New monitors coming.

[digitalwanderer]

Yup. I had to order some new parts in my continuing attempt to fix the kids PCs; and after getting the power supplies and new case ordered my wife asked me in a quiet little voice, "do they have those flat monitors there too?".

I was at Newegg.com... :lol:

We ended up picking out the BenQ FP93GX Black 19" 2ms LCD (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824014111) for her. Much more than she was originally looking for, but then again I don't know much about LCDs 'cept low response time is bad and go for a higher contrast. :oops:

Did I screw up?

Oh, and in a fit of jealousy about an hour later I ordered a refurbed 19" Dell M922 for $119 shipped. Guaranteed no scratches or blemishs on the screen and a good picture, but I'm a tad nervous.

I heard it wasn't a bad CRT, and the price was right....did I screw up there too? :roll:

[Skrying]

Looks good, but its so hard to tell from specifications. I trust you did some good amount of research?

[digitalwanderer]

Yeah, it was one of them fun 2 hour "comparative shopping with your wife directing over your shoulder whilst you try and figure out what the what is" kind of groggy/pleasant evenings. :)

[ANova]

Much more than she was originally looking for, but then again I don't know much about LCDs 'cept low response time is bad and go for a higher contrast.

You're half right, except the lower the response time the better.

[digitalwanderer]

Doh! That's what I meant. :oops:

See? I suck at monitors! :???:

[Moloch]

6 bit lcd= weak sauce...
I wouldn't be jealous given reviews saw it has uneven backlight lighting as well as backlight bleeding.

[digitalwanderer]

Where do you go for monitor reviews? Google is all but useless for them thanks to all the shopping places. :???:

[_xxx_]

http://www.anandtech.com/displays/ for example. Not much, but at least something.

[pascal]

2ms ? This is fast! Hard to believe.

I am waiting for your review ;)

[digitalwanderer]

2ms ? This is fast! Hard to believe.
That's misleading, it's really 2ms grey-to-grey response time...color is around 6ms.

It's a PR-thing, but it is supposed to be an amazingly quick refreshing monitor. :)

[london-boy]

2ms LCD screen?! I'll believe it when i see it, under what conditions did they get a figure like that? Probably the same way Samsung get their contrast ratio figures...

[digitalwanderer]

To reach the low response times the BenQ FP93GX uses something called Advanced Motion Accelerator, which is designed to speed up the crystals twisting by increasing the voltage. However, let’s clear this up straight away. The quoted 2ms time is something of a misnomer. BenQ is stating the grey-to-grey time, as opposed to the full pixel on/off time. However, it’s not clearly defined from what and to what stage of grey this actually is. The manual tacitly admits this, giving the actual response time for on/off as 6ms.
http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=2617

I said I knew that bit was PR, but my wife picked it out and the PR worked on her. :oops:

[Moloch]

Where do you go for monitor reviews? Google is all but useless for them thanks to all the shopping places. :???:
actually just people from newegg :smile:

[Nite_Hawk]

http://www.trustedreviews.com/article.aspx?art=2617

I said I knew that bit was PR, but my wife picked it out and the PR worked on her. :oops:

I wouldn't worry about it. Look at it this way. If the maximum pixel response time is *really* 6ms going from one shade to another, that means that you can have:

1000ms per second /6ms per transition = 166.67 transitions per second.

Now, usually their tolerances are sloppy, so they count a 'transition' as getting within like 80% or 90% of the actual requested value. Still, a display with a *real* 6ms maximum transition time should be quite crisp in motion. Anything faster than that is icing on the cake.

The reason why this is all so confusing is that manufacturers like to play with thier numbers and never tell you about the worst-case response times. It's kind of like a videocard manufacturer only giving you the maximum framerates for a game, but never telling you how bad the minimum framerates are. Displays that are advertised as having "8ms response times!" might actually have a worst-case response time of 25ms or more in certain situations.

Anything with a worst-case response time of 16ms or better (and not cheating on their tolerances) should look pretty decent.

Nite_Hawk

[kyleb]

I wouldn't worry about it. Look at it this way. If the maximum pixel response time is *really* 6ms going from one shade to another, that means that you can have:

1000ms per second /6ms per transition = 166.67 transitions per second.

Not exactly. The "transitions per second" comes down to the refresh rate, while the maxium pixel response time is a mesure of how long after each refresh it can take for that change to be acomplished.

[karlotta]

Anything with a worst-case response time of 16ms or better (and not cheating on their tolerances) should look pretty decent.

Nite_Hawk And you have 15 days to return? just not a good deadpixel return: 7 dead?

[Nite_Hawk]

Not exactly. The "transitions per second" comes down to the refresh rate, while the maxium pixel response time is a mesure of how long after each refresh it can take for that change to be acomplished.

The refresh rate is pretty much meaningless if the pixel response time is too slow. You can tell the LCD to update at 30Hz, or 60Hz, or 200Hz, but you are still limited by how quickly the elements can make transitions.

Say for instance that you want to go from 20% grey to 70% grey and back at a refresh of 100Hz. A pixel response time greater than 10ms for each transition would mean you would never actually reach the desired grey levels before making the next transition. Thus you end up settling for an aproximation of the grey level. You might only reach a grey level of 60% before you need to transition back to 20% again.

The point that I was making earlier is that a pixel response time of 16ms actually lets you complete a transition within 1/60th of a second, so you can complete transitions in time for the next frame at 60fps. Of course you might say that 16ms isn't good enough because you want to spend the majority of your time at the desired gray level rather than only reaching it immediately before you need to make your next transition.

Nite_Hawk

[kyleb]

The refresh rate is pretty much meaningless if the pixel response time is too slow.
Regardless of how slow the response time is, the refresh rate is still what dictates the "transitions per second." Slow response time just means the pixel many never complete the transition before being instructed to transtion to something else on the next refresh.

[Nite_Hawk]

Regardless of how slow the response time is, the refresh rate is still what dictates the "transitions per second." Slow response time just means the pixel many never complete the transition before being instructed to transtion to something else on the next refresh.

re-read what I said:


I wouldn't worry about it. Look at it this way. If the maximum pixel response time is *really* 6ms going from one shade to another, that means that you can have:

1000ms per second /6ms per transition = 166.67 transitions per second.


You *can* have more than 166.67 transitions per second (you can have any number you want), but with a 6ms response time you can not have more than 166.67 transitions per second where they all complete. I figured that distinction would be apparent given the context.

Nite_Hawk

[kyleb]

You *can* have more than 166.67 transitions per second..
You are doing your math right, but you have the meanings of the numbers confused. The monitors max refresh is 76hz. While I have seen many LCDs that support a bit higher, I have never seen one that goes anywhere close to 166.67 hz. But again that isn't the issue as refresh rate is the "transitions per second", while response time is how long the ghosting can last after each refresh.

[london-boy]

To reach the low response times the BenQ FP93GX uses something called Advanced Motion Accelerator, which is designed to speed up the crystals twisting by increasing the voltage. However, let’s clear this up straight away. The quoted 2ms time is something of a misnomer. BenQ is stating the grey-to-grey time, as opposed to the full pixel on/off time. However, it’s not clearly defined from what and to what stage of grey this actually is. The manual tacitly admits this, giving the actual response time for on/off as 6ms.

Well i know for a fact that a lot of other LCD panels from other companies also quote their numbers as "grey-to-grey". Sony quotes 8ms on their new TVs, same for Samsung, and they're both grey-to-grey. So a 2ms grey-to-grey still sounds quite good... Difference is that the Benq is a PC monitor while the others i mentioned are TVs, therefore bigger and we all know that on bigger screens things look different.

[Nite_Hawk]

You are doing your math right, but you have the meanings of the numbers confused. The monitors max refresh is 76hz. While I have seen many LCDs that support a bit higher, I have never seen one that goes anywhere close to 166.67 hz. But again that isn't the issue as refresh rate is the "transitions per second", while response time is how long the ghosting can last after each refresh.

I'm arguing that the refresh rate is only meaningful when you are talking about transitions that complete. Because the supposed "real" pixel response time of the monitor listed above is 6ms, that means that the manufacturer could if it wanted, refresh the screen up to 166.67 times per second before any given transition must fail to complete. The fact that they chose 76Hz is inconsequential. They could have just as easily chosen 75Hz, or 78Hz.

Lets look at another example. In the past, 50ms response time LCDs were quite common and ran at 60Hz.

If you do the math:

1000ms per second /50ms per complete transition = 20 complete transitions per second.

Thus while the screen "updated" at 60Hz, it was only capable of 20 complete transitions per second with that pixel response time. Thus, there is ghosting on subsequent frames. They could have just as easily specified a refresh rate of 66Hz, and it would not have changed the fact that it still is only capable of 20 complete transitions per second.

Nite_Hawk

[Nite_Hawk]

Well i know for a fact that a lot of other LCD panels from other companies also quote their numbers as "grey-to-grey". Sony quotes 8ms on their new TVs, same for Samsung, and they're both grey-to-grey. So a 2ms grey-to-grey still sounds quite good... Difference is that the Benq is a PC monitor while the others i mentioned are TVs, therefore bigger and we all know that on bigger screens things look different.

The grey-to-grey thing came about becuase originally LCD manufacturers listed black-to-white-to-black response times. The reasoning for this was because those situations are easy to speed up. You can min or max the voltage to the cell depending on if you want black or white. Grey-to-grey is harder because you need to stabilize on intermediate voltage levels and must supply less power to get them (unless you use feed-forward technology).

Here's a reasonable explanation:

http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/shownews_faq402.html

Nite_Hawk

[digitalwanderer]

Either way, both monitors are on the trucks out for delivery. :)

EDITED BITS: Oh yeah, the BenQ has VGA & DVI inputs...does it matter which I use? Will there be a difference?

[london-boy]

Either way, both monitors are on the trucks out for delivery. :)

EDITED BITS: Oh yeah, the BenQ has VGA & DVI inputs...does it matter which I use? Will there be a difference?


DVI should always give you the best quality as it carries the digital signal straight to the monitor without converting into Analog.

[Nite_Hawk]

Either way, both monitors are on the trucks out for delivery. :)

EDITED BITS: Oh yeah, the BenQ has VGA & DVI inputs...does it matter which I use? Will there be a difference?

Like London-Boy said, definitely DVI. :)

Nite_Hawk

[digitalwanderer]

For the record, Geo laughed at me and told me the same thing. :oops:

Ok, DVI is gooder than VGA.....got it. :)

[digitalwanderer]

Next question: she currently has a Tuly 1.4 @ 1.68 w/512Mb ram running a 9600 pro. Should I just leave the 9600 pro for now or do you think I should pop either the X800TT or 6800GT in her rig?

I'll be upgrading her mobo/cpu/ram pretty soon, I may just put it off until then...it's sort of a bitch to pull Blue out of her cabinet to work on her.

[Nite_Hawk]

Next question: she currently has a Tuly 1.4 @ 1.68 w/512Mb ram running a 9600 pro. Should I just leave the 9600 pro for now or do you think I should pop either the X800TT or 6800GT in her rig?

I'll be upgrading her mobo/cpu/ram pretty soon, I may just put it off until then...it's sort of a bitch to pull Blue out of her cabinet to work on her.

I suppose it probably depends how many 3D games she plays. Having native resolution is nice. Having AA and Aniso ontop of that is nicer yet. It's all really up to you though. :)

Nite_Hawk

[kyleb]

I'm arguing that the refresh rate is only meaningful when you are talking about transitions that complete.
Yet, as as already been shown, that will never relevant to a discussion of a monitor with a 6ms max respose time and a 76hz max refresh rate. So could you please hold off the arguing and try to understand what I'm staying?

Because the supposed "real" pixel response time of the monitor listed above is 6ms, that means that the manufacturer could if it wanted, refresh the screen up to 166.67 times per second before any given transition must fail to complete. The fact that they chose 76Hz is inconsequential. They could have just as easily chosen 75Hz, or 78Hz.

Lets look at another example. In the past, 50ms response time LCDs were quite common and ran at 60Hz.

If you do the math:

1000ms per second /50ms per complete transition = 20 complete transitions per second.

Thus while the screen "updated" at 60Hz, it was only capable of 20 complete transitions per second with that pixel response time. Thus, there is ghosting on subsequent frames. They could have just as easily specified a refresh rate of 66Hz, and it would not have changed the fact that it still is only capable of 20 complete transitions per second.
Again, while your math is right you are still misunderstanding what the numbers mean; your hypothetical example display can complete many more transitions per second than 20. This is because under normal use most transitions called for by the refresh are not nearly as large as the full on/off which the maxim response time is measured as. We aren't alternating white and black at 60s screens all the time, and even the pixels would transition again on each refresh regardless of if they had completed the previously requested transition or not. So your example is not as you claim "capable of 20 complete transitions per second", but rather it pixels will transition at various rates depending on how much are asked of each of them, and it doing so it can wind up displaying up to 50ms worth of ghosting.

[Nite_Hawk]

Yet, as as already been shown, that will never relevant to a discussion of a monitor with a 6ms max respose time and a 76hz max refresh rate. So could you please hold off the arguing and try to understand what I'm staying?

Again, while your math is right you are still misunderstanding what the numbers mean;

Please refrain from telling me to stop arguing when you keep telling me I don't "understand what the numbers mean".


your hypothetical example display can complete many more transitions per second than 20. This is because under normal use most transitions called for by the refresh are not nearly as large as the full on/off which the maxim response time is measured as. We aren't alternating white and black at 60s screens all the time, and even the pixels would transition again on each refresh regardless of if they had completed the previously requested transition or not.

Full on/off generally does not correspond with the maximum response time. Full on/off is usually the most favorable scenario for response time on older displays because it allows you to min/max the voltage rather than trying to stabalize on intermediate levels. The only time the min/max reflects a non-ideal scenario is when the display uses feed-forward or overdrive technology. This is all secondary to the point though. I specified a display that has a 50ms response time, nothing more and nothing less. It will not "usually" be faster unless you assume the 50ms response time is actually the worst case response time, which I never stated.


So your example is not as you claim "capable of 20 complete transitions per second", but rather it pixels will transition at various rates depending on how much are asked of each of them, and it doing so it can wind up displaying up to 50ms worth of ghosting.
As I stated earlier, a display with a 50ms response time can only complete 20 transitions per second. As you said it can start as many transitions as you ask of it, but it will only complete a maximum of 20. No amount of hand waving and juggling you do will change this.

Nite_Hawk

[digitalwanderer]

Well the M992 came and I got it installed and tweaked in and I'm just happy as a clam over it. The screen is perfect, no glitches/scratches/blemishes. :)

[kyleb]

Please refrain from telling me to stop arguing when you keep telling me I don't "understand what the numbers mean".
I asked you, hence the "please"; to stop arguing with me becuase what you expictly stated as your argument is irrelevent to the topic at hand. I'm trying to explain to you that you are arguing that irrelvent issue becuase you are missunderstanding what the numbers you are using mean.

Full on/off generally does not correspond with the maximum response time.
On/off is what we are talking about being 6ms on Diggy's new monitor, the figure shown in his post here (http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showpost.php?p=769069&postcount=12).

As I stated earlier, a display with a 50ms response time can only complete 20 transitions per second. As you said it can start as many transitions as you ask of it, but it will only complete a maximum of 20. No amount of hand waving and juggling you do will change this.
And again, it can complete many more, possibly up to it's refresh rate, as the transitions asked of the pixels will not necessary take anywhere near the maximum response time to complete.

[Nite_Hawk]

Well the M992 came and I got it installed and tweaked in and I'm just happy as a clam over it. The screen is perfect, no glitches/scratches/blemishes. :)

Excellent Digi. :) Sounds like a nice monitor, you'll have to let us know how it works under more strenuous conditions. :twisted:

Nite_Hawk

[digitalwanderer]

It's freaking sweeet, but the FP93GX stole the show. It's just incredibly bright, crisp, and the colours are so vivid!

My wife was up until 3am playing NFSU just freaking out at how good it looked/ran, and I can't blame her as it surprised me too!

Oh, I swapped out her 9600 pro for the 6800GT. The 9600 didn't have a DVI output, plus I thought she'd need a bit more power to push the pixels onto this behemoth. :)

[Nite_Hawk]

It's freaking sweeet, but the FP93GX stole the show. It's just incredibly bright, crisp, and the colours are so vivid!

My wife was up until 3am playing NFSU just freaking out at how good it looked/ran, and I can't blame her as it surprised me too!

Oh, I swapped out her 9600 pro for the 6800GT. The 9600 didn't have a DVI output, plus I thought she'd need a bit more power to push the pixels onto this behemoth. :)

That's how I felt when I got my first LCD too, even though it's pretty dated by today's standards. :) Still very nice looking, but a slow response time. I'm waiting for those monster 24" or 30" screens to get cheap. ;)

Nite_Hawk

[pakotlar]

I wish I could join you all in LCD land, but I just can't stand the slow transition times. More than than the ms rating, the constant-on backlight kills any hope of CRT like response times. Phillips should be releasing a TV this july that addresses that by scanning the backlight. And a few manufacturers are starting production on strobing backlights that introduce a black frame in between light ones. I was skeptical till I saw a demonstration. Looks just as good as teh CRT im on right now. But I'm not complaining too hard, 24" is good enough for now (though I saw an Apple 30" that blew me away, minus the slow response time...most noticeable when scrolling or moving mouse).

[Skrying]

The only thing that keeps me from using a LCD on my gaming rig is the native resolution issues. I've had my eye on a 20.1" widescreen but its native resolution is something that I just cant see myself keeping up with hardware wise.

[kyleb]

All you need is a display with a good scaler resolve that issue. ;)

[Skrying]

All you need is a display with a good scaler resolve that issue. ;)

And at what cost? No way could I ever spend over $350 on a monitor.

[Moloch]

I cant stand the damn backlight either.
greyish blacks annoy the piss out of me.
To show I'm not just antilcd.. I shall now state that shitty dlp (tvs/pj obviously) with their slow color wheel bug the shit out of me also :grin:
If you spend 500 on a graphics card tho you should spend close to that on a display.
350-400 for a monitor isn't that bad really.
I think 500+ tho is dumb unless you can easily afford it.

[Sobek]

$240 AU buys me two 22" G520 Trinitrons, with no native resolution crap and infinitely better response times. *edit*, plus default colour and colour controls far superior to anything i've seen from any LCD.

I still say LCD can be shoved up technology's collective ass.

But still good to see you're enjoying it Digi! :)

[EasyRaider]

It's freaking sweeet, but the FP93GX stole the show. It's just incredibly bright, crisp, and the colours are so vivid!
Vidid colours? From a 6-bit TN-panel?

Well, I guess not being picky is a good thing. :wink:

[Skrying]

Vidid colours? From a 6-bit TN-panel?

Well, I guess not being picky is a good thing. :wink:

Specs certainly dont mean everything.

[EasyRaider]

Specs certainly dont mean everything.
No, many MVA, PVA and S-IPS monitors are quite poor, too. But TN+film does give the worst image quality in general. The upside is low cost.

[digitalwanderer]

BTW - Some mad props for Accurate IT (https://www.accurateit.com/index.asp) for the most excellent refurbed monitor! I did a little homework trying to find a good used monitor dealer and from that these guys were about the best I found, and they delivered big time on what I was hoping for. :cool:

When they say "refurbed A has no scratches, blemishes, or imperfections on the screen" they mean it, and I am going to be keeping an eye on that site for my ultimate dream CRT since my kids are already bugging me for my monitor. :lol:

What are some of the very best CRTs from about a year or two ago?

[satein]

What are some of the very best CRTs from about a year or two ago?
Sony FW900 24" Widescreen CRT
http://www.sony-cp.com/en/products/crt/f_professional/fw900/index.html

[ANova]

Ouch, that must weigh 50 lbs.

[Nite_Hawk]

Ouch, that must weigh 50 lbs.

According to the datasheet it weighs 42kg (93lbs).

btw, digi, how does the black level on your CRT and new LCD compare if you look at them side by side?

Nite_Hawk

[kyleb]

Yeah, 93lbs is right for the 24", but my 21" is 70lbs and worth every bit it takes to lug it around so I'm sure the same holds true for the widescreen. ;)

[digitalwanderer]

btw, digi, how does the black level on your CRT and new LCD compare if you look at them side by side?
My CRT is better, duh! ;)

But it's close, damned close. I can tell her backlight is a bit uneven, it tends to favor the top/bottom a bit...but it's not distracting and it still has a beautiful picture. :)

[Nite_Hawk]

My CRT is better, duh! ;)

But it's close, damned close. I can tell her backlight is a bit uneven, it tends to favor the top/bottom a bit...but it's not distracting and it still has a beautiful picture. :)

Interesting. I'm using a 20" Dell 2000fp LCD and a 21" Dell P1130 CRT here at work, and I find the blacks on the LCD actually appear slightly darker than those on the CRT. This is at 100% contrast and 50% brightness on the CRT, and 100% brightness on the LCD (contrast is apparently locked due to the use of DVI).

Nite_Hawk