Maximum LCD response time in order to watch (analog) TV?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

I need to buy an LCD monitor for a home system that, while used
primarily for office apps, will also be connected to an analog cable
signal to allow it to double as a tv/dvd player for the little ones.

I have read that any response time above 15ms will result in ghosting,
yet most reasonable priced monitors have a min response time of 16ms
(which means actual response time will probably be higher).

Does anyone here watch tv or video on an LCD monitor? If so, what is
your monitor's response time? Is the "ghosting" noticeable?
Thanks in advance for your advice...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Re_endian_miss@yahoo.com wrote:

> I need to buy an LCD monitor for a home system that, while used
> primarily for office apps, will also be connected to an analog cable
> signal to allow it to double as a tv/dvd player for the little ones.
>
> I have read that any response time above 15ms will result in ghosting,
> yet most reasonable priced monitors have a min response time of 16ms
> (which means actual response time will probably be higher).
>
> Does anyone here watch tv or video on an LCD monitor? If so, what is
> your monitor's response time? Is the "ghosting" noticeable?
> Thanks in advance for your advice...

I have no idea what the response time of my ancient IBM LCD is, let alone
that of my even older LCD projector, or the one that I used for five years
or so before that one, but none of them has ever exhibited any kind of
ghosting while watching TV, and that includes high definition TV where it
would have been very apparent. And I am sure that none of them have any
15ms response time.

This "ghosting" issue is grossly exaggerated--most of the time it seems to
result from running the computer's refresh rate at a higher value than the
native refresh rate of the monitor and has nothing to do with the response
time. The frame rate of NTSC video is approximately 30 frames/sec, which
means that 30ms elapse between frames, so how a response time smaller than
that can cause "ghosting" on TV is a mystery to me.


--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Thanks, this is great info.

FYI: This is the article that got me worried:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-7610_7-5084364-3.html?tag=tnav
specifically, this excerpt:
"A maximum of a 12ms-to-15ms response time across the spectrum is
required for gaming or viewing television and movies without ghosting
or streaking."


J. Clarke wrote:
> Re_endian_miss@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > I need to buy an LCD monitor for a home system that, while used
> > primarily for office apps, will also be connected to an analog
cable
> > signal to allow it to double as a tv/dvd player for the little
ones.
> >
> > I have read that any response time above 15ms will result in
ghosting,
> > yet most reasonable priced monitors have a min response time of
16ms
> > (which means actual response time will probably be higher).
> >
> > Does anyone here watch tv or video on an LCD monitor? If so, what
is
> > your monitor's response time? Is the "ghosting" noticeable?
> > Thanks in advance for your advice...
>
> I have no idea what the response time of my ancient IBM LCD is, let
alone
> that of my even older LCD projector, or the one that I used for five
years
> or so before that one, but none of them has ever exhibited any kind
of
> ghosting while watching TV, and that includes high definition TV
where it
> would have been very apparent. And I am sure that none of them have
any
> 15ms response time.
>
> This "ghosting" issue is grossly exaggerated--most of the time it
seems to
> result from running the computer's refresh rate at a higher value
than the
> native refresh rate of the monitor and has nothing to do with the
response
> time. The frame rate of NTSC video is approximately 30 frames/sec,
which
> means that 30ms elapse between frames, so how a response time smaller
than
> that can cause "ghosting" on TV is a mystery to me.
>
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Re_endian_miss@yahoo.com wrote:

> Thanks, this is great info.
>
> FYI: This is the article that got me worried:
> http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-7610_7-5084364-3.html?tag=tnav
> specifically, this excerpt:
> "A maximum of a 12ms-to-15ms response time across the spectrum is
> required for gaming or viewing television and movies without ghosting
> or streaking."

It looks like they bought into Samsung's hype surrounding their 172X, which
Samsung claims has a 12ms response time.

You might find the discussion at
<http://forums.sudhian.com/messageview.cfm?catid=43&threadid=57801&forumid=1>
to be of interest.

> J. Clarke wrote:
>> Re_endian_miss@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> > I need to buy an LCD monitor for a home system that, while used
>> > primarily for office apps, will also be connected to an analog
> cable
>> > signal to allow it to double as a tv/dvd player for the little
> ones.
>> >
>> > I have read that any response time above 15ms will result in
> ghosting,
>> > yet most reasonable priced monitors have a min response time of
> 16ms
>> > (which means actual response time will probably be higher).
>> >
>> > Does anyone here watch tv or video on an LCD monitor? If so, what
> is
>> > your monitor's response time? Is the "ghosting" noticeable?
>> > Thanks in advance for your advice...
>>
>> I have no idea what the response time of my ancient IBM LCD is, let
> alone
>> that of my even older LCD projector, or the one that I used for five
> years
>> or so before that one, but none of them has ever exhibited any kind
> of
>> ghosting while watching TV, and that includes high definition TV
> where it
>> would have been very apparent. And I am sure that none of them have
> any
>> 15ms response time.
>>
>> This "ghosting" issue is grossly exaggerated--most of the time it
> seems to
>> result from running the computer's refresh rate at a higher value
> than the
>> native refresh rate of the monitor and has nothing to do with the
> response
>> time. The frame rate of NTSC video is approximately 30 frames/sec,
> which
>> means that 30ms elapse between frames, so how a response time smaller
> than
>> that can cause "ghosting" on TV is a mystery to me.
>>
>>
>> --
>> --John
>> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

12-16ms is the BEST response time an LCD can do. Some LCD's have average
response times of 25-60ms. Overall, you want an LCD with a fast average
response time. Unfortunately, they don't advertise that much. Some LCD's
will reach 12-16ms, but only for white to black transitions. Grey
transitions actually take longer. What you want is a monitor with a very
even amount of blurring, a very flat response curve.

Basicly, ALL LCD's will have some degree of ghosting. It just depends on
which one you get

It's also worth noting that ghosting will be a bigger issue for games than
for TV or video. You can get by for video applications with an average 25ms
monitor just fine. For video I would choose a monitor with good color
depth.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Magnulus" <magnulus@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:fkHHd.1789$8W4.789@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> 12-16ms is the BEST response time an LCD can do.

That's the best response time you're likely to see in monitors
available right now; that doesn't mean it's the best that the
technology can possibly do, and in fact you should expect to
see continued improvements in this area over the next several
years. Some TV panels, for instance, have already been shown
with maximum response times well under 10 ms. (It will take
some time for this technology to become mainstream even in
the TV market, and then some more time to trickle down to
the much more cost-sensitive monitor market.)


Bob M.