Don't know a lot about this stuff though - and the response times listed for
these two are confusing me.
The 17" VP171 - 8ms (tr+tf)
The 19" VP191 - 8ms (grey to grey), 20ms (black-white-black)
I haven't got a clue which of these is better. Most monitors seem to be
measured in tr/tf, whatever the hell that means...
Can someone shed some light?
Oh - and if anyone has good/bad experiences of these monitors would be
interested in hearing them. Mainly planning to do some graphic design,
photoshopping, web stuff. But I'm short on space so want to go LCD, and not
More about :explain response times lcds
May 2, 2005 3:07:52 AM
Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)
"Caitlin" <email@example.com> wrote in message
> I haven't got a clue which of these is better. Most monitors seem to be
> measured in tr/tf, whatever the hell that means...
"Tr + Tf" means that the response time given is the sum of
the "rise" and "fall" times (the black-to-white transition plus
the white-to-black), generally as measured between the
10% and 90% points. This has been the standard way of
listing LCD response times (at least as a single value; if you
really want the most information, of course, you list the
maximum values for the two separately). The problem has
always been that for many types of LCD, these two response
times are NOT the same.
It's also become common in recent years to list the black-and
-white (i.e., the full transition) times and the gray-to-gray times
separately (the latter being the worst-case response for a
transition between any two intermediate states), as with many
types the black-to-white (or white-to-black) is not the worst
All of this, of course, often makes it difficult to compare LCD
monitors by looking at the specs alone.