Response time is a LCD thing. It’s how long it takes for the pixel to change. So frame by frame, you have an additional 5 ms of time required for the image to update, because that’s how long it takes the pixel to change color. It’s one reason you take measurements at the bottom of the screen because the top still has pixel response time to deal with.
If you want to use the bottom bar then go ahead, but you’ll need to subtract 15.4ms from the result to get the comparison to a CRT. Which measures 15.4ms on the bottom bar as I myself have tested.
"Ok I took the opportunity and connected the HDFury to the old CRT computer monitor and it accepted the signal fine (used the 720p model of the tester).
Results were
Top .08
Middle 7.8
Bottom 15.4"
Otherwise you’re neglecting the account for the time it takes the monitor to draw the frame line by line which is the same on both CRT and LCD.
Weird question, but does anyone find when they play on a big TV that their AA suffers? For some reason, when I play on my 60 inch at home my reactions to my AA are terrible, it feels like the opponent isn’t in the air as long as they seem. However, when I play on a monitor I rarely miss AA’s and feel like I have ages to hit it… :S
Those bigger nicer picture HDTVs come at a price, increased input lag.
The Nicer Bigger TVs have tons of post image processing to make the picture as pretty as it can.
The trade off is that extra post processing takes time, which results in input lag.
Its why so many of us recommend the smaller cheaper HD TVs and PC monitors over a Nice Big screen.
The sad thing is the post processing doesn’t always mean a better image, so I don’t know why it’s there. For example on my TV, there is some kind of post in normal mode (not PC monitor mode) that has bad sub pixel rendering so that orange text on a blue background looks smeared and messy. But in PC mode, that actually has less processing, it looks much better and is clear and perfect. Chalk one up for all that awesome post, yo.
You are right. Its partially marketing BS, all to get people to buy more TVs. Some claims are legit some are crud, both are there to sell the TV, and it was more of a marketing decision than a engineering one.
Like what ever brand a few years ago decided it be a bright idea to add a 4th color to the TV screen Matrix (Yellow) which did horrid compared to normal RGB TVs.
The TV industry had a huge boom in sales due to the federally mandated phasing out of analog TVs, there were some real reason this happened, consolidate the whole Tv radio spectrum and re-allocate bandwidth the new and emerging technologies. The whole Radio airspace was almost taken up. But I do think lobbyist from electronics and Tv manufacturing pushed the issue too.
It is why 3D is a thing again with TVs and Movies and 4k resolution TVs are out, that Industry wants the sales it had around 2009.
Yeah that was the Sharp Quattron TV. I laughed when I saw that shit. The funniest thing is that no TV content is ever mastered for a 4th color so basically all you’re getting is slightly over saturated yellows. I mean really… plus humans have no yellow receptors in our eyes so what was the fucking point? We have RGB, and TV emits RGB. R+G=Y, that’s how we see and that’s what the TV shows and how it renders light. It was the most lame ass marketing scheme I’ve ever seen for a TV in my entire life.
I like 3D, I think it’s really good when done right and gaming in 3D is really awesome, I can’t say enough great things about it. Shadow of the Colossus with lots of depth? Hell fucking yes. I also like motion smoothing/interpolation and think it’s a technology that can be beneficial in the future once it gets better. I use it for turn based RPG games that run at 30 fps or other games that do not require any sort of intense reaction times. It’s a god send when you’ve gone from 60 fps PC gaming to 30 fps console games you like but can’t stand to look at anymore. It may not give you the input response of 60 fps but at least you won’t want to tear your eyes out from the juddery and chop chop choppity of 30 fps.
4k, I really don’t care about. Blu-Ray at the moment looks almost as good as studio masters (I’ve seen a zoomed in image of what the BD output vs studio master looks like and it’s really not that different) and no GPU on earth is going to maintain a 4k resolution at a stable frame rate for about 5 years. None of the consoles will. I’ll care when it becomes a reality instead of a lame marketing fantasy.
Anyway, a bit off topic there. Once I’m more familiar with Linux I’m going to root into my TV and see what stuff I can turn on and off. Can you imagine if we could get our TV’s to turn off nearly every bell and whistle that ends up hurting the picture more than helping and possibly end up with 50 inch 1 frame lag displays? Or even be able to turn on stuff like motion interpolation and keep it at 2 to 3? That would be pretty intense.
Well I plan to take it to a local game room, friends’ and local events. Speakers don’t have to be great, just clearly audible. I just don’t want to have to pack speakers if I don’t feel like it.
I basically want the best picture quality with least motion blur and latency I can get for $200 or less. Internal speakers are just a convenience factor.
Most of the ASUS EVO monitor equivalents have built in speakers and my friends use them for game nights and to take to other friend’s houses for such. They’re fine if that’s what you’re looking for and usually the price is about $200 (give or take) from what I recall.
I’m strongly considering the VH238H or the VN247H-p, but I read that the picture on the former is a bit washed-out and I couldn’t find a latency test for the latter. I’d love to spring for the VG248QE but I just don’t think I can justify the extra $70-80.
Well, the picture on LCD will never be amazing to begin with especially on IPS panels. Most of the ASUS monitors I’ve seen in person look ok, nothing great but nothing bad other than black levels looking like LCD ass. If you are going to use it for serious gaming then they will mostly be fine. Every V series I’ve seen from ASUS has all been under a frame of lag, I doubt it’s any different for that one.
Ok, cool, there’s just one thing I didn’t think about until now: I’m also an aspiring illustrator and plan to do color work with a laptop hooked up to my monitor. So I guess color reproduction is actually really important for my non-gaming needs.
Gee guys, I don’t really know what to do. I need fast, low-latency and preferably built-in speakers for my gaming requirements and really good color for my art requirements and around $200 or less for my budget requirements and between 21.5-24". Is that even possible?
I haven’t been personally happy with any sub-$300 monitor’s colors (ESPECIALLY from the factory, but even after proper tools-based calibration), and don’t trust them for my photography work. Most of the monitors I’ve been happy with for this purpose have had at least a couple more frames of lag than I’d be happy with for gaming purposes. I’d personally give up on trying to get everything you want in that price range, sorry. D:
You’ll never get any of that in that price range. If color and gamma accuracy is a requirement you will need to spend a good chunk of change for a higher end monitor and they will not have built in speakers. I would buy an ASUS with speakers for gaming and taking it places and I’d save money for a higher end monitor for art. You won’t get both at the moment. Besides, you really don’t want to take your art monitor on travels and then have it get lost, stolen, or damaged. IMO, get the ASUS for gaming, and pick up an older large CRT monitor off craigslist. You can get what used to cost thousands back in the day for dirt cheap now and the colors are going to blow your mind.
