TFT gamers beware

[SkeeterUK]

Grey to grey maybe 8ms but isnt the point of g2g being the best test as its the best test to do as in most intense colour to go from g2g. Least thats what i thought why they all test g2g instead of w2b for instance.

 

[Baddass]

When it comes to good TFT screens it's more to do with panel quality than response times. Dell 2007WFP for example is 8ms and will wipe the floor with any 2ms TN panel out there every day of the week.

"wipe the floor"? I don't think that's quite fair really mate The Dell 2007WFP is a 16ms ISO / 8ms G2G S-IPS panel, and yes, it is good in practice when it comes to pixel responsiveness. However, it is arguably a little behind that of modern 2ms G2G TN Film panels, and a little behind that of the NEC 20WGX2 in tests as well due to overdrive control. The Viewsonic VX922 (2ms) for example is still widely regarded as one of the fastest TFT screens on the market and at many places (THG, BH and X-bit) is used as a reference for response times.

Nope, not in terms of response rate it won't, which is what the OP is talking about. Visually in terms of quality the Dell wins hands down (by a country mile), but in terms of responsiveness a 2ms TN panel will be noticeably better. I've tested both those exact panels in the last 2 weeks so am making an informed opinion here.

Like Richdog says, the S-IPS panel is superior in many ways to TN Film based models, but the fastest TN Film panels still hold the edge I would say in responsiveness

According to a TFT responce time program my crt has a Black to white (not gtg) responce time of 2 ms, wich is still a lot better than 8ms grey to grey....

if you're talking about the program i think you mean, then it is only a very crude way of testing black / white transitions. A CRT doesn't have a "response time" since it's image is drawn by a cathode ray gun across the screen, and the speed of this re-drawing is determined by the refresh rate. CRT's do not operate in the same way as TFT's in this regard.

Don't forget peeps, that these "2ms" quoted response times are just thanks to overdrive technologies. The panels still really run at 16ms and there abouts, but the manufactuers don't quote this, as obviously, 2ms G2G sounds better.

I think you may be getting a little confused with the way response times are measured and reported nowadays. Saying panels are "still running at 16ms" is a bit misleading. Basically the ISO measurement for response times always used to be the black > white transition. See this as an example:

The X axis shows the transitions from code 0 (black > black) with transitions getting progressively lighter from left to right until you get to black >light grey and then finall at code 255, black > white. The graph above is a traditional panel without overdrive. Since the black > white transition was always the largest a pixel would ever need to make (maximum change in liquid crystal orientation), the highest voltage was applied to it. This resulted in it actually being the fastest transition as you can see from the graph. In practice, grey > grey transitions are FAR more common, and a full black > white change is quite rare in real use. In fact, the old way of reporting "response time" was pretty misleading and hard to compare.

However, with overdrive, they reaslised they could apply the higher voltage to all transitions, and therefore the grey > grey transitions became faster, since they now have just as high a voltage, but less rotation needed. Now you get screens like this (VX922):

As you can see, transitions across the whole range are much lower, and the more common G2G transitions are now much faster, giving a much faster panel in practice.

I think what you're referring to is that the ISO response time remains unchanged, since this was already at a brick wall in the days of 8ms (for TN Film) panels without overdrive. Yes, that is true. However, you've gone from an 8ms ISO response time with slow G2G transitions, to an 8ms ISO and faster G2G....there is obvsiou improvements there. ISO response times should probably be ignored nowadays, they are pretty irrelevant, but some manufacturers still quote them. Dell for instance chose to quote the ISO 16ms for the 2007WFP, and not bother quoting the 8ms G2G that Lg.Philips rated the S-IPS panel at. Anyway, what i'm trying to say is, ignore the fact that ISO response times haven't varied, it doens't matter. G2G improvements are more important but even those are reaching a limit now. More info about response times and measurements here in case anyone is interested

whats grey to grey if u turn around in a game towards a sun from looking against a wall, thats now grey to grey thats grey to yellow/orange

The liquid crystal stil changes to a certain orientation, and it's still a "grey" transitions. The colour comes from the filters (RGB) in front of the liquid crstals which make up the pixel

This is absolutely true, although there will inevitably be a point at which we can't tell the difference between the two response wise due to the limits of our eyes, that you cannot argue with. To be honest I think we're very nearly there.

I agree, we're reaching a point where response times are very low and they're reaching their limits. There are still some issues with RTC control, but manufacturers are now looking at technologies like BFI, scanning backlight and MPA to improve the perceived motion blur. link

Grey to grey maybe 8ms but isnt the point of g2g being the best test as its the best test to do as in most intense colour to go from g2g. Least thats what i thought why they all test g2g instead of w2b for instance.

not really quite like that. See above, hopefully the explanation will help

 

[fish99]

Just about CRT versus LCD in fast games like UT2004, I've played UT2004 instagib deathmath on a few TFTs, a 16 ms TN screen from Digitmate, an 8 ms TN screen from Samsung (913B, a little old and slow by the standards of todays quickest TN screens) and now my Dell 2007WFP. On the Dell, the quickest of the three, I can get twitch kills as good as on a CRT and beat the AI on adept pretty comfortably just like I would on a CRT.

I've also got a 25 ms screen here (Sammy 172T), and it really is a huge amount slower than my Dell, so I think it's important to draw a distinction between a modern quick screen, and something from several generations ago. Any modern quick screen (8 ms GTG/16 ms ISO or less) should be fast enough for quick FPS gaming.

 

[Torquar]

I prefer CRT to TFT's, but hardly anywhere sells them at 19"+ any more so I settle for TFT's.