This article does not cover all the new LCD monitor models with response time compensation. Unfortunately, we have not yet tested BenQ’s models on TN+Film as well as PVA matrixes, and we don’t have ViewSonic’s VP191 and VP930 on MVA matrixes, but anyway, we can already make a few observations.
The response time compensation technology is going to do the most good to PVA and MVA matrixes which used to be awfully slow on midtone transitions and, accordingly, unsuitable for dynamic games. This review has shown you that the new models on PVA matrixes employ the RTC mechanism to achieve a considerable response time reduction for a majority of color tones, except for the darkest. The latter problem will probably be dealt with as the RTC technology improves further, but even now we can say that the new LCD monitors on PVA matrixes suit not only for office work, but also for many dynamic games. Coupled with their traditionally good contrast ratio, color reproduction and viewing angles and wide market availability (they are employed in 17” models, too), this makes them a most appealing option for the home user.
TN+Film matrixes that have been formally considered the fastest available, have now become the fastest for real. Their response time on midtones used to be as high as 25-30 milliseconds, but now the RTC mechanism solves this problem completely. For example, the maximum response time of the ViewSonic VX724 and VX924 monitors is only 14 milliseconds, the average response time being even lower (RTC-less matrixes do quite a number of transitions within that 25-30ms range, while the new RTC matrixes do but a few transitions in 14ms or a similar time). The new TN+Film matrixes are obviously faster than the ex-champions in “real” speed, S-IPS ones.
The artifacts resulting from an inaccurate setup of the RTC mechanism are a temporary phenomenon. The example of the Samsung 193P+ and the 970P shows that the new model on the same matrix has a better RTC setup and has a considerably better response time at moderate enough artifacts, while the example of the Samsung 930BF and the ViewSonic VX924 shows how the more accurate RTC setup makes the ViewSonic a much better product in terms of response time and RTC error.
I guess it is going to develop like with the “fast” 16ms TN+Film matrixes (they are not really fast as explained above) which not only had a different response time, but also color reproduction. Unlike the 24-bit 25ms ones, they were 18-bit matrixes, and their image quality was awful at first: striped gradients, very small viewing angles, and a really negligible advantage in speed over the older matrixes (as you could learn from our reviews, those matrixes could only do black-white-black transitions within those declared 16 milliseconds). But eventually the manufacturers improved the angles, corrected the FRC algorithms that were responsible for displaying 24-bit color on a 18-bit matrix and now the new 16, 12 and even 8ms matrixes are no worse than the older 25ms ones in any image-related parameter and have a better response time, even though not such a good response time as their specifications promise.
I think the RTC mechanism is going to develop in a similar way. In this review you have seen the representatives of the first generation of RTC-supporting monitors, yet they already ensure a much better response time, even though the improved speed is accompanied with a new type of undesired image artifacts. But as the algorithms and technical aspects of RTC improve, we will hopefully see the response time getting lower while the artifacts becoming negligible, if not vanishing at all. Well, the positive effect from the reduced response time is much bigger than the negative effect from the RTC artifacts even on some new models (like on the above-described ViewSonic monitors and on the PVA-based models from Samsung). So the value of the RTC innovation is doubtless even now.