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 on Article:
Contemporary LCD Monitor Parameters: Objective and Subjective Analysis
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.
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."
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.
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.
Hoping you come up with a detailed comparision soon.
"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 :)
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.
Where can I see results of double blind test?
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.
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."
Add your Comment
Enter your username and e-mail address. Password will be sent to you.