Coming out soon, finally an LCD *I* would find worth buying.

uh ,actually, the response time is as WSP says, exactly. The panel itself, @ 6-bit, say, for a TN, will do 16.7m colours. One of the things that limits this, is the response time of the aperature of the pixel itself from going from either black-white-black, or cyan to magenta. because this aperature can change only so many times per second, and because almost every colour is produced by dithering(multiple colours alternating), response time is most important, and not refreshrate, as, like WSP states, pixels only get "refreshed" if thier colour-state changes.

So, this also bring us to the difference in TN and IPS panels....IPS and VA screens will do 256 cyan, yellow, and magenta colours, while TN does 64 of each, and hence the difference in colour quality. However, because the response time of TN panels is higher, it can simulate the performance of a IPS or VA screen, and really is only apparant for those that use colour-matching with prints.

So, how does response time fit in with all of this? Well, manufacturer's only list GTG or BTB response times, so this is the only important part, however, most important is the fact that this is an aspect of the panel and not of signal time from the videocard. If the panel is not changing colours during a refresh, and how fast they change colour is not of any importance, than why does it matter if you use DVI or VGA, and why doesn't this affect HK's "response time"?

To those who says refresh rate doesn't matter on LCDs, I can tell the difference even when moving on the mousepointer, anything that causes a movement is enough for me to tell difference between 60, 75, 85 and 100Hz.

Did a test on my bro's 4ms LCD, he switched randomly between 60 and 75Hz and launched Unreal Tournament and I was able to tell if it was running in 60 or 75Hz EASILY EVERY time. :p:

Maybe I'm a bit more sensitive than others I dunno but that's how it is for me and anything below 85Hz is disturbing when gaming for me. And I play all kinds of games, I'm not a CS freak or Q3 or whatever. Currently playing Flatout2 and the game runs much smoother in 100Hz than 85Hz for example.

I couldn't see any ghosting on that TN panel tho in whatever game I tried, UT1 & Q3 for example. Just not the same feeling with lower refresh rate.

I don't know what kind of crappy LCDs you guys are using but I have a Sony 17" with 14 ms responce and there is 0 ghosting. I've used Dell 19 and 24" wides, all types of low responce LCDs, and many CRTS. As long as you don't buy bottom of the barrel back alley monitors or ones with refresh rates above 16-18ms in my opinion there is no difference. I'm fairly sure that all of you who are being hardcore CRT supporters have used 1 LCD in your life and seem to think you know everything about it.

I switched from a fantastic 21" viewsonic CRT to a 17" Sony LCD and couldn't be happier. Maybe I had the worst crt in the world, who knows........... but I would be able to tell if there was blur, trust me.

and rpgwizard:
"Did a test on my bro's 4ms LCD, he switched randomly between 60 and 75Hz and launched Unreal Tournament and I was able to tell if it was running in 60 or 75Hz EASILY EVERY time. "

Thats a load of bull, you would need a side by side comparison to even notice the difference and even at that point it would be hard to tell. Not to mention if your brother was playing UT while this so called "test" was going on he could have easily done something in game to bring the FPS down that would change the appearance of the performance.

60hz + vsync on is teh crap tbh. i can't stand competitive first person shooters with less than 85 fps. 85fps is the minimum for me.

believe it or not, there is a huge difference between 60hz, 75hz and 85hz, especially when vsync is enabled...

my father has a 19" viewsonic ftf with 8ms response time and i was disappointed in the tearing and ghosting in games. for games like age of empires or something this might be enough, but für games like ut, quake and other fps i'd get eye cancer lol
i've tested a lot of tfts and unfortunately none was able to convince me. the only tfts which - in my opinion - are suitable for fps-gaming are some benq 15/17" with 4ms response time. but who wants to buy a 17" or even a 15" tft.
19" is the minimum for me.

i'd like to buy a sony fw900 crt, but that thing consumes way too much power. my bill would be terribly high lol

hopfully, the next generation monitors (oled & sed) kick ass. sooner or later i'm going to upgrade to this kind of monitors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sanborn

I don't know what kind of crappy LCDs you guys are using but I have a Sony 17" with 14 ms responce and there is 0 ghosting. I've used Dell 19 and 24" wides, all types of low responce LCDs, and many CRTS. As long as you don't buy bottom of the barrel back alley monitors or ones with refresh rates above 16-18ms in my opinion there is no difference. I'm fairly sure that all of you who are being hardcore CRT supporters have used 1 LCD in your life and seem to think you know everything about it.

I switched from a fantastic 21" viewsonic CRT to a 17" Sony LCD and couldn't be happier. Maybe I had the worst crt in the world, who knows........... but I would be able to tell if there was blur, trust me.

---

I have a VP191b which has one of the most uniform response times, not the lowest at any one point, but the entire gtg response is under 16ms so theoretically there should be no ghosting; its widely regarded as a very good monitor w/ regards to ghosting. However, i still do see ghosting with this monitor. Because you dont notice ghosting doesnt mean it doesnt exist, different eyes see different things. Like i said before, im not going to argue CRT over LCD for normal desktop usage. But CRT is still the benchmark for gaming. That said LCD gets better every year, but its probably still at least a good year or two behind, and it will never not have a native resolution.

Lies Kemist lies !!

If I do not hear a sound it is not made!
If I do not feel the wind from inside it does not blow!

I'm just messing around, but I knew someone would respond with that. I agree it really is a useless debate, and both formats will be in the trashcan when SED arrives anyways (OLED might as well just get skipped over and stick to other markets)

Honestly, I could care less...My monitor (lcd - Hyundai L90D+) runs @ 60Hz @1280 x 1024, and I could care less...I don't expeirance ghosting, and the ocntrast is enough to satisfy me...I'd never go back to CRT...

60 FPS is honestly fine...I'd take that over a flashing monitor anyday...(or huge priced monitor). I'll just turn up all the settings...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kemist

I have a VP191b which has one of the most uniform response times, not the lowest at any one point, but the entire gtg response is under 16ms so theoretically there should be no ghosting; its widely regarded as a very good monitor w/ regards to ghosting. However, i still do see ghosting with this monitor. Because you dont notice ghosting doesnt mean it doesnt exist, different eyes see different things. Like i said before, im not going to argue CRT over LCD for normal desktop usage. But CRT is still the benchmark for gaming. That said LCD gets better every year, but its probably still at least a good year or two behind, and it will never not have a native resolution.

---

GTG response time of 16ms isnt that good at all. i wouldnt be suprised at all if you see ghosting with it.

with my 8ms acer i see very very minimal ghosting. small enough that i dont notice when im playing an FPS. and acer has been known to embellish their specs.

if you get a good 5ms or less samsung or such you shouldnt be able to notice it no matter how much you look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sanborn

and rpgwizard:
"Did a test on my bro's 4ms LCD, he switched randomly between 60 and 75Hz and launched Unreal Tournament and I was able to tell if it was running in 60 or 75Hz EASILY EVERY time. "

Thats a load of bull, you would need a side by side comparison to even notice the difference and even at that point it would be hard to tell. Not to mention if your brother was playing UT while this so called "test" was going on he could have easily done something in game to bring the FPS down that would change the appearance of the performance.

---

No its not BS.
There is a big difference between 60 and 75 Hz. If you dont see it, its your problem.

It's not a problem at all...its just a horrible way to test something. Its like staring at a moving car and saying you can tell that its moving 30 mph vs 25.......

Look I have no doubts you guys think all LCDs blur and your CRTs are vastly superior, thats fine. It just irks me when people jump in LCD threads and instantly go "LCD's suck CRTs are sooooooo much better"

My Samsung 204b plays fantastic at 1600 x 1200 5ms with 60hz. It plays just fine.. no lag, no ghosting nothing. I see no issues with 60hz on an LCD cause it doesn't refresh or flicker. Gameaplay is silky smooth for me on just about everything.

Meh, I went for a HannsG 19" widescreen and I could not be happier for 185$ @ my door. :banana::banana::banana::banana: I might buy a second one because it looks so damn good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RPGWiZaRD

To those who says refresh rate doesn't matter on LCDs, I can tell the difference even when moving on the mousepointer, anything that causes a movement is enough for me to tell difference between 60, 75, 85 and 100Hz.

---

It DOES matter, but it's not as important on an LCD as it is on a CRT. To me, most ghosting happens because the response time of the pixels is very different depending on the colour state, and when one pixel changes slightly faster than the pixel next to it, you get a "ghost". So, the faster teh response time, the less ghosting is apparant. Think of a staduim "wave"...the ghosting is the peak of the wave.

However, ghosting is a cumulative effect of FPS, response time and refresh rate all being out of whack, and when you get a good panel with a good controller, 16ms response times are not that big of a deal, as the transitions from colour to colour can be managed to reduce ghosting. Dithering can also reduce this, and of course an IPS panel is going to be better than an TN in doing this, supposing the response times where equal. The larger colour pallete of the IPS panel can make the transition alot smoother to the eye.

TN panels with low refresh rates tend to have bad vertical viewing areas, however i have noticed that this is mostly a contrast issue, when comparing my FP93GX and the L204WT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WeStSiDePLaYa

GTG response time of 16ms isnt that good at all. i wouldnt be suprised at all if you see ghosting with it.

with my 8ms acer i see very very minimal ghosting. small enough that i dont notice when im playing an FPS. and acer has been known to embellish their specs.

if you get a good 5ms or less samsung or such you shouldnt be able to notice it no matter how much you look.

---

IIRC it was marketed as 8ms gtg and actual testing showed sub 16ms along the entire curve. Just because an lcd is supposed to be 8ms means crap; where in the curve did they measure. If you look at almost all response curves for "fast" lcds there are huge regions above 16ms (16ms = 60fps). So despite the 2ms rating on some LCDs you should still see ghosting in certain parts of the grey to grey or color range.

Another problem increasingly seen is that with the large overdriven panels input lag is introduced on top of the typical response time lag. Some dont notice, but many competitive FPS gamers have. Also highly overdriven panels usually lag on the fall from the color overshoot, leaving things bright for too long ( i may be seeing this with my panel, im not sure, its usually a white halo on a dark background)

Finally, crt is still more flexible due to non native resolution. I wont say crt is for everyone. It is big and hot and looks old. But like i said before it still cant be beat for gaming. I'm with sanborn though, i hope SED comes soon :)

Also let me clarify a bit: i'm not saying that LCD's look completely terrible and arent usable at all (even for gaming). I'm just saying that CRT is still better in regards to gaming, its not as huge a lead as it once was and for some the other benefits of LCD outweigh the remaining disadvantages.

I still have the LCD and i use it daily for desktop stuff (which LCD excels at) the CRT is specifically for gaming and gaming only.

Quote:

---

i can't stand competitive first person shooters with less than 85 fps. 85fps is the minimum for me.

---

That's it? I want AT LEAST 125 when I play cod2. I deal with 100 in CS because over that and the game gets screwey :p: I can tell between 125 and 200 fps easily. It feels very different.

It seems most casual gamers don't care and will say it's fine, but it's really not. Hardcore gamers or even more importantly, those who play for money, will notice 60/75hz refresh and ghosting EASILY.

LoL. If you are playing for money, then the most expensive IPS monitor is best for you. A Carpenter is only as good as his tools...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by phi|os

What makes this LCD so special? I only ditched my CRT for my 24" ACER. It's sick.

---

heh... I just got the 2423, that what you got? man, it's fast.. color me happy. :D

Well I'm not playing to get paid... But I'd sure like to see an LCD for myself before buying it. Anyone in the Northern VA area that has a 3007WFP A01 that I could watch you play a game or two on? :(

Specs are specs and you should fully understand them before purchasing. But I don't think anyone should say "It's an LCD so it won't look as good in gaming compared to a CRT" or "It's got this refresh rate so it will ghost." It won't look good to who? Who will notice ghosting?
With anything visual there are tolerances. Those tolerances GREATLY depend on the person that is observing(I'm guessing the range of eye's on this forum varies greatly :D ). If you have 20/20 and can see a flies wings flap then hats off to you. Just remember there are some that can't. Same goes for vice versa. If you tend to run into poles and skinny people on a regular basis, remember there are some that can see better than you can :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cadaveca

It DOES matter, but it's not as important on an LCD as it is on a CRT. To me, most ghosting happens because the response time of the pixels is very different depending on the colour state, and when one pixel changes slightly faster than the pixel next to it, you get a "ghost". So, the faster teh response time, the less ghosting is apparant. Think of a staduim "wave"...the ghosting is the peak of the wave.

However, ghosting is a cumulative effect of FPS, response time and refresh rate all being out of whack, and when you get a good panel with a good controller, 16ms response times are not that big of a deal, as the transitions from colour to colour can be managed to reduce ghosting. Dithering can also reduce this, and of course an IPS panel is going to be better than an TN in doing this, supposing the response times where equal. The larger colour pallete of the IPS panel can make the transition alot smoother to the eye.

TN panels with low refresh rates tend to have bad vertical viewing areas, however i have noticed that this is mostly a contrast issue, when comparing my FP93GX and the L204WT.

---

As usual ppl mistake that we're talking about ghosting... :rolleyes:

I already said I COULDN'T notice the SLIGHTEST ghosting/blur in any game I launched on my bro's 4ms for example (this includes CS/UT/Q3 which are very sensitive to ghosting). That's not it, but every1 seem to think CRT lovers are talking only about ghosting when they say LCDs suck and :banana::banana::banana::banana:. Well it's not, I'm talking about refresh rate myself not response time. I know an LCD doesn't blink but it still has to change colors on the pixels where refresh rate seems to matter. The higher refresh rate the smoother gameplay, some notice this better than others, period. I'm glad I'm not the only1 to think the same one this one, HKPolice seems to share same view. I agree refresh rate doesn't matter as much on LCDs as the screen doesn't flicker, but when there's movements on the screen and the colors has to change, then it seems to matter.

If you don't notice any difference then good for you, I'd wanna move to LCDs myself but I've tried different LCDs at friends place (even a 2ms) but none just could give the same feeling and since I'm able to tell difference also between 60 and 75Hz on a LCD (trust me on this one it's not any difficult for me, I would be using analog 75Hz mode on my bro's LCD rather than DVI which is limited to 60Hz in the native res on his) I'm sure the refresh rate is the problem. If there would appear a 19" LCD with 100Hz and 8ms or faster response time I'd buy it anyday.

Is the technology not allowing it or don't they think it matters or what's the problem, I'm sure the company that made the 1st comp LCD to support 100Hz in the native res would become praised by gamers and sell very well. Of course the native res is still a slight prob with LCDs but it's not anything that would stop me from using one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WesM63

The Viewsoinc uses a 6bit panel with dithering. Its not worth the $350 IMHO. (You can buy this LCD at Costco)

Yea it'll work great for gaming if you don't care about real color accuracy. Its not good for people who work with photoshop and need color accuracy.

---

didn't have time to read the whole thread so if this was already addressed then please ignore this :p:

I own the vx2025wm and it is a true 8-bit panel. Many viewsonics are 6-bit but the vx2025wm among a few others are 8-bit.

Again, if this was already mentioned then I'm sorry for repeating it but I didn't have the time to read everything.

:toast:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SparkyJJO

didn't have time to read the whole thread so if this was already addressed then please ignore this :p:

I own the vx2025wm and it is a true 8-bit panel. Many viewsonics are 6-bit but the vx2025wm among a few others are 8-bit.

Again, if this was already mentioned then I'm sorry for repeating it but I didn't have the time to read everything.

:toast:

---

.... ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WesM63

The 20" (2025wm) is a far superior panel compared to this one. (Most new 22-23" LCD's us a 6bit TN panel, besides the less colors, they have horrid viewing angles.) The 2025 uses a 8bit S-IPS panel. The 2007FPW also uses a 8bit panel

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RaZz!

believe it or not, there is a huge difference between 60hz, 75hz and 85hz, especially when vsync is enabled...

my father has a 19" viewsonic ftf with 8ms response time and i was disappointed in the tearing and ghosting in games

---

obviously if it was tearing you didnt have v-sync enabled. because tearing is not a monitor problem, but a video card/driver issue. so you say LCD's suck because you cant configure your drivers?:slap:


"oh noes! my graphics are having teh bad artifaks! it must be teh evil LCD's!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WesM63

.... ;)

---

heh I knew it probably was addressed already but o well slap me :slap: :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SparkyJJO

heh I knew it probably was addressed already but o well slap me :slap: :D

---

NP, there was/is alot of good info in this thread.. now its kinda turned into a LCD vs. CRT pissing match. Which i'm clearly choosing to stay out of.

This one goes to PC related discussions.

And do behave yourself guys - no personal insults in ANY form :nono: