No, and no. These are non issues with todays LCD's. Any jerkiness or lagg that you experience will not be related to the LCD.
[quote]Ghost images ?<hr></blockquote>
This issue has been long since vanquished. Ghoast immages appeared on some of the first LCD's, that lacked an active-matrix setup (primarily laptop's.) But its no longer a problem as all commercial LCD's posses active-matrix now.
You can determine frame rate based on the 'refresh rate' of your display. This applies to CRT displays as well. On a CRT, the refresh rate is how many times the entire display scans a second, and on an LCD, it is how many times a pixel can refresh per second. Most LCDs are about 60Hz, and I would imagine that is the rate of the Cinema Display and other Apple LCDs. Therefore, a refresh rate of 60Hz means your maximum viewable framerate is 60fps. Same with a CRT. It doesn't really matter what Quake 3 says, you're only going to see whatever the refresh rate is on your display.
As mentioned before, jerkiness, lag, etceteras, it's not the display's fault. Picture quality can still be an issue on displays with an analog input such as VGA.
I second that. I run two Silicon Graphics 1600SW panels, each with a Multilink adapter (which include their own scaler for dropping the resolution to 1024, 800, etc). Oni looks great, Civilization III in 1024x768 stretched to the widescreen aspect looks fine; text is readable and not really fuzzy. Black & White runs great at 800x600 on the display. To be quite honest, I can't even tell the display is having to drop down and stretch a resolution of 800x600. Like the cinema, the native resolution of the SGI display is 1600x1024, at a 60Hz refresh rate. I notice when I switch resolutions while using the OS, but for playing games, I never notice the resolution change unless I really go over it with a magnifying glass.
Yeah, as I was playing around with a display iMac, I discovered that it does do lower resolutions surprisingly well. Generally, text is fuzzy and things are blurry, but it was hardly noticable at a normal distance from the screen.
<strong>You can determine frame rate based on the 'refresh rate' of your display. This applies to CRT displays as well. On a CRT, the refresh rate is how many times the entire display scans a second, and on an LCD, it is how many times a pixel can refresh per second. Most LCDs are about 60Hz, and I would imagine that is the rate of the Cinema Display and other Apple LCDs. Therefore, a refresh rate of 60Hz means your maximum viewable framerate is 60fps. Same with a CRT. It doesn't really matter what Quake 3 says, you're only going to see whatever the refresh rate is on your display.
As mentioned before, jerkiness, lag, etceteras, it's not the display's fault. Picture quality can still be an issue on displays with an analog input such as VGA.
-j4</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have heard more than one person say that and I have seen many knock it down as an old myth.
I have heard more than one person say that and I have seen many knock it down as an old myth.
so, which is it</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's absolutely true that even if you had 300 fps on some game, you're not going to SEE all 300 of those frames unless your screen frequency was a lot higher than is currently possible.
But in a previous discussion on this subject here on the AI Forums, another member pointed out something that made sense to me. The reason gamers want to see 100+ or even 150+ fps is not because they think they need to see their screen refresh that fast -- it's because when things start to get really frantic in a big deathmatch melee, the system will start to bog down to a fraction of the maximum refresh rate. So a gamer wants to see 150 fps benchmarks so that even when things get really hairy, his system will never drop below 60 fps or so. It actually makes sense to me. You're buying yourself a bit of headroom so that your system can slow down to 1/2 or 1/3 speed and still be very fluid.
I have heard more than one person say that and I have seen many knock it down as an old myth.
so, which is it</strong><hr></blockquote>
Essentially it is true. You can tell this inherently just by considering how the technology works and what the refresh rate is. The refresh rate is how quickly the screen can update images.
In the case of CRTs the screen goes black in between displays so sub-85Hz you can see a nasty flicker (varies from person to person). LCDs don't require that off position so the flickering isn't an issue.
Firstly though very few LCDs operate above around 40Hz (LCDs refer to it as response times instead of refresh rates usually though). That number only really matters should it drop below 30 or mid-20s (yes some LCDs do).
Ghosting is what occurs when the screen can't update fast enough. Sub 25 Hz refresh rates you will definitely see it.
I have no idea what Apple's fit in as nor of their quality as I won't switch to LCD until later in the year. Everybody I have heard from though say they are an excellent quality.
If you really want to read something on LCDs check here:
<strong>So a gamer wants to see 150 fps benchmarks so that even when things get really hairy, his system will never drop below 60 fps or so. It actually makes sense to me. You're buying yourself a bit of headroom so that your system can slow down to 1/2 or 1/3 speed and still be very fluid.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem with this line of thinking is in the past ATI used to make graphics chips that didn't hit the heights of fps of other graphics chips but they held up better under stress.
Although they may only manage 80 - 100 while other cards were doing 150+ under stress both cards would end up doing roughly the same.
That's what I remember from some benchmarks I saw once at least <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />
Essentially it is true. You can tell this inherently just by considering how the technology works and what the refresh rate is. The refresh rate is how quickly the screen can update images.
In the case of CRTs the screen goes black in between displays so sub-85Hz you can see a nasty flicker (varies from person to person). LCDs don't require that off position so the flickering isn't an issue.
Firstly though very few LCDs operate above around 40Hz (LCDs refer to it as response times instead of refresh rates usually though). That number only really matters should it drop below 30 or mid-20s (yes some LCDs do).
Ghosting is what occurs when the screen can't update fast enough. Sub 25 Hz refresh rates you will definitely see it.
I have no idea what Apple's fit in as nor of their quality as I won't switch to LCD until later in the year. Everybody I have heard from though say they are an excellent quality.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I upgraded to my SGI panels a year ago. Even at 85Hz my CRT's were still giving me headaches. Whenever I use a CRT for over an hour now, I really start to feel it. The SGI panels are really nice. Their response time is fast, same resolution as a cinema display... and they don't hurt my eyes ;-) One of their markets was being used as broadcast monitors for HDTV 720p broadcast trucks. At the NAB a few years back we got to go take a tour of one of the trucks with these panels in them. Was quite nice.
Apple doesn't list the Cinema Display's response time on their site, but I would imagine it's at least 60. Unless you're prepress, the only thing holding you back from an LCD should be the cost. I can get these SGI displays pretty color accurate too...
In several threads about the Apple LCD displays, the comment has been made (generally by graphics/prepress people) that color accuracy and price are factors that would keep people from buying them. I think the color accuracy comments are not as warranted as they once might have been. I spent $2,000 for a 17" display (several years ago) which included a closed-loop calibration system. The other factors inherent in the printing process (that I had little control over even when I could be on-site for press runs) meant that there was always a measure of educated guess to color matching, especially with certain blues. As a designer/artist you have to know how YOUR monitor portrays colors, which is, at best, an approximation of how the eye sees printed inks.
Last night I did some comparison printing from a new iMac and my old CRT, and I decided it would take me very little time to calibrate the iMac or any other Apple LCD to be quite usable for prepress. Plus they just look so GOOD!
LCDs are pimp....I think that if there is one area apple puts extra detail into its their displays, they use NICE LCDs for their NICE displays.
all my Pc loving friends are envious of the cinema display, they think its one of the coolest, sexiest {computer related}things ever.
I'm sure all games will run fine on an Apple LCD unless you are mazing out the graphics settings on a cheap graphics card <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Comments
[quote]Jerkiness ? Lags ?<hr></blockquote>
No, and no. These are non issues with todays LCD's. Any jerkiness or lagg that you experience will not be related to the LCD.
[quote]Ghost images ?<hr></blockquote>
This issue has been long since vanquished. Ghoast immages appeared on some of the first LCD's, that lacked an active-matrix setup (primarily laptop's.) But its no longer a problem as all commercial LCD's posses active-matrix now.
~bauman
I have a Cinema Display and I play games all of the time on it (Diablo II, Quake, UT, Giants)
It's great, I love it!
As mentioned before, jerkiness, lag, etceteras, it's not the display's fault. Picture quality can still be an issue on displays with an analog input such as VGA.
-j4
-j4
~bauman
<strong>You can determine frame rate based on the 'refresh rate' of your display. This applies to CRT displays as well. On a CRT, the refresh rate is how many times the entire display scans a second, and on an LCD, it is how many times a pixel can refresh per second. Most LCDs are about 60Hz, and I would imagine that is the rate of the Cinema Display and other Apple LCDs. Therefore, a refresh rate of 60Hz means your maximum viewable framerate is 60fps. Same with a CRT. It doesn't really matter what Quake 3 says, you're only going to see whatever the refresh rate is on your display.
As mentioned before, jerkiness, lag, etceteras, it's not the display's fault. Picture quality can still be an issue on displays with an analog input such as VGA.
-j4</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have heard more than one person say that and I have seen many knock it down as an old myth.
so, which is it
<strong>
I have heard more than one person say that and I have seen many knock it down as an old myth.
so, which is it</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's absolutely true that even if you had 300 fps on some game, you're not going to SEE all 300 of those frames unless your screen frequency was a lot higher than is currently possible.
But in a previous discussion on this subject here on the AI Forums, another member pointed out something that made sense to me. The reason gamers want to see 100+ or even 150+ fps is not because they think they need to see their screen refresh that fast -- it's because when things start to get really frantic in a big deathmatch melee, the system will start to bog down to a fraction of the maximum refresh rate. So a gamer wants to see 150 fps benchmarks so that even when things get really hairy, his system will never drop below 60 fps or so. It actually makes sense to me. You're buying yourself a bit of headroom so that your system can slow down to 1/2 or 1/3 speed and still be very fluid.
<strong>
I have heard more than one person say that and I have seen many knock it down as an old myth.
so, which is it</strong><hr></blockquote>
Essentially it is true. You can tell this inherently just by considering how the technology works and what the refresh rate is. The refresh rate is how quickly the screen can update images.
In the case of CRTs the screen goes black in between displays so sub-85Hz you can see a nasty flicker (varies from person to person). LCDs don't require that off position so the flickering isn't an issue.
Firstly though very few LCDs operate above around 40Hz (LCDs refer to it as response times instead of refresh rates usually though). That number only really matters should it drop below 30 or mid-20s (yes some LCDs do).
Ghosting is what occurs when the screen can't update fast enough. Sub 25 Hz refresh rates you will definitely see it.
I have no idea what Apple's fit in as nor of their quality as I won't switch to LCD until later in the year. Everybody I have heard from though say they are an excellent quality.
If you really want to read something on LCDs check here:
<a href="http://www.tomshardware.com/display/02q1/020114/index.html"; target="_blank">LCDs</a>
[ 02-18-2002: Message edited by: Telomar ]</p>
<strong>So a gamer wants to see 150 fps benchmarks so that even when things get really hairy, his system will never drop below 60 fps or so. It actually makes sense to me. You're buying yourself a bit of headroom so that your system can slow down to 1/2 or 1/3 speed and still be very fluid.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem with this line of thinking is in the past ATI used to make graphics chips that didn't hit the heights of fps of other graphics chips but they held up better under stress.
Although they may only manage 80 - 100 while other cards were doing 150+ under stress both cards would end up doing roughly the same.
That's what I remember from some benchmarks I saw once at least <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" />
<strong>
Essentially it is true. You can tell this inherently just by considering how the technology works and what the refresh rate is. The refresh rate is how quickly the screen can update images.
In the case of CRTs the screen goes black in between displays so sub-85Hz you can see a nasty flicker (varies from person to person). LCDs don't require that off position so the flickering isn't an issue.
Firstly though very few LCDs operate above around 40Hz (LCDs refer to it as response times instead of refresh rates usually though). That number only really matters should it drop below 30 or mid-20s (yes some LCDs do).
Ghosting is what occurs when the screen can't update fast enough. Sub 25 Hz refresh rates you will definitely see it.
I have no idea what Apple's fit in as nor of their quality as I won't switch to LCD until later in the year. Everybody I have heard from though say they are an excellent quality.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I upgraded to my SGI panels a year ago. Even at 85Hz my CRT's were still giving me headaches. Whenever I use a CRT for over an hour now, I really start to feel it. The SGI panels are really nice. Their response time is fast, same resolution as a cinema display... and they don't hurt my eyes ;-) One of their markets was being used as broadcast monitors for HDTV 720p broadcast trucks. At the NAB a few years back we got to go take a tour of one of the trucks with these panels in them. Was quite nice.
Apple doesn't list the Cinema Display's response time on their site, but I would imagine it's at least 60. Unless you're prepress, the only thing holding you back from an LCD should be the cost. I can get these SGI displays pretty color accurate too...
-j4
Last night I did some comparison printing from a new iMac and my old CRT, and I decided it would take me very little time to calibrate the iMac or any other Apple LCD to be quite usable for prepress. Plus they just look so GOOD!
all my Pc loving friends are envious of the cinema display, they think its one of the coolest, sexiest {computer related}things ever.
I'm sure all games will run fine on an Apple LCD unless you are mazing out the graphics settings on a cheap graphics card <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />