ViewSonic shows off 22-inch 120Hz LCD monitor at NVISION 08

[Swatrecon_]

What?? this has everything to do with refresh rates. There's absolutely a need for this if you want to run stereo 3d. Otherwise it's not really necessary (I don't personally see any flickering on my 60Hz LCD.. do you?

No, not if LCD's don't use a refresh rate, which they don't. I don't know anything about 3d, I'll admit that, but for a normal LCD, this shouldn't even apply. And yes, I do see flickering on my "60hz" LCD. All the time. I went from an 85hz cart to a 60hz LCD and I totally noticed flickering, right away.

[natty]

Let me clear something up because the 'eye can only see xx frames' argument really annoys me.

120hz isn't about vision only. It's about 'feel'. When you play a shooter game at 120fps you have a LOT more control than you do at 60fps. The accuracy of your aim and movement is significantly higher.

60fps gaming is the equivalent of driving your car on a frozen lake bed. You can still stop and make turns but you will be spinning out everywhere. 120fps gaming is like being on a race track on a sunny day with perfect conditions.

I hope that helps.

[Sr7]

No, not if LCD's don't use a refresh rate, which they don't. I don't know anything about 3d, I'll admit that, but for a normal LCD, this shouldn't even apply. And yes, I do see flickering on my "60hz" LCD. All the time. I went from an 85hz cart to a 60hz LCD and I totally noticed flickering, right away.

That doesn't even make sense.. what do you mean "not if LCD's don't use a refresh rate"? They do...

[Kingcarcas]

Hope it's the real deal, i'm putting off upgrading my 20'' for something just like this. 22'', same res. but higher refresh rate.

[Swatrecon_]

That doesn't even make sense.. what do you mean "not if LCD's don't use a refresh rate"? They do...

Ok, if LCD's are constantly lit, no pixel refresh, they don't use a refresh rate. It's completely artificial, it doesn't happen.

"LCDs employ a separate backlight to illuminate the image being portrayed by the LCD's liquid crystal shutters. The shutters themselves do not have a "refresh rate" as such due to the fact that they always stay at whatever opacity they were last instructed to continuously, and do not become more or less transparent until instructed to produce a different opacity.

The closest thing liquid crystal shutters have to a refresh rate is their response time, while nearly all LCD backlights (most notably fluorescent cathodes, which commonly operate at ~200Hz) have a separate figure known as flicker, which describes how many times a second the backlight pulses on and off."

[YukonTrooper]

120Hz will cut down on sample-and-hold, which will reduce motion blur. The panel will be 120Hz, as all 120Hz panels are. The question is whether or not it will accept a native 120Hz signal and display it as such.

People seem to get all butt-hurt about TV's not being "real 120Hz", and I think what they mean is that it will not display 120FPS straight from your computer. However, you have to remember that most people don't buy TV's to plug into their computers. And these TV's are real 120Hz, they just don't accept a 120Hz signal. And why should they? There are no 120Hz signals to input from DVD's, Blu-ray, TV, or consoles.

[Sr7]

Ok, if LCD's are constantly lit, no pixel refresh, they don't use a refresh rate. It's completely artificial, it doesn't happen.

"LCDs employ a separate backlight to illuminate the image being portrayed by the LCD's liquid crystal shutters. The shutters themselves do not have a "refresh rate" as such due to the fact that they always stay at whatever opacity they were last instructed to continuously, and do not become more or less transparent until instructed to produce a different opacity.

The closest thing liquid crystal shutters have to a refresh rate is their response time, while nearly all LCD backlights (most notably fluorescent cathodes, which commonly operate at ~200Hz) have a separate figure known as flicker, which describes how many times a second the backlight pulses on and off."

The refresh rate is still a rate at which the pixels are updated, regardless of whether they turn on or off completely. That's the fundamental issue here. How often you can update the pixels on the screen.

[natty]

Every 120hz TV I've seen has been labeled as a TV and not as a 'monitor'. Also, the article says this monitor uses dual-link DVI. Since when do 60hz 1680 res monitors use dual-link DVI? All signs point to this thing being the real deal

[STEvil]

I'll believe it when I see it. I'm voting gimmick though.

[RaZz!]

Yes im sure we all know this. Thats why i said whats the point of 120HZ on a LCD

ok, i own a tft and i'm running it at 1680x1050@60hz.

while playing games i have two options:
1. playing with vsync=off and a load of tearing
or
2. playing with vsync=on and a load of mouse lag.

both ways are absolutely anything but satisfying. the only way i can stand this in fast paces games (e.g. ut1, q3) is playing with a res of 1280x1024@75hz, because the higher the refresh rate the less i recognize tearing. even though, 75hz is still too few to play with vsync=on due to mouselag. i've discovered that i need atleast 85hz to be able to use vsync without a noticeable mouselag.

so yeah, what was my point with all this?
-> if the monitor is really running at 120hz, you can enable vsync without any mouselag and tearing.
even if you'd play without vsync, you'll notice less tearing on a 120hz display than on a 60hz one (as it's refreshing faster).

talking about monitors has become as complex as e.g. talking about cpus. even the 60hz-topic in tft related discussions is a science in its own...
there are still people out there who argue that 60hz on a tft are absolutely enough. i for my part, totally disagree with these people. there are differences, huge differences to say the least, and 60hz should have been exterminated years ago, even in tfts...
if you've ever worked on a monitor that is running with 100+ hz you'll never want to revert back to anything lower than 85hz, even if it's a tft. the more hz = the more fps, the more fps = the smoother are movements/animations.

[RPGWiZaRD]

Totally agreeing with you RaZz.

It's difficult to say if you "see" or "feel" the difference but the important thing is that there IS a difference, at least for some people. On CRTs I've tested several times running different games at 75, 85, 100 and 120Hz and there's always a noticable difference up to 100Hz for me, 120Hz feels/seems to run as smooth as 100Hz for me so I guess around or 100Hz is whereabouts the limits for me. Otherwise I'd prefer running at the highest resolution I can run at 85Hz but 100Hz and lower res wins for me always. But between 85 and 100Hz I still notice the difference rather easily, it doesn't matter what game really, it's not about the "game mechanics" in this case I'm speaking of, it's about how smooth anything moves on the screen, whatever it being a moving player or car or even the world around you when you walk or drive forward etc. It feels more realistic the smoother all movements or anything that is doing a movement, which is important to me. It's easily noticed when you focus your view on the ground or wall while walking/strafing, the higher the refresh rate, the smoother/more realistic "flow". Same regarding other players or objects such as cars or whatever will move more smooth around the screen.

I've also tested different LCDs and running them at a lower res or using VGA mode to get 75Hz and there's an improvement in motion smoothness but of course you'll have to sacrifise some IQ then. It feels pretty much same as gaming with a CRT @ 75Hz (if you try to disregard the flickering with the CRT).

Now in some FPS games the higher FPS, the less mouse lag (Unreal Tournament is a good example which I immediatly notice the difference if it drops from 100 FPS) but for me it's the 2nd most important thing, what I described above is personally most important for me but mouse lag is also an important matter if playing competitevily.

Last but not least, we have the tearing issue which I'm also bothered about with LCDs a bit as today's LCDs tear way more than a CRT. With vsync on you lose a tiny bit performance and also often cause a bit mouse lag. Now with 120Hz this should improve considerably.

[m^2]

if you've ever worked on a monitor that is running with 100+ hz you'll never want to revert back to anything lower than 85hz, even if it's a tft. the more hz = the more fps, the more fps = the smoother are movements/animations.

Nope. My previous monitor was 21" iiyama, which I run...1280x960@120Hz.
I can't look at 60Hz for too long. My eyes start to hurt with 85 after 2 minutes (Though I don't "see" that it's too low). 100 Hz is fine for about 10 hours, but then 120 is better.
I switched to 22" 60Hz LCD and it's OK. About as good as 100 Hz CRT...I'd pay for 120Hz too though.

[RaZz!]

well, theoretically, even a tft with 1hz wouldn't give you any headache or hurting eyes, because it's a static picture which hasn't to be refreshed the way a crt needs to be.

but as i said, it's not only about to flicker or not to flicker. the amount of frames displayed during a full refresh is an important thing, atleast for people who often play games.

[DefStar]

If it's a gaming monitor then they need to ditch the wobbly wobbly stand design and do like the vx922.


Rock Solid!!!

[Helmore]

Here is the press release by Viewsonic:
http://www.viewsonic.com/companyinfo...s_release=2094
Which basically confirms that it has a Dual-Link DVI input, which is more then sufficient for displaying 1680x1050@120Hz. since a dual link DVI input is capable of handling 1920x1200@120Hz. (Single link DVI can only go up to 1920x1200@60Hz.)

[natty]

since a dual link DVI input is capable of handling 1920x1200@120Hz.

good, then hopefully they release a 1920 version so I don't have to downgrade in size from my current monitor

[RaZz!]

a dual-link dvi is an indicator that it's true 120hz, isn't it? man, that would be too good to be true

so in a year or so we'll see cheap, matured 120hz panels for gaming

[Levish]

having a dvi-d input means nothing other than it being able to take a dvi-d cable, my Dell 1908fp has DVI-D ports for its monstrous 1280x1024 @ 60/75hz res

[RaZz!]

but dvi-d has nothing to do with it being a dual-link. dvi-d just implies that it's a digital only input. dvi-d can be single-link or dual-link, as well as dvi-i.

[InputUsername]

Most likely does what Syn stated above, which is nothing to get excited about for PC use, as you will still only be able to set 60hz in the control panel(fps locked at 60 with vsync, not 120)

Indeed, we're probably not going to see any huge evolution in this product, rather a neatly packaged high end LCD display which looks and slim profile aside will add nothing to my current CRT of the same brand.

However, no one would love to be proven wrong in this matter more so than i. Looking forward to the release.

[MaxxxRacer]

my dad has a 120hz lcd and it is really wierd. makes everything look wierd when people move around or when the camera pans across the scene. it is highly distracting.

[RPGWiZaRD]

YES Dual-link DVI confirmed!

Can't wait to get more details on pricing and availability. Hopefully they won't charge any huge premium for this display... but even so I'd pick it up if it's capable of a 120Hz signal. I'm so glad the LCD market is finally going in the right direction, thumbs up for ViewSonic for this one.

Wonder what panel type, I bet it's a TN due to stated 3ms gtg response time ... but even if it is and price is right I'd definitely pick it up.

[Kingcarcas]

my dad has a 120hz lcd and it is really wierd. makes everything look wierd when people move around or when the camera pans across the scene. it is highly distracting.

I've heard it can make a movie look like a soap opera........the TV should have the option to disable it.

[STaRGaZeR]

I've heard it can make a movie look like a soap opera........the TV should have the option to disable it.

Those functions make a movie or TV look much more fluid, but it's too far away from reality, it does not feel natural. This can vary between TVs, but they're all the same: no real 120Hz and weird motion scenes.

If I have to choose one, Philips is the most non-natural feeling.

[003]

This LCD is nothing more but two panels on top of eachother, each panel running at 60Hz. The panels display the same frame, except with a different polarization, and when you wear the polarized glasses, the image becomes 3d, but still runs at 60hz. Without the glasses (and only one panel enabled), it is no more than a 60Hz run of the mill TN lcd. sorry to burst all your bubbles.