Does your LCD have input lag?

[Cuthalu]

Originally posted by: Markbnj

No. 60ms from 8ms response time? Perhaps not. Also huge differences with monitors that have same response times.

I don't know about your LCD, but mine runs at 60 frames per second. That's about sixteen milliseconds between frames.

I'm not saying you guys aren't seeing effects, but from an engineering perspective I don't see how the monitor can have an effect specifically on input to the mouse cursor. The monitor doesn't know those pixels are a cursor. Why would the monitor slow down the display of those pixels and not all the other pixels on the screen?

I don't know who said it was only cursor related, but I'm talkin about everythinh you can see in the screen, not just mouse cursor.

You got a point with that frame thing, but several people has measured and got uniform results. Some monitors display stuff in the screen later than others and users report noticing lag on the same 'slow' screens with pressing keys, moving stuff etc. And the most likely explanation is those software overdrive and color accuracy things and others which probably need some time to be calculated, thus causing noticable input lag.

 

[Cuthalu]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
I've never noticed lag or ghosting on my samsung 712n, or my very old 15 inch dell panel. Either my eyes arent sensitive or
ive gotten lucky with hardware. The 712n is a budget lcd from like 3 years ago with either a 12 or 16 ms response time yet I
hear people complaining of ghosting and crap on new top of the line lcds still. Whats the deal?

The thing is that the biggest input lag has been noticed on S-PVA-panels and sizes from 21" and above.

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: Cuthalu

Originally posted by: Markbnj

No. 60ms from 8ms response time? Perhaps not. Also huge differences with monitors that have same response times.

I don't know about your LCD, but mine runs at 60 frames per second. That's about sixteen milliseconds between frames.

I'm not saying you guys aren't seeing effects, but from an engineering perspective I don't see how the monitor can have an effect specifically on input to the mouse cursor. The monitor doesn't know those pixels are a cursor. Why would the monitor slow down the display of those pixels and not all the other pixels on the screen?

I don't know who said it was only cursor related, but I'm talkin about everythinh you can see in the screen, not just mouse cursor.

You got a point with that frame thing, but several people has measured and got uniform results. Some monitors display stuff in the screen later than others and users report noticing lag on the same 'slow' screens with pressing keys, moving stuff etc. And the most likely explanation is those software overdrive and color accuracy things and others which probably need some time to be calculated, thus causing noticable input lag.

Ah, ok, well now I'm convinced that we're saying the same thing. LCDs are definitely slower at updating the display. I wonder if it is enough to fully explain what people are complaining about though. I ran my last CRT at 85 hz. My LCD runs at 60 hz. That's 11.7 ms per frame vs. 16.6 ms per frame. Around 30% faster for the CRT, so I guess that could explain it. Has anyone tested an LCD at 75 hz to see if the effect is reduced?

 

[OCNewbie]

Originally posted by: Cuthalu
I don't know who said it was only cursor related, but I'm talkin about everythinh you can see in the screen, not just mouse cursor.

Ahh, I think I know what he was thinking. When you said "input lag" perhaps, like I was at first, thinking for "input" devices, mouse, keyboard, etc. You mean anything that is introduced, or inputted? into the monitor, mainly the video info. Yeah, if that's "input lag" then yes, I suppose I see that too, or ghosting, or something.

Again, I use DVI, native res of 1440x900, 5ms response time, and notice the difference a good bit between my previously used 19" CRT and this 19" widescreen LCD. I've played Quake 2 for like 7 years, off and on, though, so I've gotten very used to a CRT.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: kuya1284
You know... maybe we should ask the people who don't notice this issue: What games are you playing? FPS? RTS? Anything that's fast motion like Quake? Some FPS games don't require you to whip around as fast as in games like Quake... But this issue is especially obvious when you use weapons with higher reload times (i.e. Sniper gunes, rocket launchers, railgun, etc).

I can't say I notice it in gaming. I've been an avid Quake gamer (mostly RA2, RA3, trickjumping, and CPMA) for 5 years, and was also a hardcore Wolfenstein: ET player. I rarely felt like I was bottlenecked by any hardware. If anything it was the CPU/server lag because W: ET is very CPU intensive with lots of players in the same room. My monitor would be the last excuse I'd use for being 'teh suck' one day, and it wouldn't explain my great performance other days.

When watching HDTV with my tuner here (side-by-side) I may notice a tad improvement in speed with my CRT but it's so subtle (40ms?) I don't know how it could remotely bother anyone. That's just my experience. No, I don't have the best vision (far from it) and I'm nearsighted with an astigmatism. I just chalk it up to the response time of the panel (80 ms at worst, 10 ms at best) plus the couple frames it uses in the overdrive buffer (32 ms total). I don't think there is anything else at work here.

 

[Cuthalu]

It's not all in all that how well I'm playing against others, because if I can see delay between movement command to the screen it's very irritating. But if it makes me play badly against bot or whatever, that's negative of course.

 

[Cuthalu]

Originally posted by: OCNewbie
Again, I use DVI, native res of 1440x900, 5ms response time, and notice the difference a good bit between my previously used 19" CRT and this 19" widescreen LCD. I've played Quake 2 for like 7 years, off and on, though, so I've gotten very used to a CRT.

It's nothing like ghosting, amount of the delay doesn't affect image quality.

 

[Huxxx]

Its not just about the mouse but the whole video input has lag. Everything you see on screen is delayed by some 30-60ms. Bigger screens are more effected I guess.
There is no fix against it use DVI or Analog, any card tweak nothing will ever cure this. It was already reported in year 2004. The pore guy who reported this was flamed from stupid people you can still find this post if you search for LCD input lag in yahoo.
Now almost 3 years later new monitors have still the same lag and some people are still blind for this. Heh funny.
Believe it or not I once really thought that the world is perfect. Image the shock when I found out it isnt.

Looks like this http://www.youtube.com/results?search=LCD+lag&search_type=search_videos

What bothers me most is that one guy above said that he noticed the lag only after 1 month of playing. Well I was somehow thinking you get used to it like to a new mouse after time but if you then first start to notice eh?

 

[Nightmare225]

Weird, my 2005FPW responds fine, even after I compared it...

 

[BassBomb]

i dont even know what input lag is, i guess i dont have it.. samsung 915N

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: Huxxx
Its not just about the mouse but the whole video input has lag. Everything you see on screen is delayed by some 30-60ms. Bigger screens are more effected I guess.
There is no fix against it use DVI or Analog, any card tweak nothing will ever cure this. It was already reported in year 2004. The pore guy who reported this was flamed from stupid people you can still find this post if you search for LCD input lag in yahoo.
Now almost 3 years later new monitors have still the same lag and some people are still blind for this. Heh funny.
Believe it or not I once really thought that the world is perfect. Image the shock when I found out it isnt.

Looks like this http://www.youtube.com/results?search=LCD+lag&search_type=search_videos

What bothers me most is that one guy above said that he noticed the lag only after 1 month of playing. Well I was somehow thinking you get used to it like to a new mouse after time but if you then first start to notice eh?

The problem is calling it "input lag" when what you are talking about is frame rate, or some subtopic under frame rate.

 

[Huxxx]

omg lol. I cant believe people are still so blind this days. This has NOTHING! to do with frame rates. Its a delay with video input compared to a CRT or TV due to overdrive technology most likely. IT was discovered back in 2004 and people still don't believe it not even when they see it lol.

You don't even know how frame rates work so hold your comments please!
Its a freaking clone setup outputed from same videocard with same frame rates.
I dont wanna go over this again and explain some farmboy how to milk a cow. Go check yahoo!

 

[iamaelephant]

Man I have been looking at "upgrading" from my beloved CRT to an LCD to save desk space and get a nicer image. For the last couple of years I have been very reluctant to change over to LCD because of the myriad problems with them (that many people choose to ignore) and now that I thought most of the ghosting/backlight bleeding/viewing angle issues had been solved I see this thread. There is NO WAY IN HELL I am going to switch to LCD if I risk the sort of lag I have seen in these videos. Dammit, why is everyone so gung-ho about "upgrading" to LCD when it's clear they are inferior to CRTs in every way except desk space and power consumption?

 

[LittleNemoNES]

Vsync and Vsync+Triple Bufferin can cause lag because of the extra thinking involved. So don't confuse it with input lag.

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: Huxxx
omg lol. I cant believe people are still so blind this days. This has NOTHING! to do with frame rates. Its a delay with video input compared to a CRT or TV due to overdrive technology most likely. IT was discovered back in 2004 and people still don't believe it not even when they see it lol.

You don't even know how frame rates work so hold your comments please!
Its a freaking clone setup outputed from same videocard with same frame rates.
I dont wanna go over this again and explain some farmboy how to milk a cow. Go check yahoo!

I imagine a farm boy would know how to milk a cow, just as people who have been programming graphics longer than you have been alive probably know a little bit about frame rates.

 

[Huxxx]

exactly my point. You would think he knows, but from your example "WE" can see he has absolutely no idea what he is talking about!

 

[Huxxx]

Originally posted by: iamaelephant
Man I have been looking at "upgrading" from my beloved CRT to an LCD to save desk space and get a nicer image. For the last couple of years I have been very reluctant to change over to LCD because of the myriad problems with them (that many people choose to ignore) and now that I thought most of the ghosting/backlight bleeding/viewing angle issues had been solved I see this thread. There is NO WAY IN HELL I am going to switch to LCD if I risk the sort of lag I have seen in these videos. Dammit, why is everyone so gung-ho about "upgrading" to LCD when it's clear they are inferior to CRTs in every way except desk space and power consumption?

Yeah got no idea why they hype LCDs so high. My mainly problem with it is moving the mouse over the desktop. It simple disappears when moved to fast and reappears when you reach. Not to mention that I have really a hard time clicking everything on the desktop. I miss icons, start, -, x, and all possible buttons all the time.
CRT was much more smoother in this regard and it helps nothing having a G5, G7 mouse. All same.
The video input lag in games I could get used I guess. Just played CSS and had the second best score on server. I was shooting so good that people vote banned me for cheating already lol so looks like games wont be a problem. But I did compared a video on CRT and LCD on my computer and the LCD was behind abit. I guess the biggest problem is if the lag isnt constant like seen on the movie then thats horrible but mostly not a problem to play at all on this 215TW.
Also I heard that sound has lag to since this monitor has a speaker under but I havent tested this yet and dont care.

 

[Geomagick]

No lag that I can perceive on either my Dell 2005FPW or my Samsung 191T either.

 

[Nightmare225]

Somethings wrong with your LCD, I can see my mouse move clearly when i shoot it from side-to-side.

 

[KeryJames]

first of all, sorry for my poor english;

Hi Huxxx!

-> I exactly know what you say, i experience the same f***ing problem with my 24" LCD Acer AL2416W and its ruining my computing experience......

for those that not understand the problem (even after all the explication...) -> Its the delay between the movement of the mouse and what you see on screen.

-> this problem is basicly on ALL THE 24" LCD MODELS (mostly the s-pva).

So, if you find something to fix the problem, PLEASE tell me!!!!!!!!!!

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Huxxx
Yeah got no idea why they hype LCDs so high. My mainly problem with it is moving the mouse over the desktop. It simple disappears when moved to fast and reappears when you reach. Not to mention that I have really a hard time clicking everything on the desktop. I miss icons, start, -, x, and all possible buttons all the time.
CRT was much more smoother in this regard and it helps nothing having a G5, G7 mouse. All same.
The video input lag in games I could get used I guess. Just played CSS and had the second best score on server. I was shooting so good that people vote banned me for cheating already lol so looks like games wont be a problem. But I did compared a video on CRT and LCD on my computer and the LCD was behind abit. I guess the biggest problem is if the lag isnt constant like seen on the movie then thats horrible but mostly not a problem to play at all on this 215TW.
Also I heard that sound has lag to since this monitor has a speaker under but I havent tested this yet and dont care.

The mouse disappearing (getting darker) as you move it and reappearing as it stands still is a response time problem (rise time is too high). Overdrive can help that. I believe the 215TW does have overdrive, just not a whole lot of it.

Input lag (if such a thing does indeed exist) is a static lag between the sending of the frame and the painting of that frame.

 

[Cuthalu]

"just as people who have been programming graphics longer than you have been alive probably know a little bit about frame rates."

Just as some scientists believe in creationism. ;<


"Overdrive can help that. I believe the 215TW does have overdrive, just not a whole lot of it."

Probably the opposite, because overdrive seems to be one of the causes of input lag.

"Input lag (if such a thing does indeed exist) is a static lag between the sending of the frame and the painting of that frame."

Of course it's not static because the cause of it is not static.


Read and learn: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_lag

And I don't know what kind of glasses people have around here, but a test which results can be reproduced is clear proof that input lag exists. Saying that there's no input lag is as valid statement as saying that there's no gravity when watching someone jumping around you.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Cuthalu
Probably the opposite, because overdrive seems to be one of the causes of input lag.

It helps the problem you were describing, not necessarily input lag, no. Overdrive often has at least 2 frames in the buffer. Your cursor is darkening because the cells can't rise fast enough to show full brightness during the movement. With overdrive they are overshot and the brightness reaches 100%+ very quickly and due to fast fall time, falls to the correct value in an instant. Most LCDs are good enough to not overshoot far over 100% with the first surge of voltage.

"Input lag (if such a thing does indeed exist) is a static lag between the sending of the frame and the painting of that frame."

Overdrive caches two or more frames, and every frame lasts 16.6 ms. on a 60 Hz display. It is static in that regard (at least to 99.9% accuracy). Response time is never consistent due to physical properties and it also depends on the transitioning colors. If you factor response time into input lag, no, it isn't the same amount of time.

Most people's definition is the time between sending and the time before the crystals start to twist (start to paint). Supposedly this is separate from response time.

My theory for the reason it varies so much is because:

a) One person released a Java program to test it. This is quite inefficient and inaccurate for timing. Even programs in lower level languages are never perfectly accurate. AFAIK all the programs used were running under Windows. That's going to make it difficult unless the process had real-time priority, and I doubt it.

b) Response time is inevitably factored in when you take a photograph side-by-side.

Other than that I believe the total delay is:
a) static input lag time (overdrive)
b) dynamic response time

And by the overdrive buffer (~33 ms) plus response time (on avg. 20 ms), you get 53 ms. which is very close to many measurements of the phenomenon. I believe the rest were just inaccurate results unless someone has an explanation as to where the other lag is. I would love to know just as everyone else.

Of course it is just my theory, but instead of saying it's wrong I'd like people to offer an alternative.

 

[Cuthalu]

The problem I'm describing is only the delay between my action and the display to starting to show the image.

Well, seems that the overdrive is the main reason with that ~33ms, which pretty much is the delay when summed with response time. Other factor in lag might be all calculations the display need to do which might take a few ms. Ie. all those color- and contrast-enhancing things and overdrive.

 

[996GT2]

My Dell 1905FP has no input lag at all. It's being driven by an overclocked 7600GT currently.