| Page 2 of 3 |
|
|
 Posted: Thu, 28th Oct 2010 01:32 Post subject: |
|
 |
Yeah, probably. I just checked and even though the ad specifically states "1680x1050" - it had "native res: 1920x1200" at the bottom. Go figure. Either way, point still stands; I love my monitor and 1680 is absolutely fine for me.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Thu, 28th Oct 2010 01:38 Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, 1680 is quite fine for a 22" monitor. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Thu, 28th Oct 2010 01:42 Post subject: |
|
|
To be honest, at this point I would say the most important aspect of a 1920 resolution is the working space. It is not something you will get until you actually get used to a large resolution and them move to a small one. It was actually shocking to move from my 1920 display to the tiny little 1280x800 laptop display. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 28th Oct 2010 01:44 Post subject: |
|
|
It really just increases sharpness in games. Jaggies are hardly a problem with abundant anti-aliasing even at 1360x768. Size, color accuracy, black level and contrast are much more important in a monitor than resolution in my opinion. Not like that matters since screens tend to be set to a certain resolution depending on size.
Last edited by Divvy on Thu, 28th Oct 2010 01:45; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 28th Oct 2010 01:44 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Thu, 28th Oct 2010 01:51 Post subject: |
|
|
| Divvy wrote: | | It really just increases sharpness in games. Jaggies are hardly a problem with abundant anti-aliasing even at 1360x768. Size, color accuracy, black level and contrast are much more important in a monitor than resolution in my opinion. Not like that matters since screens tend to be set to a certain resolution depending on size. |
You also have to consider that games are made these days with the basis that monitors cannot have deep blacks (because most people use cheap HDTVs). Take a look at older PC games, where blacks are blacks and whites are whites, where nights and darkness are really dark. Now take a look at Splinter Cell Conviction. In general, games these days always stay away from darkness and nights, because most TVs would not cope very well, a problem that was non-existent with the old CRT monitors and TVs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 28th Oct 2010 01:56 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 28th Oct 2010 02:05 Post subject: |
|
|
| iNatan wrote: | | You also have to consider that games are made these days with the basis that monitors cannot have deep blacks (because most people use cheap HDTVs)... |
Not sure if I agree there. Games seem to be using the full 0-255 range to me. There's always games like Amnesia or Stalker that are a washed out mess of crushed blacks on sub-par uncalibrated screens. I'm sure what you say applies to some/many games, but the vast majority? I don't think so.
Even cheap HDTV's are almost always better than your typical monitor in that regard. TN just can't stand up to better screens for black levels, and practically all TV's are non-TN screens.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 28th Oct 2010 02:10 Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | 1680 *is* the native res, dumbass |
Where is the fucking apology sabin! DUMB ASS!! lol  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 28th Oct 2010 02:18 Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="sabin1981"] | Divvy wrote: | | Immunity wrote: | | At 1680x1050, I had a hard time noticing any difference between 2x and 4x |
That's how it goes when you're using a monitor the size of a postage stamp.  |
 *hugs my 22" monitor* Don't you listen to him, baby, don't you listen to the mean old bastard... 1680x1050 is just fine for me.[/quote]
ROFLMAO
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Epsilon
Dr. Strangelove
Posts: 9240
Location: War Room
|
| Posted: Thu, 28th Oct 2010 03:00 Post subject: |
|
|
Leo I of course know the Jagged Alliance games, the reason why I picked the one I did can be found in the text posted by Spykez; "you don’t want jagged edges"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 28th Oct 2010 05:09 Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I'm on a 40" 1080p and I can't stand anything lower than 4x. I can definitely see a difference between 2x and 4x, as I could on my 24" monitor, too. Anything over 4x requires screenshot comparisons though. But yeah, if you can't see, all the more GPU power spared for you.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
W123
Posts: 2500
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu, 28th Oct 2010 05:11 Post subject: |
|
|
Depends how far away you're sitting too obviously.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 28th Oct 2010 05:13 Post subject: |
|
|
And your eyesight. And your anality level. That's a word.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 28th Oct 2010 07:02 Post subject: |
|
|
| Divvy wrote: | | It really just increases sharpness in games. Jaggies are hardly a problem with abundant anti-aliasing even at 1360x768. Size, color accuracy, black level and contrast are much more important in a monitor than resolution in my opinion. Not like that matters since screens tend to be set to a certain resolution depending on size. |
Yes and no
There are things more important than AA but when your eyes are used to it , abundant jaggies are just ugly and can even ruin immersion and realism for some people and i'm one of them. Jaggies can also by a disavantage when playing certain FPS online.
I don't mind minor aliasing but hate it when the game look like a jagged mess. A good exemple of this was GTA IV on consoles. The aliasing was so absurd that i had to tone down my TV sharpness all the way down to 0 to make it look "better". I say "better" because the game then looked blurry.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JBeckman
VIP Member
Posts: 34976
Location: Sweden
|
| Posted: Thu, 28th Oct 2010 07:07 Post subject: |
|
|
ATI 4890 (Vapor-X sapphire 2GB model with light overclock but that doesn't do all that much though the extra ram and cooling is a nice improvement, especially as it's still rather quitet.) so I can't use the more special AA modes like the ATI 5000 series SSAA technique or 6000 series Morphological AA method but I normally use 2x AA with the setting being application controlled and then set to support Adaptive AA at quality mode and Edge Detect AA, that way I can just switch over to 4x which enables edge detect at a result of roughly 12x AA for games that need it whereas I am usually OK with 2x AA and Adaptive AA for normal play in more recent titles, manage to get some pretty good performance that way as well though AAA isn't that performance friendly, heh.
(AF also forced at 16x, no reason not to try to increase texture clarity with the extra ram available and the GPU is rather powerful itself though only some modded games or titles such as ArmA 2 or GTA IV have managed to get close to the 2GB limit.)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nui
VIP Member
Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
|
| Posted: Thu, 28th Oct 2010 12:54 Post subject: |
|
|
| Divvy wrote: | | Not sure if I agree there. Games seem to be using the full 0-255 range to me. |
He wasn't talking about that. He just said games avoid dark scenes, because even the first levels on current monitors arent really dark.
@ iNatan
But when we're already at Levels and moniitors. Batman Arkham Asylum had a test image for black level. Did you test that?
It displayed something with a shadow (that wasnt black) and you were to supposed to decrease the black level (brightness) until the shadow completely dissappeared.
Especially the plasma i tested that with displayed all parts of the image at all times. The image became useless.
Yet again, why would they want me to set my display crush blacks ffs?!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 28th Oct 2010 13:05 Post subject: |
|
|
Just wanted to comment on this article. The topic is very misleading. No where in his written article does he actually speak of which is the best to use for your gpu. There is no listing, or reference to a certain gpu and what it should be using. This is more of an overall basic introduction in how AA is applied. Then you figure out what you like yourself, not taking into account what your gpu actually is.
| Quote: | | As any serious gamer will tell you, you don’t want jagged edges. |
How untrue can this be. For online play most serious gamers and professional gamers will tell you to not use AA at all (for FPS the most part, but thats where most online gamers are). You want the best performance and AA on and off can make a difference in a shot that lands or misses someone due to your machine lagging a bit now because you wanted all the eyecandy and for it to look its best. Unless you have a killer machine and are hosting the server of course this wouldn't really apply.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 28th Oct 2010 13:28 Post subject: |
|
|
I for one like the jagged edges and always disable anti aliasing.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 28th Oct 2010 13:40 Post subject: |
|
|
| sabin1981 wrote: | | moosenoodles wrote: | | Quote: | | 1680 *is* the native res, dumbass |
Where is the fucking apology sabin! DUMB ASS!! lol |
but...but... you told me to use the native res... a...a..and.. I already am! |
your screens earlier btw with the dll comparisons had major jaggies Im on 4xAA where is yours |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 28th Oct 2010 13:58 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 28th Oct 2010 14:11 Post subject: |
|
|
4xAA just sharpens it up nicely for me on FONV, 2XAA its ok but it seems card/pc can do 4XAA fine here with no loss so its all good, fortunately I do not need to use the edge filter, so far box filter and 4xxAA in all my games seem to be just fine at 1680*1050 res 16:10..
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Thu, 28th Oct 2010 14:27 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 2 of 3 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
