Why is the video card industry driven by games but not the Monitor industry?

[boe]

Lets face it everything from the x300 and up are aimed at gamers - IMO.

I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen that
should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic developers
would want.

I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say about
24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh - 8ms or
less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models are nice but
how about the standard format too?

Frankly I'd buy a CRT if I could get one designed for a PC (not a TV HDTV or
otherwise pretending to be a monitor). The only reason is that I've tested
the $1000 dell LCD everyone is mentioning and while it is nice, it doesn't
compare in colors to a CRT. Also I know some people would like the wide
screen format but since I do work on it as well, a standard format would be
better for me.

Just me whining, not very productive but I figure if just three people
started jumping up and down - it would be a movement.

 

[boe]

BTW - I've e-mailed Philips, LG, Samsung, Viewsonic, BenQ and Sony to (not
whining) to find out if they have anything on the way that meets these
specs. I'll be sure to post back if I hear anything. Of course if enough
people were to e-mail them, they might realize the market niche is ready. I
understand they work together on some screens so asking each individually
certainly doesn't hurt.

http://www.feedback.philips.com/contact/?country=US&language=en

http://www.lgservice.com/gcsc/b2c/hpi/main

http://erms.samsungelectronics.com/customer/form/formmail/SEA/input_SEA.jsp?SITE_ID=1&PROD_ID=28

http://www.viewsonic.com/support/index.htm

http://esupport.sony.com/perl/emailform-display.pl?template=EN

http://www.benq.us/serviceandsupport/contact/index.cfm?region=78&query=1

 

[boe]

BTW - if any of you are thinking about this model, you are correct, it does
come close but the refresh rate is much too slow.

http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/lcddisplays/proseries/vp230mb/

 

[First of One]

http://www.necdisplay.com/products/...t=232&ClassificationFamily=1&Classification=1

22" NEC/Mitsubishi monitor, 2048x1536 @ 85 Hz, back-busting 77-lb shipping
weight, $709

Now get off your soap box.

Keep in mind the CRT tube contains a vacuum, so it becomes increasingly
difficult to make high-quality, flat displays at larger sizes, due to
atmospheric pressure.

And you'd be surprised how many gamers shell out $500 for a video card, but
keep a shitty 17" monitor and onboard sound... One thing I've discovered
over the years: not everyone thinks the way you do, even if it makes a world
of sense.

 

[boe]

Thanks for your reply and the food for thought. This is a 20" viewable -
same as my current model - I'm hoping to find something with a bigger
viewable area.

 

[Dodgy]

http://www.necdisplay.com/products/...t=232&ClassificationFamily=1&Classification=1

22" NEC/Mitsubishi monitor, 2048x1536 @ 85 Hz, back-busting 77-lb shipping
weight, $709

Now get off your soap box.

Keep in mind the CRT tube contains a vacuum, so it becomes increasingly
difficult to make high-quality, flat displays at larger sizes, due to
atmospheric pressure.

And you'd be surprised how many gamers shell out $500 for a video card, but
keep a shitty 17" monitor and onboard sound... One thing I've discovered
over the years: not everyone thinks the way you do, even if it makes a world
of sense.

Nice monitor, I have owned a 19" Mitsubishi Diamond Pro for a few
years now, and it's luuurvely, as long as you don't want to carry
anywhere!

Which is why I also have a Hitachi 17" CML174SX, purely for carting
round to friends for a bit of fragging.

D0d6y.

 

[J. Clarke]

BTW - if any of you are thinking about this model, you are correct, it
does come close but the refresh rate is much too slow.

http://www.viewsonic.com/products/desktopdisplays/lcddisplays/proseries/vp230mb/

Take a look at a Mitsubishi XC-3725C.

 

[boe]

I'm not sure if you were joking or not but in case anyone takes this post
seriously,

This is a TV pretending to be a monitor - low refresh rate max 64kHz(it
doesn't say at what resolution) and low resolution 1280 x 1024

 

[J. Clarke]

I'm not sure if you were joking or not but in case anyone takes this post
seriously,

This is a TV pretending to be a monitor - low refresh rate max 64kHz(it
doesn't say at what resolution) and low resolution 1280 x 1024

Find another 37" direct-view CRT that does 1280x1024. That's hardly a "TV
pretending to be a monitor", it's a purpose made monitor that when new cost
about ten grand and still rents out for $300/day. It's not even a product
of the consumer division of Mitsubishi, it's a product of the same division
that made all their other monitors.

And when did 1280x1024 become "low resolution"?

Sorry, but if you want a large direct-view CRT that is designed as a
computer monitor that's _it_. There was also a 34" but nobody seems to
have any of those anymore.

If you don't like your choices then the only thing you're going to be able
to do about it is build your own. If you think that there's a real market
there then get some venture capital and _fill_ it and get rich. If you
don't think there's a real market there then why would the display
manufacturers want to be bothered with a market that even you admit doesn't
exist? And if you say you don't want to be rich, that's a cop-out.

 

[boe]

I certainly have nothing against being rich although developing the
technology for such a screen is a tad out of my skill set. I do believe
the know how does exist and I do believe I'm not the only one who wants it.
Just one of my clients is a gaming company and they would order 20 if they
existed. Now not every company is in the gaming industry but I have an AV
client as well who would order these if they could. Seeing as I am just one
person with a few small accounts, I would imagine there are much bigger
companies that would like such screens as well.

I do believe that such a niche exists just as much as a niche for big screen
TVs exists although bigscreen HDTVs haven't been around 10 years ago in the
US doen't mean there wasn't a niche to be filled.

I consider anything at a size of 21" or larger only capable of 1280 as being
too low of a resolution. 1280 is fine for a 17" monitor but leaves
something to be desired on a larger screen capable of benefiting from
greater detail. A 20" high definition TV doesn't really benefit from being
high def as much as a 60".

 

[J. Clarke]

I certainly have nothing against being rich although developing the
technology for such a screen is a tad out of my skill set.

You don't have to develop the technology, just find out how big an order you
have to place with Sony or whoever to get them to make a tube to your
specification--you can hire designers to do the chassis design--once you've
got the costs worked up then go to the venture capitalists, place the order
etc.

The hard part is going to be convincing the venture capitalists that you can
actually sell the number of monitors you have to build to absorb the
minimum buy on the tubes at the price you need to charge to recoup the
startup costs.

I do believe
the know how does exist and I do believe I'm not the only one who wants
it.

So we have two people who _say_ they want it. How much would you pay?

Just one of my clients is a gaming company and they would order 20 if
they
existed.

At what price? And why would they want 20 displays that were _not_ typical
of what their customers would be using?

Now not every company is in the gaming industry but I have an AV
client as well who would order these if they could.

At what price? What kind of "AV" are they doing that would make it
desirable for them to use a different type of monitor from the mainstream?

Seeing as I am just
one person with a few small accounts, I would imagine there are much
bigger companies that would like such screens as well.

At what price?

I do believe that such a niche exists just as much as a niche for big
screen TVs exists although bigscreen HDTVs haven't been around 10 years
ago in the US doen't mean there wasn't a niche to be filled.

There was no niche for HDTVs ten years ago because there was no HDTV
content. However there were most assuredly big (measured in _feet_, not
_inches_) screen displays available that could handle HD content. Further,
those were CRTs. They cost more than a fair sized house, but they _were_
available.

I consider anything at a size of 21" or larger only capable of 1280 as
being
too low of a resolution. 1280 is fine for a 17" monitor but leaves
something to be desired on a larger screen capable of benefiting from
greater detail. A 20" high definition TV doesn't really benefit from
being high def as much as a 60".

Depends on how close you sit.

I'm sure that it is technologically possible to make a 1000 foot CRT with a
resolution of 4 million x 3 million. That is not why they don't exist in
the market. The reason they don't exist in the market is that the market
for them is too small for anyone to be able to manufacture them at a price
that any significant number of potential purchasers is willing to pay.

 

[Leythos]

I would imagine anyone willing to pay $500 for a video card they will
replace in 2 years would be willing to pay a good amount for a screen
that should last them at LEAST 5 years. So why don't the monitor/screen
manufacturers go gaga about making something gamers and graphic
developers would want.

If you want a quality screen, you don't have to look very far - there are
19" through 22" available for under $800 that have the quality and ability
you are asking for.

I would imagine I'm not the only person who would like something say
about 24" that has great colors, high resolution 1600, a fast refresh -
8ms or less and in a standard monitor format. The wide screen models
are nice but how about the standard format too?

There are many 21" monitors available - many of us already have them, and
most of the last 4+ years. In most cases, you might find that a quality
19" screen is better for gaming than a 24" screen since you don't have to
move your eyes as much. The main requirement in gaming is the ability to
detect movement/details, and when you are looking at one point (about 10
inches) the rest is just peripheral motion detection, so the larger screen
does little for your gaming experience. I play CS at 1024x768 and find
that there are times when 800x600 offers better tactical advantages, I
can't imagine playing at 1600x1200 on a 19" or 21" monitor, it would be
more hassle/pain than anything.

The reason the card vendors cater to the gaming people is that the
technology for monitors is old and already proven, doesn't require much to
do anything. Game vendors are always pushing the detail levels, the need
for power, etc... An old VGA monitor will not make any difference in
performance if the card can't support the game being played.

 

[Leythos]

Thanks for your reply and the food for thought. This is a 20" viewable
- same as my current model - I'm hoping to find something with a bigger
viewable area.

Since bigger won't improve your online playing ability, won't improve your
shot accuracy, and will increase eye strain, what are you hoping to get
out of the larger monitor?

 

[boe]

I am neither a hardware engineer, venture capitalist nor in hedge funds so
I'll just end that part of this discussion.

I would say $1500 - $2000 would be a reasonable price.. Lower of course
would be better.

They use them for their own development - they need to see as much detail as
possible so the customer sees the best image.



I would say 17" monitors are standard and P3 850s would be standard - do you
think ID or Valve develops games using those? Are you trying to be
recalcitrant or are you just playing devil's advocate?


Line quadruplers and phase systems did exist so although there was no
broadcast content, there was the capacity for higher resolution systems.
Perhaps you don't get the point of this discusssion. Just because something
isn't available at this very second on the shelf does not mean the niche
does not exist nor does it mean it is technologicially impossible.

I have my opinion and apparantly you have a different one - shall we leave
it at that?

 

[boe]

Actually if you do a search on the web - it has been proven that larger
monitors REDUCE eye strain. I also hope to gain a more immersive
environment and the ability to get easier to review higher detail for
graphics analysis.

 

[First of One]

For first-person shooters, true. At the same time, a lot of hardcore gamers
run at ugly graphics settings so their framerates never fall below 60 fps...

However, for other games, in particular, simulations, a larger monitor helps
with immersion.

 

[Ken Maltby]

On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 07:12:07 -0700, boe wrote:

The reason the card vendors cater to the gaming people is that the
technology for monitors is old and already proven, doesn't require much to
do anything. Game vendors are always pushing the detail levels, the need
for power, etc... An old VGA monitor will not make any difference in
performance if the card can't support the game being played.

Can you imagine what it would be like if we had both the
computer's video bus changing and the video display
functional parameters changing, at the same time? We are
coming up on enough of that with HD Digital "Home
Theater" "Convergence" in the offing.

Luck;
Ken

 

[Leythos]

For first-person shooters, true. At the same time, a lot of hardcore
gamers run at ugly graphics settings so their framerates never fall
below 60 fps...

However, for other games, in particular, simulations, a larger monitor
helps with immersion.

If you are not playing first-person shooters, and you need immersion, then
you need a DLP projection device. It would be easy to install a dual or
quad video card to connect to 2 or 4 of those and then you don't need a
monitor at all, just flat/white walls.

 

[Ben Pope]

There are many 21" monitors available - many of us already have them, and
most of the last 4+ years. In most cases, you might find that a quality
19" screen is better for gaming than a 24" screen since you don't have to
move your eyes as much.

If the FOV is set correctly, thats not true. If you set close to a 24"
monitor, you widen our FOV with the result that you can see more. Like
in real life. If you;re sitting a long way off, then you should narrow
the FOV, otherwise you're only able to see through a window thats 30°
wide and 2 foot away - not like life at all.

The main requirement in gaming is the ability to
detect movement/details,
Yes.

and when you are looking at one point (about 10
inches) the rest is just peripheral motion detection, so the larger screen
does little for your gaming experience.

You don't seem to understand FOV (Field of View). The human eye has a
(horizontal) FOV of well over 120°, from where I'm sitting the monitor
probably takes up about 35°. So most of my periphery vision in-game has
been lost. I literally cannot see things outside of my FOV without
turning, whereas in real life you can pretty much see things approaching
from either side simultaneously. If I could, I would be a better gamer,
I would spot things earlier.

I play CS at 1024x768 and find
that there are times when 800x600 offers better tactical advantages, I

How? Assuming that frame rates are high, how can less detail be better?

can't imagine playing at 1600x1200 on a 19" or 21" monitor, it would be
more hassle/pain than anything.

Actually it's really nice. When my 9800 Pro could do games at 1600x1200
(such as splinter cell), the level of detail in far-off objects was a
great help. Contrast that to what you would see on a console with a
standard TV - with such a low resolution you lose depth of field and
have to get closer to the target to know what it is.

The reason the card vendors cater to the gaming people is that the
technology for monitors is old and already proven, doesn't require much to
do anything. Game vendors are always pushing the detail levels, the need
for power, etc... An old VGA monitor will not make any difference in
performance if the card can't support the game being played.

It always amases me how little people spend on a monitor, mouse and
keyboard. They'll buy the fastest processor, fastest graphics card,
some will buy 2 of the fastest hard drives... the system might cost
£1000. But often, only 10% of that is spent on the entire HCI
equipment! What good is an amazing computer when you can't tell 'cos
your monitor is poor and the mouse is wonky?

Ben

 

[Ken Maltby]

If you are not playing first-person shooters, and you need immersion, then
you need a DLP projection device. It would be easy to install a dual or
quad video card to connect to 2 or 4 of those and then you don't need a
monitor at all, just flat/white walls.

Michael Caine, as Harry Palmer in "The Ipcress File", yes I
guess you could call that immersion.

Luck;
Ken