fixed panel displays for new consoles

[mr. newbie]

how do you feel about them? the video einthusiast in me says crt
but i'd like something really big, and crt's don't come in 50 inches.

what do you guys do for tv or new consoles?

i've been vehemently opposed to fixed panels in the past. but i wonder if it's actually as bad as i make it out to be.

[NFG]

Fixed-res displays suck for all non-photographic images displayed on them, unless they use the TV's native resolution.

Since old consoles never do, they pretty much suck as a rule.

The reason is the scaling. You can't stretch an image without ruining it.  A CRT can do it though, because it actually adjusts the spacing between the scanlines, greating larger black gaps between them.  

It sounds dodgy, but in reality a CRT offers a much, much more vivid image without any image-degrading stretching.  A similar effect can be created on your computer: Run MAME or any other emulator without stretching.  1:1 pixels, in a window.  Make a screenshot, then compare that screenshot against one made while playing full-screen.  One is ultra-clear, the other is, well, not.

That's the difference.

[qz33]

What about LCDs with 1:1 pixel mapping?  A normal lcd computer monitor with a resolution of 1280X1024 probably would make the image too small, but a LCD Tv with a maximum resolution of 640X480 or 1280X720 might create an acceptable image size for the last round and new round of consoles.  Even old (SNES, etc.) consoles might look nice -albeit only use half the screen- on an LCD with 1:1.  Has anyone tried this?

[NFG]

If your LCD allowed you to present an input signal at the SIGNAL's native res, then yes, you'd end up with a nice picture (ignoring for a moment LCD's inherent motion blur, off-axis discolouration and poor black levels).

But then you'd end up with a postage-stamp image in the middle of the screen, and what good is that?

Optimally the monitor would 'hard scale' the images, to a clean multiple of the original.  2x2 or 3x pixel sizes, for example.   No monitor does this as far as I know.

[mr. newbie]

oh i know about teh scaling and such. i'm refering to my 360 and future ps3.

[NFG]

3D games, especially modern ones, suffer a lot less.  As I said, photographic images scale relatively well, and modern 3D games, while not necessarily photographic-quality, still tend to be anti-aliased and alpha-blended and mip-mapped (and other things) which deliver a finished image with most of the qualities of a photographic image.  

So yeah, they scale well, and it's not as big a deal.  

Modern screens are much better than even two years ago.  You won't be sorry with a massive plasma or LCD in the house.

[Guest]

thanks!

[mr. newbie]

i'm currently looking for 0 scaling. but these stupid manufacturers have a lot of 1366x768 (instead of standard 1280x720) res displays. should i ust settle for that or keep looking for 1280x720?

black friday is almost here, that why i ask.

[blackevilweredragon]

some 1280x1024 LCDs will add letterboxing, to allow a 1:1 pixel lineup..

sadly, mine only does it via DVI, but not via analog..  (go figure...)  and it don't do it via DVI on all computers..

[mr. newbie]

my av disappeared. anyway i just read about overscan. i'm gonna go for 1:1 pixel mapping. it seems excessive but what are you gonna do?

everyday i learn something about display tech. and it's always bad news.

[Kevin]

The sony KDF-50E2000 has a 1280x720 native res and will do 1:1 when hooked to a computer via DVI -> HDMI. But its lcd projection so black levels kinda suck and if u run it at 1280x720 it overscans i.e ur the start button and some of the icons are cut off.

[mr. newbie]

ya i narrowed it down to that sony or this samsung 42 dlp

[qz33]

"You can't stretch an image without ruining it. A CRT can do it though, because it actually adjusts the spacing between the scanlines, greating larger black gaps between them."


Lawerence can you please explain why this is?  Is this not the same as interlacing?  It was my belief that a crt could produce a non-interlaced 240 line picture.  Is this not true?  Why would it be necessary to add any black gaps between the scanlines?  

[NFG]

You don't ADD black gaps.  By spacing out the illuminated scanlines the black lines - that were always there - become larger.  

[viletim!]

qz33,

Or to put it another way: The thickness of a single line is fixed (it's determined by the CRT itself) so when you have fewer lines to fill the screen the gap between each line will become larger.