Depends on the CRT. My monitor at 1600 x 1200 supports 109 Hz. Up to 109 FPS displayed. Few LCDs achieve more than 30 FPS.
Depends on the CRT. My monitor at 1600 x 1200 supports 109 Hz. Up to 109 FPS displayed. Few LCDs achieve more than 30 FPS.
Originally posted by: 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.
16ms is does lag considerably more than a CRT...just bought one of those but not too great for gaming...However the sharpness and colour are much better!! Also the space and weight
People really need to study how a CRT produces light before jumping to conclusions and spewing nonsense. :|
every seems to be jumping in and stating that the human eye can't distinguish lower than 16ms.
What everyone seems to be overlooking is the human eye can't distinguish above 25fps (cinema is, I think, around 75fps)
What everyone seems to be overlooking is the human eye can't distinguish above 25fps (cinema is, I think, around 75fps)
For all those saying that CRTs are still responding faster, consider that 4ms is about equivalent to a 250Hz refresh rate on a CRT. Ghosting/Tearing ain't gonna be a problem...
Don't you see some motion blur when playing farcry and doom3?? I know for a fact that @ 16ms there is still a very visible amount of motion blur in q3.
But the VX924 is rated at 4ms GTG (Gray-to-Gray), not black to white. So I'm thinking its average response times are going to be a hell of alot lower than the L90D+.
What do you think?
I don't know why you bumped a three-month-old thread to ask this, but frankly, we won't know how it stacks up until it's released. If it is really under even 10ms across the board, it'll be the fastest LCD panel available by a long shot. Under 5ms for all color transitions would be about three times faster (worst-case) than the best panels you can get today.
I'm skeptical the panels are *that* good, but we'll just have to wait and see.
This is definitely the real issue. Faster than 16ms is good because 16ms displays really aren't getting 16ms all the time. It's similar to all the framerate debates because having better than 60 FPS is really only useful in that benchmarks don't tell you your minimum FPS, and most of the time your average framerate is over 60 FPS your minimum may still be dipping below 30.
What are you talking about? When was the last time you saw ghosting on a CRT?
Refresh rate doesn't have anything to do with response time. Even if your CRT could keep up with 200 Hz vertical, it's the phosphor coating of the screen that determines the response analogous to LCD response time.
Again, this is totally irrelevant. It would be possible to have a CRT or LCD in which the refresh period was much less than the pixel/phosphor response period.
To use your example, let's just say you had a 250Hz refresh rate on a display, but the phosphor/pixel response was 25ms. A 25ms response means it takes 1/40th of a second for the pixel to change. Your 250Hz refresh rate would do nothing to help because the entire screen would refresh 6 times in 1/40th of a second, which would all blur together.
No, that's been discussed ad nauseum on almost every computer forum. It made me want to revisit it, though, because I haven't made a post on this in a few years.
The point at which the human eye perceives smooth motion is slightly under 30 FPS. This conclusion is reached because of the response of your retinal cones (color vision). I actually had a long discussion with Dr. Norberto M. Grzywacz at the Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute about this. People will argue this isn't true, but you don't need more than 30 FPS. You really only need about 18-20 FPS. Some people can actually percieve a flicker at over 60 FPS, though. Many people who travel from the US to Europe notice street lights flickering because they have 50 Hz power. This is because of the response of your retinal rods (peripheral black & white vision). Rods are much faster than cones.
Movies run at 24 FPS -- that is, the film advances at 24 FPS -- but the shutter runs at 72FPS. Each frame is shown three times. This is because things look smooth at 24 FPS, but they need to make it a psuedo-72 FPS to keep people from getting a headache from the flicker.
I don't know about you, but I can actually see some jitter during quick outdoor pans in movies. This is because they are using high-speed film and there is no motion blurring.
Just for argument's sake, let's pretend that your eye sees 20 FPS and you are watching something filmed at 60 FPS. So, your eye is essentially making a composite of every three frames and sending it back to your brain. The film shows a beach scene where the camera pans past a rock for three frames. You see:
(rock)))))____(rock)))))____(rock)))))____
Why doesn't it look smooth? Why is the movie running 3X faster than your eye but it still looks jerky? It's because there's no blurring. You are actually seeing gaps between multiple pictures instead of seeing one single picture.
If the camera was using slower speed film but still running at 60 FPS you would get something that looked like this:
(rock)_)_)_)_)(rock)_)_)_)_)(rock)_)_)_)_)
Then everything would be fine. It would be pretty much the same as what you would see if you were actually there and looked past the rock.
You see, your eye will blur things together somewhat, but if what you're seeing is three independent pictures of a rock then that's what will be stuck in your brain -- three independent pictures of a rock! Your eye won't interpolate it for you.
It's hard for people to get through their head, but refresh rate and FPS are two entirely different things. A 75-85 Hz refresh rate is optimal simply to keep you from getting a headache.
There are two very real reasons why it may be optimal to have over 30 FPS:
1) FPS is generally measured as an average. For games, this means that even if a benchmark is reporting 100 FPS there may very well be points where the actual framerate is below 30 FPS. The actual framerate you need is almost arbitrary because what you're really going for is a minimum framerate of 30 FPS.
2) Games (and high-speed film) don't have adequate motion blur, so in certain scenes of very fast motion you may detect the jerkiness you get from seeing independent pictures instead of actual full exposures. If you're going to go this route, though, then you could easily argue that the optimal framerate is in fact your cone response time multiplied by the horizontal resolution of your screen. That's around 20,000 FPS if you're using 1024x768! That's what it takes to fully compensate for a total lack of motion blur.
Would you rather I start another thread? Why be so rude? Anyways.... It sounds like viewsonic has really cut down on the max response times, but that could all be hype. Guess I'll be checking anandtech and tom's hardware for the next few weeks
Originally posted by: puppetmasta
Would you rather I start another thread? Why be so rude? Anyways.... It sounds like viewsonic has really cut down on the max response times, but that could all be hype. Guess I'll be checking anandtech and tom's hardware for the next few weeks
I didn't mean for my reply to be "rude" (nor do I think it was), but yes, you should have started a new thread instead of bumping a long-dead one. Bumping old threads makes things even more confusing in the GH forum, since the thread *looks* active but really isn't.
True.. I was going to mention the same, but you supplied more detail....
a 4ms or 6ms panel isn't really specifically that fast. as one poster wrote, when we get a move from 6bit to 8bit and can have a 12ms or less high res panel, then we are talking compelling need to own one.
Until then and even still then, the price is too high for most to convert to a high quality, fast panel. I've been holding out on getting a 19" mainly for quality reasons. My 19" CRT is now acting up, and I'm hoping to squeeze another few months or more out of it before I get (potentially) a 19" TFT to replace it. By then I hope I can get something somewhat decent quality/speed for the money.
EDIT: Crap... old thread.... don't bother.
The faster you go, the more contrast problems you have. Read THG when they reviewed the 8ms models. That's why plasma displays are still quite appealing to the eye. They can already make 1:10000 contrast ratios for plasma, while with LCD you're still stuck with 1:800 or whatever (that's like 25ms still).
I'll stick with 12ms.
I'll stick with 12ms.
My friend just got a Sony SDM-HS95P (his is black). Easily the most awesome looking LCD I have ever seen. He got it for his birthday from his two rich brothers last week, and I saw it day before yesterday. It goes for about $700 street. It's got 1000:1 contrast and is a 12ms response time LCD. We watched a couple of minutes from some DVD's on it, and they looked...perfect. I never saw anything at all to complain about on games or looking at hi-res pics. His Samsung (don't know the model) 19' that he got for xmas looks sickly compared to it, and it's a great looking monitor. The black is really black, it's really bright and it's almost hypnotizing to look at..
I want one...bad..
I want one...bad..
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter