some Unreal Tournament on a G5 with a cinema display. That game played
with letterboxing on either side, returning a 1600x1200 screen without
interpolating anything. The game was also capable of pushing 1920x1200,
and looked great, but I figured this would be a normal option. For
instance, if you have a 1600x1200 LCD and were playing, say, Doom3,
would you have the option of only activating 1024x768 pixels in the
middle of the monitor?
Anyway, I have a run-of-the-mill HP laptop that I play FarCry on every
once in a while. It plays OK at 1024x768 (full resolution), but if I
drop the rez down to 800x600 it looks surprisingly good - with only a
little jagginess apparent. It wasn't magnificent, but good enough.
- Jim
Kevin Graeme wrote:
>Keep in mind that the widescreen aspect ratio will not work well with
>many games. LCD displays throw a real wrench in gaming. Most video
>cards can't run 1600x1200 at high enough framerates. Most 19" LCDs are
>1280x1024 which is more achievable by good video cards, but since it's
>a 5:4 aspect ratio instead of 4:3, if you ever need to step down the
>resolution for a game the image is going to be more blurry because of
>pixel interpolation than if you step down from 1600x1200. And with
>1600x1200, the best step down is 800x600 (halving each), but most
>gamers aren't happy with the screen area that small.
>
>What I find really peculiar about Apple creating the super high-end
>displays is that when they did so they matched them with NVIDIA cards,
>which have always lagged behind ATI and Matrox in 2-D quality which is
>Apple's bread and butter market. NVIDIA has gotten _much_ better, and
>DVI may make it moot, but I always thought it funny when Steve's spat
>with ATI prompted Apple to drop the Radeon with better graphics in
>favor of NVIDIA and calling NIVIDIA their "best" option for graphics
>pros.
>
>-Kevin
>
>
>On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 10:34:47 -0500, Jim Campbell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>They are expensive, but relatively cheap in retrospect. When Apple
>>first put out their 22" Cinema display in 2000, it was $4,000:
>>
>>http://arstechnica.com/reviews/4q00/g4cube_cd/g4-cube-1.html
>>
>>So at this point, the "small" Cinema display is far less than it used to
>>cost, and the massive 30" Cinema is less than the $22" Cinema from 4
>>years ago.
>>
>>Another comparison: Newegg's biggest LCD (it seems) is Viewsonic's (very
>>gorgeous) 1600x1200 23.1" TFT for $2,500. Considering Apple's 23"
>>Cinema is a widescreen with a similar pixel ratio (1920x1200) and, in my
>>opinion, crisper and brighter than the Viewsonic, *and* $500 less, it's
>>not a bad deal :)
>>
>>- Jim
>>
>>Angel Stewart wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Man..expensive is an understatement.
>>>Their 23" LCD monitor is over US1.2 grand!
>>>Their 30" is ~3,300US$ !
>>>
>>>The displays seem able to work with PCs, and appear to be dependant on the
>>>capabilities of the graphics card for full digital DVI output and DDC plug and
>>>play communication rather than on the OS/system architecture.
>>>
>>>-Gel
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>>From: Won Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>
>>>I have been impressed with most of the products that Apple has
>>>created. They all have good design and are easy to use. They have the
>>>user in mind when they design anything. The only negative is you pay a
>>>premium for their products. My personal opinion is that premium is worth
>>>the quality, but I'm sure some people would disagree. I've decided that
>>>I'm going to get a IPod as soon as it hits around $350. I also want one of
>>>the Powerbooks but I'm a bit more reluctant to get it since I'm knee deep
>>>into a Windows environment.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
