Confused about Vsync on LCD Monitors

[digitalforce]

Found out how to add custom resolutions on ATI cards. Using Powerstrip you can add the custom resoultion and it saves it in the driver.

Also, I have done extensive testing with vsync, triple buffering etc with completely uncosistent results. Maybe I am just too picky but I am having a rough time getting a completely smooth picture.

I am sure my specs have nothing to do with it:

Core 2 Duo E6400 @ 2.8 Ghz
2 gig DDR800 OCZ
Sapphire X1900XT 256meg

 

[mitch074]

the thing is that a CRT 'draws' a matrice every time a screen refresh is done; depending on the number of lines you make it draw, a CRT can (in theory) display as many dimensions as you want (the speed of the 'pencil' determines the useable resolutions).

An LCT panel is a set-size mactrice: typically 1280x1024 for 17-19", which means that if the video card sends 1280x1024 matrices to display, the screen can match them 1:1.

In the case the graphics card sends different matrices, you need to do either:
-put a black border around the image: this will still match sent and displayed pixels 1:1, but you lose in display size
-resize the image, using filtering: in that case, each frame sent is resized using pretty much the same algorithms used by Photoshop.

The latter is the one most used because it is usually done transparently by the monitor; but like in photoshop, you have several algorithms used:
- linear: one every 4 lines and 1 every 4 column is doubled (in the case of a 1024x768=>1280x1024), creating a square effect on the whole screen (almost unused now). Requires very little logic to work.

-bilinear: this makes things more regular, but introduces a very noticeable blur in high contrast zones (such as black on white writing). Requires much more logic than before to work, but not very heavy considering today's technology (used in low-end panels).

-bicubic: like bilinear, but the blur is drastically reduced due to better pixel weighting (which can be set once and for all, or defined for each resolution transferts to get better results on a particular definition), it requires very heavy logics and processing power - good and very good panels enjoy it.

This can be made better using a correct 'feed' for the monitor: DVI will provide numerical data that the screen can use directly for resize, but analogic (VGA) requires some more work and precision to convert the analog signal back into numeric, introducing errors that the resizing process may exacerbate.

Of course, displaying 640x480 or even 320x240 on such a screen makes little sense, but it still appears as native (due to the divider being an integer)

Personally I'm enjoying immensely a ViewSonic CRT: even non-native resolutions get the best resizing I've ever seen on a CRT, and coupled with good font antialiasing leads to non-native modes being almost unnoticeable.

I'm very sensitive to flickering, and anything under 85Hz on a CRT is unbearable for me, so I find CRTs in general more of a pain than anything else; I enjoy my 17" LCD more than I do my brother's IIyama 19" (which is still quite the reference).

 

[chuckshissle]

Short. Vsync limits the frame rates to that of the monitors refresh rate and also produce good quality no tearing images. Disabling it might improve frame rates but might tear the image as well.

 

[digitalforce]

The more and more research and testing that I do, I see that LCD gaming is NOT for the super picky... like myself

It is very tough to find a balance between smooth frame rate and too much tearing. I know that if you have a CRT that has a super high refresh rate, you are going to get a lot smoother picture overall.

It is frustrating because my LCD is 19" widescreen that looks GORGEOUS in games but with Vsync on, it still can get choppy at times. While in the same parts, with Vsync off, it runs perfect.

 

[Dr_asik]

LCDs are clearly an inferior technology compared to CRT; what a screen is basically supposed to do is to have an image quality as good as possible; but going from CRT to LCD we lost image quality. So what's the point? Desktop space is an important factor in computer labs, but for a gamer, who cares?

Sometimes I spend the day on a brand new DELL LCD here; when I go back home and turn on my CRT, the difference is astonishing. It's like comparing neon and tungstene lights, or 128kbps mp3 and cd audio. You feel what you've been missing when you turn back to the older technology.

 

[digitalforce]

Too bad the CRT market is almost non existant.. except for on ebay where you pay $50 for shipping!

I have a Gateway 17" kicking around the house.. maybe I will hook that up and do some comparisons.

 

[digitalforce]

Everyone can agree there are advantages and disavantages to LCD and CRT. That is fact.

 

[biohazard420420]

Of course there are advantages and disadvantages to either technology but it is a fact that you will get a better picture hands down on a CRT. As far as i know there is not a LCD panel in the world that I have seen or read about that can match a CRT in picture quality everyone knows this. It all boils down to what you want better picture but a big hulking box or subpar (compared to a CRT) picture and thin small light panel. Picture quality aside my main reason for prefering CRT's is the flexible resolution. With an LCD you have to match a video card to the native resolution of your panel, meaning you have to buy a card that can run the games you want at the FPS on the native resolution your panel supports.

Whereas with a CRT you can buy what ever GPU you wish and just change the resolution to get you the performance you want from the particular game. If you are talking a 20" LCD with a 1600x1200 res you MUST buy a high end card, or damn close to it to get good performance on most all games (oblivian not withstanding its just brutal in terms of FPS) Where if you have a 20" CRT you can at least get a cheaper card maybe one or 2 down from top of the line and adjust your res to get the performance you want from the game.

This IMO is one of the few times where you have an almost forced switch from and A+ quality to A- quality. Granted no one is forcing you to move to an LCD but if like alot (there are more OEM buyers than enthusiasts) of people you buy from and OEM like Dell, HP etc. you pretty much have to get an LCD since alot of times they can be included in the price or for a little more cash, so most OEM buyers move to the LCD instead of a CRT even though the CRT will give you a better picture and even though this is a computer site the same applies to televisions as well at least the semi forced progression (yes there are CRT HDTV's they are just not as popular). Everyone knows the benefits of moving to a LCD or similar product (I lump all flat panel products on the same catergory) but even with the most expensive panel a CRT will always beat it in terms of picture quality.

 

[mitch074]

Personally I won't follow the advice of someone who uses 'Firefox Myths' as a signature - as this website is probably the less objective I've seen in quite some time (reaches Microsoft's Get The FUD campaign level, but more rude).

From personal use of some of the best CRTs out there (top of the range Iiyama) and some LCDs of the same level, here's what I found:

- CRTs lead the way on colour fidelity and black depht, but LCDs are getting damn good
- CRTs have higher refresh rates and more flexibility, but LCDs are compensating more and more with better resampling and much less jarring
- CRTs pump an ungodly amount of watts and heat up a lot; LCDs use much less and remain barely warm.
- CRTs output an ungodly amount of radiation in your face; LCDs use fluorescent tubes, which irradiate nothing. Personally I want to keep my eyes in good shape until I die. Note: there are protection screens you can fit on a CRT, but they usually tarnish the image and are not 100% efficient.

Please consider that Iiyama CRT monitors are recognized as having the best pixel finesse and the flattest screens one can find with this kind of technology (and they aren't as big as others), and I respect that (got 2 at home), while their colour settings are usually a bit 'cold' (can be corrected with good calibration) - so given the choice between a bad LCD and a good CRT I'd go the CRT way.
However the LCD defects have gotten almost unnoticeable, and they have quite an advantage in the power, real estate and eye comfort departments.

 

[digitalforce]

Wow.. just wow. I hooked up a crappy old Gateway 17" CRT I had laying around and even though the colors are off, the general "stability" of the picture was absolutely incredible. I though maybe something was wrong with my X1900XT on the LCD because of the tearings, "jerkiness" and other such terms that I am unfamiliar with.

The CRT, even though it was old and low end, was a size monstrosity compared to the LCD but a much better gaming picture.

I also heard the DVI cables shipped with some monitors affect this picture stability. Would it be worth it to try a higher end DVI cable?

I am debating the switch back to CRT...

 

[Slava]

I also heard the DVI cables shipped with some monitors affect this picture stability. Would it be worth it to try a higher end DVI cable?

Before you do that, switch to the regular VGA cable with D-Sub connector and try that.

As for the continuing debate on CRT vs. LCD, guys, the original issue was which kind is better for gaming.

I don't know how anyone can argue that LCDs are better with their fixed resolutions. Even if CRTs had no other advantages they would still be better for gaming.

Even if LCDs were better than CRTs in every way except the two technologies had the same level of image quality, scaling does not work very well and gamers' inability to switch resolutions on LCDs cripples the whole gaming experience in general:

Your rig is powerful enough to run something at 16x12 but you are stuck with your 12x9; OR your rig struggles running something at 12x9 and you'd love to try it at 11x8 or 10x7 but you are still stuck with your friggin native 12x9 so you have to reduce details, AA, AF etc..

To me all other considerations, valid or not, are irrelevant because an LCD simply forces me to sacrifice either better resolutions or faster performance or image quality. Period. For this reason alone the overall gaming experience is just better on CRTs.

 

[digitalforce]

Hey Slava,

I will try the VGA cable on the LCD first... interesting idea.

Yes, I am mostly concerned about gaming. I wish they made a widescreen CRT (I have only found a 24" Sony Widescreen CRT) but oh well. The "stability" of the gaming picture was MUCH better on the old crappy CRT than the LCD. Everything else looks awesome on the LCD.

 

[fatcat]

What's good right now is that CRT is being phased out slowly but surely so it's possible to get your hands on a high quality used one for very cheap. That's what I did. I bought a 21'' Sun monitor with a Trinitron tube and I am very satisfied with the result. It's a wide screen model but it's plenty big.

 

[digitalforce]

What's good right now is that CRT is being phased out slowly but surely so it's possible to get your hands on a high quality used one for very cheap. That's what I did. I bought a 21'' Sun monitor with a Trinitron tube and I am very satisfied with the result. It's a wide screen model but it's plenty big.

Hmmm.. where did you get a widescreen CRT? The only one I have EVER found is a 24" Sony Widescreen. It's about $300-$400 used right now.. rare though.

Yeah, I am looking at some online classified ads and there are tons of 21" CRTs going for under $100.

EDIT: LOL.. I am going backwards in time. What is the MOST important spec when looking for a gaming CRT monitor? dot pitch? refresh rate?

 

[kamiri]

A Dell 24" LCD would change your mind in a heartbeat. The ONLY problem with it is the price, which for a 24" widescreen is actually very cheap. You can get them for sub $800 now. I also read that you are limited to the native resolution on LCDs, but I have tried just about every resolution on my Dell 24" and there is no difference, so you are definitely not limited to native on it. I run my games at 1900x1440 at 75hz (says 60 max, but I have seen zero probs at 75) and the graphics look absolutely amazing. I also love that I get a lot less glare from lights as compared to a CRT.

I used to use Viewsonic flat CRTs and was hesitant about switching to an LCD. I use my PC strictly for gaming and had the same reservations that most of the CRT lovers have. It would take a lot for me to go back to CRTs now.

Also, one note about viewing angles. Never judge an LCD's viewing angle by what you see on TV. For some reason it is very distorted when recorded. I can see my LCD clearly from damn near sideways, but for some reason on home videos that my wife has made, you can only see the screen at a very small viewing angle and it is otherwise very dark. It is very weird indeed.

In the end it comes down to each person's preference and for the most part I would probably still agree that CRTs are better for gaming. However, there are some LCDs that are right up there with them. I'd love to see how the Dell 30" performs but the price tag is way too high for me on that beast.

 

[digitalforce]

I did forget to mention that my budget is next to nothing

I am going to try the Acer 19" widescreen with the VGA cable just for kicks.

I am debating heavily between buying a used 21-22" CRT locally for dirt cheap or just living with the 19" LCD issues.

 

[digitalforce]

What is the most important thing when searching for a "gaming" CRT? Refresh rate and/or dot pitch?

 

[Slava]

A Dell 24" LCD would change your mind in a heartbeat.

Ummm... brother, you are talking an exception, not the rule. You are talking top of the line, almost one of a kind 800-dollar LCD. So, no - I doubt it would change my mind, especially considering that there is 24" Sony-GDM-FW900-Widescreen-Trinitron for $485 (see below). So while your Dell is probably the best LCD within consumer price range, this Sony is hands down the best reasonably priced monitor ever made and it's like half the price of this Dell you speak of.

What is the most important thing when searching for a "gaming" CRT? Refresh rate and/or dot pitch?

Both

And.. Yeah, I know you are on a budget but I cannot help posting this. I think I will get one.

Sony GDM-FW900 Flat Widescreen 24" FD Trinitron CRT Monitor

"Product Description

Amazon.com Product Description
If you are a professional in CAD or other graphics, you need to get the most out of your monitor: the best image quality, reliability, and all the extras you can ask for. With the GDM-FW900 24-inch CRT (cathode-ray tube) monitor for Mac and PC, Sony has gone all out to bring you everything that you need. A 160 Hz refresh rate and 2,304 x 1,440 maximum resolution will satisfy any professional, while the 24-inch screen (20.5-inch viewable) provides 21 percent more display area than 21-inch monitors.

Digital Multiscan and Active Signal Correction (ASC) technologies help ease setup, while onscreen controls make adjustments a snap. The flatness of the screen, Sony's Enhanced Elliptical Correction System, and 0.25-0.28mm aperture grille pitch combine to bring you superior image quality. A USB hub for easy hookup to peripherals, an Accurate Image Restoration feature that resets your screen to its original brightness and contrast settings, and a three-year parts and labor warranty provide further enticement. If you demand high-end performance, the GDM-FW900 more than provides it.

Product Description
The Sony FD Trinitron Wide Aspect Display meets the exacting demands of graphic artists, CAD/CAM engineers, animators and other professional users who require extraordinarily accurate colors and crystal-clear images. This extra-wide 24" display offers an incredible 22.5" viewable image size in a monitor that requires about the same desktop space as most 21" class models. Its virtually flat screen surface provides more true-to-life images, so lines actually appear straighter and circles look round. Contemporary styling in shades of metallic silver and dark gray will appeal to your refined design sensibilities. The FW900 is perfect for graphic designers, architects, photographers, engineers and other professionals who need as much screen space as possible. Its panoramic 16: 10 aspect ratio means you can easily view double-page layouts with room to spare. Or see your entire design at once?without scrolling! Plus there's room to open more menus, toolbars and applications. Just imagine how much more efficiently you'll be able to work!The FW900 includes its own USB hub to make connecting your USB devices even faster and easier. Rather than fumbling in the back of your computer looking for an available USB port, simply plug your peripheral directly into the monitor's base. Now that's true plug and play!"

SPECS:

24" CRT FD Trinitron wide-screen professional monitor with 16:10 aspect ratio (displays two full-size A4 pages side by side)
Exceptionally fine AG pitch of 0.23 - 0.27 mm
BLC automatically corrects adverse influences of the Earth´s magnetic fields to provide excellent colour purity
Dual signal inputs and input selection switch for easy switching between multiple PCs
Stunning design and colour for professional users with roll-up control panel
Intuitive OSD control for easy picture set-up and adjustment
USB hub (1up/4 down) for easy connectivity to USB-compatible peripherals
Optimal ergonomic resolution of 1920 x 1200 at 98 Hz
TCO´99 compliance
CRT TYPE
Super Fine Pitch™ FD Trinitron tube, 24" (61 cm); DQL (Dynamic Quadrupole Lens)
and MALS (Multi-Astigmatism Lens System) with EFEAL (Extended Field Elliptical
Aperture Lens) and L-SAGIC™ (Low Voltage Small Aperture G1 with Impregnated
Cathode) dynamic focus systems; BLC (Beam Landing Correction); Hi-Con and
AR screen coatings (high contrast, anti-reflection/antistatic)

VISUAL AREA (H x V)
482 x 308 mm (diagonal: 572 mm)

APERTURE GRILLE PITCH
0.23 - 0.27 mm

HORIZONTAL FREQUENCY
30 to 121 kHz

VERTICAL FREQUENCY
48 to 160 Hz

MAXIMUM REFRESH RATES
1280 x 1024/115 Hz, 1920 x 1080/108 Hz
1600 x 1200/97 Hz, 1920 x 1200/98 Hz


USER PRESET SIGNAL TIMING
10 additional settings

COLOUR CONTROLS (OSD)
Fixed (3x): 9300 K/6500 K/5000 K; User: RGB Gain and Bias Control,
variable 5000 K - 11000 K; sRGB

COMPUTER INTERFACE
DDC 1, 2 B, 2 Bi; USB Hub (1up/4 down)

POWER CONSUMPTION
Normal Operation: 170 Watts (max) (w/o USB); Active Off Mode: 3 Watts (max);
Power Off Mode: 0 Watts

USER CONTROLS (ON-SCREEN DISPLAY)
Brightness, contrast, video input selection, H & V size and centring, zoom, geometry,
rotation, pincushion, pin balance, keystone, key balance, H & V convergence, top and
bottom vertical convergence, corner landing adjustment, moiré cancellation, manual
degauss, image restoration, Auto Sizing and Centring, OSD positioning, control lock,
colour control, languages (9), reset

VIDEO INPUT
D-sub 15/5 BNC

DIMENSIONS (W x H x D)
571.5 x 500 x 522.5 mm

 

[sojrner]

So, unless someone can convincingly dispel the above I have to reiterate: Compared to CRTs, LCDs suck for gaming.

One big counter to that is size/weight/power usage. This is the one area where lcd's are king, and that is why they are taking over. (large offices started that move) Personally (in most cases) I agree w/ you though that they suck for gaming. I currently use a 19" Trinitron that is just butter smooth and crisp. It has a dot pitch that lcd's can only dream of, and a black that can suck in small planets. And the viewing angle? lol... You could probably see it from the back of the monitor, but I have not tested that theory yet.

I am still going to make the move to a nice viewsonic lcd here soon. I will keep the trinitron for home but the lcd is just so much nicer to pack for a LAN or whatever. Eventually even the mighty trinitron though will be a subject for historical observation... I am fully aware that it is a dinosaur among mammals. (but until that meteor hits this dinosaur can stomp and eat many mammals )

 

[sojrner]

man, I remember when those sony's were thousands of dollars! It is monitors like that one that can bring tears to the eye w/ their beauty. Behold the majesty... (and just try to afford an lcd that can do 2304x1440!)

Man why you gotta show stuff like that? It makes me rethink my whole "gonna get an lcd" thing. (kinda large dot-pitch though compared to my 19" which I believe is .23)

 

[xBlueBoron]

One thing that I am suprised no one mentions is the eye strain that CRTs cause. When you switch to an LCD from CRT, you can never go back (I feel like the CRT is shooting painful rays directly into my eyeballs).

So if you work all day at work on a computer, and play CoH all night, you'll be glad you have an LCD and not a CRT.

 

[sojrner]

One thing that I am suprised no one mentions is the eye strain that CRTs cause. When you switch to an LCD from CRT, you can never go back (I feel like the CRT is shooting painful rays directly into my eyeballs).

So if you work all day at work on a computer, and play CoH all night, you'll be glad you have an LCD and not a CRT.

that is only a problem if you run a refresh that is low. The higher the refresh rate, the easier it is on the eyes. Personally I can't stand anything under 75 or 80 Hz, but prefer 85 and higher. (run mine currently at 85, both at work and home)

cheaper crt's could not run above 60 or 65 at high resolutions (at that rate you can really see the "flicker") so that is probably what you have experience with I am guessing.

For text viewing though, I agree that lcds are much nicer. But gaming, as slava mentioned... they are just not as smooth as a crt. (provided the refresh is above your threshold for seeing the flicker) LCDs are not bad, just for motion graphics and still images they cannot get the same quality when compared side by side to a crt.

:edited verbage:

 

[sojrner]

:lol: :lol:

 

[Slava]

One thing that I am suprised no one mentions is the eye strain that CRTs cause. When you switch to an LCD from CRT, you can never go back (I feel like the CRT is shooting painful rays directly into my eyeballs).

So if you work all day at work on a computer, and play CoH all night, you'll be glad you have an LCD and not a CRT.

Nah, you are talking ancient history. Modern CRTs emit very little or nothing. Matter of fact, as I am typing this I am staring at a Dell LCD in my office and I have teary eyes. At home I stare at my CRT for hours and feel nothing. Could be something else, not the LCD itself, maybe the air circulation in my office or something... but the bottom line is that I've been staring at CRTs for about 17 years and my vision has not deteriorated in that amount of time. I am still using the same prescription as 17 years ago. So... Hmmm... I don't know about all that radiation nonsense.

My friend who has been a computer professional for 20 years now has stared at CRTs for way more hours than myself. He still has perfect 20/20 vison. Hmmm... I wonder.

 

[kamiri]

Rofl, who are you trying to fool man? That monitor is $485 refurbished and $499 used. It says no where how much it is for a new one and I couldn't find anywhere that sells it new. It also has no mention of response time and only has a serial and BNC connectors. Plus it would take one hell of a desk to fit that beast on. When was that thing manufactured, the 80s or early 90s?

You had me all excited too (