19'' 2ms VS 22'' 5ms

[h3llb3nd4]

Those are Sammys

 

[Weer]

lol yes, psps' screens suck the donker with ghosting, most annoying thing ever. never understood why they didn't offer a better psp for a lil more premium with a ballin lcd.

Hey, you're the guy who quoted me.

They are coming with it. It's called PSP-3000.

But I wish people told me about the screen before I bought the blasted thing. I never would have bought it if I knew the screen was basically unworkable.

 

[Studabaker]

This just proves that one guy's 8-16ms with no ghosting is another guy's disgustingly awful ghosting who sees a difference between 5, 8 and maybe even 2ms. I guess it depends on the eye.

 

[alexp999]

I can see the difference between a 8ms 19", and my 5ms 22". But I cant see any difference between my 5ms 22" and my dad's 2ms 22". You are more likely to get ghosting from buying a cheap monitor where the image processor cant keep up.

So go for the 22", but dont buy a cheap one. I love my Acer, was £50 cheaper than my Dad's Samsung

 

[h3llb3nd4]

just choose between a ACER and SAMSUNG

 

[1Kurgan1]

This just proves that one guy's 8-16ms with no ghosting is another guy's disgustingly awful ghosting who sees a difference between 5, 8 and maybe even 2ms. I guess it depends on the eye.

I used my 37" Maganvox 720p as my comp monitor for quiet a while and anyone online I ever mentioned that too said it would look horrible, but man I miss that so much. Looks great and small font was easily readable and non-blocky and freind I have would vouch for it. That had 8ms and I never noticed any ghosting, but I will admit it's all in the eye of the beholder, if you look for a problem you will find one.

 

[h3llb3nd4]

The 40" TVs with Full HDs are awesome for PC monitors
try and get 3 of them

 

[alexp999]

I'm going to back track on what I said a bit, (cus I wasnt thinking at the time).

Right look at it like this, 8ms is 8/1000th of a sec. A typical LCD panel only refreshes at 60 Hz, which is 1/60th of a second.

Ghosting is caused by the image processor (all LCDs have them) not being able to keep up with the new frame (one every 1/60th of a second) and therefore your image tends to "smear" across the screen. The less work you give your video processor to do, the less ghosting you will get.

When I first got my 6ms 32" Sharp LCD TV, I thought it was the other way round, I had loads of enhancements running and the picture looked shit, basically.

Then I was told how they really work, my TV is now running with every enhancement and picture sharpness etc off. All colour brightness settings are default, and do you know what, it makes standard def TV look like HD, the picture is fantastic, and NO GHOSTING!

So to go back to the reasoning behind why I could see a difference between a 8ms 19" and my 5ms 22". That was because the 5ms 22" is a Crystalbrite Acer, and the 19" was a cheap as possible Hanspree.
The reason there was a difference will be that the much cheaper video processor in the Hanspree cant keep up with each new frame coming in so gives ghosting.

So its not really about Response time, but the quality of the monitor you are buying and the way its setup

 

[BradleyKZN]

So i take it lg is a no-no then, these are some of the monitors in my price range samsung 23335w 23'' and supports 1920x1080 5ms, samsung 2232gw 22'' 1680x1050 2ms, i have the smaller one and i love it. And then a viewsonic 22'' SASVX2240W 2ms 1680x1050

 

[h3llb3nd4]

take teh 23" full HD is the way

 

[alexp999]

So i take it lg is a no-no then, these are some of the monitors in my price range samsung 23335w 23'' and supports 1920x1080 5ms, samsung 2232gw 22'' 1680x1050 2ms, i have the smaller one and i love it. And then a viewsonic 22'' SASVX2240W 2ms 1680x1050

23" 1920x1080 if its in your price range.

No brainer

 

[Studabaker]

but I will admit it's all in the eye of the beholder, if you look for a problem you will find one.

So are you saying anyone seeing a difference is purposely looking for one? Don't throw that in there like that, man. That's kinda rude and a bit ignorant. Yeesh.

 

[Weer]

So are you saying anyone seeing a difference is purposely looking for one? Don't throw that in there like that, man. That's kinda rude and a bit ignorant. Yeesh.

Actually, I was just about to suggest the same thing.

As for Alex's theory. LCD panels don't use the only CRT refresh rate. Whether you're setting your computer for 30hz or 120hz, it won't make a difference. The only thing that will is pixel response time.
Technically speaking, a CRT literally refreshes its image 60 times per second. An LCD doesn't refresh the image; it only changes the color of the pixels that you roll the mouse pointer across.

 

[alexp999]

Actually, I was just about to suggest the same thing.

As for Alex's theory. LCD panels don't use the only CRT refresh rate. Whether you're setting your computer for 30hz or 120hz, it won't make a difference. The only thing that will is pixel response time.
Technically speaking, a CRT literally refreshes its image 60 times per second. An LCD doesn't refresh the image; it only changes the color of the pixels that you roll the mouse pointer across.

Yeah but the image processor is receving a new image every 1/60th of a second, it has to work out which pixels have changed colour and then change them. This process is much slower than the response time of the actual LCD pixels from going black to black.

Which is why cheap screens or ones you give too much to do, get ghosting where the video processor cant calculate the picture changes as fast as they are coming in

 

[BradleyKZN]

Ok i see what you are saying about the 23'' but is the quality any good? I at least hope that the shop still has it on special in a month, seeing as it is cheaper then the 22''

 

[alexp999]

Its a Samsung so yes

 

[Reventon]

Get the 22". I have a 19" and the picture is great and everything, but I find it to be a little small at times. Personally, I'm going to upgrade to a 32" when I can, but for you I'd say the 22".

 

[a_ump]

So i take it lg is a no-no then, these are some of the monitors in my price range samsung 23335w 23'' and supports 1920x1080 5ms, samsung 2232gw 22'' 1680x1050 2ms, i have the smaller one and i love it. And then a viewsonic 22'' SASVX2240W 2ms 1680x1050

i thk you might get 1920x1080 on that viewsonic, i have the 20" version and with a monitor driver update i got 1920x1080 for a display option. i was like sweet!!!! though i used nvidia control panel to make a custom res of 1800x1200, looks better and bigger imo.

 

[Wile E]

i thk you might get 1920x1080 on that viewsonic, i have the 20" version and with a monitor driver update i got 1920x1080 for a display option. i was like sweet!!!! though i used nvidia control panel to make a custom res of 1800x1200, looks better and bigger imo.

Giving a 1080p option on a 1680x1050 monitor does you no good. It's still only displaying 1680x1050 pixels, it's just downscaling a 1920x1080 image to fit.

As far as refresh rates, there is no set standard for measuring response rates. Most manufacturers use gray to gray, but they don't all use the same shade of gray. There are panels rated for 8ms that ghost less than 5ms panels.

2ms displays generally have the same exact panels as 5ms displays. They just use more overdrive. While yeah, it may make the pixels appear to respond faster, it also introduces pixels artifacting and other anomalies. The most accurate picture is achieved by turning off all overdrive and dynamic contrast options. Since most of these displays of the same size and 5ms or lower refresh rates actually use the same few TN-Film panels, the differences are minimal, unless a manufacturer really screwed up their settings in the controller they chose.

Me, personally, I avoid all Tn-Film panels, as the picture is complete ass compared to a good PVA or IPS panel. What good is no ghosting if the picture looks like shit to begin with?

 

[1Kurgan1]

So are you saying anyone seeing a difference is purposely looking for one? Don't throw that in there like that, man. That's kinda rude and a bit ignorant. Yeesh.

No... what you said is rude and ignorant. I was simply saying is some people are more picky than others. And like I said in that post I loved my 37" 720p and it looked awesome, but other people pretty much told me they thought it would look like playing a Nintendo.

If you look for a problem in just about anything you will find one. Nothing is ever going to be perfect and some people are perfectionists, so nothing will ever make them happy no matter how awesome the product is. My dad owned an Autobody business for over 20 years and people would bring their cars to them for a touch up for a scratch or something and be proud of how it looks. And he would feel bad breaking it down that whoever painted the car before didn't watch how they sanded and made an uneven surface and would point out the ripples all along the paint. Even though you stand back a bit the car would look good, if you look for it you will find some issue almost always. I don't see how me saying that now or before would offend or target anyone.

What I really don't get was I said the samething you had just said, and was agreeing with you.

 

[a_ump]

ah well bummer, i thought i actually had a resolution upgrade here, though i do have much more desktop space...but it's still 1680x1050 you say?. i remember before i updated the driver, if i used nv control panel's custom res to apply 1920x1080, it was too big for my monitor and my vista sidebar and like date/time on lower right was off screen as well, like if my screen were another inch longer i'd have seen it lol. well thx didn't know it was just downscaling.

 

[m4gicfour]

Lets play nice, guys. Remember that there is no tone in text, so you most likely are being offended at a meaning that YOU inferred. (Can't count the arguments I got into before learning to take a step back)

ON TOPIC; I use THIS as my monitor, and I've never noticed any ghosting; with 10ms response time. Then again, its got a (relatively) good processor and a Sharp panel.

I'd say so long as you choose a good brand or (in the case of the unit I've got) do your research first, response time doesn't matter so much. Like the guy said, there's no industry standard for measuring response time, so its best used as a comparison between multiple models of the same brand.

Thats my 2 cents...

if i used nv control panel's custom res to apply 1920x1080, it was too big for my monitor and my vista sidebar and like date/time on lower right was off screen as well, like if my screen were another inch longer i'd have seen it lol.

I'm not sure about nVidia's CP, but CCC alows you to adjust that with a setting called OVERSCAN. Might be worth looking for. (although, as has been pointed out, It won't make your res higher than the display can handle)

 

[1Kurgan1]

ah well bummer, i thought i actually had a resolution upgrade here, though i do have much more desktop space...but it's still 1680x1050 you say?. i remember before i updated the driver, if i used nv control panel's custom res to apply 1920x1080, it was too big for my monitor and my vista sidebar and like date/time on lower right was off screen as well, like if my screen were another inch longer i'd have seen it lol. well thx didn't know it was just downscaling.

Yeah if it's 1680x1050 native it won't do a true 1080p, it just physically can't. But a lot of monitors can scale it, a good example is TV's there are a ton of 720P TV's out there, I had one and used it fine on my PS3. Even if I had the PS3 output set to 1080p it ran great, but it looked the same as it being set to 720p.

 

[BradleyKZN]

Im actually quite surprised that no body is actually using this monitor, here in SA its an extremely popular monitor! And you guys were right, not a single person using it has ever seen ghosting on it, so the 23'' it is!

 

[m4gicfour]

Even if I had the PS3 output set to 1080p it ran great, but it looked the same as it being set to 720p.

Really. Are you saying you forced 1080P with the PS3? Normally it won't use a res higher than the monitor/tv EDID allows... (although if the TV can scale the picture to 720P it may actually be reporting that it's 1080P compatible to the PS3).

Not important by any means, just curious.