Tom's does something worthwhile

[klah]

THG Unveils New LCD Benchmarking Method

Example Result

Now why can't we get something like this from ISO instead of the worthless figures derived from ISO 13406-2?

 

[ronnn]

I hope they hurry up with the reviews. I am looking for a 19" lcd and am not finding much info.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: klah
THG Unveils New LCD Benchmarking Method

Example Result

Now why can't we get something like this from ISO instead of the worthless figures derived from ISO 13406-2?

Huh? What do you mean by that? ISO is just a standard, what do you expect from them?

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: Hardcore

Originally posted by: klah
THG Unveils New LCD Benchmarking Method

Example Result

Now why can't we get something like this from ISO instead of the worthless figures derived from ISO 13406-2?

Huh? What do you mean by that? ISO is just a standard, what do you expect from them?

I expect them to set standards that are meaningful. Their current standard for determining response times in TFT panels is practically worthless when manufacturers are selling "12ms" panels with a worse response time across the entire color range than comparable "20ms" panels. The latency of a single black->white->black is all of the data we get to compare different panels, which means we have to rely on subjective observations from third parties. That graph THG published is a thousand times more useful than then the single figure we have today.

This is not something new, we have seen how useless this published figure is for years now: http://www.extremetech.com/art...C1558%2C10085%2C00.asp

 

[VirtualLarry]

I didn't realize that the marketing blurbs quoting "response time" on packaging, were certified by the ISO... (In other words, I thought that it was pretty common knowledge, that those numbers quoted, were basically derived by the mfg in their own proprietary ways, and more-or-less worthless for an objective comparison between mfgs.)

Tom's benchmarking approach is interesting, but I wonder if it wouldn't have been actually better/cheaper (although probably not easier), to re-purpose an optical mouse sensor assembly as a way to measure LCD response times. Remember, most modern optical mouse sensors operate at a claimed 6000 samples/sec. That should be enough to measure response times, I think.

I also wonder about the use of coaxial cables to interface with the device. Surely, the shielding helps prevent noise spikes from intruding on the measurements, but wouldn't that also cause attenuation of the signal? What about the capacitance of the cables affecting the measurements? i dunno, I'm not an EE, but it seems likely.

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I didn't realize that the marketing blurbs quoting "response time" on packaging, were certified by the ISO... (In other words, I thought that it was pretty common knowledge, that those numbers quoted, were basically derived by the mfg in their own proprietary ways, and more-or-less worthless for an objective comparison between mfgs.)

Tom's benchmarking approach is interesting, but I wonder if it wouldn't have been actually better/cheaper (although probably not easier), to re-purpose an optical mouse sensor assembly as a way to measure LCD response times. Remember, most modern optical mouse sensors operate at a claimed 6000 samples/sec. That should be enough to measure response times, I think.

I also wonder about the use of coaxial cables to interface with the device. Surely, the shielding helps prevent noise spikes from intruding on the measurements, but wouldn't that also cause attenuation of the signal? What about the capacitance of the cables affecting the measurements? i dunno, I'm not an EE, but it seems likely.

Xbit had an article about the ISO standard last year and did a similar test to verify the manufacturer's claims: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl.../display/response.html

That?s why we chose to stick to the ISO 13406-2 standard, which tells that LCD pixel response time is the total time it takes to turn a pixel on and off. Moreover, not the full time is taken, but the time from 10% to 90% of the total pixel luminance and then back to 10%