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.
New monitors coming.
- Thread starter digitalwanderer
- Start date
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.
kyleb said:
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
london-boy said:
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
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?
EDITED BITS: Oh yeah, the BenQ has VGA & DVI inputs...does it matter which I use? Will there be a difference?
digitalwanderer said: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.
For the record, Geo laughed at me and told me the same thing.
Ok, DVI is gooder than VGA.....got it.
Ok, DVI is gooder than VGA.....got it.
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'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.
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?Nite_Hawk said:
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 said:
Please refrain from telling me to stop arguing when you keep telling me I don't "understand what the numbers mean".kyleb said:
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.
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
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.
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.Nite_Hawk said:
On/off is what we are talking about being 6ms on Diggy's new monitor, the figure shown in his post here.Nite_Hawk said:
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 said:
digitalwanderer said: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. 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.
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.
digitalwanderer said: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
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).
Similar threads
