LCD monitor for gaming at a reasonable price?

[KingManULTRA]

This looks good but I'm not sure about the response time.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 172&depa=0

Any suggestions? I'm the kind of person that notices ghosting rather quickly if the monitor's not up-to-par.

[tnf]

you'll hear a range of opinions here...from people saying 14 ms is fine to those who say you want 8. I picked up the sony xbrite monitor with an 8ms response time and it works great. I would guess 12 should be reasonable...

[Foo]

I've played around with that monitor and it was fine for gaming KingMan.

[capriker]

I have a Samsung 173X and a 930B, both are great with games although the latter is really bright.

[[FTF]Pyro]

This looks good but I'm not sure about the response time.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 172&depa=0

Any suggestions? I'm the kind of person that notices ghosting rather quickly if the monitor's not up-to-par.

math lesson people




eyes capture on average 100 FPS therefore 1 second / 100 = 0.01 seconds



your monitor = (response time) 0.008 seconds x (average fps) 60 = 0.48 seconds


So for every 60 frames per second you will see a build up of 0.48 seconds of visual delay or motion blur.


You will see a very very very small amount of distortion on the monitor but absolutely nothing unusable or noticeable (at least as long as you arent looking for it)

[Foo]

Oh dear. Not the old 'eyes only work at a certain frequency' myth again.

This has been covered many times. Eyes are not discrete devices and it's not possibly to draw absolutes like this.

[[FTF]Pyro]

Oh dear. Not the old 'eyes only work at a certain frequency' myth again.

This has been covered many times. Eyes are not discrete devices and it's not possibly to draw absolutes like this.

Actually your eyes dont see shit your brain decodes information sent through the eyes and therefore of course if will work on a certain "frequency" why do you think that if you look at a fan spinning you cant see the rotor blades as individual pieces moving. they "gel" into one because your brain considers movement more important than detail when objects are moving at great speed.

It aint a myth.

Quick Biology Lesson

I'm not a doctor, but I'm going to try and attempt (big emphasis on attempt) to explain a little bit about the human eye, as it directly relates to what were talking about here, frames per second. The Human Eye is made up of various components with different functions for each.

At the very back of the eye is the Optic Nerve, which is the part that transmits the information perceived by the eye to the brain.

How we see the world around us is that light enters the eye with each of the above parts playing there part in filtering what we see. All the above parts process that information into electrical signals which are passed on to the Optic Nerve. All of the information entered through the eye and transmitted along the Optic Nerve is streamed continuously to the Visual Cortex. Now if we think of the brain as a really big CPU, just like a CPU the brain has only so much storage room to process the information received from the eye. Because of this, the Visual Cortex has a few tricks up its sleeve to allow us to receive the most information in the smallest and most efficient manner. The main one that's relevant to us is Motion Blur.

Motion Blur

If we look at a brick wall, it's not moving and will look the same to us no matter how many frames per second we are looking at it. We can see all the details available to us because it's a stationary object and the various parts of the eye don't have to work too hard. Now then, same brick wall, but this time, were going to jump onto a bike and ride past it. The faster we go the less detail we can see, and the more blurred the wall looks. This is the Visual Cortex adding motion blur to perceived imagery so that rather than seeing everything in great detail, we are still able to perceive the effect of motion and direction as we ride by. The imagery is smoothly flowing from one point to the next and there are no jumps or flickering to be seen. If the eye wasn't to add this motion blur, we would get to see all of the details still but the illusion of moving imagery would be lost on us, with the brick wall sort of fading in and out to different points. It's pretty simple to test this.


Need a hand?

Take your hand and hold it in front of your face, palm towards you, and your fingers together. On the palm of your hand you can see all the lines and creases, the subtle differences in skin-tone; you may even be able to see a few veins at the joints of your fingers. Now move your hand slowly back and forth in front of you. You can still see the lines and creases, but the subtle shades in skin tone are less perceptible, and the veins have disappeared from perception completely.

You can also still see the separations between fingers. Now move it back and forth fast. Gone are the lines and creases, the veins and the skin tones, replaced with a blurred image of your hands shape, filled with the overall colouring of your skin. You also see trails from your hand following it. Move your hand fast enough and you can perceive your hand going back and forth and merging with those trails. But it's moving smoothly, no stops and starts like a snapshot or one of those picture books you can flick through.

What's happening is that you simply don't have the room to process the information fast enough and to make sure the world we perceive around us is smooth and flowing, motion blur is added whilst details are dropped. Without the motion blur, the world around us would be a very different environment, with fast moving objects popping in and out of existence at high detail (damn lag ….), and making it very difficult for us to determine direction.

Unless of course you are the only person I know that can see individual frames of movement and detail over and above 80 - 120 fps (Dependant on visual cortex)

[KingManULTRA]

math lesson people




eyes capture on average 100 FPS therefore 1 second / 100 = 0.01 seconds



your monitor = (response time) 0.008 seconds x (average fps) 60 = 0.48 seconds


So for every 60 frames per second you will see a build up of 0.48 seconds of visual delay or motion blur.


You will see a very very very small amount of distortion on the monitor but absolutely nothing unusable or noticeable (at least as long as you arent looking for it)

If the issue is almost nonexistant mathematically then why can you fucking see ghosting and shit on bad LCD from a mile away even with a decent ms?

[[FTF]Pyro]

math lesson people




eyes capture on average 100 FPS therefore 1 second / 100 = 0.01 seconds



your monitor = (response time) 0.008 seconds x (average fps) 60 = 0.48 seconds


So for every 60 frames per second you will see a build up of 0.48 seconds of visual delay or motion blur.


You will see a very very very small amount of distortion on the monitor but absolutely nothing unusable or noticeable (at least as long as you arent looking for it)

If the issue is almost nonexistant mathematically then why can you fucking see ghosting and shit on bad LCD from a mile away?

Because its a bad monitor with a really high response time. The math was done for a 0.008 ms monitor not a 0.014 s monitor



0.014 x 60 = 0.84 s


thatws almost a second of ghost image. thats a lot. 0.48 isnt.



next time read the post


Besides if Ghosting of less than half a second bothers you buy a CRT monitor and forget your worries.

[KingManULTRA]

btw, this looks hot:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824001185

Samsung too. Had a monitor from then (SyncMaster 900NF) for many years. That monitor has kick-ass refresh rates too (85 Hz even in 1600*1200).

[KingManULTRA]

Because its a bad monitor with a really high response time. The math was done for a 0.008 ms monitor not a 0.014 s monitor



0.014 x 60 = 0.84 s


thatws almost a second of ghost image. thats a lot. 0.48 isnt.



next time read the post

Half a second isn't a significant delay? For freaking gaming? What are you smoking?

EDIT: The reason I'm going to buy an LCD in the first place is because my eyes don't handle refresh rates from CRTs well, even at high Hz.

[[FTF]Pyro]

Because its a bad monitor with a really high response time. The math was done for a 0.008 ms monitor not a 0.014 s monitor



0.014 x 60 = 0.84 s


thatws almost a second of ghost image. thats a lot. 0.48 isnt.



next time read the post

Half a second isn't a significant delay? For freaking gaming? What are you smoking?

Jalf a second BUILT UP in total over the course of 60 fps isnt a lot. We arent talking about a ghost image of 0.48s we are talking about a ghost image that lasts 0.008s per frame over the course of 60 fps.

[shadd_]

i have the 930b samsung(8ms). you see a bit of blur at first going from a crt but get used to it rather quickly and don't notice it.

[YourGrandpa]

Careful when you buy an LCD. They are advertising them with deceptive response times.

8ms gray to gray is actually 24ms
8ms black to white is actually 16ms
8ms Black to white to black is 8ms

Sneaky bastards.

[Grudge]

yes, and overdrive may be good for games, but sucks for video

I'm happy with my 12ms Samsung 172x

[Pooinyourmouth]

I took a couple of top notch LCD's home with me to try out. I was pretty upset at the performance. I think everyone has their own limits to how many frames they can make out per second, and even though LCD's don't go by refresh rates or FPS, they do still have a problem with ghosting and tearing to me.

[Pooinyourmouth]

I have a 24" CRT at 1920x1200 and 120hz

My e-cock it huge now.

[Pooinyourmouth]

Sony GDM-FW900

They don't make them anymore though.

You can find a ton of online stores that sell them as referbs. Mine was used when I got it, but hands down it's the best monitor I've laid eyes on in my lifetime. I've worked on computers for a living so I've seen a lot, and none can match.

BTW if you can find it new it's more than $2000.

[Pooinyourmouth]

Woops, forgot to mention is widescreen at 16:10

[reefsurfer]

You can go as high as 25ms on a tft/lcd without loosing anything in picture/frames... i've tried a few...im using 14ms now and i cant see any differance from 2 friends that have 8ms and 12ms..
Dont stare yourself blind on the ms response shit.

[Freakaloin]

why not just buy a 21" sony triniton for 80 bucks? flat screen monitors r for prentious assholes...

[Grudge]

I can't go back to CRT now, they just don't cut it anymore.

[Geebs]

why not just buy a 21" sony triniton for 80 bucks? flat screen monitors r for prentious assholes...

Yeah, it's hard to free up more than that from the housekeeping, isn't it?

[Freakaloin]

crt's r better then lcgays...

[Geebs]

presbyopia must suck