5ms V 2ms - Is it noticable?

izzop

izzop

izzop

Associate
Joined
7 Jul 2009
Posts
2,414
Location
Wiltshire
Hi,

As the thread title says, is it that noticable?

I was going to buy a Samsung P2450H, but seeing as this is now on its way out am looking at the B2430H.

The P2450H is 2ms with the B2430H 5ms.

Regards
 
I've used both of those screens and the responsiveness is every bit as good on the B2430H. And good choice BTW!
 
PCM2 said:
I've used both of those screens and the responsiveness is every bit as good on the B2430H. And good choice BTW!
Click to expand...

As a matter of interest, what is the difference between the P2450 and the B2430 ? I know they have different casing, and the response times are different, but is there any significant difference in the images they produce ?

I preferred the squarer look of the P2450, that`s why I bought it (along with some good customer reviews).
 
Nothing major. Slightly better 'default' colours and higher brightness but once you've tweaked to your liking the image is very simlar on both.
 
PCM2 said:
Nothing major. Slightly better 'default' colours and higher brightness but once you've tweaked to your liking the image is very simlar on both.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I was just wondering. I suspected they might be very similar.

Higher brightness ? One of the first adjustments I made was to "tone it down" a bit. A bright screen is impressive for a minute or two, then the retinas have me reaching for the contrast/brighness controls !
 
Unfortunately it is detectable, yes. People who are used to super responsive CRT monitors, for example will be more tuned-in to detecting the trailing of even a highly responsive 2ms LCD panel. The human eye can detect a surprising amount if the brain is in the right gear. ;)
 
PCM2 said:
Unfortunately it is detectable, yes. People who are used to super responsive CRT monitors, for example will be more tuned-in to detecting the trailing of even a highly responsive 2ms LCD panel. The human eye can detect a surprising amount if the brain is in the right gear. ;)
Click to expand...

Clearly mine never is!

What was the monitor btw? I've been looking for a new one.
 
When I play on rock band/guitar hero, the response time on tv's is a maaaaaaaaaaaajor thing. E.g. my computer monitor is 2ms I think and I play fine on that but on my TV it's more and I have to tweak with the lag calibration which sucks ass.

But if you're not using it for that then you won't notice a difference.
 
Mason- said:
When I play on rock band/guitar hero, the response time on tv's is a maaaaaaaaaaaajor thing. E.g. my computer monitor is 2ms I think and I play fine on that but on my TV it's more and I have to tweak with the lag calibration which sucks ass.

But if you're not using it for that then you won't notice a difference.
Click to expand...

I think you're confusing response time with input lag... They're two completely different things.

A screen with a response time of 2ms can still have an input lag of 40ms or more. On the other hand, my 7ms response time screen has an input lag of 11ms.
 
Think of it like this - 5ms = 200 fps, 2ms=500fps

No, you won't notice it. Your video card is unlikely to be pushing anywhere near 200fps and even if it was you wouldn't actually be able to tell the difference.
 
Usually you have to look pretty hard to notice the trailing or do specific things like driving about quickly or strafing quickly. Personally I can see trailing on anything slower than current CRT or OLED tech. but it doesn't reach anything near distracting on most monitors I've tested. The Samsung F2380 is the best example I have used of a distractingly unresponsive monitor. Despite input lag being similar I also find the Dell U2410 more responsive than the U2211. Considering 2ms vs. 5ms... Really the end result is the same. Input lag is the more important factor.
 
Benihana said:
AFAIK isn't anything under 16ms undetectable (by the human eye at least)
Click to expand...
Don't get 'human limitations' confused with the limitations of technology.
1s / 60hz = About 16ms. Shurely Shum Mishtake?

Yes that's right, everything under 16ms only benefits from better processing engines, the actual panel refresh rate has naff all to do with it.

120hz makes 8ms noticable (technically it should be half of this, but whatever), 240hz down to 4ms and so on...

I tend to put the people who 'Can't tell a difference between 60hz and 240hz' in the 'I can't tell the difference between MP3 and Lossless' camp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom