refresh rates
BlitzMax Forums/BlitzMax Programming/refresh rates
| ||
| I notice that the graphics command sets the refresh rate to 60Hz and the sample code I looked at uses this. Does this mean you're compatible with most monitors/gfx cards if you choose 60Hz? |
| ||
| Well yes, but it doesn't really matter all that much, because BlitzMAX will fake it if it doesn't. You should consider what resolution you intend to develop your game in. Any resolution above 800x600 should have a higher refreshrate if possible to aviod eye-strain for those poor souls who cling to their pathetic outdated CRTs. :o> |
| ||
| Not to flame, seriously, but why are CRTs pathetic? I still haven't seen a flat screen that comes close to a good CRT Can you elaborate? :) |
| ||
| Not to flame, seriously, but why are CRTs pathetic? Flame that comment all you want. CRTs are just fine, and they dont blur as much as LCD/TFTs.... and they allow for better bloomage. Any resolution above 800x600 should have a higher refreshrate if possible to aviod eye-strain for those poor souls who cling to their pathetic outdated CRTs I have a TFT and a 19"CRT. I'm using my CRT. my TFT just isnt good enough, it blurs when the screen moves which means the whole thing looses colour vibrance etc etc... my CRT brings out all the colour i can see and i can do a good bloom effect with it. I think its just a preference to be honest. Yes, i dont like the refresh rates, but i hate the blur on my TFT even more. Also, fair enough, my TFT is one of the earlier ones, so blur may not be so bad on modern systems. |
| ||
| Ah, good stuff. Didn't realise Max could 'Fake it'. LCDs (most/all?) have an advantage over CRTs in that the whole screen refreshes at once, rather than scanning, so can be less irritating on the eye, but on the downside, they are generally more expensive and have poorer colour reproduction than a comparable CRT, and the blur - I hate it too. |
| ||
| Loonie, what's the catch with the free mac mini's? [edit] Thanks for the info. [edit] |
| ||
| The catch is that you do have to send a *little* money and participate in one of their "offers"....I went for the DVD club thingie, but there are others.....other than that, it's an awesome deal. Oh! you also have to get some people to sign in too. Worth it, if you ask me.... |
| ||
| Flame that comment all you want. CRTs are just fine, and they dont blur as much as LCD/TFTs.... and they allow for better bloomage. Well, I know for a fact that if you get a cheap LCD you will get what you paid for, meaning blurry and innacurate colors. But I've used some high-end LCDs and those problems dissapear. I guess I just want to know if there are any other "problems." I mean, people who are "serious" about color accuracy (graphic designers come to mind) usually stick with CRTs because of color reproduction on LCDs is usually shitty. Then, even those with big budgets to get into high-end LCDs stay with CRTs. Am I missing something? |
| ||
| At the moment the main issue is colour purity, any recent quality tft shouldn't blur or be patchy. I find the tft a lot less strain on the eyes than the crt's used to be. |
| ||
| TFTs don't have to be more expensive than a CRT. I've bought a TFT (15 inch) before and the price was about 330 Euros, while in the same store a CRT (also 15 inch) was priced at 340 Euros. But the TFT was an unknown brand to me (KeyMat) and the TFT went dead in 6 months and got blurry after a few hours (the screen lost focus and text was sometimes hard to read). Powering down the screen and powering up again made the screen refocus, so everything was pixelperfect again, until a few hours later. Now I've bought a new TFT (19 inch) in Germany (I live in Belgium) and paid also 330 Euros for it and it's an LG one. I don't think I can find a CRT (19 inch) for that price. It doesn't get blurry (even after a whole day) and refresh rate of a pixel is 18 milliseconds, so it is very good for fast graphics and games. When your TFT gets blurry (fast moving objects fade away) when playing fast games, it just means that the response time is high. Keep this time as low as you can get (< 25ms). |
| ||
| Not to flame, seriously, but why are CRTs pathetic? Because they need ultra-high scanrates to not induce headaches at high resolutions. Flame that comment all you want. CRTs are just fine, and they dont blur as much as LCD/TFTs.... and they allow for better bloomage. Buy one made in this century then. :o> I think its just a preference to be honest. Yes, i dont like the refresh rates, but i hate the blur on my TFT even more. I have a SUN/Sony 20" CRT (that does 1600x1200 in 100Hz) and a 17" Xerox TFT (DVI) that "only" does 1280x1024 in 60Hz. Not only does the TFT produce a sharper, crisper, brighter image, it also doesn't weigh 67 pounds or get it's image distorted by nearby magnetic fields (speakers, PSUs and RFID transceivers mostly). At the time of purchase the CRT was definately the most expensive of the two.It always amazes me how people will be ready to spend $2000 on a brand new PC, but won't spend the extra $500 on a decent display. Like it really matters. because of color reproduction on LCDs is usually shitty. Define "shitty"? The human eye can distinguish roughly 10 million (depending on who you believe, most can't do that well) which is well below the ammount of colors most TFT screens can display (24-bit = 16.7 millions). How good a color representation do you think is nessecary? |
| ||
| Define "shitty"? The human eye can distinguish roughly 10 million (depending on who you believe, most can't do that well) which is well below the ammount of colors most TFT screens can display (24-bit = 16.7 millions). How good a color representation do you think is nessecary The problem is not that it can define 'only' 16.7 million colors, it's the this color spectrum isn't distributed evenly on an LCD. Certain color tones will be shown more vibrant than others, leading to a less 'true' representation of the intended colors, especially on lower end LCD's. The result of this is that depending on the colors used, certain images may look to warm, cool, or washed out on an LCD compared with a CRT. Personally I like an LCD due to the small footprint, although I prefer laptop screens over desktop LCD screens, since the latter ones tend to be ungodly bright (150 cd/m2 for a typical laptop screen, 450 cd/m2 for a desktop LCD) I do know some graphic artists as well, and they will flat out refuse to use any LCD because of their more limited color representation. |
| ||
| @Loonie: Did you actually get a free Mac yet? How much money, and hoow many people do you have to get to sign up? |
| ||
| I do know some graphic artists as well, and they will flat out refuse to use any LCD because of their more limited color representation. Did they look at any of the latest TFT-models, or just the ones that appeared first on the market? On a CRT, the colors change also by surrounding light that falls onto the glass (a dark color gets lighter), so you can't really make a comparison. And how do you know that CRTs produce the perfect color? It could be that CRTs misrepresent the colors for so long (years and years), so that we are used to those colors, and that when a TFT has different looks of a color, that we all say: "TFTs are useless, because they misrepresent the colors, compared to a CRT". Keep in mind that it could be the other way around. Also keep in mind that you can reduce the brightness and contrast on a desktop TFT, to reduce the bright light that a TFT produces (you could do that so that the lightintensity matches a laptop TFT). I was sceptical at first too, I admit it, but when I got my first TFT, I was sold. I'm never going back to buying a CRT. My brother's CRT (19 inch) produces less sharp images than my 19 inch TFT. A CRT's pixel shines onto the surrounding pixels (by being slightly reflected by the glass, back into the screen), so the surrounding pixels get a slight change in their color-representation and automatically produces a small anti-aliasing on it's own. TFT don't do that, because they don't have glass in front of them. On my TFT, a pixel is really sharp and square, when you look very close. I haven't seen any CRT that does this. |
| ||
| LameDuck wrote; "Because they need ultra-high scanrates to not induce headaches at high resolutions." I never seen a TFT that come close to my 19" Sony Trinitron CRT in quality - and that's what important when you play games... That's my humble and very personal opinion... :-) |
| ||
| Upps! Sorry!! FlameDuck!! *lol* Don't know why I allways do that misstake... Sorry again! |
| ||
| @Falken: yes, got one that I sent to my nephew in South America. Now I'm trying to get one for me. And it's 10 people :) So, help me out |
| ||
| The problem with TFT is there isnt one out yet at reasonable price which covers high scanrate, good color/contrast quality and a good field of view all in one. So an artist has to buy a different TFT as a gamer. If it comes to pixels, nothing beats my B/W TV i got with my first C64:D |
| ||
| @loonie - tried to, but apparently I can't participate because of my georaphical location - and they got all that from my e-mail address?? |
| ||
| I have a 21" Sony Trinitron CRT that I run at 1600x1200@85 hz. I also have a brand new Dell 20" LCD that I run at 1600x1200@60hz. They are both nice, but the color on the Trinitron is unsurpassed. And yes, most graphic artists prefer a CRT. LCD's are getting there, but not quite there yet. And the only headache inducing res on a CRT is something that is interlaced, like 60 hz. |
| ||
| Why0Why, I agree 179%!! :-) LCD are pleasent and steady for the eyes when you work, but to do real graphic stuff on? Hmmmm... Not yet... |
   |