Monitor & TV

Kyle Evers · May 12, 2009

Huh. Maybe I'll have to consider a 28" then. But I must ask do you have a 512MB card or 1GB?

GAIAjohan · May 12, 2009

512MB

John Mactavish · May 12, 2009

yeah with 1080p...you can also watch HD movies from PC or xbox 360.

the black levels are very good...

heres an HD movie trailer from the marketplace

it comes withe alot of cables too.

vga cable
dvi to hdmi cable
component to vga cable
audio cables

Kyle Evers · May 13, 2009

Oh cool. That's good to know. Maybe a 28" would be a better choice.

Now the only thing is my parents are divorced and so that means I have my rig at one house and my Xbox 360 at another - I don't want to have both at the same house because then I wouldn't have much to do at one house and much to do at the other. But I think I could find a nice balance somewhere.

Edit: But then again, my dad said once he gets a new TV for the family room he'll put our current 30" HDTV in my room for my Xbox. Not sure when he will get a new TV though...

GAIAjohan · May 13, 2009

My screen only got DVI and VGA cables with it. (it doesn't have sound, except for a 3.5" jackplug at the back if you're using HDMI so you can connect headphones.

And well HDMI cables are only €2.98 each... (1.2m)

Kyle Evers · May 13, 2009

Well the two screens I'm looking at (one a 27.5" and one a 32") both have VGA and HDMI inputs, as well as audio inputs. So that wouldn't be a problem.

Stefan Werner · May 13, 2009

Kyle Evers said:
Well my real concern is just the resolution being too high for my 4850. I'm running 1280x1024 right now, so something like 1900x1200 would be much higher in which case my FPS would greatly suffer. I get about 60FPS with full settings in Test Drive Unlimited right now. But with a 1900x1200 I'd get maybe 35FPS, which is unacceptable because that's the whole reason I bought a new graphics card is for better FPS. I can hardly stand anything under 50FPS now.

You do realize that the human eye does not register anything above 35 FPS. That means, you wouldn't be able to see the difference between something running at 35 FPS and the same image at 100 FPS.

I also have a 4850 512meg card, and run everything set to max settings @ 1680x1050 without any issues at all.

Kalen Johnson · May 13, 2009

Stefan Werner said:
You do realize that the human eye does not register anything above 35 FPS. That means, you wouldn't be able to see the difference between something running at 35 FPS and the same image at 100 FPS.

I also have a 4850 512meg card, and run everything set to max settings @ 1680x1050 without any issues at all.

Sorry, but wrong.... how many FPS do we see in real life? Hmmm....

Answer: The eye does not see in FPS. There is the common misconception that the eye does not see more than 60 fps, but that is wrong as well. 35 fps in a video game is VERY noticeable from 60 fps though, if you don't think so then you must be partially blind.

Movies are filmed normally in 24 fps, but we don't notice as much because of things like motion blur that happen when filming. It seems more natural. Anyways, not to bore you too much, but 35 fps is a very wrong assumption of what the human eye is capable of seeing.

Edit: Here's a website that might help you out: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Edit2: Sorry, don't mean to come across like an ass, but I don't like seeing that misconception spread anymore.

John Mactavish · May 13, 2009

Actually, I learned in my ophthalmology class that we can see even more than 60 fps.

I remember my professor reading about the USAF conducting a study that tested their pilots for visual response time. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. pilots were consistently able to see the after image as well as identify the aircraft.

But you may wonder why movie theaters play at 24 frames per second and viewers do not notice any flickering and see the film playing smoothly which make it seem that the eye doesnt need to view anything over 24 fps, and 30 fps is already enough.

Well, the thing is that while movie projectors do advance from one frame to the next 24 times each second, each frame is also illuminated twice or three times before the next frame is projected using a shutter in front of its lamp, producing a a refresh rate of about 72 hz so actually the movie is being viewed at 72 frames per second and not 24 fps.

This is a technique used on movie projectors to correct and improve the flickering and stuttering of films playing using older projectors.

Also, the reason why movies are filmed at 24 fps is because the film media it is so expensive that is an economic decision (due to numerous takes). There is film media available that allows 60 fps but it is very expensive and is currently only used for Virtual Rides at amusement parks like the "Back to the future" ride at universal studios.

GAIAjohan · May 13, 2009

Cinemas and television 24fps. You can see that sometimes with falling objects or fast moving objects

Kyle Evers · May 13, 2009

Well one thing I know is I can notice a difference between 35 and 55FPS without a doubt.

Ben Tusting · May 13, 2009

Kyle i am running a samsung 37 inch TV(Ati 4850) and my FPS stays at 60 all the time.

This is my tv (specs)
http://www.play.com/Electronics/Ele...eady-Freeview-Widescreen-LCD-TV/Product.html#

Kyle Evers · May 13, 2009

Oh yeah it should be because it's only 1366x768. I'm concerned about the FPS at that resolution, just at 1900x1200. For me, getting a 32" would actually mean better FPS than I get now.

Kennett Ylitalo · Jun 6, 2009

This is the screen i want..

43" curved Super-LCD... whoah, picture that with a good cockpit setup..

The story: http://www.rlslog.net/zitzot-nec-crv43-43″-curved-super-lcd/