 | Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years. Thanks, CNET Support |
Have a choice of getting (not purchasing) a 20" LCD monitor with 16ms response time, and a 19" with 8ms response time. The 20" has a wider viewing angle, and is supposedly better as it uses WVA panel technology, while the 19" uses TN.
Anyone have any thoughts/experience with a 16ms response screen to help guide the decision?
Discussion is locked
Since it's usually 60 FPS let's try 1/60th of a second or 16 milliseconds.
Bob
Thanks.
Also looking for responses from anyone with anecdotal evidence/experience to say whether there was a lot of smearing with image movement.
I have one that's 5ms and it's fine - feels like playing on a CRT.
If you're sensitive to response time you might enjoy the 8ms more. Perhaps you won't notice either way though.
Generally I'd prefer to get a panel with better view angles and color accuracy. Rather than response time.
In my experience, a 8 ms display is great for gaming. However, when I have anything with text on it, and drag, it gets a bit smeared. I don't have that problem with the 5 ms response screen. For gaming, 16ms is probably going to be a bit noticeable.
16 ms might be noticeable? I have trouble finding where the mouse went on a 20ms LCD display! Everything is like fading and shading around like motion blur is permanently turned on at that rate!
Wouldn't this thred be better in the Home and Audio forum HERE
Just a thought is all.
Dirty Pirate
the no shirt (because I look bad in blue)but niffty socks nation
This is the primary forum I use. The BOL podcast was one of my first podcasts, and is my primary one, hence my posting the question here.
Thanks for the link.
Nicholas: I would've preferred color and view angle more as well (the 20"), but the smearing would also drive me crazy.
Faeliox: Since it's not a purchase, my choices are limited to the two screens mentioned, so I'll have to settle with the 8ms selection.
Thanks again to all who replied.
My son wanted a LCD HDTV or monitor in his bedroom for Computer games and Xbox 360 (then Playstation3 later)We were looking at response times at the same numbers you were. We came across a 32" Niko brand monitor at 20ms response times and immediately discounted it....until we started reading reviews on it. One person said the response times were erroneously reported on the sellers website. Another person said it was really 11ms. But then we started reading reviews of people that already bought it and played these games already and had no problems what so ever. So we bought it and they were right...NO GHOSTING AT ALL WITH ANY VIDEO GAME! No mouse arrow dragging , nothing! My neighbor, an Electrical Engineer, saw this and wanted one for his son...so he did his research and even though he SAW my son's monitor in action, didn't buy it because of the "20 or 11ms response times"....so he bought a View Sonic 32" monitor with 8ms response times....it ghosts like crazy!
This made me really change my views on the WHOLE response time thing. I don't know what to believe anymore and I basically go by user reviews or asking someone who owns it before we buy. Now, I'm involved in helping my older brother purchase a LCD HDTV for his house, just for HDTV viewing and have narrowed it down to a Sony 40" TV with 6-8ms response times with 10bit processing...and this will be for movies and his son using Xbox 360 occasionally....and I STILL have to wait until we talk to someone or read somewhere as to it's performance. Is this one of those "different companies rate things differently?"....I have no idea. We all get caught up in the numbers.
So I guess what I'm trying to say is find someone with this model you are choosing and go from there....the numbers can sometime be very deceiving from our perspective!
Must remember, that the figure for response time, is the best case scenario responsive time. Not the average response time of the LCD. Making it a some what misleading figure.
A tricorder and technical staff to pick out such displays.
My initial thoughts were to use math but if they fib on the numbers...
Bob
That's what responsive time is a measurement of. Doesn't actually tell you what the average response time for the screen is between a range of colors! Because LCD's are rated for grey to grey, LCD makers concentrate on getting the grey to grey response time down, and ignore the average response time. Meaning it's quite possible to have a LCD with a lower response time, actually have a worse average response time.
The response time. spec represents the amount of time it takes for one pixel to go from active (black) to inactive (white) and back to black again. Think of it in relation to shutter speed on a camera. It's the speed at which an LCD panels crystals twist" to block and allow light to pass. It is measured in milliseconds (ms) with a lower number meaning faster change between active and inactive pixels and resulting in less image artifacts. The lower the response time the better.Gray to Gray is a different measurement used to disguise true response times since their is no set standard for gray to gray times Manufactures can really put up number they want. I just went to school for this. It's pretty fresh in my memory.
Chowhound
Comic Vine
GameFAQs
GameSpot
Giant Bomb
TechRepublic