4ms LCD from Viewsonic

[crisscross]

VIEWSONIC ACCELERATES DISPLAY LEADERSHIP WITH WORLD'S FASTEST LCD MONITORS

Xtreme Line Delivers Industry's Best Response Times, Up to 8 Times Faster than Most Competitors

WALNUT, Calif., March 16, 2005 ? Demonstrating its technology leadership in the display market, ViewSonic® Corp., a worldwide leader in visual display products, today announced the world?s fastest LCD monitors. Featuring ultra-fast 4 millisecond (ms) average video response time across the entire color scale, the 19-inch VX924 and 17-inch VX724 deliver fluid, full-motion images and optimized video performance for a variety of applications.

With typical ?fast-response? displays on the market today having an average gray-to-gray (or intermediate level) response time of 30 to 35ms, ViewSonic?s Xtreme LCD lineup provides response time performance up to 8 times faster. They are ideal for extreme gaming, viewing DVDs, watching television, and even traditional computer usage?such as rapidly scrolling content within a Web site or a document.

heh 30-35ms. :disgust:

 

[Philippine Mango]

and whats the response time of a CRT?

 

[imported_itr]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango
and whats the response time of a CRT?

instant

 

[Jotho]

4ms is getting pretty close to instant

 

[Actaeon]

Whats the big deal? I just got a 2001FP, and it has a 16ms response time. While playing Farcry/doom3, and running 3dmark, I don't see ANY ghosting. Why would a faster response time be neccessary?

 

[saxophonoia]

bragging rights

 

[compusaguy]

bragging rights to who??? .01% of people even know what LCD response time is.

 

[Rike]

16ms is generally considered the threshhold at which the human eye can't tell the difference. 4ms is overkill. I?d rather have a lower dot pitch.

All the same, I bet they?re sweet monitors and would mind having one.

Oh, and technically CRT's aren?t "instant," it?s only the speed of light.

 

[ribbon13]

Videophiles... dot pitch and resolution would be good.

besides... the lower the better, as the technology improves, faster response is going to become the norm.

A 1080p 4ms 8bit LCD would kick ass.

 

[Actaeon]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
Videophiles...

besides... the lower the better, as the technology improves, faster response is going to become the norm.

Alright, understandable. But if there are no performance gains, why is it neccessary?

 

[ribbon13]

while 16ms may be where the eye can't discern focused vision, the peripheral would still be 6ms.

 

[Matthias99]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
while 16ms may be where the eye can't discern focused vision, the peripheral would still be 6ms.

Also, "16ms" displays are only 16ms on 100% (black-white-black) transitions. Gray-to-gray times may be more like 30-40ms (or worse). Even "8ms" monitors are more like 18-20ms average response time.

ISO specs only require them to list the minimum response time, while the average is often double that (or higher). See any of the recent articles at THG on LCD monitors for more on this.

 

[imported_Kensai]

Gogo Bragging rights!
(I've some slow 16ms LCDs)

 

[sharkeeper]

CRT's are hardly instant.

Phosphor persistance will bite you in the ass like a bear trap on steroids!

 

[Dman877]

IMO, response time doesn't tell you a whole lot. Like Matthias said, it's only black-to-white. I have 3 25ms response lcd's in my house and 2 of them suck for gaming and the other 1 shows no ghosting whatsoever and I love gaming on it...

 

[lozina]

What's it's resolution?

I'd rather these desktop LCD manufacturers work on resolution than response times now..

my 9 month old laptop has 3 million pixels (1920x1200 resolution) on 14.4" inch screen
my brand new desktop lcd has less than half the pixels (1.2 million pixels - 1280x1024) on a 17" screen. granted, it's a good deal brighter, but come on...

 

[Sunner]

Originally posted by: lozina
What's it's resolution?

I'd rather these desktop LCD manufacturers work on resolution than response times now..

my 9 month old laptop has 3 million pixels (1920x1200 resolution) on 14.4" inch screen
my brand new desktop lcd has less than half the pixels (1.2 million pixels - 1280x1024) on a 17" screen. granted, it's a good deal brighter, but come on...

Your math seems to be quite a bit off, but I agree with your point

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Sunner

Originally posted by: lozina
What's it's resolution?

I'd rather these desktop LCD manufacturers work on resolution than response times now..

my 9 month old laptop has 3 million pixels (1920x1200 resolution) on 14.4" inch screen
my brand new desktop lcd has less than half the pixels (1.2 million pixels - 1280x1024) on a 17" screen. granted, it's a good deal brighter, but come on...

Your math seems to be quite a bit off, but I agree with your point

Oops! 2.3 million pixels vs. 1.3 million

 

[lozina]

Here's another way to look at it (and another chance for me to screw up some basic math!)

My laptop's screen has roughly 22,000 pixels per square inch
My desktop's lcd screen has roughly 8,500 pixels per square inch

ok i hope i got that one right...

 

[bigboxes]

Yee Haw! Now you all have another spec to put in your huge sigs. :roll:

 

[FishTankX]

Uh, well, one major use for response times is 60FPS+ gaming. If monitors would allow faster refresh rates, LCD's could hit 90+ FPS. Right now most LCD's are locked to 60. Right now the minimum response time needed to sustain 60FPS is 16.66~ MS. If you can hit 8 or 4, if the worst response time is under 16ms, then we've gotten to 60FPS. But what about 70? 80?


If we could get a worst case response time for these monitors, and that's under 16ms *worst case*, we've *just* reached the minimum speed required for 'Technically' 0 ghosting at 60FPS.

 

[ribbon13]

1920x1200 is pretty much the perfect res as long as it supports 1920x1080 without trying to stretch the image the extra 120 pixels.

If I won the millions I'd commision a 4ms 8bit 3840x2400 LCD.

(14.4²) / 7 =n
sqrt(n * 3)=side a 9.43" 9.427
sqrt(n * 4=side b 10.88" 10.885
a * b = 102.613 in²
(1920*1200)=r 2304000
2304000 / 102.613
~22453 pixels per square inch

 

[Raeldor]

Another good reason for a fast response time is if you want to use 3d stereo shutter glasses such as those from edimension. Then a fast refresh rate is critical.

 

[Zebo]

Let me know the real response time (one area tomshardware still excels at showing) not one color. My guess , like all LCD's, even the best 12ms out today, will average out around 22ms which sucks being 45 FPS for real. Next let me know when I can run multiple resolutions without that free AA effect also known as blur.

 

[golgotha]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango
and whats the response time of a CRT?

About forty pounds.