# 0ms response time. is it possible?!??

#### JVC

##### [H]ard|Gawd
when will there be 0ms response time lcds?

#### InCogneato

##### [H]ard|Gawd
impossible

however something like .0000000000000000001 is theoretically possible

not sure when it comes to lcds though, havnt really looked up much about the technology minus the usual

nope

#### omega-x

##### 2[H]4U
you'd have to change the fundamentals of how LCD's work to eliminate ghosting entirely.

right now though, 8ms and down is acceptable.

#### tisb0b

##### [H] Pirate
but there will be 1ms response time lcds

#### TekSomniaK

##### [H]ard|Gawd
only a matter of time until even the pickiest most critical bastards are happy

#### travbomb

##### Gawd
i would guess nano seconds or something will be next but eitehr way it will never be 0 but rather a smaller and smaller number.

#### 64dragon

##### Weaksauce
for the heck of it to compare,

1 decisecond (one-tenth of a second) - A blink of an eye
1 centisecond (one-hundredth of a second) - The length of time it takes for a stroke of lightning to strike
1 millisecond (one-thousandth of a second) - This is the typical fastest time for the exposure of film in a normal camera. A picture taken in 1/1,000th of a second will usually stop all human motion
1 microsecond (one-millionth of a second)
1 nanosecond (one-billionth of a second) - 2 to 4 nanoseconds is the length of time that a typical home computer spends executing one software instruction.

the best you can purchase currently is 2ms which is rediculisly fast, if we can make anything faster than that in the next few yrs i'll be suprised

#### UrielDagda

##### 2[H]4U
I would be happy if they could design an LCD that can have a MAX of 10ms.. That would allow for up to 100Hz... But even the so-called "4ms" LCDs today still take around 20ms to go full spectrum.

#### VE2007

##### Gawd
UrielDagda said:
I would be happy if they could design an LCD that can have a MAX of 10ms.. That would allow for up to 100Hz... But even the so-called "4ms" LCDs today still take around 20ms to go full spectrum.

I heard that next year, there will be the 100hz LCDs

#### v6maro

##### [H]ard|Gawd
isn't there another technology coming out called SED, which eliminates response time, and it's basically a flat tube with perfect blacks and 180* viewing angle? The holy grail is coming...

#### tpfaff

##### 2[H]4U
lol holy grail of displays

#### drizzt81

##### [H]F Junkie
JVC said:
when will there be 0ms response time lcds?
My best guess would be: possibly. With my limited knowledge of quantum physics, I do not want to exclude something that a traditional view would say is impossible.

However, from a mathematical standpoint, where the probability of two events happening at the same time is zero, I would consider it impossible. Then again, maybe if you and the monitor are in a different frame of reference, it could "appear" to have a 0ms response time...

Very interesting question.

#### tisb0b

##### [H] Pirate
v6maro said:
isn't there another technology coming out called SED, which eliminates response time, and it's basically a flat tube with perfect blacks and 180* viewing angle? The holy grail is coming...

yeah all the benefits of CRT without any of the drawbacks

#### Ryom

##### [H]ard|Gawd
tisb0b said:
yeah all the benefits of CRT without any of the drawbacks

Except the weight of the glass and a likely a static charge as well. Get out the duster again

#### v6maro

##### [H]ard|Gawd
Ryom said:
Except the weight of the glass and a likely a static charge as well. Get out the duster again

I can live with that, trust me.

#### jkr266

##### Gawd
Ryom said:
Except the weight of the glass and a likely a static charge as well. Get out the duster again

yeah, but without a back light it'll probably still be lighter than most lcds.

#### Ryom

##### [H]ard|Gawd
tisb0b said:
yeah all the benefits of CRT without any of the drawbacks
Ryom said:
Except the weight of the glass and a likely a static charge as well. Get out the duster again
v6maro said:
I can live with that, trust me.

Also doesn't have the ability to sync to various resolutions either, SED is fixed pixel. Thats a fairly valuable feature of CRTs
And since it is a phosphor based tech, burn-in may be a possiblity, as well as image retention.

I'm still eagerly awaiting SED though, should be a good tech to have

#### kleox64

##### [H]ard|Gawd
tisb0b said:
but there will be 1ms response time lcds

no, LCD's are slow by nature. Only SED will reach <1ms response nothing else.

#### WildSide

##### n00b
You guys have to keep in mind though that when lcds issues are finally perfected laser monitors will already be the standard.

#### Theking1238

##### n00b
isn't there another technology coming out called SED, which eliminates response time, and it's basically a flat tube with perfect blacks and 180* viewing angle? The holy grail is coming...
Well now we have tech way better than that I mean I am replying 14 years later but yeah and r u still pwning my mom like theres no tomorrow

#### Theking1238

##### n00b
Except the weight of the glass and a likely a static charge as well. Get out the duster again
Well glad to say over 14 years later not a problem anymore

#### hajalie24

##### [H]ard|Gawd
lmao. It is interesting to see the 'Last Seen' time for the users who posted in this thread. It's been 8+ years for so many.

#### Armenius

##### Fully [H]

It is kind of said reading back and seeing the hopium for SED panels, though. Funny how OLED wasn't even a factor in this discussion, which has <0.1ms response time. The first consumer OLED display came out a year after this thread.

#### sharknice

##### 2[H]4U
View attachment 323687

It is kind of said reading back and seeing the hopium for SED panels, though. Funny how OLED wasn't even a factor in this discussion, which has <0.1ms response time. The first consumer OLED display came out a year after this thread.

Yeah especially since OLED and SED are so similar. Both fixed pixel and self lit subpixel displays with near instantaneous response.
I think people thought SED was more feasible since it was just an evolution of CRTs instead of a completely new technology. Maybe they would have been more successful if it wasn't for the lawsuits.

#### XoR_

##### [H]ard|Gawd
im 14 year late to responding but now we have 0.1
No we do not. Not even real 1ms

This monitor can do 1ms on some transitions at the expense of introducing ridiculous overdrive errors.
TN panels might be slightly faster but nowhere near 0.1ms and frankly having some specific transitions fast and some of them slow doesn't make display faster as much as make blurring that happens less consistent.

As for OLED it looks like this

So no 0.1ms and it is not LCD as mentioned in OP

What is even worse many of todays LCD monitors have actually response times that are not that different than what we had in 2006 (of course fastest models). Some monitors do, most do not. What we have is higher refresh rates and since response times improve with refresh rate it is the main improvement.

#### jbltecnicspro

##### Supreme [H]ardness
At this point though, we're nit-picking like crazy. CRT of course has some processing delay time too, if we calculate how fast it takes the analog signal path to travel until it hits the screen. But yeah. Anyways... Good to see OLED rocking it.

Last edited:

#### flegg

##### [H]ard|Gawd
Going below 1-3ms on sample and hold tech without strobing actually deteriorates quality until higher refresh rates are used.
The things we know now.

#### GoldenTiger

##### Fully [H]
My first LCD was an envision model off a hot deal. It was 15" 1024x768 and had a response time of 50ms. That's right... 50!

#### N4CR

##### Supreme [H]ardness
No we do not. Not even real 1ms
View attachment 324590
This monitor can do 1ms on some transitions at the expense of introducing ridiculous overdrive errors.
TN panels might be slightly faster but nowhere near 0.1ms and frankly having some specific transitions fast and some of them slow doesn't make display faster as much as make blurring that happens less consistent.

As for OLED it looks like this
View attachment 324591
So no 0.1ms and it is not LCD as mentioned in OP

What is even worse many of todays LCD monitors have actually response times that are not that different than what we had in 2006 (of course fastest models). Some monitors do, most do not. What we have is higher refresh rates and since response times improve with refresh rate it is the main improvement.
This, thanks for posting, most don't understand the pixel response time is basically more effective route than refresh rate and this shows why. OLED or similar any day over archaic backlit LCD BS.

My first LCD was an envision model off a hot deal. It was 15" 1024x768 and had a response time of 50ms. That's right... 50!

I have a mid-00s TN panel laptop that sounds like this, you can see the laser welding line in the middle too where they joined two half panels due to yields being so poor... I played a lot of HL based games on that panel with a 1mb S3 virge at potato resolution and the AA was free :x