 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
02-26-2003, 05:14 AM
|
#1 |
|
Symbol of Cyric
 Join Date: November 12, 2002
Location: Banstead, Southeast England
Age: 37
Posts: 1,162
|
I've heard that plasma screens are not very good for using on a pc if you play a lot of games on them. My friend said they can't handle the amount of images that appear, and so they jerk and jump a lot in a game where there are a lot of images on the screen (lots and lots of trees for example, in Red Alert 2, say). Can anyone confirm this? I was looking to buy one, but if they do that then there is no point as I play a lot of games.
Thanks for any advice! |
|
|
02-26-2003, 06:57 AM
|
#2 |
|
Avatar
 Join Date: June 8, 2001
Location: The forest
Posts: 526
|
I'm no expert on it, bit I think it's also quality related.
|
|
|
|
02-26-2003, 08:45 AM
|
#3 |
|
Galvatron
 Join Date: January 10, 2002
Location: Upstate NY
Age: 56
Posts: 2,109
|
With any display you have to be concerned with update issues. Just because your Graphics card can update Quake III at 240 frames per second doesn't mean you'll actually see each of those frames. On traditional Tube monitors phosphor persistance and refresh rate determine how good your image looks and how fast it can change. These days they've got the persistance down to the point where the human eye can't really detect. If it's too high, the image "smears".
With LCD and Plasma, you have a similar issue... how fast can you turn all those little pixels on and off. At this point the answer is "pretty fast, but a lot slower than a tube". LCD displays are getting to the point where some are fast enough to play most games (not true even a year ago), sounds like plasma may be a lot slower. I'm not a big plasma fan myself, pay $8000 for a tv that at best will last 5 or 6 years before burning out... I don't think so. If you've got that kind of cash for a display buy a good LCD projection system and a good quality screen. Much better quality and longevity (although you have to replace the bulb occasionally, and they're not cheap - $500 or so). |
|
|
|
02-26-2003, 08:52 AM
|
#4 |
|
Mephistopheles
 Join Date: January 7, 2003
Location: Holland
Age: 37
Posts: 1,402
|
They cannot handle the fast refresh rate and pixel rate as an ordinanary monitor does... They are great for working with Visuel programs...(architecture & such)
__________________
 <br />Nau Tagnik\'zur zhal fre\'sla wun ussta i\'dol. -Annatar
|
|
|
|
02-26-2003, 11:09 AM
|
#5 |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Odd you should mention this..I just got the latest Issue of CGW last night, and they reviewed a brand new 17" flat screen.
This one is better than the average flatscreen in that it has more than the two standard resolutions...normal flat screens only display well in one or two resolutions and have a problem with high refresh rates...this new one goes up to 1200 or so by 1024 I think...with a maximum refresh of 60hz. I don't know about anyone else but at 60Hz and lower I end up getting really bad eyestrain and headaches...wish I had the article with me so I could post details 
|
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Plasma? LCD? Projection? Bwa! | Sir Goulum | General Discussion | 36 | 06-14-2005 10:00 PM |
| A man's Flat Screen TV started calling international S.O.S. | Larry_OHF | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 12 | 10-21-2004 05:03 PM |
| Monitors: CRT vs LCD | Memnoch | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 40 | 07-03-2004 02:29 PM |
| Monitors/lcd or crt? | john | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 9 | 03-07-2004 11:57 AM |
| Flat-screen monitors>>>Please post your input, based on this article I found | Larry_OHF | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 6 | 05-20-2003 11:42 AM |
