1ms monitors to eliminate ghosting and blur completely?

even having a 1ms response time will not eliminate perceived motion blur sadly, and it won't really be much of an improvement over current 2ms models. Due to the way LCD's and the human eye works, motion blur is still perecieved in the eye and this is why other technologies are being explored instead like BFI, scanning backlight etc. see here for some more info:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/coming_2007.htm

that news article was from Feb 2006 btw! :)
 
Baddass said:
even having a 1ms response time will not eliminate perceived motion blur sadly, and it won't really be much of an improvement over current 2ms models. Due to the way LCD's and the human eye works, motion blur is still perecieved in the eye and this is why other technologies are being explored instead like BFI, scanning backlight etc. see here for some more info:

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/coming_2007.htm

that news article was from Feb 2006 btw! :)
Click to expand...
Hi

cheers for that link, going to have a read now.

I know the link i posted is old, but its the only one i could find.
 
BFI seems the most promising then i suppose, how long until they get these released? and how long (approx) until we get reviews? wonder if they will actually make it so the ghosting in the response time is not noticable at all?

but the monitors are still 60hz, will that matter?
 
Last edited:
It's just marketting. Take a 2 ms screen like the VX922 which is still the quickest TFT around - when you measure it's response time over all colours, it actually averages 8 ms, and it never gets below 5 ms on any colour, and it's up to 10 ms on some colours. Have a look at the graph below. So always take the manufacturers response time figure with a large pinch of salt.

A 1 ms screen may be slightly better than a 2 ms screen (probably not enough for anyone to see a difference in actual use though) but it's not going to be anything like as fast as a CRT. It will probably average 6-7 ms.

Also this improvement is only achieved through more agressive overdrive, which could well cause poor movie playback.

latency_vx922.jpg
 
Yet to be seen whether those sort of techniques work, they are not the same thing as someone making a proper 100Hz or 120Hz LCD. The technique which inserts black frames between images is supposed to noticeably flicker. The other technique by samsung is interpolating the extra frames. Interpolating is a nice technique when things are moving in predictable manners, but in a first person shooter where the view is twiching and jumping about the interpolated frame will often be very different from what it should be. Neither of them are the same as a CRT running at 100/120 Hz showing 100/120 unique frames.

These techniques aim to trick the eye into thinking it's watching smooth movement, but the actual crystals aren't responding any quicker so I doubt it will entirely fix the problem, and it won't give the same results as a 100/120 Hz CRT.

Also as far as the game is concerned the screen is still running 60 Hz, so you will still get problems with v-sync framerate drops and tearing without v-sync. And it doesn't address the input lag problems with LCDs.
 
Perfect_Chaos said:
BFI seems the most promising then i suppose, how long until they get these released? and how long (approx) until we get reviews? wonder if they will actually make it so the ghosting in the response time is not noticable at all?

but the monitors are still 60hz, will that matter?
Click to expand...

BFI is actually being used in the BenQ FP241WZ already, so there are some reviews about that around. It does look a promising way of reducing perceived motion blur. 100Hz also looks good
 
I dunno - I see motion blur in real life... I don't really see the point in striving to remove it from TFT screens.
 
fish99 said:
Yet to be seen whether those sort of techniques work, they are not the same thing as someone making a proper 100Hz or 120Hz LCD.
Click to expand...
So chances are that all these new technologies arent really going to help LCD's with lag time? :(
 
Perfect_Chaos said:
So chances are that all these new technologies arent really going to help LCD's with lag time? :(
Click to expand...
The samsung technique may well introduce more lag since it's involves processing two images to form a third intermediate image. Anything that involves any sort of processing by the screen is always going to introduce lag. It may well reduce the appearance of ghosting though. The other 'black frames' solution shouldn't introduce extra lag though.

Can I ask what the quickest LCD you've seen running is? It's just the implication of your first post is that you think all LCDs still ghost badly, whereas on anything that's 8 ms GTG or less the ghosting isn't noticeable during normal gaming. My Dell 2007WFP does a fine job in fast gaming, and there's screens out there comfortably quick than my Dell. There is a little bit of motion-blur-type effect on fast moving objects but that's all, and if you don't look for it you don't see it. The lag is minimal too, not enough to notice, even during UT2004 matches.

I notice from your other thread you are thinking of ordering the 2407. I can't remember anyone here ever saying it ghosted noticeably, and I can remember from tests some website did that it didn't have bad lag. Unless you're very sensitive to blur/lag I think you'll be happy with it.
 
fish99 said:
The samsung technique may well introduce more lag since it's involves processing two images to form a third intermediate image. Anything that involves any sort of processing by the screen is always going to introduce lag. It may well reduce the appearance of ghosting though. The other 'black frames' solution shouldn't introduce extra lag though.

Can I ask what the quickest LCD you've seen running is? It's just the implication of your first post is that you think all LCDs still ghost badly, whereas on anything that's 8 ms GTG or less the ghosting isn't noticeable during normal gaming. My Dell 2007WFP does a fine job in fast gaming, and there's screens out there comfortably quick than my Dell. There is a little bit of motion-blur-type effect on fast moving objects but that's all, and if you don't look for it you don't see it. The lag is minimal too, not enough to notice, even during UT2004 matches.

I notice from your other thread you are thinking of ordering the 2407. I can't remember anyone here ever saying it ghosted noticeably, and I can remember from tests some website did that it didn't have bad lag. Unless you're very sensitive to blur/lag I think you'll be happy with it.
Click to expand...

My father has a Gericom monitor, i think its over 20ms response time.

I've had a go of COD2 on it and when moving i can see the trail and not too fussed on it, it may even make me feel a bit sickly for some reason.. im used to my 19" CRT.

Obviously there is going to be a difference from 20+ms going down to 6, but i dont know how much of a difference that is.. if its anything like the way my fathers lcd is though id rather keep my CRT for another 6 months, or however long its going to take until the ghosting/lag is non noticable.

Could call me picky, but its just me :D

i'd also like to say i dont know why they havent brought out slim crt's as this would solve the problem completely. My m8 who used to work in sony's said somebody brought in a tv once to show him and it was slim and really good picture, i think it was a new technology.. thats going back a year though so dont know much about it.

edit: i meant to ask about resolution and bigger monitors, if i cut down to 1024 x 768 does it look in any way distorted or pixellated compared to its native res?.. if SLI is solely needed for one of these so it doesnt look bad then id like to know.
 
Last edited:
The difference between 20 ms and 6 ms is enormous. I had a Digimate 16 ms TN screen and that definitely ghosted noticeably. Before that I had a Samsung SM172T 25 ms PVA screen and that ghosted really badly, leaving big trails behind areas of black when they moved. Even the 8 ms TN Samsung 913B I had would loose focus noticeably on moving objects.

In comparison my Dell 2007WFP ghosts very little, less than half the amount the 913B did, and probably ten times less than the 25 ms 172T. So LCDs have clearly sped up out of all recognition in recent years.

6800 GT isn't enough to game in 1920*1200 on a 2407WFP, not with modern games. You really need something more like 8800 GTS. For example my X1800 XT 256 mb can't run games like Fear and Oblivion in even 1680*1050 smoothly. Running 1024*768 will probably look a little blurry and pixelated on a screen that big. I often run my 2007WP in 1280*800 and that looks fine, just a little softer than native res, but of course the 2007WFP is quite a lot smaller.
 
how is 1024 x 768 pixelated on a 24" lcd? is it because the native res is so much more?, i dont see any degrade at that res on my 19" crt ( obviously it would degrade quality in games, but desktop etc are fine ).. even tho the native res is 1600 x 1200.

are all lcds the same? or if i dropped down to 22" would i not get that problem?
 
Last edited:
CRTs don't have a native res, they're basically the same sharpness in any res. LCD actually has a set amount of physical pixels though, so to display any lower resolution, it has to upscale the image. Upscaling will usually make the image look a little soft/blurry, although the closer to the native resolution, the less blurry it will look. The pixelation happens because 1024*768 is a low res for a 24" screen, and partly because of the upscaling.

I couldn't say anything definite about 1024*768 on a 24" screen though since I haven't used one. Maybe someone else will post their experiences, or you could ask in one of the many 2407 threads, or even start a new thread.

If you can afford a 2407 then I'd get one rather than a 22". The 22"ers are all TN+Film panels with limited viewing angles, whereas the 24"ers like the 2407 are quality PVA panels.
 
LCD's when run outside of native resolution can look soft because you are not driving the pixels 1:1 and the display is trying to light part pixels
 
can't beat a tube, everyone should go back to tube mastering, its the only way to get fast speeds on the cheapo.

by far tube is best when it comes response times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom