Monitor size and tiredeness
Rune Fjørtoft
monitor, but another gamer advised against it. He bought a 17-inch but
traded it back for a 15-inch as he said he was getting headaches and
were getting tired much sooner when playing on a 17-inch.
Anybody got any experience/advices concerning 15 v.s 17-inch monitors
for games playing ?
Lulu
Double Trouble
monitor and
dont get tired sooner than with a 15 inch monitor. Get the 17 inch but
dont have
a lower resolution. DT
Andre Fagervold
Double Trouble wrote:
You meen higher resolution and smaller symbols, right. If you set it to
a higher resolution
your eyes have to consentrate more on the small pixels and over time this
leads to headaches.
Rune Espeseth
Get a 17" monitor that can handle minimum 70 Hz (non-interlaced) vertical
refresh in your desired screen-resolution, and also make sure that your
gfx-card can handle at least 70 Hz (non-interaced) vertical refresh in the
same resolution.
If you go with a monitor/gfx-card that has a vertical refresh lower than 60
Hz you might experience tiredness/headaches due to the flickering nature of
the refresh (The eye recognizes that the picture is not steady, and the
brain tries to interpolate the information , thus making you tired)...
Anyway, the higher the refresh, the better :)
Good Luck!
--
Regards,
Rune Espeseth,
Programmer @ Funcom Oslo AS
Brown Bear
is just an exception. For strategy game, there is nothing better than
a large screen with high resolution. For adventure game, it still
looks so much better on my 17" compare to 15" that I have that sit
right next to it. I immagine that if your friend is experiencing
dizziness playing 3D games, then a larger screen would give more
problems. If you go with a 15", you will sooner or later regret it.
On Thu, 17 Sep 1998 10:22:27 +0200, "Rune Fj0rtoft" <ru...@softinn.no>
Brown Bear
It all depends on the game. For the run of the mill adventure, you
don't even has a chioce on the resolution, they all run at 640x480.
For Overseer, when you choose the higher resolution, it actually
increase the size of the playing screen and should cause less eye
strain.
Syed Noman Ahmad
Rune Espeseth <run...@funcom.com> wrote:
>
>Get a 17" monitor that can handle minimum 70 Hz (non-interlaced) vertical
>refresh in your desired screen-resolution, and also make sure that your
>gfx-card can handle at least 70 Hz (non-interaced) vertical refresh in the
>same resolution.
And if you can get to 80-85 Hz without a substantial increase
in price, then go for it. 85 Hz is generally considered a
limit and after that almost no one can notice any difference.
Quality of monitor is a thing, where one should not make
compromises of any sort. If 17" monitor with good refresh rate
is out of your price range, then get a 15" one. I'd be very
careful getting those sub 200US$ 17" monitors some stores are
selling these days.
For a 17" monitor, if it supports 1024x768 at 85 Hz, and your
2D gfx card can give you 1024x768 (16-32 bit) at 85 Hz, then
it's a very close to ideal setup.
--
Noman
John D Andersen
: In article <360114B0...@funcom.com>,
OK, a dumb question (again) from a pc neophyte...Just got a Gateway
computer with a 19" monitor...Am I gonna regret getting the bigger
monitor because it won't have very good resolution when playing games?
Or does the size not really matter? The computer is a pII 350 mhz with
128 sram and an 8 meg ati agp card, if that makes any difference in
graphical quality. I'm gonna be really pissed if I should've gotten a
smaller monitor for better graphical resolution...--
John D Andersen
d032...@dcfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us
Syed Noman Ahmad
John D Andersen <d032...@dc.seflin.org> wrote:
>
>OK, a dumb question (again) from a pc neophyte...Just got a Gateway
>computer with a 19" monitor...Am I gonna regret getting the bigger
>monitor because it won't have very good resolution when playing games?
Like I said it depends on the quality of your monitor.
>Or does the size not really matter?
It does. However, things like screen refresh rate, and some
screen geometry properties are more crucial.
> The computer is a pII 350 mhz with
>128 sram and an 8 meg ati agp card, if that makes any difference in
>graphical quality. I'm gonna be really pissed if I should've gotten a
>smaller monitor for better graphical resolution...--
>
Graphical resolution doesn't depend on screen size. I said that
in some cases you might prefer a good 15" monitor over a
so-so 17" one.
A good 17" is infinitely better than a good 15" monitor.
I personally prefer Trinitron (aperture grille monitors) and
I'd pick a 17" Trinitron monitor like Mag DX700T, Sony 200ES/GS
CTX, Viewsonic etc.. over most of 19" monitors. In fact
of what I have seen of Gateway 19" monitors so far, I'd
suggest thinking about an option where you can change it
with a 17" Trinitron, if it's possible.
You 'll get the same resolutions, but with a better
picture qualiy and sharp text focus.
My 0.02$
--
Noman