IPS overated?

[pookeyhead]

Gamma shift? What gamma shift

Lagom viewing angle/gamma shift page.

Apologies for the noisy images. ISO1600 as I didn't have my tripod handy.


I have noticed almost no gamma shift from normal viewing distances. Strangely, there is slightly more viewing from the right, but still very little.

Colour remains constant until you hit around 60 degrees off axis, with only minimal PVA warmness creeping in at the edge.(camera on manual with same exposure settings for both)

I shot a video with the same room lighting as the Dell video, but the black levels don't show at all.. in fact, all you can see is the wood coloured surface of the desk reflected in the panel because it's so dark. To prove that it was reflections, and not glow, I moved my arm around so you can see the reflection moving. The back lighting is not visible on the video unless I turn all the room lights out... but that's pretty obvious. The colour change of the vid, is the white balance on the phone getting confused by the lovely darkness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkVGzeYxYYA

For reference, the Dell3008 video is below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQUIaWKAdV4

It's pretty fast too.

that's black to white response.

Smooth AG coating... well built. Basically, it's apparent why this costs more than the Dell.

Until they sort out the IPS problems, I'll stick with PVA thanks.

 

[Blazestorm]

For 3 times what I paid for an IPS 3007WFP-HC? I'd rather have 3 x 3007's than a single Eizo..

But that's me

 

[setekh]

For 3 times what I paid for an IPS 3007WFP-HC? I'd rather have 3 x 3007's than a single Eizo..

But that's me

I'm with pookeyhead - definitely the Eizo vs the Dell. It's more expensive, yes, but it's a really good display. And, to be honest, I can't think that more than 1 (or, maybe, 2) 30'' is overkill (yes, even if you're Al Gore).

 

[Blazestorm]

I think that a $2500 display is overkill... just as 3 30" displays would be... But I'd rather have 3 x30" with slightly "worse" images because of the added resolution.

For most people even a 30" is overkill...

 

[Sycraft]

Apparently Eizo found an IPS panel they like. Their new CG303W is IPS.

Unfortunately I've had to write Eizo off as they blow even my budget. I spend a lot on computers, and I may go fro a $2000ish 30" pro monitor here (NEC PA probably). However $4000-5000, which is what their 30" goes for, is just more than I can do.

 

[steal]

No, you seem to be making stuff up without any backing. See it turns out things like limitations to the human visual system are things that scientists have actually tested, in laboratory conditions. Turns out that while there is variability per person, as one would expect, the range beyond which things look no smoother is in the 60-70fps area. Higher scan rates can make for less flicker with something like a large CRT, but they do not make for a smoother image.

You are wrong and everyone else posting this bullshit is also wrong, just stop.

I can tell the difference between 1156x864@120hz and 1156@864@140hz while playing Quakeworld. My NEC FP2141 does both easily.

I'm sorry your eyes are broke or you're an old man or too young to have ever used a CRT or whatever the fuck your lame excuse is for not ever wanting a refresh rate above what your broke ass in-denial eyes can see but there are a lot of people, as demonstrated in this thread, who can appreciate a very fluid image like CRTs at over 100hz gave us.

I hate seeing some idiot come into every single thread where refresh rate is mentioned and shits it up with the same, "the human eye cannot see above a certain refresh rate (which is whatever he decides to post at the time) so anything above this refresh rate is useless, therefore no one would ever benefit from it so it's a useless feature". It's been happening for well over a decade and I'm sick of reading it.

Sorry for shitting up your panel debate, guys

 

[Snowdog]

You are wrong and everyone else posting this bullshit is also wrong, just stop.

I can tell the difference between 1156x864@120hz and 1156@864@140hz while playing Quakeworld. My NEC FP2141 does both easily.

AKA "the placebo effect".

 

[steal]

AKA "the placebo effect".

AKA I've been playing FPS games on CRTs for 15 years at these refresh rates and I can tell the difference. It's not placebo, I can switch between the two in seconds and immediately tell the difference in smoothness. However I do struggle to see the difference between 1156x864@140hz and 1024x768@160hz in terms of smoothness.

edit; here is a picture from QHLAN '10, which is a LAN for QW players in Sweden

This picture was taken in January '10

Notice anything out of the ordinary?

 

[dowant120hz]

not getting any smoother at around 60-70fps might be true for passive stuff (like movies with motion blur)

but when i control something actively 150hz isn't really smooth yet
and i easily see the difference between 120hz and 150hz

also the human eye can see at least 500fps or more

 

[Snowdog]

AKA I've been playing FPS games on CRTs for 15 years at these refresh rates and I can tell the difference. It's not placebo, I can switch between the two in seconds and immediately tell the difference in smoothness.

I read the same thing over and over again from the self professed golden eared audiophiles, who claimed they had been critically listening to high end equipment for years and claimed they could hear the subtle differences caused by special connector fluids, directional audio cables, crystal aligned copper... etc.

I am in no way surprised that we have the video equivalents today. But the claims have about the same merit is previous golden ear claims.

 

[setekh]

not getting any smoother at around 60-70fps might be true for passive stuff (like movies with motion blur)

but when i control something actively 150hz isn't really smooth yet
and i easily see the difference between 120hz and 150hz

also the human eye can see at least 500fps or more

Well, if you say so, I'll just take your word for it.

To paraphrase Snowdog, these last few posts scream placebo effect.

 

[Babel]

You are wrong and everyone else posting this bullshit is also wrong, just stop.

I can tell the difference between 1156x864@120hz and 1156@864@140hz while playing Quakeworld. My NEC FP2141 does both easily.

I'm sorry your eyes are broke or you're an old man or too young to have ever used a CRT or whatever the fuck your lame excuse is for not ever wanting a refresh rate above what your broke ass in-denial eyes can see but there are a lot of people, as demonstrated in this thread, who can appreciate a very fluid image like CRTs at over 100hz gave us.

I hate seeing some idiot come into every single thread where refresh rate is mentioned and shits it up with the same, "the human eye cannot see above a certain refresh rate (which is whatever he decides to post at the time) so anything above this refresh rate is useless, therefore no one would ever benefit from it so it's a useless feature". It's been happening for well over a decade and I'm sick of reading it.

Sorry for shitting up your panel debate, guys

I'm with you man. I'm a old Quakeworld player myself and there is indeed a difference. If I could get my hands on a 24" CRT with high refreshrates, I would take it any day of the week. For online FPS gaming that is. LCD works well enough for anything else as long as they can show 75hz or more.

 

[BDV]

You can definitely see a difference between 60hz and 120+ hz... For a while I had a CRT and LCD sitting side by side and the difference was definitely there.

 

[Snowdog]

You can definitely see a difference between 60hz and 120+ hz... For a while I had a CRT and LCD sitting side by side and the difference was definitely there.

I am not saying there is no difference between a 60Hz LCD and a 120Hz CRT.

I am saying the difference between 120Hz and 150Hz CRT is not really discernible by humans.

Somewhere around 85Hz most people sitting in front of full white screen display on a CRT can't tell that it is in fact blinking between full white and full black.

If you can't tell the screen is flashing between black and white at a mere 85Hz (12 ms frames) does it really make sense you are going to detect the subtle difference between 8ms and 6ms frames. 85Hz/12ms black/white flash is like a hurricane, the difference between an 8ms and 6ms frames is a bats wings flutter lost in that hurricane.

 

[dowant120hz]

recognizing higher and higher fps really just depends how trained you are
i'm also playing on crt for more than 10 years already and its really easy to differ between frame rates for me
could probably see the difference between 200 and 240
but no display to blind test that with

oh and the 500fps> thing is simply a scientific fact
doesn't matter if you're a progamer or of low intelligence
almost everyone can perceive that

 

[Snowdog]

oh and the 500fps> thing is simply a scientific fact

If it is a Scientific Fact, show us the research that determined it.

It isn't a fact, it is complete BS.

If people perceive a mere 85Hz black-white flash as just white, it is pretty clear evidence they are near the limit of perception.

 

[steal]

If it is a Scientific Fact, show us the research that determined it.

It isn't a fact, it is complete BS.

If people perceive a mere 85Hz black-white flash as just white, it is pretty clear evidence they are near the limit of perception.

We aren't talking about static white images.

 

[setekh]

We aren't talking about static white images.

No, those should be much more noticeable than changing between shades of a colour. It's an extreme example and it renders your point moot.

 

[sethk]

Motion detection in the human brain is a very different issue from full frame single color flicker detection. Flicker was ONE reason people liked to increase the refresh rates on CRTs (it made the scanning of CRTs less discernable). The benefits of reduced flicker has diminishing returns starting around 85hz-100hz. However, when it comes to content generated at high refresh rates, I haven't seen any studies that show what the human eye/brain's limits are in terms of the granularity of the motion.

I see a lot of assertions on both sides and no data to back either up. Clearly each side is not going to believe the other based on assertions alone. Like some of the others in this thread who played Quakeworld, Counter-strike and other games at high refresh rates on a CRT, I realize than increased frame rates in the right games at > 100 hz is not placebo. However I also recognize that me saying so is not going to convince some of the people who have not experienced it for themselves.

Now on the surface, none of this belongs in a LCD panel type thread - except that I am very convinced that discrete 120hz IPS monitors will convince a lot of *gamers* that there is a benefit to high refresh rates on an LCD that has nothing to do with flicker (obviously, since LCDs are not scanning type devices like a CRT) and also has nothing to do with blur. It has to do with the game producing more discrete fields of content which your brain can comprehend as smoother and more granular motion and control. Some game engines are locked at a frame rate, and without hacks will not generate more than 60hz of discrete fields, any further frames are just repeated. In these situations, the increased frame rate on an LCD is of little to no use. However in games where the 'tick rate' / engine rate or whatever the game calls it can be increased, you feel the benefits of more fine grained input, more fine grained steps to the output and motion produced. i.e. you feel the benefits of a tighter, shorter more granular feedback loop. Now of course in order to benefit from this, you need a full system (video card, cpu and monitor) that can support this higher tick rate.

This is a benefit that only has to do with gaming - if 120hz helps movies and 3D, well that's a whole other thing, and for other reasons than those described above.

 

[kllrnohj]

edit; here is a picture from QHLAN '10, which is a LAN for QW players in Sweden

http://i28.tinypic.com/infzfl.jpg

This picture was taken in January '10

Notice anything out of the ordinary?

Nope. They are all spending all their time playing games rather than working a job and thus have pretty shitty setups.

I read the same thing over and over again from the self professed golden eared audiophiles, who claimed they had been critically listening to high end equipment for years and claimed they could hear the subtle differences caused by special connector fluids, directional audio cables, crystal aligned copper... etc.

I am in no way surprised that we have the video equivalents today. But the claims have about the same merit is previous golden ear claims.

Heh: http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15412&postcount=28

We gathered up a 5 of our audio buddies. We took my "old" Martin Logan SL-3 (not a bad speaker for accurate noise making) and hooked them up with Monster 1000 speaker cables (decent cables according to the audio press). We also rigged up 14 gauge, oxygen free Belden stranded copper wire with a simple PVC jacket. Both were 2 meters long. They were connected to an ABX switch box allowing blind fold testing. Volume levels were set at 75 Db at 1000K Hz. A high quality recording of smooth, trio, easy listening jazz was played (Piano, drums, bass). None of us had heard this group or CD before, therefore eliminating biases. The music was played. Of the 5 blind folded, only 2 guessed correctly which was the monster cable. (I was not one of them). This was done 7 times in a row! Keeping us blind folded, my brother switched out the Belden wire (are you ready for this) with simple coat hanger wire! Unknown to me and our 12 audiophile buddies, prior to the ABX blind test, he took apart four coat hangers, reconnectd them and twisted them into a pair of speaker cables. Connections were soldered. He stashed them in a closet within the testing room so we were not privy to what he was up to. This made for a pair of 2 meter cables, the exact length of the other wires. The test was conducted. After 5 tests, none could determine which was the Monster 1000 cable or the coat hanger wire. Further, when music was played through the coat hanger wire, we were asked if what we heard sounded good to us. All agreed that what was heard sounded excellent, however, when A-B tests occured, it was impossible to determine which sounded best the majority of the time and which wire was in use. Needless to say, after the blind folds came off and we saw what my brother did, we learned he was right...most of what manufactures have to say about their products is pure hype. It seems the more they charge, the more hyped it is.

 

[Fenix793]

Nope. They are all spending all their time playing games rather than working a job and thus have pretty shitty setups.

Heh: http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15412&postcount=28

LOL yea I think when people say they can see the difference between 140hz and 160hz it's mostly because they switched it themselves. Now if someone could walk up to a screen that they've never used that was set at 140hz and say "This is 140hz and this is unacceptable" that would be a little different. I do think most users could see a difference between 60hz and 120hz though.

 

[dowant120hz]

If it is a Scientific Fact, show us the research that determined it.

It isn't a fact, it is complete BS.

If people perceive a mere 85Hz black-white flash as just white, it is pretty clear evidence they are near the limit of perception.

well i could explain in detail but i'm not gonna argue about the earth being round

just read through
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
or google the air force documents about it

 

[dowant120hz]

LOL yea I think when people say they can see the difference between 140hz and 160hz it's mostly because they switched it themselves. Now if someone could walk up to a screen that they've never used that was set at 140hz and say "This is 140hz and this is unacceptable" that would be a little different. I do think most users could see a difference between 60hz and 120hz though.

i did easily see 120/150 in an actual blind test
but that's only with active mouse control of course

 

[steal]

Nope. They are all spending all their time playing games rather than working a job and thus have pretty shitty setups.

Maybe you should tell them that. I heard poverty is a Real Issue in Sweden, too, which would probably explain why they can't afford a dirt cheap LCD

 

[Elledan]

(obviously, since LCDs are not scanning type devices like a CRT)

Actually the refresh with TFT still occurs in the same fashion as with a CRT: both scan the image from top left to bottom right in horizontal lines. This is where vsync-tearing comes from, after all

The only real difference is that with a CRT the phosphor layer has to have returned to its default (black) state before it can be refreshed (the electrons knocked into higher orbits), whereas with an LCD the subpixels merely have their orientation changed.

 

[Babel]

I can go so far and say that I might not see the difference between 100hz and 150hz just by watching at the screen, but give me a mouse and keyboard and I would know right away.

That's what it comes down to. You can feel the difference and it's not a placebo thing.

 

[Snowdog]

well i could explain in detail but i'm not gonna argue about the earth being round

just read through
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
or google the air force documents about it

Just a little reminder, this is what I asked you back up with research:

oh and the 500fps> thing is simply a scientific fact

The above is NOT research (it's someones blog) and does not back up >500fps.

The one bit of research that is quoted is used incorrectly by both. In fact this is what everyone tries to use as proof of high frame rate visual system. But it is completely faulty reasoning.

The USAF, in testing their pilots for visual response time, used a simple test to see if the pilots could distinguish small changes in light. In their experiment a picture of an aircraft was flashed on a screen in a dark room at 1/220th of a second. Pilots were consistently able to "see" the afterimage as well as identify the aircraft. This simple and specific situation not only proves the ability to percieve 1 image within 1/220 of a second, but the ability to interpret higher FPS.

Flash something in a dark room and you get an afterimage burned into your retina that last several seconds. This is in no way indicitive of high frame rate visual system. In fact it is the opossite, you are stuck with a burned in image that last seconds, that is less than 1FPS!.

If they had instead flashed two images 1/220 of second apart on the same part of the screen. No one would have been able to pick out either image, instead a merged version would be what everyone would see, because our system simply can't handle more than one distinct event like that. One lone event burning an afterimage does not equal high frame rate perception.

 

[kllrnohj]

Actually the refresh with TFT still occurs in the same fashion as with a CRT: both scan the image from top left to bottom right in horizontal lines. This is where vsync-tearing comes from, after all

Actually vsync comes from the time it takes to transmit the data over the cable. Even if LCD's refreshed all at once, you'd still get tearing because the data isn't being trasmitted all at once

Maybe you should tell them that. I heard poverty is a Real Issue in Sweden, too, which would probably explain why they can't afford a dirt cheap LCD

Did you notice they were all using dirt cheap CRTs? CRTs that sucked ass? So if your point was that pro gamers use CRTs because CRTs are better, you've done a bad job of backing that up because everything in that picture simply points to them not being able to afford anything better.

If your point was that poverty exists in Sweden and there are people that can't spend more money on their hobbies, well, then I'm really not sure why the fuck you posted that in this thread.

 

[Elledan]

Actually vsync comes from the time it takes to transmit the data over the cable. Even if LCD's refreshed all at once, you'd still get tearing because the data isn't being trasmitted all at once

That doesn't even make sense. You are aware of how a TFT matrix works, don't you? An LCD driver, maybe?

 

[Sycraft]

Did you notice they were all using dirt cheap CRTs? CRTs that sucked ass? So if your point was that pro gamers use CRTs because CRTs are better, you've done a bad job of backing that up because everything in that picture simply points to them not being able to afford anything better.

Also there is the issue here that nearly everyone here, and probably in fact actually everyone here is NOT a professional gamer.

If you are a pro anything, then you do what you need to do to gain a competitive edge. When there's money involved, I'm no going to tell you that you are wrong. Hell sometimes pros do silly, superstitious things (very common in Baseball). Whatever, money is on the line, it is a profession, you do what makes you win.

However, if that is not the case, then the question is very different. The question now is what gives you the overall best experience, which includes how nice things look, how easy text is on the eyes and so on. You are not playing for money so absolute performance doesn't matter.

That doesn't mean performance isn't something to consider. You don't want something that is impossible to play games one, however once it is good enough so that you don't really notice, it is good enough. Other features are then more important.

This focus like maximum FPS performance is all that matters is silly. That only matters if you are playing FPSes professionally. If you are just sitting at home playing games, doesn't matter and you've other problems than your monitor (like your net connection, which is likely to have 50-100ms of lag). So worrying over it to an extreme gets silly. You have to take a look at total usage and decide what gives the most satisfying image all around.

 

[steal]

Did you notice they were all using dirt cheap CRTs? CRTs that sucked ass? So if your point was that pro gamers use CRTs because CRTs are better, you've done a bad job of backing that up because everything in that picture simply points to them not being able to afford anything better.

If your point was that poverty exists in Sweden and there are people that can't spend more money on their hobbies, well, then I'm really not sure why the fuck you posted that in this thread.

I can't believe I'm even bothering to reply to this. They use those CRTs because they're excellent for ultra high refresh rates and nothing else. Sweden has one of the highest HDIs in the world and poverty is mostly a thing of the past there; I assure you any of those people could more than likely afford any type of display they wanted.

This focus like maximum FPS performance is all that matters is silly. That only matters if you are playing FPSes professionally. If you are just sitting at home playing games, doesn't matter and you've other problems than your monitor (like your net connection, which is likely to have 50-100ms of lag). So worrying over it to an extreme gets silly. You have to take a look at total usage and decide what gives the most satisfying image all around.

Please stop telling people what features should and shouldn't matter to them. Different people might find different features more important to them. Hard to believe that not everyone is exactly as you are, I know.

 

[kllrnohj]

I can't believe I'm even bothering to reply to this. They use those CRTs because they're excellent for ultra high refresh rates and nothing else. Sweden has one of the highest HDIs in the world and poverty is mostly a thing of the past there; I assure you any of those people could more than likely afford any type of display they wanted.

So why are they using $20 CRTs from a trash can?

That doesn't even make sense. You are aware of how a TFT matrix works, don't you? An LCD driver, maybe?

Not very well, but that doesn't matter. Tearing comes from the buffer on the PC side being updated mid refresh. However, that refresh isn't going directly to the LCD itself, but rather to another buffer on the LCD side. More importantly, it has to be transmitted across DVI/VGA/DP/whatever - that transmission takes time. So you have:

Buffer (PC) <-> Cable <-> Buffer (LCD) <-> whatever

It is at the point when the data is being sent across the cable that the tearing comes from, not when it is actually being drawn to the screen itself.

 

[steal]

So why are they using $20 CRTs from a trash can?

Why don't you go ahead and name off the Manufacturer/model numbers of the CRTs in that picture, just so we know how cheap they are?

 

[Sycraft]

Please stop telling people what features should and shouldn't matter to them. Different people might find different features more important to them. Hard to believe that not everyone is exactly as you are, I know.

I could say the same to you. You are being extremely abrasive suggesting that high refresh rate is the One True Way(tm) and that everyone who doesn't think so is either an idiot or old (by the way, you might wish to consider what the alternative to getting old is, makes being old not seem so bad).

I am simply trying to say that considering more factors is a good idea. You are not a professional gamer, you don't get paid to do this. As such trying to act like the best possible advantage in an FPS game is important is silly. Rather it should be what over all works best, and there's more than a few factors. If that really is a CRT, ok fine, then you should be secure in that. You should be able to say "I like a CRT for these reasons. I realize LCDs work great most people, however my needs are a bit different."

Instead you are openly hostile to LCDs, and those that might recommend them. to me that suggests insecurity about your purchase decision, you feel the need to aggressively push your choice as the only logical and correct one.

Also you seem over focused on a single stat, which is never a good thing. For a person to really get a feel for a display the whole package has to be considered. Just saying "It is better because of this one thing," doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[steal]

I'm not saying it's the one true way, I'm saying there are users who can see a difference between high and very high refresh rates, so dismissing them as unnecessary because you, as an individual, cannot see the difference, or don't care, is selfish and short-sighted.

Mocking those who appreciate higher refresh rates (and calling them liars at the same time) as some in this thread are doing doesn't help your case, either.

Stop telling me what features I do and don't need. I use a zr24w for everything else besides QW, by the way.

 

[kllrnohj]

I'm not saying it's the one true way, I'm saying there are users who can see a difference between high and very high refresh rates, so dismissing them as unnecessary because you, as an individual, cannot see the difference, or don't care, is selfish and short-sighted.

Mocking those who appreciate higher refresh rates (and calling them liars at the same time) as some in this thread are doing doesn't help your case, either.

There are people who claim to hear the differences between various speaker cables as well - but in reality they can't tell a speaker cable from a coat hanger. You only *think* you can see a difference, you don't *know* if you can. Somebody already asked for proof on some of your other claims - you never backed them up.

 

[daveswantek]

Why don't you go ahead and name off the Manufacturer/model numbers of the CRTs in that picture, just so we know how cheap they are?

Are you trolling or just lame? They are as described above. $20 junk from a trash can.

On the far right we have a black Dell Cheepo. I have worked with this exact same display, it is trash plain and simple. To the left of it we have a fine example of the same thing in off white; more junk. If that is not enough, then we have some fine Iiyama garbage in the middle. Behind that are a couple of lowend CTX junkers. The one behind the guys head looks like a Samsung pile of crap.

Now that I have ripped this pick for what it is a room full of garbage, lets talk about what is a high end CRT capable of high refresh rates. The best CRT ever released to the public is the Sony GDM-F520. This CRT was one of very few that could even go to refresh rates over 120 Hz. I have 2 of them, one heavly used and the other new in the box. I know everyone talks about the GDM-W900 as if it were the king, but that is only because it is a wide aspect display with a .24 dot pitch as compared to a .21 dot pitch in the F520. The F520 has more accurate geometry than the w900 as well. Both of these displays were rebranded by NEC, HP, Sun and others. The only other CRT that could be considered high end was the Mitsubishi DiamondTron usually found in Ezio/Nano dispays. I had one of these at one time too, but it could not compare to my Sony GDM-F500 or the 520 that replaced it.

Going back to the pic on the previous page, there are none of the high end displays I have just described. You can tell right away that they are all cheep junk, because none of them have the flat glass screen that Sony was know for and none of them have the trademark thin bezel of the Ezio displays. Look at the comps. What a joke; when was this picture taken, 20 years ago?

With regard to refresh rates over 120 Hz, if you think you can tell a difference great. What I know from working with the best CRTs ever made is that when you go over 120 Hz you get slightly blurrier text and less accurate geometry. 100 Hz was considered by Sony to be the optimum viewing refresh rate and that is what works best for me.

Have fun

Dave

 

[steal]

Are you trolling or just lame? They are as described above. $20 junk from a trash can.

On the far right we have a black Dell Cheepo. I have worked with this exact same display, it is trash plain and simple. To the left of it we have a fine example of the same thing in off white; more junk. If that is not enough, then we have some fine Iiyama garbage in the middle. Behind that are a couple of lowend CTX junkers. The one behind the guys head looks like a Samsung pile of crap.

Trash for what? They're all capable of being pushed well over 120hz (at lower resolutions) while gaming. That's their purpose. It doesn't matter if they're up to your standards for whatever else, that isn't their purpose.

Now that I have ripped this pick for what it is a room full of garbage, lets talk about what is a high end CRT capable of high refresh rates. The best CRT ever released to the public is the Sony GDM-F520. This CRT was one of very few that could even go to refresh rates over 120 Hz. I have 2 of them, one heavly used and the other new in the box. I know everyone talks about the GDM-W900 as if it were the king, but that is only because it is a wide aspect display with a .24 dot pitch as compared to a .21 dot pitch in the F520. The F520 has more accurate geometry than the w900 as well. Both of these displays were rebranded by NEC, HP, Sun and others. The only other CRT that could be considered high end was the Mitsubishi DiamondTron usually found in Ezio/Nano dispays. I had one of these at one time too, but it could not compare to my Sony GDM-F500 or the 520 that replaced it.

A bunch of stuff that doesn't matter when you're gaming. Thanks for the info, I guess?

Going back to the pic on the previous page, there are none of the high end displays I have just described. You can tell right away that they are all cheep junk, because none of them have the flat glass screen that Sony was know for and none of them have the trademark thin bezel of the Ezio displays. Look at the comps. What a joke; when was this picture taken, 20 years ago?

About seven months ago.

With regard to refresh rates over 120 Hz, if you think you can tell a difference great. What I know from working with the best CRTs ever made is that when you go over 120 Hz you get slightly blurrier text and less accurate geometry. 100 Hz was considered by Sony to be the optimum viewing refresh rate and that is what works best for me.

Have fun

Dave

Thanks for the "insight" Dave. Sorry you had to type all of those words that didn't really have anything to do with what was posted in this thread, though.

I'll be sure to forward it to everyone in that picture so that they can personally apologize to you for not using what you describe to be the best CRTs in the world for gaming when "trash" will suffice.

 

[jakeshields]

The only problem I've had with IPS is the hazy white you get from off-axis angles.

 

[cipher_nemo]

There are people who claim to hear the differences between various speaker cables as well - but in reality they can't tell a speaker cable from a coat hanger. You only *think* you can see a difference, you don't *know* if you can. Somebody already asked for proof on some of your other claims - you never backed them up.

QFT. The human eye being able to see 500FPS comment is total BS from that one poster, just like 500FPS on a 60Hz LCD is about 440FPS wasted. If the human eye could see 500FPS and tell the difference, then our entire multimedia business would be focused on making movies at 250+FPS and monitor refresh rates at 250+Hz. But no, most things cap at 60Hz/FPS to achieve smooth motion, and video is typically at 30 or 29.97 (drop frame) FPS.

Naive gamers will confuse being able to tell the difference between these high FPS rates because FPS in games is up and down faster than most in-screen FPS reporting tools report (or are even capable of reporting). So 500FPS and then drop to 100FPS the next polling second and the gamer sees a little lag in game, so they think they can tell a difference. When in fact their FPS probably went from 500FPS to 10FPS and then up to 100FPS faster than their reporting tool recorded.

The only problem I've had with IPS is the hazy white you get from off-axis angles.

?? With IPS you're supposed to get better color reproduction with wider viewing angels. Perhaps your "hazy white" experience is specific to one manufacturer/model of an IPS panel?