Information

Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!



Discussion

Discussion on Article:
Contemporary LCD Monitor Parameters: Objective and Subjective Analysis

Started by: MonkRX | Date 01/23/07 05:48:52 PM
Comments: 52 | Last Comment:  07/30/08 02:19:28 AM

Expand all threads | Collapse all threads

[1-11]

1. 
Awesome, if not labriously-long-winded, article.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/23/07 05:55:03 PM]
Reply

2. 
Actually single link TMDS can be made to run 1920x1200@60Hz, by using reduced blanking. Just don't try that with low-end GeForce FX cards, which uses integrated 141MHz TMDS transmitter instead of 165MHz.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/23/07 09:49:20 PM]
Reply

3. 
Very detailed indeed. Would like to save to whole article in a single page or file for further reading and better understanding. Makes lot of sense, though a good knowlegde of physics is required to actually admire it.
I would like more points in the summary and how to make better use of LCD's. (like white paper for setting contrast is excellent)

Anyway excellent work and thanks for enlightening (at 60Hz :-)) us all.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/23/07 10:07:03 PM]
Reply

4. 
"...you can only spot non-synchronization in movies when there is a difference of 200-300 milliseconds between video and audio."

This info is incorrect.

47ms can be detected. Plus lags can add up. For example if you watch video where audio is 40ms ahead of video, monitor adds another 47ms lag. This means that you are practically watching video with 87ms lag which is not only within range of detectability but almost out of range of acceptability.

"A study done in the 1940s by Bell Laboratories in the U.S. concluded that when audio led video by more than 35 milliseconds, or lagged video by more than 100 milliseconds, a/v out-of-sync will be detected."

http://www.tvtechnology.com/features/Tech-Corner/f_rf_technology_corner-05.14. 03.shtml
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/24/07 04:17:35 AM]
Reply

5. 
Re: input lag

So... the author never played on-line FPSes? The ping of ~50ms is entirely playable, but if you add 50ms more to that it gets noticeable (esp. with long-range weapons), and if your /starting/ ping is ~100ms then a jump to 150ms is likely to have a significant effect on your performance.
Anything over 200ms will most likely make "twitch based" on-line FPSes just frustrating.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/26/07 02:30:11 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Ping and monitor latency are _very_ different things.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/26/07 12:21:08 PM]
Reply
 
Sure they're different things, but the effect is the same: a further separation of the game state (on the server) from my brain state.

Regardless, it seems clear that monitors can have < 10ms lags without sacrificing other performance aspects, so serious gamers are not likely to consider monitors with 40ms+ lags. And there are many enthusiast gamers who are willing to pay substantial premiums for marginal hardware improvements.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/26/07 02:04:54 PM]
Reply

6. 
Excellent article. It corrected a number of misconceptions I had about LCDs. Now I would like to see a comparision between the various panels; 6-bit TN, 8-bit TN, pva, mva and s-ips.
Hoping you come up with a detailed comparision soon.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/26/07 08:50:47 AM]
Reply

7. 
By the way, I love the pig in the Article's Icon/Picture.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/27/07 04:44:46 AM]
Reply

8. 
I' working with audio stuff, latency is a big subject, and for playing music the difference between 3ms or 23ms latency (to overdubs) is very sensible. The author spends pages trying to explain why input lag doesn't matter. No wonder why it's so long to explain, because it matters. Some people, like musicians, are used to sensing timings, and for those people 50ms late is very sensible: pc feels slugish.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/29/07 07:51:08 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Human brains are much more sensible to audio lag.

"Some people, like musicians, are used to sensing timings"

Audio timings, not video. Otherwise they could not watch movies -- there is up to 40 ms (1 frame @ 25 fps) lag between audio and video :)
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/29/07 12:03:07 PM]
Reply

9. 
I agree with Cluster: input lag is real, it is noticeable (if just implicitly for most people), there are applications such as music and action, driving sim (and music) gaming where it's unacceptable for demanding users who will definitely use it as an important factor in purchase decision.

So why such, frankly a bit hysterical attempts to tell people that input lag doesn't matter? It clearly it does, and there are good and objective reasons why it does. It may not matter for the reviewer, but quite a few people do in fact disagree and don't quite buy the obsessive arguments against why they shouldn't care. If there's a screen with 50ms input lag and another similar one without, all other factors similar, then why even bother to attempt to convince oneself and other people that it doesn't matter?

FWIW, I have a PS2 hooked up to a PC capture card and a CRT monitor. There's about 2 frames of lag involved, which is quite negligible even for racing games, but there are a few, in fact RPGs like for Shadow Hearts and Magna Charta, that do require precise timing and are hindered by display lag.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/31/07 05:06:19 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
"it is noticeable"

Where can I see results of double blind test?
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 01/31/07 03:20:46 PM]
Reply

10. 
"Cutting it short, the problem does exist theoretically, but its practical effect is greatly overstated. An absolute majority of people won’t ever notice a lag of 47 milliseconds, let alone smaller lags, anywhere."

No, no, and no.

You've got two pages of pyschobabble on why input lag shouldn't matter, which then transition to an inexplicable contempt for your audience. UFOs? Suggestion? Are you joking?

I moved from a CRT to a Dell 2407. Excellent LCD, this. But it completely ruined any kind of high-level FPS play for me. I used to ridiculously good at Halo, but not anymore. I don't even play it. I can see, obviously, the lag both in Halo on simply moving the cursor across my desktop. It's nothing like having a high ping, and it's nearly impossible to compensate for.

I submit, this monitor may have more than 47 ms of lag. Or it may not. Either way, while your technical explanations have merit, this article immediately drops 15 rungs on the credibility scale when you start attempting to probe the psyches of your readers.

0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 03/17/07 10:43:14 AM]
Reply

11. 
"...the picture looks like soap operas with their unnaturally smooth movements."

I know what you mean, that we are accustomed to 24 fps motion to mean film origination and presumably high quality. But still, for most people with normal vision, the real world is smooth. It is that 24 fps flicker that is "unnatural."
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 03/21/07 11:57:00 AM]
Reply
- collapse thread

 
Not really. 24fps film looks more "natural" precisely because our brains fill in the missing bits and in the end we perceive it as naturally smooth, whereas "soap-opera"-style images (running at 30fps or more) look unnaturally smooth to our eyes. It is not just a function of what we have become trained for, as the perception of 24fps film being superior is practically universal across backgrounds, video experience, cultures, etc. It is like the "uncanny valley" issue -- counterintuitively, objectively higher specs in some video parameters do not translate to subjectively better perception to humans, and in fact can make an image seem more artificial.
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 05/22/07 04:30:31 PM]
Reply

[1-11]

Back to the Article

Add your Comment