Input lag simulation/demonstration?

D

DanNeely

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
4,854
I'm just wondering if anyone ever created one of these? A demonstration of it's affects in movie playback shouldn't be that hard, since it'd only require encoding a clip with the audio track desyncronized.

A software solution to deomostrate it system wide'd be more complex, since it'd probably require writing a driver to insert a delay in the video output. The same approach'd be able to 'fix' the problem for movie playback by delaying the audio playback for the same amount of time the monitor lags by.
 
If someone made an IPS with the perfect color/backlighting of the NEC 2x90UXI series and zero input lag I'd be all over it. Until then I have to compare disadvantages. My gaming is a mix of turnbased and slower paced (non clickfest) RTS games which're often paused for issuing orders, so input lag while gaming is much less of an concern than if I was an FPSer.

I've also held off getting an LCD for a few years because I've been unhappy with the contrast ratios and poor blacks. Backlight bleed makes both of those problems worse.

My main concern about lag is in watching movies. While that clip was useful as a demonstration of what input lag is, there;'s no information about how much lag that was in it. I'd've found a clip from a movie with a known lag more useful, since the question I'm trying to answer without risking a $100 restocking fee is if the input lag is noticable by me, and if so if it;s bad enough to be unacceptable.
 
5ms input lag, or 5ms refresh time? They're not the same thing, and while refreshtime is shouted to the hills by marketing inputt lag is something that they won't talk about adn which has to be measured by 3rd parties to determine. Assuming the 5ms is refresh time your display is probably a TN which AFAIK generally have negligable lag. The lag's generally due to onboard image processing in higher end displays to make the colors more uniform across the display.
 
DanNeely said:
5ms input lag, or 5ms refresh time? They're not the same thing, and while refreshtime is shouted to the hills by marketing inputt lag is something that they won't talk about adn which has to be measured by 3rd parties to determine. Assuming the 5ms is refresh time your display is probably a TN which AFAIK generally have negligable lag. The lag's generally due to onboard image processing in higher end displays to make the colors more uniform across the display.
Click to expand...

ah interesting. as you said, 5ms is refresh. 19" acer ws. although this is my first lcd and i didnt notice a big difference from a 17" dell trinitron @ 100hz.
 
Easy, try play Guitar Hero on a big screen plasma -
You'll hear the click of the guitar, and then you'll see the note -process- on the screen a split second later.
 
DanNeely said:
I'd've found a clip from a movie with a known lag more useful, since the question I'm trying to answer without risking a $100 restocking fee is if the input lag is noticable by me, and if so if it;s bad enough to be unacceptable.
Click to expand...
You're probably best off going to a local electronics store and trying out monitors first-hand. I know you want a movie clip that demos what 40ms of out-of-sync sound feels like, but that's kind of not feasible since encoded movies seem to often be out of sync to varying degrees, and the accuracy could easily be +-50ms.

Maybe print off this chart and take it with you to Best Buy or Fry's.
 
For all usages involving the mouse, I can't stand lag, and the lower the better. Below 20ms is probably ok for me, and I can't notice any lag on my 3007-HC which got 11.5ms.

Unless you have your heart set on a certain model that has >30ms lag, I recommend just buying a model with low lag (based on the chart, other sites, or personal experiences) to avoid the situation all together.
 
I don't have my heart set on any particular problem. I want an IPS though, and after purging a few 20" $500-600 panels with crummy reviews my only options are NEC 20/21" and maybe the 24" panels for $800/850/1100 all of which have about 30ms input lag, or the planar 26" for $900.

I have issues with the planar as well. First, it's too big. I have a similar objection to the 24's. At my current monitor distance they're just too wide to view at once. If I sit an inch or two farther back it's not an issue but that that point I've lost most of the angular size gain from the larger size.

My other issue is that I eventually want to put a pair of side panels with it, and the only monitors with the same size pixel pitch of it are the 19/20" 1400x900/1050 panels. Even assuming I could run in portrait mode with 200 pixels turned off the top for 1:1 vertical mapping it'd look ugly. Also at that size it'd probably be TN, not *VA technology and the viewing angles would look horrific.
 
It's kind of strange to me that >24" is too big for you, due to not being able to view everything at once, yet you plan to add two more monitors to the side. Those contradict each other!

I also gotta say, as a 30" user that sits 1.5-2ft from the screen, I don't understand your point about wanting to be able to view everything at once. I often have multiple windows on the screen: when I want to refer to the spreadsheet or picture on the side, I look over there, and there's no clicking required. When you look at a monitor, your eyes' field of view involves the monitor, desk, and the wall or whatever behind it; I don't see the disadvantage in having more screen space in your field of view.

Also, you said your main concern about input lag is movies...that's all the more reason to get >24"!

Maybe you shouldn't be too discouraged over 30ms of lag. That's probably unnoticeable for most people.
 
zzz said:
It's kind of strange to me that >24" is too big for you, due to not being able to view everything at once, yet you plan to add two more monitors to the side. Those contradict each other!
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. As a 1600x1200 user since aug 2000 I don't find a 1920x1200 monitor wide enough to comfortably run two apps side by side. If someone sold a 27" 1440x2304 LCD (same pixel pitch as 20" 1600x1200 or 30") I'd be OK running two apps side by side on one monitor.

WIthout some software that afaik doesn't exist there'd still be a major annoyance factor vs 2 smaller panels though. Ultramon makes it trivial to swap a maximized app across monitors with the click of a button. With a non maximized app there's a need for a manualdrag and position. To avoid wasting a strip of space around the border in preventing overlaps or hanging off the edge that requires a slow placing at the end. My wishlist software would be something that would force windows to think the single large screen was 2 smaller ones when not doing something that needed full screen support.

The side panels are the same basic idea as a single big monitor that you don't look at all of at once. turning my chair slightly when checking a different app is completely different than doing so while reading each line of text in a single window. Turning from screen to screen's not a problem for me. I've been doing it at work for about 2.5 years. The few times I've sat in front of someone elses 24" monitor (currently only management's getting them) I've had to back my chair up slighly to avoid head swivel when reading full screen.

Also on the size front the bigger panels aren't going to fit nicely on my desk as it's currently configured. I could make it them fit in the short term by taking the hutch off but I really need that extra storage space. A similar sized (5-6' L desk) but differently layed out desk'd run about $400(?)ish on sale ($500 new).

I also gotta say, as a 30" user that sits 1.5-2ft from the screen, I don't understand your point about wanting to be able to view everything at once. I often have multiple windows on the screen: when I want to refer to the spreadsheet or picture on the side, I look over there, and there's no clicking required. When you look at a monitor, your eyes' field of view involves the monitor, desk, and the wall or whatever behind it; I don't see the disadvantage in having more screen space in your field of view.
Click to expand...

I sit somewhat closer to my monitor 12-18". Using 15" from a 21 and 21" from a 30" monitor gives a 61 degree wide angular size for both screens. Your and my monitor would fill equal parts of our vision, the only difference (aside from aspect ratio) would be that yours would have a significantly higher angular pixel density.



Also, you said your main concern about input lag is movies...that's all the more reason to get >24"!
Click to expand...

How so?

Also, image quality for general use is a bigger concern to me than lag. This's driving me pretty hard towards the necs.

Maybe you shouldn't be too discouraged over 30ms of lag. That's probably unnoticeable for most people.
Click to expand...

ATM I'm leaning rather hard that way, need to decide on long term plans a bit first. The 2090 and 2190 are close enough in price for it not to matter, the former is the same pixel pitch as a 30" the latter a 24. Does anyone know if NEC does model clearout sales at years end like dell's done the last two (more?) years with their 300X panels? $2.2k's out of the question for my budget but roughly half that's possible.
 
I'm getting the impression that your main gripe with 24"+ is that when windows are maximized, reading text across the entire width is hard. I completely agree...which is why I never maximize windows that I'm reading text on! It's really a matter of window sizing, not that the screen is too big. I have Firefox open to the full height and 1024 pixels wide, and Acrobat opens in 2-page mode.

Then there's the separate issue of multi-monitor vs one big one. I regularly use both types of configs, and I've tried Ultramon. I understand the advantage of being able to maximize on one display and having that not affect the other, but I still definitely prefer one 30" since it's simpler to work with, there's no gap between the screens, and there's added flexibility with being able to view huge spreadsheets or movies or games full-screen. I don't mind manually resizing windows, and it hardly takes any longer than maximizing. Oh and did I mention 1600 vertical pixels kicks ass? =)

I wasn't clear--I meant that since movies are your main concern about input lag, that indicates watching movies on the display is important, and that's another reason to get 24"+. The bigger the better for movies.

Also, image quality for general use is a bigger concern to me than lag. This's driving me pretty hard towards the necs.
Click to expand...
Unless you're into graphics design, I'm thinking any IPS would be fine. I'm blown away at how much better my 3007 looks than any CRT I've used.
 
zzz said:
I'm getting the impression that your main gripe with 24"+ is that when windows are maximized, reading text across the entire width is hard. I completely agree...which is why I never maximize windows that I'm reading text on! It's really a matter of window sizing, not that the screen is too big. I have Firefox open to the full height and 1024 pixels wide, and Acrobat opens in 2-page mode.
Click to expand...

Your impression's correct. I've gotten spoiled by high res displays, and find 1024 maddeningly narrow for general use. If I could afford a 30" I'd probably end up doing 2 stacks of nonmaximized windows but 1920's not quite big enough for that. Especially since my gut says that in a few years websites with a 1280 minimum res are going to start cropping up, and I don't plan on cycling monitors again that soon.

I wasn't clear--I meant that since movies are your main concern about input lag, that indicates watching movies on the display is important, and that's another reason to get 24"+. The bigger the better for movies.
It's a secondary or maybe even tertiary use. I watch somewehre between 1 and 3 hrs of TV/week and maybe 1 movie/mo. I'm doing it all on my PC since I don't have enough need for a seperate TV. That said the movie use is pushing me towards a 24" simply because I can't find any 20"s with HDCP and want to futureproof myself.
Click to expand...
Unless you're into graphics design, I'm thinking any IPS would be fine. I'm blown away at how much better my 3007 looks than any CRT I've used.
Click to expand...

THe nec's are the only 20/21's I've seen that haven't had a fair number of complaints in the reviews, IIRC mostly due to backlight bleed. I haven't really looked at the 24" range much yet, so I'm not sure what the situation is there. I'm an astronomy geek and once I move out to a dark location want to get involved in astrophotography, so good dark darks are a rather high priority.
 
If I could afford a 30"
Click to expand...
Didn't you say you're considering the NEC 2190? That's heading towards the 30" price range. Also, some things in life are worth spending money on, and I think 30" definitely is. A $10,000 car isn't much different than an $11,000, nor is a $150k house from a $151k house, but that extra thousand is really worth it for a 30".

I'm an astronomy geek and once I move out to a dark location want to get involved in astrophotography, so good dark darks are a rather high priority.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should stick with CRTs!
 
my original target budget was $600-700. The 2090 was streching my comfort zone but not totally outside the line. I've mostly dropped it, and totally dropped the 2190 because of no HDCP. That's more than I want to spend on a screen that's probably going to be obsoleted as a primrary within 2 or 3 years. The 2490's price cutting into my quadcore upgrade budget. IF I buy it the rest of my upgrade'll probably be delayed from the may to october. A 30" would push it into sometime next year.

More seriously over the long term is that a 30" would need significantly more GPU when gaming. My gaming interests (turn based and slow RTS) aren't exceptionally high end graphics wise. Until last fall I didn't have anything my 6800 couldn't do at 1600x1200 with everything maxed, but having to buy significantly more expensive GPUs and/or upgrade twice as often doesn't fill me with joy either. I'm not overly concerned about the 20% increase from a 24" panel, but a 30" be over double the load.

I haven't entirely ruled a good used CRT out. The 700:1 contrast ratio in the *VA I have at work is dark enough that (unlike earlier 400:1 models) the only major problem I have with it is black crush. The biggest problem is tha the FW900 and equivalent 4:3 models are too tall to sit on my desk without half dismantling it (and loosing the vitally needed storage it provides in the process). The 30" LCD would have the same problem A new 60" corner/L desk would cost a few hundred dollars, mostly closing the price gap vs the IPSes. The extra $60-85/year in power consumpion would finish closing it in a few years. If it wasn't for the TCO calculations I'd've probably not even considered an LCD at all.

My final concern is that within the (admittedly small sample of) highend CRTs I've seen at work the top of the line ones actually seem to be aging worse than the cheaper ones. The coatings on the glass seem to be discoloring reducing the darkest possible color. I originally had a 1999 model (19" flat, 1600x1200x60hz) until it's sharpness started to degrade. It was replaced with a 2002 model that only differed in allowing 70(75?)hz at the max res. The newer ones blacks are actually slightly brighter than the Dell1905 that's my secondary display. Both the older 19" and a cheap 17" spherical CRT on a secondary machine had significantly darker blacks than the LCD. I also briefly had a 2001 vintage 20/21" CRT which maxed at 2048x1536x75 and had a much more extensive set of onscreen controls (similar to the FW900's). It's screen had turned a muddy brown (visible while off so not a calibration problem) and produced absolutely horrid dark colors as result. I've noticed a similar general trend among a dozenish CRTs used by other coworkers with the lower end models having generally darker blacks. Since I haven't messed with their settings to check though it's possible the people with the newer CRTs just all cranked their brightness up higher.

The net result of this is that I'm worried that in addition to costing almost as much over the course of 3-5 years and more over longer time frames I'm worried that a used CRT would put me back into the mandatory replacement cycle much sooner. The noname CRT I have at home is having problems that've progressively gotten worse over the last 6mo and which are no longer fully going away after it warms up. It's not at a crisis level yet though, and at this point I'm considering just waiting to see if anything comes of the rumors of a new 24" IPS next month. Even if NEC's preprosessing doesn't get any faster it should result in an inventory purge price drop in the current model.
 
because of no HDCP...obsoleted as a primrary within 2 or 3 years.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm ignorant about why HDCP is so relevant. For movies, I believe it only matters for Blue Ray movies that have the ICT enabled, which won't happen for at least 2 years. Is there something else related to HDCP involving watching media in Vista?

30" would need significantly more GPU
Click to expand...
Actually no. You can still run at any resolution, so that's the same GPU power. If you insist on running native pixels, you can still run 1920x1200 using native pixels in the center of the screen and have the equivalent of a 24" (but I definitely prefer full-screen non-native). I ran Crysis at 1680x1050 just fine.

biggest problem...too tall to sit on my desk
Click to expand...
That shouldn't be the biggest problem. The workstation is your throne and takes priority! Get some more shelves or something :D

worried that a used CRT would put me back into the mandatory replacement cycle much sooner.
Click to expand...
But used CRTs can be extremely cheap, so that's ok if it's not your ideal screen. Like this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top