did tom lie?

[sjcao]

i see a post in a bbs a guy say"it is impossible that 16ms TFT slower than 20ms TFT,even in 16m colors,and he think tom make a big lie"i don't think so but i don't know why
16ms TFT slower than 20ms TFT in 16m colors.

who can answer me this question?
thank

 

[molior]

yes, no & maybe!

yes, in so much that 16ms screen will change from one colour to another quicker than a 20ms screen.

no, as cause the colour count is low to get to the colours that it should display it flicks between the 2 colours thus reducing the effective responce time to 2*16ms (as the 'average' of 2 possibly none-related colours are displayed & couldn't this lead to instresting mid-change colour aliasing)?

maybe, cause some colours will be ones that the screen can diaply with out flicking between these colours.

think of it like a CD rom drives early 4x read at 4x all over the CD but a modern 52x only reads at 52x at the edge of the CD so it's called a 52x MAX. The 16ms TFT's are like this they run at 16ms MAX not all the time.

Row like mortals, think like gods.

 

[Guest]

No time to answer. Of course I didn't lie.
I'm in holidays. So see you later.

 

[Guest]

Can't sleep tonight.
Here in France, it's 4:10 AM.

Maybe I have to explain it better in the next review.

What is a response time?
It's the time that need a pixel to get black from white, then white again.
On my opinion, this has no real value.

First, because the time from grey to grey dark then back to the first grey can be very different of teh response time that give the manufacturers.

Look at this review on extremetech.
http://www.extremetech.com/print_article/0,3998,a=15016,00.asp

They mesured the response time between many colors. On their first exemple, the rise time between white to black is around 18 ms. At the one between White (0) and Dark Grey (192). For the same panel, it’s now 37 ms !
Same idea: look at the fall time. From black (255) to white (0). It’s so short that you can’t see this time. Let’s just say that it’s under 30 ms... Now look between black (255) and Grey (128). FT = 52 ms.
So how representative can be a response time based only on white to black ? One display that will give a very fast response time between these two colors can be much slower between the others.

Second problem, manufacturers don’t mesure really from white to black, but exacly like Xbitlabs did, from white + 10 % to black minus 10 %.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/response-2_6.html

First problem : white + 10% is not white, black – 10% is not black.
Let’s look at the time between a real white and a real black.

For the Nec LCD1701 for exemple, the rise time would not be 12 ms anymore, but at least 20 ms, and even maybe 30 ms (because the colors flicks).
Another exemple. Look at the Sony SDM-X72.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/response-2_15.html
The rise time they measured (+-10%) is 10 ms. But the real time between white to black would be 25 ms. So what’s the real value?

That’s why on my opinion the response time given by the manufacturers can just give you an idea of what the display can do. In no way you can say that this one will be faster because it’s response time is better. Of course, the best thing would be to meseare our own response time, doing an average between many colours. But for the moment, I don’t have this machine... I can just believe my eyes and my feelings. If you worry about them, I can just say that I have tested around 100 LCD in 2 years.

Vincent

 

[Guest]

Now sorry, you will maybe answer me but I won't see it. I'm in holidays for 2 weeks.

Bye, bye

 

[JP5]

Hopefully the new round of monitors this fall will impress us all a little more.