Running a TFT at 75Hz can actually adversely effect responsiveness of the panel!

Man of Honour
Joined
12 Jan 2003
Posts
20,616
Location
UK
Thought some people might find this interesting. A recent round up at X Bit labs here reviewed a lot of the new monitors using overdrive technology (Response Time Compensation - RTC). This included several popular models from Samsung and Viewsonic and is well worth a read.

One of the most intersting points to me was the findings from the Samsung 970P where Oleg Artamanov (the reviewer) tested the response time at not only 60Hz (the normal setting) but at 75Hz refresh rate. TFT documentation always lists the "optimum" and "recommended" refresh rate at 60Hz, but it is interesting to see the effect that 75Hz had on the panel's performance.


The Samsung 970P response time under normal conditions:

970p_60hz.JPG


A typical response time graph for an overdriven PVA / MVA panel, in this case, the 970P (at 60hz). Note the response time from code 0 to code 75 is very hard to measure because the transitions are very dark. THG don't really bother recording these in their tests. Tests are taken using a photosensor (photodiodе + low-noise operational amplifier) attached directly to the screen and taking an oscillogram while switching LCD pixels under the photosensor. This shows the response time of the pixels across the entire grey range from dark transitions on the left (code 0), to the lighter transitions on the right, reaching black > white at code 255.

At 60Hz, the graph behaves as expected and in a similar fashion to AU Optronics' 8ms P-MVA panel found here Response time is mostly around the 15ms - 20ms mark, as with Viewsonic's VP191B / VP930. Responsiveness of the panel has been improved greatly compared with old style PVA panels thanks to a heavy dose of overdrive from Samsung. Oleg says in his review:

The monitor is still rather slow on the darkest tones, but its speed improves quickly towards the lighter colors and doesn’t change much on them. Compared with the 193P+, the SyncMaster 970P is obviously faster.



...And at 75Hz

970p_75hz.JPG


Using the screen with a refresh rate of 75Hz has an adverse effect on the actual performance of the panel, and the responsiveness of the pixels! This graph shows the 970P at 75Hz and you can see that the responsiveness has dropped quite considerably. This graph is much more like a traditional MVA / PVA panel would show. For comparison, the Sony HS95P's MVA panel is without overdrive and shows a similar form (here.) Now i know this is a different panel, but i just wanted to show the similarity between a non RTC monitor using MVA / PVA technology and one which does use RTC in the shape of the graph. Weirdly, at 75Hz the 970P responds like a normal PVA panel without overdrive, not as slow, but certainly not as fast as with the fully functioning overdrive. Oleg says in his review:

The monitor has become considerably slower and the decrease of the response time from the darks to the lights is now less abrupt. The shape of the graph resembles a graph of an ordinary PVA matrix without response time compensation (well, an ordinary PVA is still much slower than that). Most of RTC errors have disappeared, too, because the overdrive impulse is obviously too weak, so where could the errors come from?



So what does this mean?

I spoke with Oleg as this interested me a lot. He said:

The Correct theory is that you need two different sets of overdrive impulse parameters (two different LUTs) to work with two different refresh rates. Maybe Samsung monitors use only one LUT calculated for the 60 Hz refresh rate or may be they use two LUTs, but the 75 Hz one was calculated inaccurately, there it no easy way to check this. My personal opinion is that they use only one "60 Hz" LUT, maybe with some rough on-the-fly corrections when monitor works at 75 Hz.

To translate a little, the LUT (Look Up Table) in this context is an algorithm used by the panel to decide how much voltage it needs to apply to the liquid crystals in order to rotate them the desired amount. The screen receives a request from the graphics card to change the image, and so then has to decide how much voltage is applied to the pixels to change to this image. At 60Hz, the LUT is capabale of sending a correct amount of voltage to the liquid crystals, and this is based on the application of overdrive, giving the panel an over impulse to speed things up. This is the principle behind overdrive, and is explained a bit more here if you want to read about it. So at 60Hz the LUT sends a good amount of overdrive driven voltage to the crystals and we get a nice responsive panel.

However, at 75Hz Oleg is suggesting that the LUT does not really operate correctly. The interface chip on the panel recognises the refresh rate is set outside of the optimum refresh rate and in trying to operate the pixels (this is in very basic terms) it cannot interpret the voltage properly. Instead, overdrive is adversely affected and the panel does not respond as quickly as it should.

Oleg has also told me that this was the first of the RTC monitors he tested at 75Hz and so cannot comment on the relevance to other models. It is quite likely that this is a common trait, particularly between other Samsung models I would imagine. He has told me he will certainly test this in any future RTC enabled monitor reviews.



Can anyone test this themselves?

Anyone with an overdriven TFT, can you test this yourselves? We obviously can't use the equipment they have at XBit or THG, but if you can compare some fast gaming then that would be excellent. Maybe try something like Pixperan (like BeHardware use) to test comparisons. Does running at 75Hz noticably decrease performance in real use to you on your screens?

hope some people found that interesting anyway :)
 
the 913N doesn't use overdrive though to boost response time, it's part of the last "normal" generation of ISO quoted response times.....

anyone with an RTC monitor want to test it for us, see if it makes any difference?
 
MagicSpeed is the name that Samsung use for their overdrive, yes, but sadly they have also labelled all of their "fast" monitors with Magicspeed as well. The 913N doesn't use overdrive to boost grey transitions, the 930BF and 960BF were the same as the 913N but with overdrive applied to the panel as well. Look for monitors with a G2G quoted response time, that is normally a good indication of overdrive being used :)
 
I have a vp191b and since i have it, i realized that 75Hz have different response time than 60 hz. I used to play games with 75 hz since i had realized there were fewer RTC errors (withe halos in games, but i thougth that it was slower than 60hz.(I had returned to 60 hz in spite of the RTC errors). This news confirms it to me.
 
NathanE said:
The Windows desktop isn't Vsync'd so the software and sensor they used to measure the response rate was getting colours it wasn't expecting. Simple as that really.

what do you mean? Can you elaborate on that?

they don't run the photosensor just on the Windows desktop afaik, and the application they run to switch between colours is the same when they tested it at 60Hz and 75Hz. So if the image is being switched and the photosensor picks up the transitions as being slower then that means that the image appears to be changing slower than when they tested it at 60Hz. The photosensor only measures optical reponse of the panel itself
 
The Windows desktop attempts to redraw at 60FPS (if there is anything to be redrawn that is). However the lack of Vsync can throw that out. Setting the display to 75Hz means at some point the frames will get teared. Now, if it so happens that the sensor software outputs its colour change at the wrong moment then its output will get teared and will not reach the display - so it'll have to wait till the next screen refresh before the changed colour actually reaches the display (and thus the sensor hardware.) Net result is the software and sensor hardware gets a false illusion of a higher response rate.

It's not an exact science measuring response rate.
 
no i certainly appreciate that it's not an exact science measuring response time. However, if you are saying that the Windows desktop is supposed to operate at 60Hz (ie 60fps) then setting the refresh of the TFT at higher shouldnt hurt? If it were the other way round, ie the desktop wanted to operate at 75fps and the TFT couldnt support that, then yes, i could see you may get tearing since the screen cannot sync with the higher frame rate from the graphics card. This is part of the arguement for running a TFT at 75Hz since it will allow more fps if you're using vsync than if you're running at 60Hz with vsync (ie 75fps instead of 60fps). I'm not sure that running a TFT at 75Hz will lead to more tearing than running it at 60Hz, in fact i would imagine the opposite were true....?
 
that much is uncertain. Oleg Artamanov at X-Bit only tested it with the Samsung 970P but has said he will test all future RTC enabled monitors in future to see. It might very well be the case and i'd be interested in your observations if you could try it? Oleg noticed a drop in responsiveness not only in measurements with the photosensor, but in real practice, but did notice some reduction in noise in movies due to a toned down RTC control.

Can you test it on your VX922 for us?
 
Baddass said:
that much is uncertain. Oleg Artamanov at X-Bit only tested it with the Samsung 970P but has said he will test all future RTC enabled monitors in future to see. It might very well be the case and i'd be interested in your observations if you could try it? Oleg noticed a drop in responsiveness not only in measurements with the photosensor, but in real practice, but did notice some reduction in noise in movies due to a toned down RTC control.

Can you test it on your VX922 for us?

I tried it while playing some UT2004 and some movies it might be a little better at 60Hz but to but honest it could be all in my head..

Any software tests I can run to give me hard numbers?
 
not really. You could run something like pixperan which will show a constant moving image. Maybe you can compare that at both, see if there is any more / less ghosting evident. More interested in whether you notice a real difference in real use rather than with specialist tools like XBit have used. Let us know what you think
 
The responsiveness of the panel seems worse when i run the TFT at 75Hz.

60hz more responsiveness. more RTC errors
75Hz less responsiveness. less RTC errors

I have been able to notice all the time that i have the vp191b.
 
Baddass said:
not really. You could run something like pixperan which will show a constant moving image. Maybe you can compare that at both, see if there is any more / less ghosting evident. More interested in whether you notice a real difference in real use rather than with specialist tools like XBit have used. Let us know what you think

Well I tried taking screenshots of each graphic at 10 tempo at both 60 and 75 and flicking between the images the results just look exactly the same.... this isnt working or the difference is soooo small its not really noticable.. :)
 
screen shots how? remember, screen shots wont really show you the way the panel is responding, it shows you the image moving as the graphics card outputs it. for example, you could take the same screen shots with the monitor turned off. You would have to observe the monitor to see whether it seems the pixels are responding slower at all.

Seleuco, thanks for the feedback, interesting to hear :)
 
Baddass said:
screen shots how? remember, screen shots wont really show you the way the panel is responding, it shows you the image moving as the graphics card outputs it. for example, you could take the same screen shots with the monitor turned off. You would have to observe the monitor to see whether it seems the pixels are responding slower at all.
:)

Indeed, the program is pretty useless in that case then and I wasted 10min .. joy :D
 
Last edited:
not really. Because it's a constant moving image, it should provide you something which remains the same so that you can watch the screen at both 60hz and 75hz and compare
 
Back
Top Bottom