5ms still produces motion blur

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: BassBomb

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: BassBomb

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker
Stuck at native resolution, very sluggish, artifact prone, disgusting contrast, either lousy color reproducion or insanely slow, terrible off angle viewing.... but they are thin

Interesting thoughts you have. My monitor does have the bolded problems .

Artifacts is an issue in movie watching (the IPS sparkle effect). And native resolution is not a problem for me (I'll center and black bar if I need to).

But we are all beating a dead horse here.

And you have a very expensive monitor...interesting. I was told that if I shell out tons of money for a new LCD all my problems will go away.Hopefully, 120hz will improve motion on LCD's.

I spent about 650CDN in the end on it I think. It was well worth the investment (I had a 915N 8ms TN panel before)
20WMGX2 refurbs were going for 300USD (a steal if you didn't get a bad panel) when they stopped selling the monitor.
120Hz will only matter if its the actual 120Hz panels and not purely interpolation.

I've only been dissapointed when you are admiring details in textures and are moving slowly (Think Crysis, FarCry) all the details in high res textures then are no longer noticable because of ghosting/blur etc. Not because it is significant but just because it is there the details are lost. I got over this however but that is pretty big

That's what I'm hoping although it must be to correctly display 60hz per eye.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Vizio 240Hz LED backlit IPS This televison looks really nice.

 

[mmnno]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
Vizio 240Hz LED backlit IPS This televison looks really nice.

Interpolation. You won't like it better than any other IPS monitor. Well, unless you like 1080 @ 55 inches.

 

[WaitingForNehalem]

Originally posted by: mmnno

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
Vizio 240Hz LED backlit IPS This televison looks really nice.

Interpolation. You won't like it better than any other IPS monitor. Well, unless you like 1080 @ 55 inches.

How do you know?

 

[mmnno]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem

Originally posted by: mmnno

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
Vizio 240Hz LED backlit IPS This televison looks really nice.

Interpolation. You won't like it better than any other IPS monitor. Well, unless you like 1080 @ 55 inches.

How do you know?

http://www.engadgethd.com/tag/240hz

That's how they do in the TV market. It started with 120Hz, who knows where it ends.

'True' 120Hz did not come from HDTVs. If it's coming at all, it's completely from the stereoscopic venture.

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: BenSkywalker

I already WASTED hours and hours of my time arguing on other forums with CS hardcore gamers who "see" something which (IMHO) is just not there.
Those people look at a LCD...and then 2 minutes later say "HORRIBLE, its totally unsuitable for gaming".

All those hours debating with those people i NEVER saw anything what those people believe to see...and i stay w/ my statement that this LCD here is one of the best purchases i ever made.

>>
Feel blessed that you have very slow vision, it makes shopping for displays so much simpler.
>>

If there's something like motionblur then (for me) its is extremely insignificant, its a NON issue.

>>
Not all people are lucky enough to have extremely slow vision, you should consider yourself forunate.
>>

LOL

That's exactly the point. You or whoever can make me believe that something is wrong/off with my vision...you can do this as long as you want if you like it .)

I will NOT sit there AGAIN and look for hours for something which is not there or spend HOURS looking for hypothetical "flaws" because *some* people on forum X say so, or throw around statements like "LCDs are unsuitable for gaming, at the same time reverting back to some crap 15" CRT since it is "so good" for gaming.

ZERO credibility

The same credibility by the way as a "test" like dragging windows in Vista/W7 while trying to read text.

As a side-note, this "alleged" motion blur issue is in the same league as statements like "LCDs do only 60hz, so they're not suitable for gaming".

Those two "issues" are actually related.

So..this is indeed an argument, since it is is true that 60hz might indeed be a disadvantage in certain extreme situations.

BUT...what most of those people do NOT take into consideration is that there are many, many, many other factors which play a role before it even GETS to the capabilities of a monitor.

CS is a old game and it does 100hz since it uses an outdated engine.

With MOST current high-end games and graphics settings all cranked up it is DIFFICULT to even maintain 60hz 100% o the time. Crysis averyone? Even WoW does not yield a 100% constant 60hz+ frame rate - so the fixation at 85hz or maybe even 100hz to be "playable" is MOOT since most of the time the GAME ENGINE itself will not even be capable of throwing out a constant 85+ FPS. (Depending on resolution, AA used..etc..etc..)

Does this make games "unplayable"? No. At those levels hardware limits of MONITORS don't even come into play yet.

As said, i do not see ANY significant (if at all) disadvantages of a LCD, and i take my 22" "oh so bad" LCD over my 20" CRT *any day* even if the CRT does 100/120hz..there are far far more factors which make the CRT overall pretty inferior to the LCD.

And..by the way....ZERO credibility also from those kind of "hardcore players" which crank down any graphics settings incl. AA/AF to be able to play CS at 100hz+ on an old CRT - do you think i would buy any statement in regards to visual quality from those people, or want to get "purchase advise" for a monitor from such people?

 

[flexy]

Originally posted by: WaitingForNehalem
Why aren't there plasma monitors?

Plasmas are VERY prone to burn-in.

Therefore pretty much unsuitable as monitors.

 

[kmmatney]

The post about image retention on an LCD (and the effect on our eyes) has merit, I think. A crt "refreshes" itself at a high rate, with blackness inbetween each rastor. An LCD will retain it's image until it is overwritten. So they have come out with some LCDs with "black frame insertion"

http://www.behardware.com/arti...cd-with-screening.html

that it supposed to reduce the retinal retention. This sounds like it might be the way to go for those that see motion blur.

"BenQ comment that even a 0ms TFT would result in perceived afterglow due to the human eye mixing images and introducing blur. This perceived motion blur effect is in large part due to the human visual system and is something manufacturers are trying to overcome on their hold-type displays. This is the reason behind looking at new technologies other than overdrive to help reduce blurring on these screens. Other manufacturers such as Samsung are exploring technologies including backlight scanning but AU Optronics / BenQ are favouring BFI instead"

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: mmnno

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: zerocool84
Spend $$$ on a good display. Problem solved. I would never go with an Acer unless it's their Ferrari or Orange line which look like they have great specs and good reviews.

That won't help. I'm convinced it's a limitation of the technology itself. Costed me thousands on various LCD's and I don't think I'll ever be happy with LCD tech in this area. I own the one of the fastest LCD made and still reference standard at TFT Central and it still sucks on motion blur side of things. CRTs have big problems of their own but motion blur isn't one of them.

It's more a limitation with your eyes. A frame drawn on a CRT starts to disappear immediately, so by the time the next frame starts to be drawn your eyes have had a chance to clear the afterimage caused by the first frame. On an LCD, the first frame is shining full blast at your eyes right up until it is drawn over by the next frame, so the 'image retention' of your retina causes you to see both frames at once for longer.

If OLED behaved the same way as LCD, it wouldn't be any better for people like you. However OLED has CRT-like response time, so black frame insertion is more practical and hopefully can be made more comfortable.

It is ironic that the blame SLOW vision on not seeing how much better CRTs are... I blame SELECTIVE vision...

I can see the "flicker" of CRT as it dims and lights back up, I can see it wavering as it is not perfectly located (it shoots pixels at the screen, it does not have unmoving pixels)... although with LCD i see the boxes separating the pixels and the ghosting, it is simply not as BAD as the various issues that plagued CRTs.

 

[mmnno]

Originally posted by: kmmatney
The post about image retention on an LCD (and the effect on our eyes) has merit, I think. A crt "refreshes" itself at a high rate, with blackness inbetween each rastor. An LCD will retain it's image until it is overwritten. So they have come out with some LCDs with "black frame insertion"

http://www.behardware.com/arti...cd-with-screening.html

that it supposed to reduce the retinal retention. This sounds like it might be the way to go for those that see motion blur.

"BenQ comment that even a 0ms TFT would result in perceived afterglow due to the human eye mixing images and introducing blur. This perceived motion blur effect is in large part due to the human visual system and is something manufacturers are trying to overcome on their hold-type displays. This is the reason behind looking at new technologies other than overdrive to help reduce blurring on these screens. Other manufacturers such as Samsung are exploring technologies including backlight scanning but AU Optronics / BenQ are favouring BFI instead"

I'm not sure LCDs will ever be able to simulate a CRT with BFI. Unless they find a magical new technology that drops the response time by a couple orders of magnitude, an LCD will produce a light output like a square or trapezoidal wave, while a CRT is more like a sawtooth wave. I can't say which is worse for perceiving flickering, but it won't be the same.

Originally posted by: taltamir


It is ironic that the blame SLOW vision on not seeing how much better CRTs are... I blame SELECTIVE vision...

I can see the "flicker" of CRT as it dims and lights back up, I can see it wavering as it is not perfectly located (it shoots pixels at the screen, it does not have unmoving pixels)... although with LCD i see the boxes separating the pixels and the ghosting, it is simply not as BAD as the various issues that plagued CRTs.

Yeah, CRTs are bust for me. Geometry, bluriness, flickering, warming up...forget it. By my valuations, grey blacks and other drawbacks are a minor price to pay for fixing the rest.

 

[toyota]

yeah I just brought this thread back from the dead. it seems even now things are not much better and maybe even worse when it comes to actual response times. my old Acer 23 incher was rated at 5ms and had some slight blurring when moving around fast but all these newer 5ms "rated" I have looked at are way way worse.

since my Acer took a crap I have been using the crt and I am amazed how this old cheap pos monitor can make an LCD look abysmal for gaming. I have now tried 4 monitors in the last 2 weeks all of which have sucked for gaming just because of blurriness when looking around. and I originally was not even expecting any problems but noticed just looking around in Dead Space 2 that things got blurry. like if you tried to read something in the game world while moving the mouse around it seemed to vibrate even.

I then started testing all monitors in the same spot and sure enough they all do it. I can get on my crappy old crt and its smooth though with no blurring or jittery motion. and yes I made the comparisons at exactly the same resolutions and refresh rate. the only way to make the crt have jittery look is to have vsync on in a game where I am not even close to getting 60 fps. its funny that doing that seems to recreate the way LCDs look no matter what settings are used on them.

anyway I will be sticking to the crt for now while I try and locate some 2ms monitors to see if that helps. I had a Samsung S22A350H 2ms monitor but it had a stuck pixel and such horrific backlight bleeding on the left side that I put it right back in the box without even thinking about testing games on it.

 

[tweakboy]

LG is a cheap korean company.

dguy I had a Sony FW900 22.5 viewable and a custom res I put into driver 2304x1440

I used it at that resolution for over 11 years.. finally got rid of it for 40 bucks lol My friends LG 2ms has big time mouse lag when vsync is on, and its overall laggy and not smooth. On my mon in sig rig there is no lag and no mouse input laggy FPS , its plays just like my CRT Sony ,, I didnt know what to expect when I got it. But was shocked when I see it perform like a CRT . No input lag, my FPS games are all perfect stuck @ 60fps vsync on of course. no delay no ghost no input lag 0 lag. I think this is the only Mon in this world that can do this except possibly LED, but LED has 5ms lag. soo I dont know about that until I play it for myself.

 

[toyota]

tweakboy, why do you repeat the same stuff over and over? nothing was even said about LG but just like any other thread that mentions monitors you have to tell us how crappy that company is. and AGAIN just because its LED does not mean it will only be 5ms. I already told you in another thread there are LED monitors with 2ms. LED is nothing but a more cost efficient backlight.

 

[NoQuarter]

anyway I will be sticking to the crt for now while I try and locate some 2ms monitors to see if that helps. I had a Samsung S22A350H 2ms monitor but it had a stuck pixel and such horrific backlight bleeding on the left side that I put it right back in the box without even thinking about testing games on it.

I have a 2ms monitor and a pair of 5ms monitors, the 2ms one isn't any better. I'd like to try out a 120hz monitor to see how they compare but plasma seems the only way to go to get CRT like quality in flat screen, but you can't get small plasma screens.

 

[toyota]

I have a 2ms monitor and a pair of 5ms monitors, the 2ms one isn't any better. I'd like to try out a 120hz monitor to see how they compare but plasma seems the only way to go to get CRT like quality in flat screen, but you can't get small plasma screens.

so even 2ms sucks? people say 120hz is so much better but why does it take an lcd at 120hz to be as smooth as 60hz on a crt? in other words I was using 60hz for both crt and lcd in the comparisons I was running and the crt had none of that blurry crap when looking around at 60hz.

and still my old Acer lcd did not do this bad at all and I would have thought monitors had gotten better not worse in the last 3 years.

 

[soccerballtux]

yeah I just brought this thread back from the dead. it seems even now things are not much better and maybe even worse when it comes to actual response times. my old Acer 23 incher was rated at 5ms and had some slight blurring when moving around fast but all these newer 5ms "rated" I have looked at are way way worse.

since my Acer took a crap I have been using the crt and I am amazed how this old cheap pos monitor can make an LCD look abysmal for gaming. I have now tried 4 monitors in the last 2 weeks all of which have sucked for gaming just because of blurriness when looking around. and I originally was not even expecting any problems but noticed just looking around in Dead Space 2 that things got blurry. like if you tried to read something in the game world while moving the mouse around it seemed to vibrate even.

I then started testing all monitors in the same spot and sure enough they all do it. I can get on my crappy old crt and its smooth though with no blurring or jittery motion. and yes I made the comparisons at exactly the same resolutions and refresh rate. the only way to make the crt have jittery look is to have vsync on in a game where I am not even close to getting 60 fps. its funny that doing that seems to recreate the way LCDs look no matter what settings are used on them.

anyway I will be sticking to the crt for now while I try and locate some 2ms monitors to see if that helps. I had a Samsung S22A350H 2ms monitor but it had a stuck pixel and such horrific backlight bleeding on the left side that I put it right back in the box without even thinking about testing games on it.

yeah I completely understand this bro. Been a pet peeve for me as well, I think most people who "don't notice it" have just gotten over it.

I think 2ms is where you need to go and keep looking for a while before you'll even remotely be happy.

 

[soccerballtux]

LG is a cheap korean company.

dguy I had a Sony FW900 22.5 viewable and a custom res I put into driver 2304x1440

I used it at that resolution for over 11 years.. finally got rid of it for 40 bucks lol My friends LG 2ms has big time mouse lag when vsync is on, and its overall laggy and not smooth. On my mon in sig rig there is no lag and no mouse input laggy FPS , its plays just like my CRT Sony ,, I didnt know what to expect when I got it. But was shocked when I see it perform like a CRT . No input lag, my FPS games are all perfect stuck @ 60fps vsync on of course. no delay no ghost no input lag 0 lag. I think this is the only Mon in this world that can do this except possibly LED, but LED has 5ms lag. soo I dont know about that until I play it for myself.

i recall your post when you got it raving about how great it was.

Toyota, I would look into getting tweakboy's monitor, I think you've got good chances going with something a known name here has approved of as being "good".

 

[NoQuarter]

so even 2ms sucks? people say 120hz is so much better but why does it take an lcd at 120hz to be as smooth as 60hz on a crt? in other words I was using 60hz for both crt and lcd in the comparisons I was running and the crt had none of that blurry crap when looking around at 60hz.

and still my old Acer lcd did not do this bad at all and I would have thought monitors had gotten better not worse in the last 3 years.

Best I can quantify it is to run PixPerAn and do the readability test. On my 5ms monitors I can usually hit 6, my 2ms I can do 6-7, and on plasma I can max it out at 30. I've never tried it on a CRT. There is a glowing tracer on plasmas that make the readability a little hard at 25+ that wouldn't be there on CRT so CRT should be better than plasma. But LCD's become an unreadable mess once there's any movement going on.

I actually tried this on every LCD monitor I had access to, about 10 monitors ranging from cheap budget ones to high quality brand ones and they all got to about 6 on the readability, except for a Samsung 42" LCD that I got to 8 on. However the larger pixel spacing may have made it easier to decipher the letters. There are still other aspects of ghosting that my 2ms fairs better on than the other monitors I've seen but readability is not one of them, and the motion blur is still a pain in the ass compared to CRTs (I got my 2ms monitor because I kept noticing on 5ms monitors that I had to stop a split second to assess what I was looking at, and I still do )

 

[gramboh]

I noticed this immediately when I got my Dell 2407 back in 2007 and it was really annoying. I see it on pretty much any LCD (image blurs during motion, happens in games but the easiest way for me to see it is to grab a window on my desktop and drag it around while trying to read the text within it). I have 20/20 vision if it makes any difference.

I've just accepted it and gotten used to it since I didn't want to go down the huge-hot-heavy Sony FW900 CRT road .

 

[apoppin]

so even 2ms sucks? people say 120hz is so much better but why does it take an lcd at 120hz to be as smooth as 60hz on a crt? in other words I was using 60hz for both crt and lcd in the comparisons I was running and the crt had none of that blurry crap when looking around at 60hz.

and still my old Acer lcd did not do this bad at all and I would have thought monitors had gotten better not worse in the last 3 years.

Here is an image from my latest evaluation that is originally from Nvidia.
Mull over this a bit and i'll give my opinion if you are interested.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Best I can quantify it is to run PixPerAn and do the readability test. On my 5ms monitors I can usually hit 6, my 2ms I can do 6-7, and on plasma I can max it out at 30. I've never tried it on a CRT. There is a glowing tracer on plasmas that make the readability a little hard at 25+ that wouldn't be there on CRT so CRT should be better than plasma. But LCD's become an unreadable mess once there's any movement going on.

I actually tried this on every LCD monitor I had access to, about 10 monitors ranging from cheap budget ones to high quality brand ones and they all got to about 6 on the readability, except for a Samsung 42" LCD that I got to 8 on. However the larger pixel spacing may have made it easier to decipher the letters. There are still other aspects of ghosting that my 2ms fairs better on than the other monitors I've seen but readability is not one of them, and the motion blur is still a pain in the ass compared to CRTs (I got my 2ms monitor because I kept noticing on 5ms monitors that I had to stop a split second to assess what I was looking at, and I still do )

Nice test. Just tried it on my 8ms monitor and got 6. I could see getting up to through 7, but at test 6 it started to get really hard to read and 7 was even harder. 8 most likely would have been impossible. I made the switch from CRT to LCD six years ago and immediately spotted the motion blur. I was not expecting it at all. It was like someone rubbed vaseline all over my screen while playing CS and BF2. My brother, who wasn't even a gamer, watched me play once and said, "Why does the game look blurry?"

The blur is so bad, as well as the blacks/whites, that my crosshairs frequently disappear when in motion. It's a real pain in the ass.

 

[Lonbjerg]

Here is an image from my latest evaluation that is originally from Nvidia.
Mull over this a bit and i'll give my opinion if you are interested.

I still rock my Trinitron CRT's...especially because of the better I.Q. an CRT has over LCD's.

I still don't understand people buying +$200 videocards....just to nooter them with a LCD/LED/other flat crap.

lesser colors, no true black, ghosthing...it's all downgrades...doing it wrong.

 

[blackened23]

Anyone still using a CRT over an LCD because of the supposed motion blur issue is insane. The image quality is so bad in windows compared to a good lcd, why bother? I use an LG 27" and I don't ever notice motion blur, so whatever. I've seen some 120hz monitors and they're always a tradeoff - 2d image quality is almost always worse in every model according to reviews i've seen.

I still don't understand people buying +$200 videocards....just to nooter them with a LCD/LED/other flat crap.

lesser colors, no true black, ghosthing...it's all downgrades...doing it wrong.

 

[soccerballtux]

Anyone still using a CRT over an LCD because of the supposed motion blur issue is insane. The image quality is so bad in windows compared to a good lcd, why bother? I use an LG 27" and I don't ever notice motion blur, so whatever. I've seen some 120hz monitors and they're always a tradeoff - 2d image quality is almost always worse in every model according to reviews i've seen.

baseless claims, I have both CRT and LCD, and the CRT is great love it very much.

 

[apoppin]

Anyone still using a CRT over an LCD because of the supposed motion blur issue is insane. The image quality is so bad in windows compared to a good lcd, why bother? I use an LG 27" and I don't ever notice motion blur, so whatever. I've seen some 120hz monitors and they're always a tradeoff - 2d image quality is almost always worse in every model according to reviews i've seen.

You are correct - you don't *notice* motion blur; you are used to a blurry mess.
The solution is to get a 120Hz LCD for fast-paced shooters. Quality CRTs are expensive and need maintenance and regular recalibration or they look like crap in a couple of years.

The people complaining about TN's colors are in Photoshop. Games don't have "natural color" anyway. i can't believe that some of us have the 2560x1600 LCDs and nitpick the IQ and colors at the same time while watching a blurry mess in a fast-paced shooter.



To test a fast pace shooter you need to run a game like Left4Dead or TF2. A game that your PC can run at well over 60fps as a minimum. Since my 3D Evaluation is done, i will be evaluating 120Hz vs. 60Hz displays with my own HDHR digi-cam for further reviews. It can do sixty1080p fields per second or 240fps at a lower resolution. Useful for documenting microstutter also.
:whiste: