LCD or CRT?

[OzzieGT]

Originally posted by: svi
1. I don't run my monitor at 60Hz. Please read the entire thread of conversation before commenting.

2. More than 75Hz is not necessarly 'undetecable'. Some people can easily tell the difference between 75Hz and 85Hz, depending on how sensitive their eyes are to flickering.

Detecting a difference in flickering is very different from detecting a difference in motion. Put a moving object on a black screen at 60 hz and 80 hz and I wonder if you can still tell the difference.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: cryptonomicon

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
its not really directly comparable. 8ms is if you have black to white transition. shades take several times longer. but lcds refresh the entire screen at once with no fade. crts have a beam scan line by line to finish a screen, all the phosphors fading after the beam passes. but the response of phosphors is sub ms. but the flicker of refresh is not kewl and eye straining. lcd refresh is irrelevant for flicker since the pixels are iether on or off. 1hz would be perfectly flicker free, but would only change once a second. 1hz on a crt wouldbe a momentary flicker then nothing. fastest lcds right now are the over drive ones now i beileve.

okay, so the "response time" that is publicized is B&W, but then what is the longest time it could take for 1 pixel to change (from a shade to another shade)? because if it translates to less than 100hz, thats a problem for me as a gamer. Not to mention that guy's post about dark shadows.

go read articles on anandtech tomshardware

 

[Philippine Mango]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: cryptonomicon

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
its not really directly comparable. 8ms is if you have black to white transition. shades take several times longer. but lcds refresh the entire screen at once with no fade. crts have a beam scan line by line to finish a screen, all the phosphors fading after the beam passes. but the response of phosphors is sub ms. but the flicker of refresh is not kewl and eye straining. lcd refresh is irrelevant for flicker since the pixels are iether on or off. 1hz would be perfectly flicker free, but would only change once a second. 1hz on a crt wouldbe a momentary flicker then nothing. fastest lcds right now are the over drive ones now i beileve.

okay, so the "response time" that is publicized is B&W, but then what is the longest time it could take for 1 pixel to change (from a shade to another shade)? because if it translates to less than 100hz, thats a problem for me as a gamer. Not to mention that guy's post about dark shadows.

go read articles on anandtech tomshardware

Yea I'm so glad anandtech married tomshardware...

 

[svi]

your right it should be but 60HZ on an LCD and a CRT are so much different. Why should I see the refresh rate of 60FPS on one monitor but not 60FPS on another? I mean it is 60FPS right....?

It's one of the unfortunate side effects of how our eyes (well, our brains) work. An image changing at 30 times per second will appear to move faster than an image flashing and changing at 30 times per second.

Detecting a difference in flickering is very different from detecting a difference in motion. Put a moving object on a black screen at 60 hz and 80 hz and I wonder if you can still tell the difference.

If you're talking about CRTs, I can easily still tell the difference. The 60Hz one still seems to flicker (albeit less), and it will give me a headache if I look at it for too long.

 

[saiku]

I bought the Dell 2005 FPW (the widescreen beauty). Tried it for a few days and then returned it because the blurring was killing me. I bought this ViewSonic CRT instead and am very happy with it. My colleague was fine with the blurring in games like counter-strike but I couldnt stand it. Your mileage may vary.