OT: Do <16ms LCD's have blurring with motion?

[Lou]

I am not sure if what I am asking about is called "blurring", but when I
tried a 16ms or higher monitors in games (or on the desktop moving around an
object like an open window), with a medium/slow motion I noticed objects (or
text when moving on desktop) look a bit out of focus. I had a 20.1" 16ms
LCD (Viewsonic VP201b) and a CRT monitor both connected to the same PC in
dual monitor extended mode and when dragging a window back and forth across
both the LCD and the CRT screen I could see the slight out of focus (mainly
with small text) on the LCD but not on the CRT. From what I understand,
ghosting is a different problem of the image leaving trails and I do not see
ghosting.

I like the picture quality of the LCD (and its space savings) but the out of
focus problem bugs me enough to not want to replace my CRT.
I have not seen any of the 12ms or 8ms LCD's in the local retail stores
so I have not been able to test to see if they have the same out of focus
(blurring?) with motion.

Does anyone have experience with the 12 or 8ms monitors (19") and do they
still have the out of focus problem with motion?

Thanks,
Lou

 

[Augustus]

I am not sure if what I am asking about is called "blurring", but when I
tried a 16ms or higher monitors in games (or on the desktop moving around
an
object like an open window), with a medium/slow motion I noticed objects
(or
text when moving on desktop) look a bit out of focus. I had a 20.1"
16ms
LCD (Viewsonic VP201b) and a CRT monitor both connected to the same PC in
dual monitor extended mode and when dragging a window back and forth
across
both the LCD and the CRT screen I could see the slight out of focus
(mainly
with small text) on the LCD but not on the CRT. From what I understand,
ghosting is a different problem of the image leaving trails and I do not
see
ghosting.

Some have very noticeable blurring, others it's barely noticeable. Price and
brand don't always seem to be a factor in this. You need to see them run to
judge. I picked up an inexpensive 16ms Dell E173 17" that is excellent for
motion and brilliance. I passed on a much more expensive Samsung 16ms due to
performance.

 

[No]

I just picked up the Dell 2005FPW 20.1" wide screen LCD. It is spec'ed at 12
ms response and 16 ms grey to grey.

I've tried it with Doom3, UT2004, and Quake3 with no blurring or ghosting.

Also played a couple of DVD's in widescreen mode with excellent results.

Dave De Coons 387859

 

[Barry Watzman]

There isn't a good standard for measuring response time, so one mfgrs.
16 may actually be faster than another mfgrs. 12.

Also, larger displays are, other things being equal, slower than smaller
displays. Or, to put it differently, you can get faster 17" displays
than you can get 18 or 19 or {larger} displays (other things -- like
relative price -- being equal).

It's not a lack of focus, it's more correctly described as streaking of
fast motion. Blurring is a better description than anything dealing
with focus.

 

[Villain]

I just picked up the Dell 2005FPW 20.1" wide screen LCD. It is spec'ed at 12
ms response and 16 ms grey to grey.

I've tried it with Doom3, UT2004, and Quake3 with no blurring or ghosting.

Also played a couple of DVD's in widescreen mode with excellent results.

Dave De Coons 387859

Ditto here, same monitor. Only glitch I've ever seen was with a scene
in a DVD movie which had several fires burning and there were long
vertical streaks coming up fro the fires. That could be decoding,
though(?)

Villain


Villain

Paranoia is just another word for longevity.

 

[Andi Cole]

I've seen huge documents written on LCD displays and their effectiveness but
experience is the only real answer. I've heard many people happy with 16 or
even 20ms where I feel they are just unacceptable. There is also a huge
difference on how types of games are affected by response times. IMO
strategey games are OK on the slower panels 20/25msec, some simulation
(racing or flight) are OK on 16/20msec panels but FPS's are the ones that I
find need the fastest. My 12msec BenQ seems fine on all types but my 20msec
Neovo was not much good on FPS's. I'd love to be able to test the new 8msec
screens.

 

[Scott Littlefield]

Was the movie "Saving Private Ryan"? If so, the effect you are describing
is a part of the movie, and was the topic of much discussion when the DVD
was first released.

 

[Lou]

There isn't a good standard for measuring response time, so one mfgrs. 16
may actually be faster than another mfgrs. 12.

Also, larger displays are, other things being equal, slower than smaller
displays. Or, to put it differently, you can get faster 17" displays than
you can get 18 or 19 or {larger} displays (other things -- like relative
price -- being equal).

It's not a lack of focus, it's more correctly described as streaking of
fast motion. Blurring is a better description than anything dealing with
focus.

I was reading about the new 8ms 19" LCD's review at TomsHardware
http://graphics.tomshardware.com/display/20050215/index.html
and although they also say the response time ratings are not actual or
really comparable, they do make it sound like these new fast 19" LCD's are
good enough to replace a CRT for gaming.
"Marketed as a gamer's monitor, the L90D+ has color fidelity that matches
the best CRT monitors!" ......
"The L90D+ is very responsive; images are perfectly fluid, and immersion in
the game is very impressive."

I have a good 19" CRT so I wouldn't want to replace it with an LCD unless it
was at least as good an image quality, no burring and larger.

The blurring I saw on a few LCD's that claimed to be 16ms was at fairly
slow speeds of motion and you have to really look for it to notice it. I
only really noticed it after side by side comparison with a good CRT.

Lou

 

[Lou]

I've seen huge documents written on LCD displays and their effectiveness
but
experience is the only real answer. I've heard many people happy with 16
or
even 20ms where I feel they are just unacceptable. There is also a huge
difference on how types of games are affected by response times. IMO
strategey games are OK on the slower panels 20/25msec, some simulation
(racing or flight) are OK on 16/20msec panels but FPS's are the ones that
I
find need the fastest. My 12msec BenQ seems fine on all types but my
20msec
Neovo was not much good on FPS's. I'd love to be able to test the new
8msec
screens.

It looks like I will have to wait until my local PC stores have the new 19"
8ms LCD to see for myself (could be several months), or order one at the
risk of not liking it and paying shipping +15% restocking fee to return it.

Lou

 

[Villain]

Was the movie "Saving Private Ryan"? If so, the effect you are describing
is a part of the movie, and was the topic of much discussion when the DVD
was first released.

Well I'll be dipped. That's exactly what the movie was. It's my test
movie for surround sound, and it also happened to be the first DVD I'd
watched on this monitor. Thanks for the info!


Also, I would like to make a correction to my previous post. I stated
yesterday. I said that I hadn't experienced any anomalies with the
Dell 2001FP, but last night I was checking out Half-Life 2 and noticed
a "warping"(?) effect went turning quickly and also a very thin line
of horizontal distortion that moved from the bottom of the screen to
the top very quickly. I probably wouldn't have noticed it at all had I
not been looking closely. this is with all the graphics settings maxed
and 6x Aniso and 4x AA at 1280 X 1024(LCD) res on a 256 meg 9800 Pro.
The monitors native res is 1600x1200.

One thing I didn't consider when I bought this monitor is my machine
really doesn't have the ass to run most of the games I play with their
settings maxed at the monitors native res.

Villain

"A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend"- Willow Rosenberg

 

[No]

I believe HalfLife 2 does not use the deafault field of view at 90 like
other games.

 

[Ben Pope]

a very thin line
of horizontal distortion that moved from the bottom of the screen to
the top very quickly

Sounds like tearing... are you waiting for vertical synch?

Ben

 

[Ben Pope]

I have a good 19" CRT so I wouldn't want to replace it with an LCD
unless it was at least as good an image quality, no burring and
larger.
The blurring I saw on a few LCD's that claimed to be 16ms was at
fairly slow speeds of motion and you have to really look for it to
notice it. I only really noticed it after side by side comparison
with a good CRT.

Don't forget that most 19" LCDs will not do the sort of resolution your 19"
CRT might.

I run my 19" CRT at 1600x1200@85Hz, to get that resolution you need a 20"
LCD, and the dot pitch becomes ~10% larger.

Ben

 

[HockeyTownUSA]

Well I'll be dipped. That's exactly what the movie was. It's my test
movie for surround sound, and it also happened to be the first DVD I'd
watched on this monitor. Thanks for the info!


Also, I would like to make a correction to my previous post. I stated
yesterday. I said that I hadn't experienced any anomalies with the
Dell 2001FP, but last night I was checking out Half-Life 2 and noticed
a "warping"(?) effect went turning quickly and also a very thin line
of horizontal distortion that moved from the bottom of the screen to
the top very quickly. I probably wouldn't have noticed it at all had I
not been looking closely. this is with all the graphics settings maxed
and 6x Aniso and 4x AA at 1280 X 1024(LCD) res on a 256 meg 9800 Pro.
The monitors native res is 1600x1200.

One thing I didn't consider when I bought this monitor is my machine
really doesn't have the ass to run most of the games I play with their
settings maxed at the monitors native res.

Villain

"A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend"- Willow Rosenberg

I find that the 2001FP plays best at 800x600, 1024x768, or 1600x1200. Any
other resolution doesn't seem to play quite right. I took that into
consideration when I bought mine. And play most of my games at 1600x1200 so
set up my rig accordingly: Athon64 3500+, PC3200 DDR Dual Channel, ATI
Radeon X800 XT Platinum. Granted there are still games that I have to res
down, and for those I go to 1024x768 with 4xAA and 8x or 16xAniso. Looks
great, and plays great with no graphic "smearing".

I give Dell a lot of credit for the quality LCD performance monitors they
make. I'm now spoiled, and it will be the standard by which I judge any
future LCD purchases. Not to mention the fact that I have two PC's and an
XBOX plugged into my 2001FP. Love those extra inputs!

 

[Villain]

Sounds like tearing... are you waiting for vertical synch?

Ben

Nope. Actually, v-sync is off. I noticed that most game seem to
default to off...anyone know the reason for this?

Villain

 

[Villain]

I find that the 2001FP plays best at 800x600, 1024x768, or 1600x1200. Any
other resolution doesn't seem to play quite right. I took that into
consideration when I bought mine. And play most of my games at 1600x1200 so
set up my rig accordingly: Athon64 3500+, PC3200 DDR Dual Channel, ATI
Radeon X800 XT Platinum. Granted there are still games that I have to res
down, and for those I go to 1024x768 with 4xAA and 8x or 16xAniso. Looks
great, and plays great with no graphic "smearing".

I give Dell a lot of credit for the quality LCD performance monitors they
make. I'm now spoiled, and it will be the standard by which I judge any
future LCD purchases. Not to mention the fact that I have two PC's and an
XBOX plugged into my 2001FP. Love those extra inputs!

I love mine, also.

I'll try you r advice on the screen res thing, Thanks

Villain
Villain

Paranoia is just another word for longevity.

 

[Tony DiMarzio]

Turn on Vsync in the drivers. In fact, set it to "Always on". The only time
you'd want it off is when you're benchmarking. Turning Vsync on will get rid
of your "tearing".

 

[Barry Watzman]

RE: "I run my 19" CRT at 1600x1200@85Hz, to get that resolution you need
a 20" LCD, and the dot pitch becomes ~10% larger."

There is no direct relationship between LCD size and resolution. I've
seen 7-inch 1024x768 displays, and there are 15" displays that have
1600x1200. Granted, the most common resolution for 19" displays is
1280x1024, but it's not fair to say that "to get that resolution you
need a 20" LCD"

[keep in mind that the LCDs used in HDTV's and LCD projectors are
extremely high resolution, sometimes up around 1920 pixels horizontally,
and yet they are truly tiny -- "microdisplays", only one to two inches
diagonally]

 

[J. Clarke]

RE: "I run my 19" CRT at 1600x1200@85Hz, to get that resolution you need
a 20" LCD, and the dot pitch becomes ~10% larger."

There is no direct relationship between LCD size and resolution. I've
seen 7-inch 1024x768 displays, and there are 15" displays that have
1600x1200. Granted, the most common resolution for 19" displays is
1280x1024, but it's not fair to say that "to get that resolution you
need a 20" LCD"

[keep in mind that the LCDs used in HDTV's and LCD projectors are
extremely high resolution, sometimes up around 1920 pixels horizontally,
and yet they are truly tiny -- "microdisplays", only one to two inches
diagonally]

There are very, very few projectors capable of 1920 horizontally and they
cost $25,000 or more. Further, most LCD projectors are triple-panel, three
monochrome LCDs with different filters.

Regardless of any of this, please tell us where to buy an LCD monitor with a
diagonal measurement less than 20" and a native resolution greater than
1280x1024. Not a "display", but a monitor with standard VGA or DVI inputs
that can be plugged into a computer and used right out of the box.

 

[Ben Pope]

Regardless of any of this, please tell us where to buy an LCD monitor
with a diagonal measurement less than 20" and a native resolution
greater than 1280x1024. Not a "display", but a monitor with standard
VGA or DVI inputs that can be plugged into a computer and used right
out of the box.

That was my question too, 'cos I haven't seen any.

Ben