IPS panels have far better motion response than VA and TN. But like its brothers, it too suffers from high hold-time
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
IPS overated?
- Thread starter pedsaktix
- Start date
IPS panels have far better motion response than VA and TN. But like its brothers, it too suffers from high hold-time
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,590
I don't think you're thinking of the same thing.. Im referring to motion blur (or ghosting?) during movement. TN panels are known for being the best in this area.
Ghosting/trailing is caused by low pixel response and blur is caused by high-hold time, which is governed by the source. Please note that ghosting/trailing can also be caused by over-drive error.
Modern IPS can beat most TN without any effort. In fact, my 2209WA doesn't has any visible ghosting/trailing from 10-240 (out of 0-255). The same applies to the Panasonic IPS-Pro TV I've reviewed last year.
monitorrat
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2010
- Messages
- 221
That's good to hear. Numbers seem to be very nice now.
Best regards
Denis
yeah 0.14 with the NEC probe and 0.12 with the DTP94b for the deepest black level possible center screen is pretty solid for a computer monitor and really excellent for an IPS photo-type monitor
(NEC PA241W)
and while there is a lot more color tinting on this one than the first, it seems it was more that the first copy was exceptional in that regard than this one is bad.
The number don't appear to be any worse than what I see on the test site (good old prad.de
) for other recent IPS (they are somewhat clumped on mine instead of randomly spread which make it bit easier to spot but the measured values might even be a bit lower than some I see there). I think I have very sensitive eyes, doing some testing I can notice pretty small numerical differences in color temp. (My first copy at compensation 2 had less color tinting than the reviewed NEC 26 ^2 at compensation 5! but it had that horrible bezel defect and faded out screen so it had to go.)anyway this is generic thread so i won't say more abut this model here
EDIT:
that said my 5 year old-technology samsung 244T PVA still has deeper blacks than a new, top IPS, I can easily get it to .100 (and even to 0.06 if I go to rather unreasonably dim image) at over 110 cd/m^2 and even 0.09 if I go to 87cd/m^2.
so PVA does rule for deep blacks
Last edited:
monitorrat
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2010
- Messages
- 221
yeah HDTV have been pretty poor when it comes to uniformity, especially the last 2-3 years
my samsung 55c650 is wayyyy less uniform in terms of luminance than any of my computer monitors (my old 5271 was actually pretty solid in that regard, but it might have been an exceptionally even copy) although it is reasonably free from varying color tinting across the screen
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,590
So basically if you had the choice there's no reason to stick with TN?
According to digital versus the 2209WA does indeed have fast response but their test results show the PX2370 slightly beating it in overall response / ghosting. also the PX2370 has considerably better black level test results and the out of box deltaE scored 2.2 which is pretty good for factory settings.
Last edited:
terrannova
n00b
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2009
- Messages
- 50
Well I do know for a fact if I'm playing MW2 online or anything FPS that requires a ridiculously quick input experience, I'm going to want a 2ms TN-panel.
If I'm playing singleplayer or a real time strategy game online, IPS or PVA will be fine.
People waste me with my 2005FPW and my u2711, I blame the IPS input lag for that. Because I know the vast majority of people I'm playing against have low-ms and dirt cheap TN-panels or CRT.
If I'm playing singleplayer or a real time strategy game online, IPS or PVA will be fine.
People waste me with my 2005FPW and my u2711, I blame the IPS input lag for that. Because I know the vast majority of people I'm playing against have low-ms and dirt cheap TN-panels or CRT.
Just buy a good oled next year, when they will be available, and start raping them to death.
Hmm... and you're drawing that conclusion out of two pictures?
From their review of the 120Hz screen Acer GD245HQ
I don't think I´ve seen those measurements in their comparison "product face off".
limitedaccess
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 7,592
Acer GD245HQ 24 inch 1920x1080 120hz 2ms TN
0.15 colored/0.15 transparent
http://www.digitalversus.com/article-357-7352-38.html
Samsung PX2370 23 inch 1920x1080 2ms TN
0.4 colored/0.15 transparent
http://www.digitalversus.com/article-357-8191-36.html
Dell 2209W 22 inch 1680x1050 6ms IPS
0.4 colored/0.25 transparent
Dell u2211h 22 inch 1920x1080 8ms IPS
.7 colored/0.45 transparent
The reason I put the new u2211h in there is because it is closer match in terms of resolution and contrast.
Also LG ips screens seem to in general have relatively terrible quality control, whether this is indicative of the technology (ips screens can be argued to be more complex) or the manufacture is debatable.
I'm not saying ips screens are bad, in fact I am considering a ips screen at the moment, but I don't believe they are the end be all of current LCD technology that often seems to be pushed. TNs and PVAs have there advantages and disadvantages in areas other then price. For instance I personally cannot consider a pva at the moment, due to the performance in certain colors creates unacceptable blur to me for certain uses, but I cannot say that PVA is some inferior option in general, as different people place higher value on different performance factors.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,590
Hmm... and you're drawing that conclusion out of two pictures?
huh? im talking about the actual review on digitalversus, not the face off page.
EDIT: Oops didnt notice limitedaccess already pointed him in the right direction
Pixel response is one of the issues that leads to motion artifact. Once the response time reaches a certain threshold, it becomes difficult to notice any improvement (visually) as it will be obscured by the hold-time. It is why TV manufactures resorted to back-light scanning and frame-interpolation.
In other words, improving response time without reducing hold-time is not going make any noticeable difference to humans.
In other words, improving response time without reducing hold-time is not going make any noticeable difference to humans.
terrannova
n00b
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2009
- Messages
- 50
Just buy a good oled next year, when they will be available, and start raping them to death.
Yup pretty much. I miss the days in 2004 when I was the only one with an LCD monitor and widescreen to boot. Overpowered I was.
I have bought recently a 32" S-IPS LG tv, and for X360/watching movies I'd say the quality is around the same like with my Samsung XL2370, the big difference is that the viewing angles are much better, there is no darkening/gamma shift, also the bigger screen is nice for these things.
It is 8 ms but I haven't noticed any blur/ghosting, maybe it looks even faster than my 2 ms TN lol.
It is 8 ms but I haven't noticed any blur/ghosting, maybe it looks even faster than my 2 ms TN lol.
dowant120hz
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 632
tn still exists simple because it makes the manufacturers the most money
lowest production cost and the average customers buying everything anyway
Yup pretty much. I miss the days in 2004 when I was the only one with an LCD monitor and widescreen to boot. Overpowered I was.
Overpowered with an lcd screen?
I'd say that the overpowered ones were them, because they had a higher refresh and, thus, more time to see you (more frames per second -> more frames for a movement -> movement gets seen sooner).
dowant120hz
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 632
that wouldn't be unusual actually
a good ips can have the same or better response than the average tn
and you can completely forget ms values on these displays
they are complete fantasy and have nothing to do with reality
just look at the viewsonic 1ms...
response time even worse than the average tn
It is also the most efficient. For an individual/consumer power consumption is not a concern, but for a medium to large company, saving can be huge.
limitedaccess
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 7,592
Its not really faster. Basically the 2ms and 8ms measurement is for certain color transitions, so a 2ms TN is indeed that much faster for certain colors. The overall average response of a 8ms ips is generally somewhere in between that of a 5ms and 2ms TN. For instance if you compare the NEC ea231 (rated at 14ms) with the XL2370 with overdrive off (about a 5ms TN or slightly better)-
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/nec-ms-ea231wmi_7.html#sect0
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/samsung-touchofcolor2_12.html#sect0
Another reason you won't really notice blurring, is not all people will notice the difference below 5ms during regular use. With high speed camera shots on synthetic tests or nose to the screen side by side comparisons you might notice that your XL2370 transitions faster for instance.
dowant120hz
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 632
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 7,137
For over 2 years i've been using the Gateway 24'' TN at home. I recently got that new 24'' HP IPS for $400 that came out recently.
I made this 'upgrade' because I could not stand the glossy screen of the gateway anymore. Nor could I stand the horrible viewing angles.
The gateway was marginally better for gaming. However, the new HP works great for twitchy-FPS's as well. I'm not any worse playing Quake style games on the HP then I was the Gateway. In fact, I do better in multiplayer matches now on the HP simply because while i'm using the thing during daylight hours I no longer have horrible glare. The glare would be so bad on the glossy screen of my Gateway that it would become incredibly hard to see medium to dark colors on it. Even the brighter colors would become hard to see.
Frankly, anyone who honestly beleives their TN panels are 'as good' or potentially 'better' have no experiance with IPS panels. I only realized how horrible my TN panel was at home until I used the 24'' IPS Dell's we have at work.
Another thing I found, while recently shopping for my new 24'' IPS was that a lot of the TN panels are only offered in 1080p resolution now. No thanks.
I made this 'upgrade' because I could not stand the glossy screen of the gateway anymore. Nor could I stand the horrible viewing angles.
The gateway was marginally better for gaming. However, the new HP works great for twitchy-FPS's as well. I'm not any worse playing Quake style games on the HP then I was the Gateway. In fact, I do better in multiplayer matches now on the HP simply because while i'm using the thing during daylight hours I no longer have horrible glare. The glare would be so bad on the glossy screen of my Gateway that it would become incredibly hard to see medium to dark colors on it. Even the brighter colors would become hard to see.
Frankly, anyone who honestly beleives their TN panels are 'as good' or potentially 'better' have no experiance with IPS panels. I only realized how horrible my TN panel was at home until I used the 24'' IPS Dell's we have at work.
Another thing I found, while recently shopping for my new 24'' IPS was that a lot of the TN panels are only offered in 1080p resolution now. No thanks.
TN panels may well be better for twitchy FPS games, but you have to ask yourself how much that really matters in your case. As Mchart noted, in his case it didn't. What I mean is, are you good enough that slightly less input lag/faster response/etc makes a non-trivial difference in your play abilities?
Let's be real here, few, if any, people who hang out on Hardforum are professional gamers, as in making money to be good at games. All the rest of us are just gamers who play for fun. That being the case, there is no need to have everything as optimized as possible. It is just for fun, so the important thing s what gives you the most enjoyable experience over all, not what makes you the absolute player.
Now if you really do like the way TNs look or feel then good on you. Use what you like and also what you can afford. I'll most certainly never rag on someone for buying a TN because they are cheap, only so much money you can spend on toys.
However if you are buying TNs because you think you need them to be "good" at games, then knock it off. If you aren't making money on it, you need to ENJOY games, not worry about being the best. Besides, there's always someone better, probalby lots of someones.
Purchasing of displays should be based on what you can afford, and what works well for you. That will vary per individual. It shouldn't be some sort of holy war where a certain pixel response is "mandatory" or a given technology is "crap".
Personally, I like IPS because having tried everything, I find it gives the best looking image and has the least amount of drawbacks that bother me. Since I can afford it, that's what I go for in desktop monitors. For TVs, well I have a PVA TV. I'd rather have an IPS, but budget encroached there. To meet the budget I had for the size I wanted, PVA was what I had to get. For my laptop, it's TN simply because that's all you can get.
Let's be real here, few, if any, people who hang out on Hardforum are professional gamers, as in making money to be good at games. All the rest of us are just gamers who play for fun. That being the case, there is no need to have everything as optimized as possible. It is just for fun, so the important thing s what gives you the most enjoyable experience over all, not what makes you the absolute player.
Now if you really do like the way TNs look or feel then good on you. Use what you like and also what you can afford. I'll most certainly never rag on someone for buying a TN because they are cheap, only so much money you can spend on toys.
However if you are buying TNs because you think you need them to be "good" at games, then knock it off. If you aren't making money on it, you need to ENJOY games, not worry about being the best. Besides, there's always someone better, probalby lots of someones.
Purchasing of displays should be based on what you can afford, and what works well for you. That will vary per individual. It shouldn't be some sort of holy war where a certain pixel response is "mandatory" or a given technology is "crap".
Personally, I like IPS because having tried everything, I find it gives the best looking image and has the least amount of drawbacks that bother me. Since I can afford it, that's what I go for in desktop monitors. For TVs, well I have a PVA TV. I'd rather have an IPS, but budget encroached there. To meet the budget I had for the size I wanted, PVA was what I had to get. For my laptop, it's TN simply because that's all you can get.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 7,137
I'm by no means a pro gamer, and as you stated - Most people on here are not. That said, I consider myself to be pretty good at twitch based games with Quake engine style movement. (So any Source game, etc..) I'm typically always at the top of the list be it CoD, TF/2, etc.. While I can notice more bluring on the IPS panel - It has not been increased by such a large amount that it's impacting my performance in a game. I noticed the same thing when I moved from my CRT to the Gateway TN. Yes, there was way more blur - But it wasn't impacting how good I was in a game. The main thing I think gamers need to be concerned with (Concerning LCD's) is not the panel type, but the amount of input lag. The new HP monitor I got has a similar amount of input lag as the gateway does. However, there are some LCD's out there (TN, IPS, and VA) that have horrible input lag. -THAT- is what will impact a gamer the most. Not the blur on the panel. See the attached video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi2OE6hSh00
It's not the pixel response time that will get you. It's the input lag. (Which of course no manufacturer advertises. You have to either find out on your own, or read a 3rd party review of the product.)
For me personally, I would have been fine with the Gateway TN panel if I were using the thing in a dark room all the time. However, the reality is - I can't have perfect lighting conditions all the time. Nor can I be sitting perfectly in front the screen. (And even when you are setting in front of the screen perfectly on a large TN panel the colors get all botched up on the top and bottom of the screen. There is nothing you can do about that.) So an IPS panel is now my only option since I have the money for it.
Last edited:
I recently gave away my TN screen. Which meant hooking it up again to check it out. I was a little shocked how bad it was, given that when I first picked up my IPS screen, it didn't seem that terrible, just the weak vertical viewing angle.
But now it seems fairly awful. I almost felt guilty about how bad it was compared to the old CRT it was replacing, even though I was giving it away free.
After IPS, I can't imagine ever going back to TN. When I first bought this monitor it looked like IPS was an endangered species, so I wondered what I would do when it croaked. At least now there are many affordable IPS options to choose from.
But now it seems fairly awful. I almost felt guilty about how bad it was compared to the old CRT it was replacing, even though I was giving it away free.
After IPS, I can't imagine ever going back to TN. When I first bought this monitor it looked like IPS was an endangered species, so I wondered what I would do when it croaked. At least now there are many affordable IPS options to choose from.
Whoisthisreally
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,143
I think people from 2003-2004, the time when Sony's 23" IPS SDM-P234 cost over 2 grand, would be shocked to hear that people today are turning their noses at 23" IPS models that cost $50 more than their TN counterparts.
Last edited:
the standard size for monitors really has gone up and for not much price. You can get a good 23" TN for $200 and a good 23" IPS for $300. The only thing that hasn't changed is the $1000 price bracket and 30" monitors. 30" tech has moved at a glacial pace.
IPS is probably the best all around tech, because you get the best viewing angles, color accuracy, and input lag in the teens or less. It's still not as responsive as TNs nor will it have as deep blacks as PVAs but PVAs have horrible input lag that makes them unsuitable for gaming. And we all know the flaws of TNs.
You could say that IPS is 'overrated' but it is the best all around tech imo, and if you can afford to pay a premium, it's probably the best choice for general use since better looking picture quality is always nice to have. The only performance edge I would give to TNs is for 'fastest' gaming category.
IPS is probably the best all around tech, because you get the best viewing angles, color accuracy, and input lag in the teens or less. It's still not as responsive as TNs nor will it have as deep blacks as PVAs but PVAs have horrible input lag that makes them unsuitable for gaming. And we all know the flaws of TNs.
You could say that IPS is 'overrated' but it is the best all around tech imo, and if you can afford to pay a premium, it's probably the best choice for general use since better looking picture quality is always nice to have. The only performance edge I would give to TNs is for 'fastest' gaming category.
The thing is, input lag doesn't necessarily matter that much when you are playing. Yes, you can see a difference if you set up one monitor by another. That isn't the question, the question is do you notice it or have it affect you when you are playing on the monitor alone?
People get over hyped about input lag because they watch a Youtube video like that and say "Ahhh! Lag is bad I can't have lag!" without thinking about it if actually matters in terms of playing a game. Remember there's lag at all points, your input device takes awhile to register, the system takes awhile to process, your network takes awhile to transmit and above all else, your reaction time is not that fast. Human reactions are in the 100ms+ range for most people.
I'm not saying input lag is a feature to be ignored. For sure if it gets too high, you'll notice. Also again if you were a pro and milliseconds could be the difference between winning and losing, fine. However people get way too caught up in it. A small amount of input lag is not noticeable to most (perhaps all) people on its own.
The screen I have as 2 frames of lag (33ms) and I don't notice at all. I'm sure if you lined up a CRT next to it and I looked at both I could see the small difference, but playing on it, doesn't bother me in the slightest.
I've often heard the human reaction time number quoted but it doesn't matter. The human ability to perceive greatly exceeds the human reaction time. When you are talking about monitor input lag, what it does is mess up perception because it is giving a false image for your brain to calculate a response for.
The human brain automatically takes into account the response time in most cases, but if it bases its calculation on false information (say 2-3 frames behind actual location), there is no way for the brain to compensate for that. Because it can only perceive the date that is presented to it via the eyes.
Think about for instance a game of clay disc shooting, where a hunter tries to shoot a disc being flung into the air. The disc is traveling at speeds that might require tight tolerances to hit, but the brain compensates for that so that skilled shooters can hit that disc quite often. But superimpose an artificial image that lags the actual position of the disc by say 30-40ms. The brain is acting on the assumption that the disc is where it appears to be, this can lead to more misses for the shooter because the calculation is based off false data.
I don't know tbh, but its depend on the transmittance value
Ok that's all nice and well as a theory, but do you have any evidence backing it up? I have plenty of counter evidence in the form of people (like me) who have monitors with small amounts of delay that do just fine in FPS games. If the small delay was such a killer because it is "false information" as you claim, it would be a massive problem. But it isn't.
Also, you can see how adaptable humans are to this by just talking to anyone who used to play Quake Team Fortress, or a game of the similar ear. Quake 1 had no latency compensation at all in its code, and everything was handled serer side. So even if you had a low ping, and in those days 100ms was considered low, you had to compensate. Snipers in particular lead their targets, firing in the space before the person, not actually right on them. You got used to the latency of your connection and dealt with it.
For that matter, at rage, a real firearm is the same way. Bullets do not move instantly. They are fast, but they have travel time. They are also susceptible to gravity like anything else. So marksmen learn to deal with that.
Look I'm not saying you might not be an exception of some kind, extremely sensitive to lag in displays. What I am saying, and there's good evidence to back me up, is that most people deal with it just fine. There are very few sub millisecond lag LCDs out there. Most people play on something with a couple frames of lag. Yet they seem to do fine, enjoy the games, etc. It just isn't that big a deal in most cases.
Also, something I might point out with regards to all this is that back in the CRT days, many people gamed on PS/2 mice, since USB was still very new. Well in Windows 95/98 those were sampled at 40Hz. That means a lag of about 25ms between your mouse move and the computer registering the update. Same net effect as screen lag in that there is a difference between when you tell a game to do something and that registers.
Now things are reversed largely. Mice have a low latency (mine is set for 2ms, 500Hz, but I could turn it down even further) and monitors are higher (as I said mine is 33ms).
While I'm not saying lower input lag is bad, or that you shouldn't take it if you can get it, you need to be real about how much it actually matters to your gaming experience. Is it more important to have the lowest lag, or a screen you like? I'd say a screen you like is far more important to your overall enjoyment.
daveswantek
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,231
I agree totally. I have been saying the same for years. Human reaction time is about 250 ms so how much is an additional 33 ms. It is like 15%.
http://www.getyourwebsitehere.com/jswb/rttest01.html
Also you have to look at the total system lag which includes everything from the mouse to the display: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2803/7
This shows that 33 ms is a small part of the total system lag.
I think a lot of people are so obsessed with gaming that they think they have to have the BEST? And in other cases they are trying to justify being cheep, as in no denaro for ips.
Like you say the YouTube videos do not help.
Dave
Last edited:
dowant120hz
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 632
the first image on the anandtech link is pretty much complete bullshit
1st reason is that input devices like a mouse work asynchronous to the whole imaging process
2nd reason is that cpu and gpu are working together at the same time
3rd reason is that it implies the lcd would have zero input lag
on my 120hz crt and my 500hz mouse there only is 8-10ms delay from mouse input to output on the display (and its only 0-1 frame slower on a good tft)
every additional frame of input lag can make a huge difference there
For me I found them useful because in most of them, I had a real hard time seeing the lag. When he's jumping table to table it was difficult for me to notice, even with them right next to each other. Tells me it isn't a big deal. However other people look at the worst case situations where he's trying to make it obvious and say "Oh my god I could never cope with that!!!!"
What proof of that do you have? I hear a lot of people who make statements about the evils of lag and how you need to minimize it and so on but I see little in the way of info showing that is the case. What evidence do you have that a monitor with a couple frames of lag really impacts gaming that much? You seem to take it as an article of faith, with no real evidence.
As I said, there is evidence to the contrary, that being all the gamers who do not have extremely low lag systems yet still have fun and do fine playing games. So maybe they aren't the best out there. I'll venture a guess and say neither are you, despite the system. The idea isn't to be the world's best, since you aren't going to, it it just to have fun.
Also, something that really gets forgotten is all this only matters in twitch games. Any of these arguments about it affecting skill go out the door as soon as you are talking about a non-twitch game, of which there are a great many in the world. People who play WoW or Civ 4 or C&C 3 or Mass Effect 2 or Total War and so on will not find their skills improved by a low lag monitor. So the possibility for it to have an impact on skill AT ALL is limited to a subset of games.
That's why I say choose the monitor that you can afford, and that you like the way things look the best. That includes latency, if it gets too high it could be annoying and everyone has a different tolerance. But I mean how it looks to you, not how it rates on some test. Pick the one that gives you the image you are the happiest with, that you will enjoy looking at the most. Because ultimately, that's what it is there for: To show you images. So whatever is going to give you the most fun gaming experience is the winner.
For me, it is a nice, large, IPS display that has beautiful colour. I can enjoy the visuals of a game thoroughly on that.
Not correct. You have to look at the whole system. What happens is that you see something happen and you react to it. How fast does the system process that reaction and how soon do you see the result? Well that depends on a lot of things. How long it takes your display to show it is one, you can't react until you see it. How long it takes you to actually react is a big one. However then it is to your input device, you tell the device "do this", how long does it take the system to get that signal? Once it has it, the CPU has to process what happens. Once it has done that, it hands off the data to the GPU to be displayed, the GPU can't work on displaying new data until it has it. Then there's the screen lag again.
So the time in between you doing something and it showing very well DOES have to take mouse, CPU, and GPU lag in to account. It has to receive the signal you want to do something, calculate what to do, hand that off to the GPU, and then have the display show it.
monitorrat
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2010
- Messages
- 221
well if it gets really high it definitely can be noticed
whenever i switch desktop to my samsung c650 in normal mode I keep overshooting the mouse when i go to click on something (it has a fair amount more lag than either of my monitors)
that said, for most people, it's nothing to go crazy over once you get it down to a reasonable number, only a few totally hardcore twitch game players with better than average reflexes need some ultra, ultra low latency panel
Oh of course, you get anything high enough, and it will be noticeable. If I put a 10 second delay timer between your computer and your monitor, it would be impossible not to notice. The question, as always, is when. In the low ms range, you've gotten down to where human perception isn't really able to tell the difference. So that is what you have to consider, is what is the limit beyond which more isn't really useful.
I mean all monitors have lag, yes, even CRTs. There's no such thing as truly instantaneous. It takes time for the electron guns to scan, the phosphors to light up, etc. It is just such a small amount of time that you don't notice.
If you get a 0ms LCD that doesn't mean no delay at all, that means less than 1ms, which is the minimum they are measuring. It could well have 500 microseconds of lag, and that is just below the threshold their sensor can detect. Of course it doesn't matter, since it is also below the threshold humans can detect so it wouldn't be useful to quantify monitors down to that level.
So it is just about making sure that the lag is low enough you don't notice it. Past that, doesn't really matter. For most people, that'll be in the 2 digit ms range. Somewhere in there, below 50 maybe, below 30 maybe, whatever you'll reach the point that you don't notice it at all. So, once you find that, looking for less isn't useful. That doesn't mean you shouldn't buy something with lower lag, if you like it anyhow, just that you shouldn't make it a consideration.
For me, apparently, 2 frames, 33ms, isn't noticeable since that's what I've got now. As such so long as displays are that or under I'll be happy with their lag. I'd probalby be fine with more, but I haven't really tested it.
Agree. I also have this (~33ms lag) and don't notice it. If I don't notice it. I don't care.
My first LCD that I picked up before I heard anyone mention Lag was a Dell 2405(dreadful LCD). I don't know the numbers, but that had hideous input lag, it must have been worse than 2 frames. It annoyed my just moving the mouse around the screen, it was like it was stuck in molasses. I don't blame anyone who wants to avoid this. If they are hypersensitive they may notice on ~33ms lag displays (which are common). Too bad for them really, a lot of nice displays have ~33ms lag.
But this is moot anyway, there are essentially under 1 frame lag IPS displays and many of them. IPS is not a high input lag technology (unlike PVA which is). It is the features which drive lag on IPS displays.
There are many inexpensive IPS LCD, capable of real 75Hz refresh with sub one frame lag, the only marginal advantage you can attain with a TN screen is the 120Hz refresh with sub 1 frame and the "advantage" is largely on the spec sheet and not tangible in actual human perception.
Speed is not a reason to rule out IPS unless you are a zealot.
Tell me a >27'' FullHD@75hz monitor with <1ms lag, then, please.
I said there were many. I never said they were made to order with your dream specs.
Whoisthisreally
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2009
- Messages
- 1,143
Tell me a >27'' FullHD@75hz monitor with <1ms lag, then, please.
That'll never happen, should even blue phase LCD with its 300 microsecond response be made into a monitor.
You also seem to not be aware that the DVI output on almost all graphics cards can introduce input lag into the signal -> output chain.