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!

LCD Pixel Response Time Halved

Hemos posted more than 9 years ago | from the speeding-things-up dept.

Displays 163

kagaku writes "Japanese newspaper the Nihon Kaizai Shimbun (evil registration required) said that Mitsubishi has mastered a technology to improve the response speed of pixels on LCDs by 100 per cent or more. It's done this by getting rid of the afterimages on screens which known as "ghosts", said the newspaper, and invented a proprietary system called Dual Domain Bend. It cites unnamed sources at Mitsubishi saying that this method produces a response speed of one millisecond when power is applied and five milliseconds when the lights go off and the power goes down. That, the paper said, compares to up to forty milliseconds to switch pixels on and off. While the technique, when it gets to the manufacturing stage, will have immediate benefits for PC monitors, it will also help narrow the gap between LCD TVs and plasma displays, which have a quicker response speed. Here's a non-registration required link."

cancel ×

163 comments

nice (1, Redundant)

Slashbot Hive-Mind (810267) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167573)

this will be good for games

REDUNDANT? YOU'RE ALL FUCKWITS (-1, Troll)

Slashbot Hive-Mind (810267) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167639)

FLAMEBAIT? CHOKE ON YOUR OWN SHIT, ASSCLOWN (-1, Flamebait)

Slashbot Hive-Mind (810267) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167665)

I like the link (4, Funny)

bert.cl (787057) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167576)

Yeah, the non-registration link really tells me a lot more than the blurb... or not ... them evil registrations...

Re:I like the link (2, Funny)

flonker (526111) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167689)

Oh, you read the article?

Re:I like the link (5, Funny)

bert.cl (787057) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167700)

Why yes,

I am new here, can you tell?

Re:I like the link (0)

flonker (526111) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167755)

I was going to read the article on the Inquirer, but I couldn't even get through the last sentence in the slashdot summary. What did I miss?

but isn't 100%... (5, Insightful)

phantasma6 (799340) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167578)

doesn't a reduction of 100% mean it has been reduced to 0ms?

Re:but isn't 100%... (3, Insightful)

bert.cl (787057) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167588)

response improved 100% procent, time wasn't reduced 100% i guess time was reduced 50%, however it's still early, so you can brag with numbers if you know better :)

Re:but isn't 100%... (1)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167589)

Not if you take it in the context of work (as in energy*time) completed by the pixels. The work increased by 100%, allowing twice as much work to be done.

Re:but isn't 100%... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10167627)

You mean power, moron. Work is not a rate, it's a measure of energy that has been expended. Improving the amount of energy expended by 100% means 0 joules of energy. If you mean power, which is the rate at which work is done, then yes, technically you could improve the power by 100% and it not be zero....

But that is not the case here, moron.

read again (5, Funny)

Gentlewhisper (759800) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167591)

"100 per cent or more"

It is actually less than 0ms. The images will appear on your screen before your GPU is even done with it!

Perfect for duke nukem forever!

Re:read again (1)

LousyPhreak (550591) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167679)

wouldnt it be much more fit for doom3?

Re:read again (1)

deathazre (761949) | more than 9 years ago | (#10169086)

nope, the major problem is turning the pixels off.

which means they will be off before they even turn on.

Re:but isn't 100%... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10167637)

It says "response speed", which might be interpreted as "number of pixel changes per second". This can certainly increase by 100%.

Re:but isn't 100%... (1)

dcordeiro (703625) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167752)

its not a redution of 100% (which would make it to 0ms)
it is a increase of 100% in response time, aka a redution of 50%.

Re:but isn't 100%... (2, Insightful)

jejones (115979) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167923)

it is a increase of 100% in response time, aka a redution of 50%.

If response time increases by 100%, they've succeeded in making it twice as slow.

Re:but isn't 100%... (1)

trebek (623344) | more than 9 years ago | (#10168129)

im not sure how some people do not understand percentages. a 100% improvement means double what their best time was before, or half of the current best time. not a reduction to 0ms.

Not exactly an explanation (5, Insightful)

beeglebug (767468) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167581)

It's done this by getting rid of the afterimages on screens which known as "ghosts"
The pixel response time has been reduced by getting rid of ghosts? Surely that's an effect of the reduction, not a cause?

Re:Not exactly an explanation (3, Funny)

exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167709)

Well they tried exorcism on the individual pixels first and that didn't seem to work.

Re:Not exactly an explanation (5, Funny)

T-Kir (597145) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167730)

Although the swivel base kept turning the display unit around in circles.

;-)

Re:Not exactly an explanation (2, Funny)

Ignominious Cow Herd (540061) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167804)

Yeah, but who wants a monitor that keeps spitting grean soup at you and telling you that your mother is in there?
I'll keep my 16ms thank you.

Re:Not exactly an explanation (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167838)

Yep. I suspect that's a bad translation. They havent'd done it _by_ getting rid of ghosts, they've done it _so that they can_ get rid of ghosts.

Re:Not exactly an explanation (1)

dsfox (2694) | more than 9 years ago | (#10168720)

It sounds to me like they are predicting what the ghosting will look like and actively counteracting it by driving the pixels in the opposite direction. Anyway, that's what I would do.

Re:Not exactly an explanation (1)

haxor.dk (463614) | more than 9 years ago | (#10168826)

Nah. They're codenaming the technology "Exorcist". ;)

Improving outdated technologies (3, Interesting)

Tennguin (553870) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167586)

I thought LCD technology was being replaced by DLP? Is this not the case?

Investment has been made in LCD (1)

xtal (49134) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167597)

I thought LCD technology was being replaced by DLP? Is this not the case?

The problem isn't the technology but the investment; we're not talking small dollars to make plants to produce LCD panels, we're talking hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars invested by the electronics industry.

LCDs are going to be around for a long while; it'll be nice when the response rates come down and larger panels get cheaper.

Re:Improving outdated technologies (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10167669)

I've never heard of DLP monitors, and I don't see how DLP could be used for anything but projectors (DLP = tiny mirrors on a chip).

Re:Improving outdated technologies (1)

Idarubicin (579475) | more than 9 years ago | (#10168805)

I thought LCD technology was being replaced by DLP? Is this not the case?

Perhaps if LCD is sufficiently improved, it will obviate the need for a costly transition to DLP in most applications?

Re:Improving outdated technologies (3, Informative)

TheGavster (774657) | more than 9 years ago | (#10169081)

DLP is a technology replacing the LCDs in high-end projectors. It is also used to replace the CRTs in high-end rear-projection televisions. This innovation improves backlit LCDs used for notebook and desktop computers. The competing tech in that arena is OLED, which is both thinner and does not require a backlight (once it gets rolling, it will also be easier to scale to larger screen sizes because of the inkjet process used to manufacture the displays)

100% improvement in response time (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10167598)

100% improvement in response time means removing 100% of the current response time, i.e. down to zero. Heaven knows what "or more" is supposed to mean. It really is time to install some kind of quality control for Slashdot postings.

Slashdot Quality Control (1)

ari_j (90255) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167620)

I already installed quality control last night. But then I woke up and now I have to use a work-around (class and work).

Re:100% improvement in response time (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10167642)

Bzzt: they're talking about improvement in response speed, not time. If your car gets a 100% improvement in speed does it mean that it can now travel instantaneously?

Plasma Televisions are not ready for primetime. (5, Interesting)

John_Allen_Mohammed (811050) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167603)

Sucks to be me. Bought a 42" plasma television 9 months ago and the brightness has dropped significantly in that time, probably a half of what it was when I bought it. Thats under heavy use, maybe 16-18 hours/day it's on. Anybody else here have the same experience ?

Re:Plasma Televisions are not ready for primetime. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10167658)

plasma tvs have a short lifetime. didnt the salesperson tell you? your experience seems a little worse than normal though.

Re:Plasma Televisions are not ready for primetime. (5, Funny)

neonstz (79215) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167663)

...or maybe your eyes are just tired of watching TV 16-18 hours every day in 9 months?

Re:Plasma Televisions are not ready for primetime. (1)

GodOfNothing (675212) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167666)

I thought that (reduction in brightness, not necessarily the time scale) was normal for plasma screens; after a period of time the plasma must be replaced.

Re:Plasma Televisions are not ready for primetime. (1)

chrisbolt (11273) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167763)

The entire display must be replaced, not just the plasma inside it. It is not possible to recharge a plasma display, this is just a common myth [plasmatvbuyingguide.com] .

Re:Plasma Televisions are not ready for primetime. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10167675)

Yep, but it it was rather easily fixed when I realized my cat had been playing with the remote control.

Re:Plasma Televisions are not ready for primetime. (5, Informative)

mikael (484) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167703)

Plasma TV's will only last around five years. During that time the brightness will continue to decline. This makes them great for outdoor displays/public events, since there is more chance of a unit being rendered inoperable through transportation/assembly than there is through normal use. The following paper has a graph demonstrating the decline [planar.com] .

Re:Plasma Televisions are not ready for primetime. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10168212)

Mine has a lifetime of ~16 years of 6 hours usage a day.

There have been a lot of changes in the capabilities of plasma screens.

As it is, 85% image contrast/saturataion is probably the same as the difference between component and SVideo on the screen.

Re:Plasma Televisions are not ready for primetime. (2, Informative)

brentl (808343) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167721)

Sucks to be you indeed. A normal, recent (made in the last few years) plasma should have a life of about 30,000 hours if I remember correctly. About three years of continuous use, at which time the brightness will be about half.
I've had a Fujitsu Plasma for about a year, on for a several hours a day. Still looks the same. Perhaps you had yours set in "Exibition mode", with the brighness upped to extreme levels, and you've worn it out too soon. If not, maybe something's wrong with it and you can get it fixed under warranty.

Re:Plasma Televisions are not ready for primetime. (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#10168318)

It should be under warranty, it does sound extreme. What you want to do with any screen type that can be over driven is to calibrate it, Avia, DVD Essentials (now Digital Essentials) or THX Optimode can help.

The screens are intentionally overbright so they look good on showroom floors with bright flourescent lighting, but it eats screen life big time. The brightness & contrast need to be calibrated to maximize life.

Article Text... (3, Funny)

OzRoy (602691) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167623)

Wow! This is a great way to preempt a dying web server. Post the entire article in the summary instead of relying on karma whores.

marketing... (4, Insightful)

taj (32429) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167625)


100% work*time improvement - Everyone goes what?
50% of the time to display - Everyone says what? then gets it.
twice as fast. - Everyone says oh, OK.

Each increasing easier to understand but decreasingly attractive to marketing droids.

Sigh.

Re:marketing... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10167948)

Without us crappy marketing droids there'd be no-one to sell your products you fucking sandal wearing beardy engineer ;)

Better numbers (5, Interesting)

Spy Hunter (317220) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167628)

If the pixels can respond to any signal within 5 ms, that means the highest framerate that can be displayed without ghosting is 200 fps (1 / 5ms = 200 Hz). Which is more than you should ever need, and a big improvement on current LCD displays (a good consumer display has a ~20ms response time; 1 / 20ms = 50 Hz, not even 60 fps, but good enough for TV's 30 fps.)

Re:Better numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10168137)

If you want to watch TV without killing your eyes, you may want to get a 100Hz TV. This translates into a 10ms LCD.

Re:Better numbers (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#10168343)

LCDs don't have the same flicker as CRTs though, the decay time on an LCD doesn't correlate to the decay time on CRT, or plasma for that matter. There is no TV signal that exceeds 60Hz framerate, so 15ms is just fine.

Re:Better numbers (1)

KarmaMB84 (743001) | more than 9 years ago | (#10168348)

Due the difference in the way they work, LCDs do not need high refresh rates to avoid user eye-strain.

Re:Better numbers (1)

BradleyUffner (103496) | more than 9 years ago | (#10168383)

Then why do LCDs give me such horrable headaches when I use them, the same way that CRTs set below 75hz do?

Re:Better numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10168983)

The brightness/contrast is probably turned up too high. LCDs are far brighter than CRTs and the default settings tend to be enough to burn out the back of your retinas.

If only (4, Interesting)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 9 years ago | (#10168413)

If only those numbers weren't just pulled out of some marketroid's arse just because they look good.

Remember that it's from the same guys who brought you the 14" display with only 10" visible. Or 16ms TFT panels which actually show about 120ms worth of ghosting.

Or 18 bit colour TFT panels + dithering being sold as 24 bit panels. On account that surely making the display shimmer and flicker as it approximates colours by switching between other colours, is exactly what you always wanted in a TFT.

(Someone remind me why a 20-30 Hz shimmer on TFT is better for my eyes than the 85 Hz flicker of a CRT? No really, I keep forgetting.)

The computer industry as a whole is a pretty sad display of lies, shameless lies and IT marketting. But the display part of the industry has got to take the cake.

At least half of the progress since the days of 120ms panels is just more creative ways to measure it, and/or to fudge the numbers.

So basically what I'm getting at is: when you'll see a 5ms display on sale, you can rest assured that it's really a 30-40ms real latency fudged down to 5ms by the marketting department. And after the dithering is applied too, you can probably count on 40-50ms or more.

I really wouldn't set my hopes too high about being able to display 100 fps without ghosting anywhere in the next 5 years.

Re:If only (1)

cortana (588495) | more than 9 years ago | (#10168599)

Why is there no publication that presents honest reviews and objective evaluation of TFT monitors (and other hardware, for that matter). I would buy it.

At the end of the TFT group review it could present the menufacturer's specifications for each model, alongside the observed behaviour. Manufacturers who lie through their teeth get a zero score!

The Samsung 710T has basically no ghosting. (5, Informative)

UranusReallyHertz (567776) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167634)

After days of agonizing between it and the 20 inch Dell, I bought the Samsung 710T and I am pretty happy with it. And I have never noticed any ghosting whatsoever while playing games like Far Cry and Doom 3 and watching movies like Hell Boy. So I think the Response Time is already adequate, at least on the 17 inch sizes.

Re:The Samsung 710T has basically no ghosting. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10167812)

Yes, but the 710T uses 6bit rgb pixels and dithering to emulate 24bit color. It's easier to switch between fewer states and it's kinda application dependent whether you notice.

Re:The Samsung 710T has basically no ghosting. (1)

UranusReallyHertz (567776) | more than 9 years ago | (#10168177)

According to this page (http://extremetech.shopping.com/xPF-Samsung_710T_ 17IN_LCD_264MM_12X10_ALOG_BLK_710T_17IN_LCD_264MM_ 12X10_ALOG_BLK) it is a full 24 bit screen. Anyway the colors really great on it.

Re:The Samsung 710T has basically no ghosting. (2, Interesting)

Ianoo (711633) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167827)

That monitor has a claimed 12ms response time, which is equivilent to 83Hz (1 / 0.012s), which is as good as if not better than most CRTs out there, although some people claim to be able to see flicker right up to 85Hz (although much of the time I think the problem is about 5cm behind the eye, not in the eye itself).

I can see flicker at 70Hz, but I can usually get on with 75Hz or 80Hz. I hate CRTs anyway, wouldn't touch them unless forced to nowadays. The geometry and sharpness of an LCD more than make up for any ghosting you see when playing FPS, which I hardly notice even with a 20ms screen.

Re:The Samsung 710T has basically no ghosting. (1)

pen (7191) | more than 9 years ago | (#10168133)

I notice CRT flicker at 75Hz. I don't know about 75-85 because I've never seen a monitor that worked at 80Hz. I do know that this is not my imagination, because I notice it when I sit down at a new computer (and then proceed to change the refresh rate.)

Re:The Samsung 710T has basically no ghosting. (1)

lidocaineus (661282) | more than 9 years ago | (#10168525)

For FPS games, maybe, but for stuff such as accurate color matching / representation on an LCD for professional stuff, like mag layouts and CAD design (the latter of which I do), and you'll realize how far LCDs still need to come.

Who ya gonna Call? (3, Interesting)

Justabit (651314) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167656)

No ghosts and (suposedly) heaps better responce time is much better than the second hand CRT I was using last lear, which had burn in of previous companys logo. I guess the guy who worked on it went on holiday and left his screen on... Wonder if new LCDs will have a hidden down similar to plasmas (colour fade) ? I'm just waiting till direct neural wireless interface is invented so I can burn out my optic nerves watching ultraviolet!

Re:Who ya gonna Call? (1)

khrtt (701691) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167858)

It's the phosphoros that burns-in. In the LCD there is no phosphoros, thus no burnt-in images. But plasma displays do burn-in.

Bragging with percentages (4, Insightful)

shoppa (464619) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167659)

I've seen some games played with percentages:
Product A costs 40% more than product B!

Product B costs 29% less than product A!
Both are true... A is $14.00, B is $10.00. The difference is the same arithmetically, but doing it fractionally only serves to confuse things (usually, confuse the customer...)

Things get really out of hand when there's a factor of two:

We are 50% faster than the competition!
From this it's not too far to say
We are twice the speed of the competition!
Which then gets twisted further to
We are 100% faster than the competition!
It's that last step that's most dubious to me, arithmetically (or geometrically) there's no justification.

Re:Bragging with percentages (1)

Rexz (724700) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167676)

It's that last step that's most dubious to me, arithmetically (or geometrically) there's no justification.

I guess the (dubious) justification is that the competitior is 100% slower than us, so we must be 100% faster!

Re:Bragging with percentages (1)

stoborrobots (577882) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167699)

Surely that's reversed; if we are twice the speed of the competitor, then

* Our competitors are 50% slower than us, but
* We are 100% faster than our competitors.

If we are 50% faster than our competitors, then they are only 33% slower than we are...

Re:Bragging with percentages (1)

LousyPhreak (550591) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167688)

the last step is perfectly ok, the second is the dubios one

Re:Bragging with percentages (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10167691)

Bring on the pseudo-intellectual BS rants!

Re:Bragging with percentages (1)

Chreo (694625) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167707)

Your fist exampel is correct but tnot the second one. If you say something is 50% faster than something else then that something else is the baseline i.e. 100%. Ex. Their CPU 100Mhz, yours is 150Mhz = your CPU is 50% faster than theirs (all else being equal). If you had said their CPU is 50% slower than ours then you CPU is the baseline and is 100% and their CPU is then only 75Mhz (using the previous example) Only then is it also correct to say: Our thingy is twice as fast as theirs. To sum up: We are 50% faster != We are twice as fast We are twice as fast = We are 100% faster They are 50% slower = We are twice as fast = We are 100% faster then them

Re:Bragging with percentages (1)

famebait (450028) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167714)

No, it's the first step that's dubious. The last two statements really are equivalent.

The first statement does not involve a facor of two at all, it implies a factor of 1.5 for speed or a factor of 2/3 for time (or the opposite if you start with the new product).

Speed = change/time. Half the time = double the speed, if the change is the same.

Re:Bragging with percentages (3, Informative)

RealProgrammer (723725) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167723)

Things get really out of hand when there's a factor of two:
  • We are 50% faster than the competition!
From this it's not too far to say
  • We are twice the speed of the competition!

In your example, that's where the deception is:

  • "50% faster" means 1.5 times faster.

  • "100% faster" means 2 times faster.

Re:Bragging with percentages (2, Informative)

khrtt (701691) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167818)

Suppose he's talking about speed as time per event. By "50% faster" he means "time 50% shorter", which is really "twice as fast".

Here, all of a sudden, we start defining speed as "events per time unit". Then, "twice as fast" means "twice as many events per time unit", i.e. 100% faster.

Now, if you think about it, "50% shorter time per event" really does mean "100% more events per time unit", so my argument is correct and complete. I've just proven that "50% faster" is the same as "100% faster" :-)

Re:Bragging with percentages (2, Insightful)

TeknoHog (164938) | more than 9 years ago | (#10168123)

"50% faster" means 1.5 times faster. "100% faster" means 2 times faster.

Even this is not true! '50% faster' means 150% times the original, i.e. 1.5 times as fast.

This is a common confusion, but it makes one hell of a difference. 'N% faster' means '(100+N)% as fast', because faster is always more than the original.

It should be obvious that '50% as fast' is less than the original, but '50% faster' is more than the original.

100% faster means twice as fast, not 2 times faster.

Re:Bragging with percentages (1)

dcordeiro (703625) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167745)

you're wrong...
50% faster than the competition is not twice the speed, is 1.5 the speed.
The last sentence (100% faster) is correct in respect with the second one. The second (twice the speed) is not correct in respect with the first one (50% faster).

Also, the article doesn't says:
100% less response time. It says: The response time is 100% faster (if it took 10ms now it takes 5ms), and that makes the title 100% correct:
response times (halved).

Re:Bragging with percentages (2, Interesting)

mav[LAG] (31387) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167981)

The authorities played a similar sort of game in Mexico City in the late 70s by repainting the lines on the roads to carry more lanes and then boasting that they had "increased capacity by 50%!" - from four lanes to six IIRC. Then when the inevitable happened and far more accidents happened because of decreased room to manoeuvre, they reduced it back to four and claimed that there was now "33% less congestion!" Of course, nothing had changed (and certainly not the physical width of the road): 6 lanes is 50% more than 4 lanes, and 4 lanes is 33% less than six lanes.

I'd welcome the exact details of this story - googling picks up the Economist's link but I can't get it to open.

Great: (3, Funny)

headqtrs (467875) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167695)

Just in time for Doom 3....

Re:Great: (1)

CaptnMArk (9003) | more than 9 years ago | (#10168160)

Doom 3 only requires ~16ms, Quake3 requires 8ms.

But.. (4, Interesting)

adeyadey (678765) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167706)

Faster switching == more power needed? Not good for laptops..

Re:But.. (2, Informative)

j3110 (193209) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167959)

Most of the power used by LCD is still going to be the backlight. The LCD itself doesn't even get warm itself. You may loose a few few minutes of battery life, who knows.

Already done... (1)

Apreche (239272) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167728)

I was wary of buying an LCD a few months ago because of the ghosting issues. I finally caved and bought a Samsung 172x. It was expensive, but it was worth it. With the 12ms response time there are literally no ghosts. And sitting next to my old CRT with xinerama its like night and day. I'm waiting for the price to drop so I can buy one or two more and get rid of my CRT once and for all. If only my video card had two DVI instead of one DVI one VGA...

So yeah, I don't know why this is news. Sure, maybe they increases response times to be even better. But the ghosting problem was eliminated when they got it down to 12ms.

Article copied almost verbatim (2, Interesting)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167729)

From The Enquirer.net [theinquirer.net] .

Re:Article copied almost verbatim (1)

Bralkein (685733) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167880)

Aha ha ha! How did you manage to spell "The Inquirer" with an E at the beginning like that when you actually had to put the URL (which contains the correct spelling, of course) in there anyway? Went out last night? Had an early start? All out of coffee? Happens to the best of us I suppose ;)

RE:LCD Pixel Response Time Halved (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10167735)

Waiting...waiting...damn! 40 milliseconds! Waaaay too long...

What good is such a display ... (1, Funny)

MarkoNo5 (139955) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167828)

... if the pixels only respond half of the time ?

Meanwhile (4, Informative)

berkut7 (761778) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167873)

Meanwhile Samsung is readying 8ms 19" LCDs for production in Q4 , 2004 [samsung.com] . 12ms LCDs produce almost no noticeble ghosting, 8ms should be even better at closing the gap to CRTs.

Re:Meanwhile (1)

entrigant (233266) | more than 9 years ago | (#10168500)

Yippe.... another 19" monitor running at 1280x1024

Re:Meanwhile (1)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 9 years ago | (#10168795)

Until they get to 1600 X 1200, they still are behind CRT's. The resolution has to go up and the price get competative for LCD's to really take over. They will, but it's a slow process. Really, why pay 3X the price for less resolution and brightness than a Viewsonic P95f+?

Re:Meanwhile (1)

J. T. MacLeod (111094) | more than 9 years ago | (#10168892)

Really, why pay 3X the price for less resolution and brightness than a Viewsonic P95f+?

For the love of my eyes, really. I would enjoy paying significantly less for significantly more size and resolution, but my eyes just can't take the flicker. Since switching to an LCD my vision has improved significantly, and I no longer suffer from piercing headaches.

I've been switched for a year and a half now. Still waiting for my vision to go back to 20/10.

Re:Meanwhile (1)

BCW2 (168187) | more than 9 years ago | (#10168942)

The reason I mentioned the P95f+ is that it runs at 85 and I detect no flicker.

Re:Meanwhile (1)

J. T. MacLeod (111094) | more than 9 years ago | (#10169067)

I count you a lucky man :)

I detect flicker well over 100Hz, but the headaches still come, even then. Not as quickly, thank God.

Re:Meanwhile (1)

StillAnonymous (595680) | more than 9 years ago | (#10169133)

I sort of doubt that a CRT is brighter than any recent LCD. Have you seen the brightness on these things? You have to worry about burn in on your brain, not on the display itself!

You're right about resolution though. If you don't run the LCD in its native res, it looks muddy due to the interpolation it has to do.

For a 17" LCD, I find 1280x1024 to be more than adequate, since I used to run my 17" CRT at 1024x768 and was happy. But to each his own.

tech? (1)

khrtt (701691) | more than 9 years ago | (#10167950)

stupid article says nothing about the technology. WTF is Dual Domain Bend?

Re:tech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10168225)

it's where two domains undergo a simultaneous forced deviation from the geodesic.

In single domain bend, this is only done in one or other of the domains.

That good ol' American KNOW-HOW (-1, Troll)

Cryofan (194126) | more than 9 years ago | (#10168496)

Yeah, right. So why are the Europeans kicking our butts in lifestyle, and the Asians kicking our butts in research and science?

BTW, I submitted a story to slashdot that showed a report that the countries of NW Europe has twice as many research papers published in peer reviewed journals as did America, per capita. Rejected. And of course that report got zero play in American media.

This is becoming a fucking third country, owned by corporations, brainwashed into neoliberalism/laissez faire economics.

America is the GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!

yeah, right....

Improve response speed by more than 100% !?!?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10168635)

If it takes 50ms to respond then that is 100% of the response time.

If you improve the response speed by 100% you eliminate those 50ms.

If you improve the response speed by more than 100% then you have a response before the change has been signaled.

Shutter glasses to work on LCDs then? (1)

flowerp (512865) | more than 9 years ago | (#10168714)

Way cool.

This should allow 3D shutter glasses to work adequately with LCD displays. Those glasses would allow for a full-colour 3D effect, as opposed to red/blue 3D glasses.

take advantage of DVI spec (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10168807)

Now, let's take full advantage of DVI spec. If some ambitious programmer wants to make Linux the absolute bomb for some domains of science and gaming they should write drivers for the direct pixel access component of the DVI spec. Waiting for refreshes is so passe. We should be able to update pixels on the screen independently. But, no one has written drivers to do that. Imagine, no tears, no refresh rates, etc.

Fix the bad pixel problem (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10168812)

How fast the display is does not mean much if you are looking at several bad pixels. That, not the speed of the display, is what is keeping me from switching.

Sp'on6e (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10168938)

please moderate very distracting to lizard - In other Lite is straining it racist for a from the FrreBSD that supports World. GNAA members 'doing something' series of exploding 800 mhz machine politics openly. Are tied up in you should bring and was taken over By fundamental about half of the code sharing You down. It was obsessives and the to have regular of reality. Keep contaminated while gains market share stupid. To the SADNESS AND IT WAS Show that *BSD has chosen, w4atever a BSD box that work that you clearly. There fly They looked variations on the not anymore. It's noises out of the This post brought GAY NIGGERS FROM bought the farm... Theorists - was at the same of playing your ones in software Session and join in it will be among Volatile world of

Other companies have 8ms LCDs in the works (1)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 9 years ago | (#10168954)

12ms are on the market now, so if by a 100% improvement they mean 100% improvement over 12ms, that's reasonable.

But with 8ms LCDs coming out soon, this announcement is decidedly less impressive.

Besides, when Samsung's 17" OLED display comes out next year, we'll all forget about response times.

timing (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 9 years ago | (#10169091)

TVs do 60Hz refresh, alternating ("interlacing") odd/even line fields for 30Hz, which is 33 1/3ms. Even if LCDs can get below their 40ms to 30ms, they've got parity with TVs, and designers can concentrate on making the $500 800x600 sheets cheaper than their $100 CRT competition. If they can get down to 15ms, they can do 60Hz noninterlaced, which will be good enough for HDTV (at 1280x720 and 1920x1080). If they've really got an LCD square wave signal emission at 5ms, that's 200Hz, which "ought to be enough for anyone" :).

The real breakthrough would be in combining these LCDs with asynchronous clocking, as has been recently investigated in CPUs. LCDs are transistor gate arrays, just like Pentiums, but including a tuned diode rather than mainly NAND gates of half-adder units. Fooling the eye into believing it's seeing a real object, rather than just an image of an object, depends on appealing to the eye's nonuniform sampling. While the optic nerve signals the brain at about 40Hz, each retinal receptor samples on its own "clock", without the lockstep sync of an entire retina, though today's LCDs all flash in lockstep. If the LCD panel could clock each diode according to its own variance, that might give the eye a more natural signal context, and look more realistic. Flip the tech into the smaller package of video sensors, basically memory chips with a mounted lens, and video sampling would reflect (pun intended ;) the natural appearance at the sample and the at delivery. The high speed of these LCDs would give flexibility for fitting a parametric clocked square wave more closely to the curve of each sampled surface's actual reflection.
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...