Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Input Lag, Or Why Faster Isn't Always Better

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the lag-lag-i-thought-i'd-die dept.

Displays 225

mr_sifter writes "LCD monitor manufacturers have constantly pushed panel response times down with a technique called 'overdrive,' which increases the voltage to force the liquid crystals to change color states faster. Sadly, there are some side effects such as input lag and inverse ghosting associated with this — although the manufacturers themselves are very quiet about the subject. This feature (with video) looks at the problem in detail. The upshot is, you may want to test drive very carefully any display boasting low integer millisecond pixel response times."

cancel ×

225 comments

Your official guide to the Jiagboo presidency (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26755401)

Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.

INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.
You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.

CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER
Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat

HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.

FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.
Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.

MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.
Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most prominent anatomical feature, after all, its oversized buttocks, which have evolved to make it more comfortable for your nigger to sit around all day doing nothing for its entire life. Niggers are often good runners, too, to enable them to sprint quickly in the opposite direction if they see work heading their way. The solution to this is to *dupe* your nigger into working. After installation, encourage it towards the cotton field with blows of a wooden club, fence post, baseball bat, etc., and then tell it that all that cotton belongs to a white man, who won't be back until tomorrow. Your nigger will then frantically compete with the other field niggers to steal as much of that cotton as it can before the white man returns. At the end of the day, return your nigger to its cage and laugh at its stupidity, then repeat the same trick every day indefinitely. Your nigger comes equipped with the standard nigger IQ of 75 and a memory to match, so it will forget this trick overnight. Niggers can start work at around 5am. You should then return to bed and come back at around 10am. Your niggers can then work through until around 10pm or whenever the light fades.

ENTERTAINING YOUR NIGGER.
Your nigger enjoys play, like most animals, so you should play with it regularly. A happy smiling nigger works best. Games niggers enjoy include: 1) A good thrashing: every few days, take your nigger's pants down, hang it up by its heels, and have some of your other niggers thrash it with a club or whip. Your nigger will signal its intense enjoyment by shrieking and sobbing. 2) Lynch the nigger: niggers are cheap and there are millions more where yours came from. So every now and then, push the boat out a bit and lynch a nigger.

Lynchings are best done with a rope over the branch of a tree, and niggers just love to be lynched. It makes them feel special. Make your other niggers watch. They'll be so grateful, they'll work harder for a day or two (and then you can lynch another one). 3) Nigger dragging: Tie your nigger by one wrist to the tow bar on the back of suitable vehicle, then drive away at approximately 50mph. Your nigger's shrieks of enjoyment will be heard for miles. It will shriek until it falls apart. To prolong the fun for the nigger, do *NOT* drag him by his feet, as his head comes off too soon. This is painless for the nigger, but spoils the fun. Always wear a seatbelt and never exceed the speed limit. 4) Playing on the PNL: a variation on (2), except you can lynch your nigger out in the fields, thus saving work time. Niggers enjoy this game best if the PNL is operated by a man in a tall white hood. 5) Hunt the nigger: a variation of Hunt the Slipper, but played outdoors, with Dobermans. WARNING: do not let your Dobermans bite a nigger, as they are highly toxic.

DISPOSAL OF DEAD NIGGERS.
Niggers die on average at around 40, which some might say is 40 years too late, but there you go. Most people prefer their niggers dead, in fact. When yours dies, report the license number of the car that did the drive-by shooting of your nigger. The police will collect the nigger and dispose of it for you.

COMMON PROBLEMS WITH NIGGERS - MY NIGGER IS VERY AGGRESIVE
Have it put down, for god's sake. Who needs an uppity nigger? What are we, short of niggers or something?

MY NIGGER KEEPS RAPING WHITE WOMEN
They all do this. Shorten your nigger's chain so it can't reach any white women, and arm heavily any white women who might go near it.

WILL MY NIGGER ATTACK ME?
Not unless it outnumbers you 20 to 1, and even then, it's not likely. If niggers successfully overthrew their owners, they'd have to sort out their own food. This is probably why nigger uprisings were nonexistent (until some fool gave them rights).

MY NIGGER BITCHES ABOUT ITS "RIGHTS" AND "RACISM".
Yeah, well, it would. Tell it to shut the fuck up.

MY NIGGER'S HIDE IS A FUNNY COLOR. - WHAT IS THE CORRECT SHADE FOR A NIGGER?
A nigger's skin is actually more or less transparent. That brown color you can see is the shit your nigger is full of. This is why some models of nigger are sold as "The Shitskin".

MY NIGGER ACTS LIKE A NIGGER, BUT IS WHITE.
What you have there is a "wigger". Rough crowd. WOW!

IS THAT LIKE AN ALBINO? ARE THEY RARE?
They're as common as dog shit and about as valuable. In fact, one of them was President between 1992 and 2000. Put your wigger in a cage with a few hundred genuine niggers and you'll soon find it stops acting like a nigger. However, leave it in the cage and let the niggers dispose of it. The best thing for any wigger is a dose of TNB.

MY NIGGER SMELLS REALLY BAD
And you were expecting what?

SHOULD I STORE MY DEAD NIGGER?
When you came in here, did you see a sign that said "Dead nigger storage"? .That's because there ain't no goddamn sign.

Another thing to look out for (4, Interesting)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755437)

First, we have to look for monitors with 6bit or 7bit color instead of 8 per channel, now we have to start testing for overdrive voltages? Buying an LCD is becoming a real pain in the arse.

Re:Another thing to look out for (4, Interesting)

Elledan (582730) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755613)

6-bit TN panels don't seem like such a good idea to me, as the interpolation (rapid cycling of pixels to get the desired colour) used to compensate for the lack of full 16.7 million colours other screens have is (together with the flickering of CCFL backlights) responsible for most of the complaints about LCD screens giving people a headache.

As for the article topic, any screen with an input lag of >1 ms will never be 'good' at displaying rapidly changing images, and will be nearly worthless for rapidly-paced games. Plasma, CRT, SED, FED, OLED... all technologies with sub-1 ms latency. Getting that 15" OLED screen LG will be releasing this year as a monitor may not be such a bad idea. Sure, it's not as big as your 24" LCD, but it will have perfect colours and blacks, extremely low-latency, low power-usage, weigh even less than an LCD, and so on.

Let's admit it, LCDs were just an intermediate technology for displays as margins in the CRT market got lower and lower, while new display technologies which could match or beat CRTs in IQ and other factors were still a while off.

Re:Another thing to look out for (4, Insightful)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755763)

I've got a LCD panel with 5 ms latency and I don't notice problems when gaming. If you're quick enough to say anything over 1 ms is too slow, you're a pretty hardcore (and quick) gamer. And if you're that good, you're probably best served by a pro setup anyway, not low-level consumer grade shit. But I'm not as twitch quick as I used to be, and my gamertag certainly isn't "Fatal1ty," so 5 ms seems fine to me.

Re:Another thing to look out for (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26755823)

Even humans who are finely in-tune with this sort of thing can't detect changes under about 10ms.

Re:Another thing to look out for (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26756903)

This is true 10ms response time is 100 frames per second. The displays touting 6-4ms are talking about a non-realistic grey-grey metric. 6ms average for any subpixel to stabilize at 50% doesn't directly translate into frames per second. The digital signal the display syncs up to is typically 60hz anyways. That means the best the display could do is 16.5ms latency.

Re:Another thing to look out for (2, Interesting)

slyn (1111419) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757697)

I don't know about that, when playing Rock Band adjusting the Video or Audio lag as little as 2 ms can have a dramatic effect on my scores or note streaks, or on the harder songs whether I pass in the first place.

For example, on this [youtube.com] song on expert, adjusting from a 6 ms video lag to a 4 ms video lag ment the difference between passing only by cheesing my way through the song and passing badly with strained arms (i'm not a real life drummer, and the song is faster paced that it seems on video so it dominates me endurance-wise).

Games like Rock Band and Guitar Hero are a little different in that you are reacting to things that you know are coming and can anticipate, but that doesn't change the fact that I can "feel" the difference between a perfectly tuned HD lag and one only 2 ms off, as well as differentiate whether the delay is to short or to long respectively.

Re:Another thing to look out for (2, Interesting)

Endo13 (1000782) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756959)

Yes you won't notice a lag improvement at less than 5MS, nor should you. However, the other component that is often overlooked in this (and I used to as well, until a friend demonstrated the difference to me at a store after I tried to tell him he was wrong...) is the refresh rate. Any more, with most LCDs at a 5MS or less response time, it's the refresh rate that is now causing movement lag on the screen. It's much less noticeable on a small monitor though (and by "small" I'm including basically an screen that's small enough to be just a monitor and not a TV) than it is on a larger TV. But don't just take my word for it - go to your local big electronics store and see for yourself. Find a screen with a 120Hz refresh rate and one with a 60Hz refresh rate next to each other. Watch for scenes with movement in them. You'll quickly see the difference. The 120Hz looks smooth as silk, while the 60Hz looks painfully choppy in comparison. Of course, the problem is there's very few actual LCD monitors (if any) that offer a high enough refresh rate to deal with this issue.

Re:Another thing to look out for (1, Informative)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755847)

You exaggerate the effect of latency grotesquely. Getting less than 1 ms of latency is not necessary; humans can't perceive or react fast enough for that to make a huge difference. When the human eye has a rough "frame rate" of 25 fps, providing input more quickly than roughly double that (or 50 fps) will simply mean that roughly half the information is lost. 50 fps translates to about 20ms between frames. 5-10 ms latency on an LCD (typical for computer monitors) is still sufficient to convey "real time" information to a player, particularly given that mean human response time for visual imagery is roughly 180-200 ms. Humans simply don't perceive time quickly enough for that to matter.

Re:Another thing to look out for (5, Informative)

Cowclops (630818) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755951)

I knew somebody would make some gross misstatement like "The human eye only sees at 25 fps anyway"

And for that, here is the obligatory link to 100fps.com [100fps.com]

In short, the shortest flash a human eye can see depends on a lot of things. These factors are explained thoroughly on that web site. The tl;dr version is this: The human eye can discern A LOT MORE than 25 fps.

Re:Another thing to look out for (1)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756033)

Either way, the most of best LCD monitors have a 10ms or so input latency anyway. (Check the article).

Re:Another thing to look out for (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26756051)

The tl;dr version is this: The human eye can discern A LOT MORE than 25 fps.

It can discern that, yes. That's easy. You see a 30fps movie, you see a 60fps movie, the latter is noticeably smoother. The question is if it matters. That is, if the human eye needs to discern 100fps, or if going that much higher in terms of a monitor or video game is just bragging and/or l33t graphic card wankery.

Re:Another thing to look out for (1)

Mprx (82435) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756401)

Frame rates higher than 60fps are valuable even for web browsing and general desktop use. Compare how easily your eyes can track mouse motion on an LCD compared to a high refresh rate CRT (be sure mouse sampling rate is high enough that the cursor is updated every screen refresh). Scrolling and window movement are also much smoother and easier to control. With excellent motion quality and low latency the computer feels like it is part of your own body rather than a separate object, reducing mental effort for all tasks.

For those that doubt the value of higher motion quality, an excellent test signal is horizontal scrolling text. You will be able to read much faster scrolls on a high end CRT than a 60Hz LCD.

Re:Another thing to look out for (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757263)

It depends on what you are doing. 5 frames per second is plenty for text editing, but less than 30 sucks for playing a first person shooter. (That might change if motion blur is added)

Re:Another thing to look out for (1)

Mprx (82435) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757401)

5fps is only adequate for text editing if you're using vi. Modern text editors work best at at least 60fps.

Re:Another thing to look out for (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757729)

If you type 720 words per minute.

Re:Another thing to look out for (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757077)

The human eye doesn't operate using "frames" at all - if anything it's closer to a stream of delta-encoded images. That's why a 25fps movie with motion blur has been acceptable for the past century, whereas 25fps games look horrible.

Re:Another thing to look out for (1)

glennpratt (1230636) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757161)

Honestly, I think 25fps as acceptable is a myth. I cannot stand 24/25 fps and I wish the cinematic types who keep pushing this atrocity on us would hurry up and pass on. :)

Seriously, I go see a new release in film, pay $20 for my wife and I and all I see is film grain, film damage and choppy pans and movement. Why the hell did I leave the house again?

Re:Another thing to look out for (1)

ericrost (1049312) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756003)

Then drop back and put your CRT @ a refresh rate below 72 Hz and try to type code for more than 10 minutes. Going from 60 - 72 Hz produces an amazing reduction in eyestrain. I would venture that anything about 75-100 Hz is somewhat unnoticeable, but the damned overhead florescent lamps' flicker in this office gives me a headache every day.

Re:Another thing to look out for (4, Informative)

Mprx (82435) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756137)

The refresh rate needed to avoid flicker with an impulse light characteristic display is unrelated to the frame rate needed for perfectly realistic motion quality. Note however that non-flicking sample and hold displays such as LCDs will produce lower motion quality than impulse response displays of the same refresh rate because of the temporal smearing. (see http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/TempRate.mspx [microsoft.com] for explanation).

Re:Another thing to look out for (1)

ericrost (1049312) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757435)

Its related in the sense that if you say you can't see something @ 60 Hz its an easy way to call BS. If you can see 60 Hz you can see it whether its flicker or motion fidelity.

Re:Another thing to look out for (2, Informative)

omnichad (1198475) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756225)

But CRT's go black on those pixels between slow refreshes. That's strobing that LCD doesn't even come close to. The LCD is at full brightness 100% of the time, and the pixels only change color when they're told to.

Re:Another thing to look out for (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26756403)

As others have said, LCD displays aren't prone to the same kind of flicker at lower refresh rates that CRTs are. LCD refresh at 60hz looks just as good as any high refresh CRT.

Re:Another thing to look out for (1)

Mprx (82435) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756509)

You've obviously never compared high contrast fast motion on a 100Hz+ CRT side by side a 60Hz LCD.

Re:Another thing to look out for (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756439)

When i used CRT's anything less than 85 Hz was painful to use.

and yes i agree with you about the florescent lights.. i at one point got the idea to convert my house from normal to CFL's .. then i realized my headachs didn't stop when i got home.. i have now moved back to incdecents in the house and have also replaced the florescent lights in my office with can lights with reveals in them.. makes all the diffrence in the world for my head.

Re:Another thing to look out for (1)

Mprx (82435) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756053)

This is an old myth, the human eye can see a difference far higher that 25fps.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm [100fps.com]
"So what is "Enough fps"? I don't know, because nobody went there so far."
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/TempRate.mspx [microsoft.com]
"Whatever temporal sampling rate you choose, it's unlikely to be fast enough"

Standard 24fps film is nowhere near high enough to reproduce real motion, as anybody who's watched 60fps Showscan film will know. The difference between 60fps gaming and 100fps or higher gaming is also obvious. And if you carefully examine high contrast fast motion you can notice a difference at even higher frame rates.

And while 10ms latency may not be perceptible, latency is cumulative from all sources, and every millisecond added to your reaction time puts you at a competitive disadvantage.

Re:Another thing to look out for (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26757471)

Re: ShadowRangerRIT,

that is actually a lie. Professor Michi Okaku has done some rather interesting experiments into the human perception of time. Results suggest that at moments of extreme risk to life (or more simply, VERY EXCITING times), ones brain activity speeds up, and conversely their perception of time actually slows down.

In the videos, one of the best experiments his team came up with was tuning a LED display to mask a two digit number in a flicker rate "faster than a human eye" can detect, and having the subjects bungie jump and try to read the hidden number while falling.

Suffice to say the results are pretty impressive.

Re:Another thing to look out for (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26755955)

I'm going to call shenanigans on needing a display with faster than 1 ms reaction times. Is a player even capable of reacting on that small a scale? I'd find that hard to believe when the mean best effort reaction time is on the scale of 10^2 ms.

The people with the best reaction times beat the mean by a magnitude of 100? Really?

Can a video output even expect to output at 1000 Hz? For context, the max I've seen CRTs cap out at is around 250 Hz for a complete screen draw.

Let's face it, though, liquid crystals still represent a physical action in response to an electrical stimulation. This action will take time and it's that time that just can't be eliminated.

Re:Another thing to look out for (2, Interesting)

Mprx (82435) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756251)

Consider a mutual surprise situation where both players react with identical 180ms reaction times. One has hardware with total latency of 30ms, while the other's hardware chain has total latency of 40ms. The latter player probably thought that extra 10ms latency wasn't worth worrying about, but here it is responsible for his loss.

As for motion quality, 60fps is clearly inadequate, but in my experience there are greatly diminishing returns beyond about 100fps. Note that this is on a CRT with an impulse response characteristic, on sample and hold displays a higher frame rate will be needed to compensate for the temporal smearing. In the opinion of some experienced FPS gamers, a true 120Hz LCD comes very close to a CRT:
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1387713 [hardforum.com]

Re:Another thing to look out for (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756921)

Consider a mutual surprise situation where both players react with identical 180ms reaction times. One has hardware with total latency of 30ms, while the other's hardware chain has total latency of 40ms. The latter player probably thought that extra 10ms latency wasn't worth worrying about, but here it is responsible for his loss.

Not likely. Most games have to cope with 100+ ms communications times, yet have to provide players sub 10ms response times to input. So in the case you describe, in most games, they'd probably still both get their shots off, with time to spare.

That said, I'm sure you could construct some scenario where the difference does result in the slower hardware players loss. But so what, unless you are playing for money, you probably need 'good enough'?

If I'm using a wireless mouse, and a core 2 quad, and a geforce 260core216, I'm already "hardware hosed" by the wired-lasermouse i7 overclocked extrme, quad sli gtx295 guy. So really, whats the point in freaking out about the monitor Hz refresh rate.

It just needs to be good enough not to give me a head ache, not to be visibly or noticeably lagging behind my movements. A cheap fast TN panel can do that.

Me, I use an S-IPS panel, because I value the color accuracy and wide viewing angles in addition to the good performance. But the fastest TN panels are still easily faster than my SIPS. I suppose I could get a CRT, but I don't want a 24" CRT thank you very much, even if it features slightly better response times, and can run at a higher Hz rating.

If that means I lose an one extra game of Quake in the next 3 years - I can live with that.

Re:Another thing to look out for (1)

Mprx (82435) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757021)

In a LAN game the communication latency is insignificant, and if that quad SLI guy is using the default Alternate Frame Rendering mode then he's at a latency disadvantage. Increased graphics detail might even be a competitive disadvantage, making it harder to pick targets out of the visual clutter.

Re:Another thing to look out for (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757271)

In a LAN game the communication latency is insignificant,

The games themselves however are still all tuned for internet play, so the timing window is still there. And most games are played over the internet.

Unless you are playing that competitively, it simply doesn't matter. And if you ARE playing that competitively in a lan tournament, you are usually provided standardized hardware anyway.

and if that quad SLI guy is using the default Alternate Frame Rendering mode then he's at a latency disadvantage. Increased graphics detail might even be a competitive disadvantage, making it harder to pick targets out of the visual clutter.

That all REALLY depends on the game, and exactly what options it has, and what you can turn on and off.

Agreed, having individual leaf movement can be slightly distracting and confers no tactical advantage -- but I've also played games where having things like shadows, reflections, and water ripples turned, or advanced smoke (vs the default 'Haze'), has conferred competitive advantages vs players who had those things turned off.

And even if you leave it all off, when you throw a bunch of smoke grenades and fire a rocket into room, half the players will have their framerates spike down, while the more extreme rigs won't.

Re:Another thing to look out for (2, Informative)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755749)

Then go with a large brand name, and get a common model. One of the advantages of buying in meatspace is that there is _less_ selection, so you only have the common (and supposedly mainstream tech) models to look at.

Are these differences that anyone but hardcore gamers could notice? I do notice when LCD monitors look green / yellow or when they have low viewing angles, but the whole 6/7/8 bit and response time thing: is it noticeable?

Re:Another thing to look out for (2, Insightful)

Mad Merlin (837387) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756057)

Then go with a large brand name, and get a common model.

That's terrible advice, common LCD models are junk, as they're all 6-bit TN panels.

Most people buy the cheapest LCD they can find in the size they want when they go shopping for one. If you actually want a good LCD, it's becoming extremely hard to find them because junk TN panels have totally flooded the market, and nobody advertises what type of panel their monitor uses.

Oh, and you wanted a good LCD on your laptop? Forget it, they don't make them anymore.

Re:Another thing to look out for (2, Interesting)

Amouth (879122) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756229)

"but the whole 6/7/8 bit and response time thing: is it noticeable?"

yes - it is.. I remember when gateway first started putting out LCD's my boss got me one.. i tried using it for about 3 days before i put my old CRT right back.. the ghosting was so bad - now modern panels don't have that much of an issue BUT the color depth is an issue..

right now i run dual screens at work.. a nice Samsung via DVI and the laptop screen as the primary.

the Samsung is wonderful - even true colors.. where as the laptop (thanks dell) is horrid and you can see artifacts on gradients because it just doesn't have the color depth.. it also has very poor contrast so if i have it in the car or out side in day light by the time i turn the brightness up to read it it is all washed out.

to the Home user.. yea it doesn't matter really - but to someone who spends 8-14 hours infront of the screen it matters alot.. if there was a way to replace the pannle in my laptop with a better one i would do it in a heart beat.

Re:Another thing to look out for (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757169)

The gradient banding is the most frustrating thing. It's infuriating as a designer to create a smooth gradient and then when you see it on someone else's machine it looks like crap. There's not much you can do about it though. It's just unfortunate that the salespeople at stores aren't doing a good enough job of dissuading people from buying that crap. If no one bought it they'd quit making the garbage.

always dither gradients? (1)

drolli (522659) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757321)

i know, the solution sound old-fashioned but it should work,,,

Re:Another thing to look out for (1)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756149)

This will continue to be a problem as long as we have a "marketing metric". We only have to look out for this stuff because manufacturers sought to optimize the metric, rather than the overall quality (even though the goal of having the metric in the first place was as a representation of the quality).

Re:Another thing to look out for (5, Funny)

poot_rootbeer (188613) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756427)

Buying an LCD is becoming a real pain in the arse.

Perhaps, but buying a CRT was a real pain in the back.

Re:Another thing to look out for (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757199)

Amen to that. Before I had an LCD taking my PC anywhere wasn't really an option. My old 19" CRT was ridiculously heavy and bulky. Now I regularly take my desktop over to a friend's house for casual game nights.

Response time, contrast ratio, etc. (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755443)

These terms 'response time' and 'contrast ratio' are checklist items. What matters is how the display looks and feels. As long as we continue to insist on checklists as a means of determining what to buy, manufacturers are going to keep using tricks like overdrive to make their checklists look better and better.

At the end of the day, sadly, this means that you can't just look at a checklist when buying an LCD display. You must test drive a model live before considering its purchase.

Re:Response time, contrast ratio, etc. (2, Insightful)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755479)

Which sucks for people who have very little selection locally. Either buy online, and likely get screwed, or drive a significant distance.

3rd option: rely on reviews from credible sources. The "credible" qualifier is harder to find these days, though.

Re:Response time, contrast ratio, etc. (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756099)

I'm in NYC and have tons of local selection, but I still buy online. Since I wanted to do some photography, I went around to photo sites and looked for other photo folks who were happy with their monitors. I then went to NewEgg and bought one.

I imagine you could do the same on a gaming site.

Most of the time you end up getting what you pay for, IMHO. My monitor was significantly more expensive than the the cheap (but fast!) TN models, but waaay less than what the pros use. Gamers and video watchers probably favor the fast cheap panels over the color accuracy, so it's probably not as hard of a trade-off.

Re:Response time, contrast ratio, etc. (1)

TheMeuge (645043) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755501)

How many times could you fire up Counter-strike on a monitor your don't own, and give it a 30-minute whirl?

Re:Response time, contrast ratio, etc. (1)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755555)

Most places don't have a problem with you using their display models. 30 minutes may be a bit extreme, but playing a demo from a laptop or flash drive shouldn't be an issue.

Re:Response time, contrast ratio, etc. (1)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755515)

I do agree that we can't just look at a checklist, but I don't think that such things are simply put out there/useless - it just establishes a baseline of performance in certain aspects, aka a standard.

Lets face it, nobody wants a 40ms monitor at this point (unless its for spreadsheets only or something). However, I'm glad this article has seen some light. I've heard people tell me that big monitors seem to have problems such as these but now I understand what they're talking about, as I have not seen the problems myself.

Re:Response time, contrast ratio, etc. (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757579)

As long as we continue to insist on checklists as a means of determining what to buy, manufacturers are going to keep using tricks like overdrive to make their checklists look better and better.

What choice is there? "Get the NuWave LCD 20000! It just feels better!"

I don't know about you, but that's not going to convince me to buy - especially when I can't actually test drive something. Give me numbers, raw data - all I ask is that it be REAL, and measured in a standard fashion across manufacturers.

Always testdrive displays (and TVs) (2, Insightful)

dk90406 (797452) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755451)

You really should test drive ANY display before you buy it. Or at least read a lot of reviews from reliable sources.

Re:Always testdrive displays (and TVs) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26757275)

Still, it's best to read the reviews on the display that you are going to buy..

too true! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26755461)

When I'm fucking kathleen fent, I like to take it slow and let it last at least 30 seconds before filling her up with baby batter.

Re:too true! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26755623)

When I'm fucking kathleen fent, I like to take it slow and let it last at least 30 seconds before filling her up with baby batter.

Rob, I told you not to post about our sex life on Slashdot! Now you're not getting any for a month!

~Kathleen

Interesting. (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755463)

I actually read the entire article. Pretty interesting. I didn't know about the three major LCD technologies, etc.

It's slightly frustrating when companies "decline to comment."

huh? (4, Funny)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755467)

The upshot is, you may want to test drive very carefully any display boasting low integer millisecond pixel response times.

First of all, I'm not really sure why that's considered a "upshot." But more importantly, I baffled by the submitters implication that I would have to carefully test an 8ms lag screen but not a 7.5 or 8.2ms screen. Huh?

Re:huh? (1)

Hyppy (74366) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755503)

8.2ms sounds more official, duh.

Re:huh? (4, Funny)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755825)

What you really have to watch out for is those -4 ms screens.

Re:huh? (0)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755853)

Upshot means a result or consequence, but not necessarily a positive one.

Also, the disparity isn't in single-integer milliseconds; he's rightly saying to be careful regarding monitors that claim they have that response time. The disparity could be entire frames. (a frame typically being 13 or 16ms).

Re:huh? (0)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756451)

Also, the disparity isn't in single-integer milliseconds; he's rightly saying to be careful regarding monitors that claim they have that response time. The disparity could be entire frames. (a frame typically being 13 or 16ms).

I think you missed the gp's point. He was poking fun at the fact that the summary specifically mentioned INTEGERS. Integers can't be fractional. So while 8ms is an integer response time, 8.2ms would not be and so by the summaries exact wording, wouldn't need to be scrutinized.

Re:huh? (2, Funny)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756629)

Bollocks.

*whoooooooosh* :(

and all this time I thought input lag (2, Funny)

joeflies (529536) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755473)

was when I fire up Outlook and start typing a new email, and nothing shows up on the screen for 10 seconds

Re:and all this time I thought input lag (2, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755649)

was when I fire up Outlook and start typing a new email, and nothing shows up on the screen for 10 seconds

No, that's just your keystrokes battling all the viruses on your computer for CPU time.

How about plasma displays? (3, Insightful)

fumanchu182 (1428447) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755491)

Do plasma displays have this same issue?

Re:How about plasma displays? (5, Informative)

Who Is The Drizzle (1470385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755795)

No, plasmas have near instantaneous response times that are pretty much identical to what you get on a CRT. The issues you get with a plasma is called "phosphor lag" which has to do with the three colors not quite lining up perfectly and it gives you a trailing image of the colors. It's especially noticeable on high contrast edges or if things are moving really quickly. It can be especially noticeable in gaming, but at least IMO it's much less annoying an artifact than the ghosting, smearing, and horrible motion resolution you get with LCDs (and yes they are present even on 120hz LCDs before someone brings that up).

Re:How about plasma displays? (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756997)

CRT is still the best display technology we have. It's really a shame that it's being abandoned, just because panel displays are smaller.

Re:How about plasma displays? (1)

Who Is The Drizzle (1470385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757133)

Well if it weren't for the phosphor lag, plasma would be pretty much a perfect replacement for CRT. And in some of the higher end Pioneer Kuro Elites it is very very hard to spot (though you are paying upwords of 5-6k for one of them).

Common knowledge (3, Informative)

Rotaluclac (561178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755561)

I really thought this was common knowledge.

When I bought my Eizo LCD last summer, the first thing I did was read around. These issues came up immediately.

Long story short: Prad [www.prad.de] was my friend.

Rotaluclac

same old... (5, Insightful)

apodyopsis (1048476) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755647)

reminds of my time making CDROM drives when we ere chasing 4x, then 8x, then 16x, then...

never mind the fact that the interface at the time could not handle the high speeds were were getting too so they were totally pointless, the effort was still to physically read some data off the outer edge of the disc at the quoted speed so we could sell the unit and keep up with the arms race.

I now purposely buy technology a few years old, just so they can work the bugs out and I can ensure it is fully supported under all operating systems, it is rare indeed that I adopt early.

any technology arms race will promote one specific feature above all others and rarely end up with a device that is fit for market and a well rounded balance of features - though I grant that there are some exceptions.

Re:same old... (0, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755923)

I had a CD writers that would spin so fast disks would occasionally shatter.

Re:same old... (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756211)

Occasionally?
1 shattered disc would destroy your drive.
Also, shitbusters covered (and busted) this.

You'd have to be using a CD you used as a puck in street hockey for there to be any chance of it shattering.

Re:same old... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26756587)

not true

I've observed a cd shattering inside a drive. It blew half the front cover off ;)

Re:same old... (1)

evilbessie (873633) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756029)

CDs (red book at least) run on 'constant linear velocity' so the data is always being read off at the same rate...

Re:same old... (4, Informative)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756359)

CD-ROMs don't. They use "Zone CAV". It's much cheaper and easier to make a drive spin at a constant angular velocity. Unfortunately that results in higher data rates at the outer edges of the disc, so what drives do is they split the disc up into zones. The disc is spun faster for a zone closer to the center of the disc.

Older CD-ROM drives used straight constant-angular-velocity, and would advertise the fastest data rate (which was at the outer edge of the disc).

The only time a modern CD drive will spin with constant linear velocity is when it's playing back audio in real-time. And even then, many players buffer now, so they use the Zone CAV method anyway.

as soon as i read the word inverse ghosting i knew (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26755655)

what i had to do. i have a camera pointed at my monitor as we speak and i am working on a script to move the mouse in accordance with the stock market movement. inverse ghosting will allow me to see the mouse trail from the immediate future and place my bets accordingly. i am only posting this because i am looking for an investor. as soon as the market makers realize what is happening they will delay all online tickers by just enough to remove the inverse ghosting effect, so it is imperative that the first trades be made with a huge BANG. pleaes write me at madmadgenius@gmail.com if you are interested. serious investors ONLY

Review display's MODES (2, Interesting)

MessyBlob (1191033) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755661)

Dell screens have 'desktop', 'media', and 'gaming' modes, which (I guess) affect colour curves and pixel response. If you're really interested in these artifacts, I suggest you research the available modes that the screen supports. I also call upon reviewers to test these modes before commenting on problems.

Not like they're ever that fast (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755669)

The response times are always cherry picked from the absolute best circumstances the panel can manage, so you should take it with a grain of salt to begin with. It's all but meaningless.

Take the Syncmaster 2493HM, with a stated response time of 5ms. You might think it can update the screen 200 times completely each second with a figure like that, but no: Here's an image of its ghosting. [anandtech.com]

The monitor takes input at 60hz, so it has 16.66ms to update the panel completely each cycle. Obviously it can't do that since you can see two images clearly, which means it takes at least 33.33ms to update.

You're now thinking, "Can you even notice it though?" I have the monitor, and yes you can. It's plainly visible sometimes. The most noticable thing is when you have scrolling high-contrast elements on the screen, such as in a game.

Re:Not like they're ever that fast (1)

phillipsjk256 (1003466) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756157)

I have started derating gray-to-gray response times by a factor of 10.

That is, an advertised 5ms response time is actually 50ms. One other thing to consider: was the shutter speed on the camera used less than 5ms? Obviously, you will capture two frames if the camera's shutter speed is only 1/30th of a second.

Rationale:

Response time used to be listed as the time it takes a pixel to go from Black-to-White-to-Black.

Therefore, (in theory) a relatively "slow" 40ms response time should be enough for 50fps (with minor blurring between adjacent frames).

Knowing that the (LCD) pixels have capacitance, I decided to approximate the the color change as proportional to the (charge or) discharge of a capacitor through a resistor.

The common rule of thumb is that it takes 5 time constants to reach "steady state" (within 5% of final value). I could only assume that the "grey-to-grey" response time refers to that time constant. Therefore, to go from black to white and back takes 5 time constants each way. (for a total of 10)

Now, I do have a post-secondary diploma in electronics, but not a lot of experience in the field. My reasoning may be completely invalid. YMMV.

Re:Not like they're ever that fast (1)

Spatial (1235392) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756493)

One other thing to consider: was the shutter speed on the camera used less than 5ms?

Yes, that was taken into account but I forgot to mention it. The exposure time for the shots is 1/400th of a second, or 2.5ms.

Reason for input lag (5, Interesting)

Rotaluclac (561178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755683)

The reason for input lag is that manufacturers want the on-screen image to quickly change without ghosting. Here, quickly means "in as few ms as possible", not "without delay". So if you see a change only two seconds later, but the change is instantaneous, that's considered good.

To achieve this, the display electronics must know what the next frames look like. So they buffer two or three frames, then adapt the overdrive on a per-pixel basis to the contents of the next few frames.

Pro: smoother video playing
Con: a delay of two or three frames

Rotaluclac

Confused (1)

guido1 (108876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755687)

So, the individual pixels of the panel have a transition from b->w or w->b of x milliseconds, but the sum of those pixels (e.g. the entire screen image) has a transition time of x*5?

Err?

It seems to me that the screen processing takes a fixed amount of time (~50ms), then that processing tells the pixels to change, which takes (~5ms)... Thus the total response is 55. Does the fact that they're overdriving the pixels to get their response time down affect the screen processing? This seems to be the assertion of the article but it doesn't make much sense to me.

Re:Confused (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756763)

From the article:

...overdrive is a technique that involves using higher levels of voltage to make the liquid crystals in a TFT panel change colour state more quickly.

Too much voltage will cause the pixels to overshoot the desired target state, and thus display an incorrect colour, so the voltage needs to be reduced before this happens.

So, since an LCD is multiplexed and the controller has access to a small number of pixels at the same time it sends a pulse to a pixel and goes to another pixel (while the previous one slowly (compared to the pixel clock) changes its color). If you use overdrive, then the pixel would be the wrong color (too bright), so you need to first apply the higher voltage, then lower it, so the pixel "arrives" at the desired state (it works like a "fast heating" system of newer CRT monitors/TVs that apply a higher voltage to the heaters, then lower it after the cathode has heated up (otherwise the cathode would be too hot and not last long)).
The overdrive probably means that the controller has to spend more time with each pixel, thus the response time of a single pixel is faster, but the response time of the whole array is slower).

Online reviews sites and LCD reviews (2, Interesting)

dusanv (256645) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755833)

None of the online review sites ever mention input lag and on some monitors, it's a huge problem. Three years ago I bought a Dell 2405FPW based on excellent reviews from a number of sites. The monitor lagged [hardforum.com] badly and as I was using it, more issues became apparent (incendiary backlight, bad viewing angles), none of which were mentioned by any of the review sites.

So beware online reviews of monitors. Better look for user reviews.

Re:Online reviews sites and LCD reviews (1)

plague3106 (71849) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755967)

Hmm... I got an Acer 1951B some years ago, and haven't had any problems with it. Guess I got lucky.. it was great deal too.

I'd love to get another one, but sadly they were discontinued shortly after I got it.

Re:Online reviews sites and LCD reviews (1)

value_added (719364) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755981)

So beware online reviews of monitors. Better look for user reviews.

Speaking of which, and at the risk of going on a tangent, I'm in the middle of redoing my setup at home for which I need one large or possibly two medium sized monitors. Anyone have any "user reviews" they'd care to share?

Don't play games, mostly terminal windows, but I'd prefer any multimedia entertainment featuring large bosomed women to be delivered in all its glory.

Display (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757239)

You need a monitor with a TnA panel.

Re:Online reviews sites and LCD reviews (1)

jps25 (1286898) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757293)

www.prad.de always mentions Input Lag along with colour accuracy and everything else in every single review they make.
Perhaps you shouldn't pay attention to crappy review sites, eh?

Overdrive only slightly related to input lag (4, Insightful)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | more than 5 years ago | (#26755883)

Overdrive is commonly used on all types of panels - TN, *VA, *IPS.

It isn't related to input lag as much as the summary would like you to believe. Somewhat, yes, but not that much; also, PVA panels are generally the ones with biggest input lag.

Some *VA panels have an input lag of 3-4 frames, some have only 1; some TN panels have a lag of 1 frame, some have 3. Some panels have overdrive that you cannot even notice, some - like the Dell 2407WHP-HC - will make you want to poke your eyes out.

What's much worse than input lag and ghosting are the eternal marketing races for MOAR BRIGHTNESS!!!11 and MOAR GAMUT!!1ONE, eventually leaving you with a monitor with a *minimum* brightness of 250 cd/m2, happily roasting your eyes out in anything but daylight, and with a gamut so large that skin tones heavily shift towards red, wildly inaccurate colours, and easily-visible fringing when you turn ClearType on (surprisingly, Windows Se7en will have proper low-level wide gamut management and will tone it down to sRGB on request, eliminating all issues; probably one of the few things that are actually good enough in that OS).

When it comes to monitors, HardForum is generally the place you want to thoroughly check out: http://www.hardforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=78 [hardforum.com]

Re:Overdrive only slightly related to input lag (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26756597)

Do you remember if there was a big difference between the 2407WHP-HC and the non-HC model when it comes to the input lag?

Having trouble finding numbers to pin on models.

Just checking :)

Re:Overdrive only slightly related to input lag (1)

A Friendly Troll (1017492) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756719)

Do you remember if there was a big difference between the 2407WHP-HC and the non-HC model when it comes to the input lag?

Having trouble finding numbers to pin on models.

I don't remember, but I can check ;) http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&ma1=88&mo1=116&p1=1217&ma2=88&mo2=249&p2=2366&ph=12 [digitalversus.com]

The average difference is half a frame.

Here's a comparison with the 2408: http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=6&ma1=88&mo1=116&p1=1217&ma2=88&mo2=342&p2=3161&ph=12 [digitalversus.com]

The 2408 (rev A00 on that site; A01 is vastly better) is one of the most notorious monitors ever made in terms of input lag. Inverse ghosting isn't an issue on it, though. Like I said, there is a slight correlation (because you need at least a 1-frame lag to make overdrive work), but that's all there is to it.

I'm a CRT holdout (rant) (4, Insightful)

Bobtree (105901) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756135)

This is one of the reasons why I refuse to buy LCDs for gaming, both on my desktop and for consoles. Other factors include refresh rates, variable resolution, and numerous quality problems (dead or stuck pixels, color reproduction, viewing angle, brightness uniformity, etc).

Given a choice, nobody would prefer to play on a laggy ISP, so it's really awful that manufacturers don't inform about multiple-frame image processing delays on 60hz monitors.

CRT technology is so mature and LCD so comparatively half baked that I'm totally revolted by the general consensus to throw out completely superior performance in favor of smaller form factor (it's not like they're moved often).

I spent months last year looking for a flat panel to buy that I would want to game on, and came up empty handed, so I simply abstain.

I'm currently using a ViewSonic P220f from a friend after my 8 year old Sony GDM f500r was recently retired, both 21". My consoles are on a 34" Sony WEGA KV-34HS510.

When my tubes finally give out in a few years, I'll be looking for something far better than LCDs to replace them with.

Re:I'm a CRT holdout (rant) (1)

hurfy (735314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756595)

Me too. Never quite trusted LCD, etc after early trials.

However the color accuracy on old CRT leaves something to be desired. My 3 monitors all show a slightly different color :( Best one is the oldest and smallest IBM. Not enough to bother tweaking them further however.

The TV on the other hand may get replaced soon. Since going to digital with the convertor box the sub channels pixelate from compression and you get the worst of both worlds :(

Invariably it seems, the best 'whatever' is the one that was just discontinued.....

Re:I'm a CRT holdout (rant) (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757067)

[quote]throw out completely superior performance in favor of smaller form factor (it's not like they're moved often).[/quote]

True, CRTs aren't moved often, their size and weight tend to discourage that. But if it weren't so heavy, you might be surprised by how often you might want to move it. Even adjusting the positioning is easier, some even have height adjustment, which wasn't so easy for CRT.

The thing that I like about LCDs is that they take less desk space. Late last year, I wanted more screen space, so that meant either using a second 21" CRT or going LCD. I did try the 21" CRT, I had a spare one, but it didn't work, it meant that I had almost no desk space left because it's a corner station, now I can put a single 24" LCD, get more screen area and recover a lot of desk space. If I decide to put in a second LCD in, I don't need to sacrifice much space to do it.

I don't miss the geometry and beam focus adjustment issues either.

Re:I'm a CRT holdout (rant) (1)

snspdaarf (1314399) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757347)

I don't miss the flyback whistle either. I can no longer hear the actual tone, but it did make the tinnitus more irritating.

Re:I'm a CRT holdout (rant) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26757513)

mod parent to score = 6

It you aren't a serious gamer or video editor (2, Insightful)

olddotter (638430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756205)

If you aren't a serious game or video editor this probably doesn't matter. I recently bought a new LCD [blogspot.com] for a dirt low price. Some of its specs are unbelievable (possibly with good reason) like the 15,000 to 1 contrast ratio. It claims a 5ms response time. I haven't tested it like CNET would, but I have seen no problems and am very happy with it.

Low Integer? (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756669)

you may want to test drive very carefully any display boasting low integer millisecond pixel response times

So what you're saying is, stick with the low non-integer millisecond response times...?

Display latency benchmark site (1)

wolf12886 (1206182) | more than 5 years ago | (#26756751)

In case I'm not the only one who immediately wondered what the latency on their display was.

DigitalVersus Monitor Duels [digitalversus.com]

mod G0p (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26757043)

moronic, dilett4nte 'first post' task. REsearch current core were

OLED to the rescue (4, Insightful)

Twinbee (767046) | more than 5 years ago | (#26757145)

Ugh, input lagging. To me, this would be an even worse issue than blurring or flicker. Lagging (at least above 30ms) means a 'soupy' cursor, and an end to games which require quick reactions.

I hope this becomes another stat to put on advertising. It's very hard to see unless you hook up a computer and do some testing, so joe public won't care... :(

It's exactly this kind of thing which will make OLED technology win in the end. All the problems associated with LCD (response time, blurring, lagging, contrast levels) will be gone in an instant.

response time versus response time. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26757717)

The reported problems are not related to "overdrive". What happens is that apparently some screens take the input, store it for 2-3 frames, possibly processing it, and then displaying it. This of course totally anhilates the improvement from 16ms (1 frame) to 5ms (0.33 frames).

So the problem lies in how "response time" is measured. It should be measured as: At t=0, the computer changes the screen from white to black, at what point in time does the screen reach "black". This is not entirely easy to measure, because the starting point is hard to capture, because it is an electronic signal inside the computer, that you have to compare to the light values from the screen. And the data is transferred to the screen at 60 frames per second. So if your sensor is watching the top left, the change in the computer may happen at the time the "beam" was on the middle of the screen. This would result in about 8ms of extra lag.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...