.

Also there are plenty of perfectly flat screen CRTs with bright vivid colours. So many people give their impressions of CRTs based on rubbish budget models they owned, which does a disservice to quality makes like Sony and NEC which produced some fantastic screens. And I've never once had a headache through using a CRT.

Also I would add black depth to your list of TFT weaknesses.
 
i agree they are easier to transport to lans, but i'm not talking about BYOC lans i'm talking about major lans i.e ones where comps provided consisting of intel extreme cpu's and the likes! cost isn't exactly a issue with these tournaments, i understand that newer games will look nicer on a nice TFT ws monitor but i mainly play cs1.6 at a high level!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom