PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: PSX_J on May 21, 2004, 04:49:04 PM
-
Does screen refresh rate matter when playing PC games? Someone fill me in please...
-
Basically its to stop tearing (when vsync is enabled)
Its the amount of times your monitor redraws the display per sec. 85hz = redrawing 85 times a sec and it stops eye fatigue
If you use V-sync it will try to match the frame rates to your refresh rate or cap them to your monitors refresh rate. So it can stop the tearing effect you see in games.
It also stops you from getting headaches. (if u get them from a few hours of using your pc) I personally run my monitor at 85 Hz. I can see flickering at 60 Hz now and it drives me mad.
-
That\'s what I thought it was for, mines at 75
-
LCD here... 60Hz and no flickering. Though the same reason there\'s no flickering is the same reason there is ghosting and trailing in games. :(
-
refresh rates work differently in LCD monitors, they don\'t use a electron beam, they use a active element (TFT) to control each pixel, which is why there isn\'t tearing etc on lcd monitors.
-
just ghosting
-
Yep, it’s a slight problem, they get ghosting and blurring outside their native resolution. But like all new things, the technology will improve and get better. CRT monitors have been around for a long ass time.
-
The Samsung 172X has a 12ms pixel response time=NO ghosting
-
Originally posted by NVIDIA256
The Samsung 172X has a 12ms pixel response time=NO ghosting
Sounds sexy. I bet it costs an arm and a leg.
I remember when i first started getting laptops. The ghosting was terrible when compared to today. I bet it would make a few people sick
-
172x is 17inch and costs $582US
-
Originally posted by NVIDIA256
The Samsung 172X has a 12ms pixel response time=NO ghosting
12 ms = around 83 Hz...
pretty fast.
-
What exactly is ghosting? Is it that blur I\'ve seen on the main menue of some of my games...words being sorta blotted out? Or is it something else? I\'ve just recently started taking up PC gaming over console...so you\'ll have to forgive me, Im trying to soak in all the knowledge I can.
-
Essentially Ghosting is when the pixel on the lcd does not discharge fast enough. So for example say you are playing a racing car game, and your going real fast, you will see the image blur because the pixel is unable to cope with the speed of the changing colors.
-
12 ms = around 83 Hz...
pretty fast.
When it comes to audio/video you da man PAUL
-
thanks man.
-
I\'ll stick to CRT till LCD catch up.. Less then 1ms response times, ohhh yea.
-
I remember someone told me that to get 60 Hz, it requires about 16 ms or about 62.5 Hz.
But unfortunately, he said that LCD doesn\'t sync with the frame rate, thus requires it to be double that speed rate to to show it full frame rate...
that means, at 16 ms or 62.5 Hz, its can display video of about 31 frames per second...
although at 62.5 Hz, it could show all 62.5 frames, but it won\'t sync well with the refresh rate...
When LCD was first design, probably the engineer didn\'t thought about this or something...
so, that means in order to enjoy something running at 60 frames per second, it requires to be double that refreshrate as LCD doesn\'t sync....
that means 8.3 ms...or 120 Hz....
just round it down to 8 ms (125 Hz...)
LCD have other problems that keep me away from it. Three pros of LCD are:
-no burns in
-uses less watts
-thin design, take up less backspace
the cons are:
-expensive
-most refresh rate isn\'t still fast enough
-still can\'t produce good black level
-inconsistence with viewing angle and lighting...
I heard Sony is creating this new display technology called OLED that may replace LCD and solved some of those refresh rate problem and produce much better black level...
and Toshiba is creating this SED that may replace directview CRT display. Think of SED the same as CRT but thin design. Take up less backspace like LCD and plasma....but the difference between SED and plasma is, it cost cheaper, uses less wattages and maybe less suspetible to burn in than plasma...
I guess we\'ll see how these two still in design works out in the coming years...
oh btw, Soulgrind,
1 ms = 1000 Hz...
umm...that\'s overkill there. I don\'t think there is a video or even videogames running that fast (500 frames to 1000 frames) per second...
unless its for filming effects....but that\'s recording, not displaying...
when viewing CRT monitor, like you said, 75 Hz and 85 Hz are recommended...
and I also do notice flickering at 60 Hz on my 19" NEC CRT...that is why I switch it to 75 Hz...
-
oh btw, Soulgrind,
1 ms = 1000 Hz...
umm...that\'s overkill there. I don\'t think there is a video or even videogames running that fast (500 frames to 1000 frames) per second...
Pixel response timing is different from refresh response timings.
One is per pixel the other full screen redrawing. But you already knew that. :)
-
Soulgrind,
LOL! Thought you don\'t have any sense of humors...okay, whatever you say.
;)
-
Ok, I have another question. What purpose does Anisotropic Filtering serve? Same goes with Vertical Sync and Force Mipmaps...what do they do?
-
Vertical sync helps to prevent tearing. I disable it because I occasionally use FRAPS to record my games. VS causes my game to default to the FPS that FRAPS records at, which is 60.
-
Anisotropic Filtering details here. (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci870037,00.html)
Mipmaps details here (http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/directx9_c/directx/graphics/ProgrammingGuide/GettingStarted/Direct3DTextures/filtering/texturefilteringwithmipmaps.asp) <-- u can also read about other techniques in the side menu.
Paul. I hope you\'re not getting confused between refresh Rates and pixel resposne timings.
ohh well.
-
Paul. I hope you\'re not getting confused between refresh Rates and pixel resposne timings.
ohh well.
I think he did.
-
I have no clue what is pixel response timings?
I believe refresh rate for LCD is pretty much measure in hertz...isn\'t it?
-
It is when it comes to Refresh Rates (Full screen redrawing)
but when referring to Pixel Response times (Per Pixel)
Its when a pixel goes from black to white or how long it takes to change colour from one to another and vice visa. It\'s measured in ms. CRT monitors have less then 1ms for pixel response times, LCD range from 10ms to 30 from what I’ve seen anyway. The lower the ms the better.
-
you are wrong...
let me prove you what i meant.
you are right that refresh rate draw the entire resolution at once...the progressive scan, non interlace one that is.
Pixel Response time is the same...
The part where you are wrong is per pixel drawing....
The pixel Response, like refresh rate, draw the entire resolutions, all the vertical and horizontal resolutions at once! If an LCD screen had a resolution of 1024 x 768, it draw all the 786,432 pixels at once.
I think you are the one wrong about the per pixel...how is that going to work? drawing 1 pixel at a time? imagine, the 786,432 pixels...or about 7.8 hundred thousand of pixels...how long would that take? If that is the case, it will take crazy fast speed to finish it....
when you say pixel goes to black or white, i know what you are talking about...you are talking about the pixels changing color or how long it take to change which is the definition of pixel response time. Again, not per pixel....if changing per pixel....again...not possible...it actually all pixels changing at one time and how fast it chang per second...
hence the ms = mili seconds...
what is mili?
milli = thousand
milli second = thousandth of a second...
so, if an LCD have a 30 ms. That means 3 hundredth of a second...
so, it take 3 hundredth of a second for the pixel response time to change color or frame(which is pretty much the same as refresh rate)., again the entire resolutions, not just one pixel at a time...
how to convert that 3 hundred of a second to make finish it in 1 second?
In another word, how many 3 hundredth of a second does it take for it to equal 1 second....
so 3 hundredth of a second..you know where to place the decimal I hope...
.03 or if you are confuse, 0.03
do this: 1/.03
or .03 is divided by 1 = 33.3...Hz...
I just rounded it down to 33 Hz....
another way to find the answer that takes a long time is, just add .03 + .03 over and over again until it reach 1.00 or just 1...the time it take to add the .03 to equal 1 will be how many times it "refresh per second." Or frame per second....
which is again, about 33 1/3 times to reach 1 second...or 33 1/3 Hz....
so, in 1 second, the LCD can change the entire resolution to different color 33 1/3 times...
me, i simplify by saying it, LCD have a refresh of 33 1/3 Hz per second...
Unfortunately, a guy told me, this refresh rate "Hz" or you would called it "pixel response time" doesn\'t sync with the framerate...and this 33 1/3 Hz is slow...as it doesn\'t sync...making it good for watching 16 frames per second video...this is the biggest reasons why many people see color drabs, smear and motion blur, as the refresh rate isn\'t fast enough.
This is usually the case with 1st generation of LCD which have aobut 30 ms.
Their later generation LCD have improve upon this...to 25 ms which is 40 Hz and 20 ms which is 50 Hz...I believe I see some 20 ms LCD back in year 2001, that time, is pretty fast for its day...then from 20 ms to 16 ms, I believe I see this last year in 2003 where some LCD have reach 16 ms which is 62.5 Hz...now this year, down to 12 ms...or 83 1/3 Hz...i rounded it down to 83 Hz....maybe next year down to 10 ms and if this continue, we may get to see 8 ms in 2006 and I think anything beyond 6 ms is NOT NECESSARY.
so, I think 8 ms is great as have the refresh rate of 125 Hz, which is perfect to watch 60 frames per second...remember it doesn\'t sync...double that...
if you want faster frame rate, 72 fps, then 7 ms is close enough....
and again 1 ms is overkilll...Under 1 ms...too much....you are talking about over 1000 Hz...such as 2,000 hz.....too much....Again, NOT NECESSARY.
-
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
CRT monitors have less then 1ms for pixel response times, LCD range from 10ms to 30 from what I’ve seen anyway. The lower the ms the better.
Again wrong!!!!
the good thing about CRT is, the pixel response time sync...or the refresh rate sync with the frame rates....which no need to double the refreshrate or pixel response time which is the case with LCD...
If CRT want to give their spec in "pixel response time" or in this milisecond where you have to do the math....
What is the fastest most CRT monitors refresh per second?
I just pick out 120 Hz....just convert it to ms..
again, i don\'t know how to convert it...but its around .0083 of a second....
or 8.3 milisecond. or 8.3 ms
i just round it down to 8 ms...
again, if CRT pixel response time is under 1 ms...that equal 1000 of a second...
Unless you are talking about Y, Pb, Pr and maybe RGB timing channels which is a different story....
and they are measure in nanosecond or billionth of a second...
-
Dood, theres a difference from response timing and pixel response timing. Response timings refer to refresh rates. Pixel Response timings refers to per pixel response times.
One example
http://www.monitorsdirect.com/before/expert/jims_corner/munchies.shtml
maybe its wrong, but i\'ve seen a lot of pages saying the same thing. People get confused between pixel response times and refresh rates. It doesn\'t refer to drawing each pixel at a time. It refers to how quickly each pixel changes/drawn etc. CRT monitors don\'t sync the refresh rate to frame rates unless u enable them. Thats why u see tearing in video games. Then it can drop your framerates quite alot.
Think about it this way, why is there ghosting?
The scene has already been redrawn, but the pixel info can\'t keep up to the refresh rates. So each drawn scene gets wacked over each other.
ps. love how u have rewriten some of tomshardware guides info.
-
what do you mean? You are saying I am copy and pasted and rewritten those?
Dood, theres a difference from response timing and pixel response timing. Response timings refer to refresh rates. Pixel Response timings refers to per pixel response times.
There you are wrong. From the link you posted, where did it say "per pixel response?" Ah ha! You just came up with per pixel stuff...you are probably confuse with graphic card or something.
It doesn\'t refer to drawing each pixel at a time. It refers to how quickly each pixel changes/drawn etc.
ummm...is the same thing....dude...what you said...pretty much the same stuff...if nobody believe me, read slowly at the quote above slowly....you will notice he is talking the same thing...
It does refer to drawing/changing color each pixel drawn at a time and how many times it does per second...
CRT monitors don\'t sync the refresh rate to frame rates unless u enable them. Thats why u see tearing in video games. Then it can drop your framerates quite alot.
i think your eyes are tired or you are very confuse here....CRT monitors don\'t sync with refresh rate? Do you mean LCD monitors? You can\'t have it both ways....hmmm....
Think about it this way, why is there ghosting?
The scene has already been redrawn, but the pixel info can\'t keep up to the refresh rates. So each drawn scene gets wacked over each other.
okay, here you makes more sense. Now i understand what you meant.
That\'s the same as I am trying to say too...pixel response time doesn\'t sync with refresh rate....
this is very true with 30 ms, or about 33 1/3 times of pixel being draw/changing color per second....
thus, on computer graphic, you enable 60 Hz, or 72 Hz, 75 Hz, or higher...it doesn\'t sync with them...or the framerate for that matter...if a movie or videogame running at 60 fps, you will see color smear because of slow 33 1/3 per second pixel response time as you will call it...or 30 ms....
the much improve 16 ms solve the pixel lagging. because at 16 ms, that\'s about 62.5 times it "change color/drawing it" as you would call it per second. And that\'s a bit faster than 60 Hz...and making it good to play videogames at 60 fps...but in theory, since it doesn\'t sync with Hz or frame rate, it have to double that speed to get much better chance of them syncing each other...
I could be wrong about doubling the speed of "pixel response time" to sync with them since this is what a guy told me....but everything else...i am pretty correct...
We know the fasted LCD today have a 16ms response time. CRT monitors on the other hand have a response time less than 1ms. For this reason many hard core gamers still prefer a CRT monitor to a LCD.
I don\'t know if this is true...but I dobut it...CRT monitor have pixel response time less than 1 ms...that\'s about 1000 Hz it refresh a second...
On the best LCD monitors today response times are as fast as 16ms, for example: The Hitachi CML174 has a rise time of 12ms and the decay time 4 ms or less. Look for monitor with a fast decay time. The decay time is the most recognizable transition to human eyes and is the characteristic that creates the ghosting on some LCD\'s.
wow i learned something from that web...16 ms, a rise of 12 ms and a fall of 4 ms...
4 ms fall...so it took 1/250 of a second to "fall."....oK...
could this mean 12 + 4 = 16 ms? I am confuse there...
-
Your still calling pixel response times the same as refresh times. They\'re NOT the same thing.
-
okay...they may not be the same thing, but they pretty do the same thing...i just brief summarize its as hertz and refresh rate so its easier to understand...
Again
"From the link you posted, where did it say "per pixel response?" Ah ha! You just came up with per pixel stuff...you are probably confuse with graphic card or something."
-
I was giving u a example of what pixel response times are. They\'re referring to per pixel response times not refresh rates.
Per pixel doesn\'t mean how quickly the screen refreshes. It means how quickly the pixels change color.
Vsync isn\'t enabled on CRT monitors by default. Pixels sync to the refresh rate yea, but refresh rates don\'t sync to FPS unless u enable vsync. Vsync just caps framerates to the monitors refresh rate.
LCD monitors are rated by pixel response times rather then refresh rates. Refresh rates aren\'t their problem. Pixels keeping up to them is.
-
okay, CRT refresh rate doesn\'t have to sync with the frame rates and you can sync it by enable it...that\'s the cool thing about CRT, you can sync the refresh rate to the framerate.
But again, LCD doesn\'t sync at all!!!!!
Per pixel doesn\'t mean how quickly the screen refreshes. It means how quickly the pixels change color.
either you don\'t know what refresh rate it or pixel changing color is...
refresh rate means how fast the color change to a different color.
If a screen have a 60 Hz refresh rate per second....
that means in one second, the screen (entire resolution, if you are confuse, the rest of all the pixels) can change to a different color at 60 times per second.
and the good thing about CRT again,
it can sync with the framerate and if a framerate runs at 60 frames per second...good, you will see all 60 frames running at 60 hz as they sync!
I think you are confuse with
pixel response as they measure it differently....instead of measuring how fast it "refresh" the color, or as you, soulgrind would call it, "change/draw the color per second. It measure how fast it take to change color at a time .
again, the underlying words are:
and at a time.
per second.
Anyway, speaking of that....I finally find out how to convert:
frame rate or even refresh rate per second to at a time. and vice versa.
click on the attach pic I posted below. I finally realize that the manufacturers got pretty smart and measure the pixel response time in decimal form instead of fraction.
I think that\'s where you got confused.
-
Whoops double post...delete this if you may.
-
Dood, you\'re not understanding. You keep referring to pixel response times to refresh rates. Refresh rates are when the screen redraws the scene or whatever is being viewed. Pixel response times are DIFFRERENT from refresh rates.
I\'ve already said that so many times it’s not funny; the refresh rates update the screen to quickly for the pixels response times...... That’s what you’re getting confused about. They are NOT the same thing. You can show me all the formulas you want, they don\'t change the fact that they\'re 2 different things.
LCD monitors just have very similar refresh rates to their pixel response times. Thats what your getting confused about. Thats why older ones have ghosting issues.
CRT monitors are different, their pixel response times are under 1ms, and their refresh times can be all over the place. Normally over 60 hz / 16ms etc. Again, they\'re 2 different things. Companies just use ms for lcds to judge their pixel response times rather then refresh rates. I\'ve never seen a monitor LCD out now with a refresh rate lower then 50/60hz. So its not even a issue. Theres monitors with 30ms response times, does that mean their refresh rates run at 33hz. Hardly think so.
example
http://www.aocmonitor-anz.com/monitors_lm520.htm This monitor has a response time of 30ms. A refresh rate of 75hz at 1024x768. If they were the same thing. The response time should be 11ms etc.
-
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
Dood
I\'ve already said that so many times it’s not funny; the refresh rates update the screen to quickly for the pixels response times......
Mate,
I know you are wrong on that.
But lets play pretend if you are right....
tell me, if refresh rate update the screen too quickly for the pixel responses...
tell me what if LCD have a 16 ms or any ms... what does ms stands for? Microsoft?:laughing: :cool:
16 milliseconds..
and how do you put that in decimal form...meaning what\'s is that speed at a time in decimal form?
0.016 or .016...same thing....
UNLESS YOU CAN PROOVE ME OTHERWISE. SUCH AS A LINKED OR ANYTHING SITE THAT CLAIM OTHERWISE...:cool:
-
incase you missed it
example
http://www.aocmonitor-anz.com/monitors_lm520.htm
This monitor has a response time of 40ms. A refresh rate of 75hz at 1024x768 MAX. If they were the same thing. The response time should be 13ms etc. NOT 40ms. Again pixel response times are different from refresh rates.
Read the pdf file for the specs.
I\'m not gonna bother replying to your little formulas or retarded posts until u understand the difference.
-
get a room guys
-
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
...Theres monitors with 30ms response times, does that mean their refresh rates run at 33hz. Hardly think so.
Again, the reasons for this is because the LCD pixel response time don\'t sync with refresh rate...you can chose 60 Hz, 75 Hz, etc...but the 30 ms or 33 1/3 times per sec doesn\'t sync at 60 Hz or 75 Hz...to put it in another way, the 33.3 times per second or 30 ms at a time doesn\'t sync at all...doesn\'t matter what refresh rate you put it on. its just go 30 ms in 1 second, it finish about 33.3 times in 1 second of refreshing/color changing constantly....
also, at such a such slow speed...30 ms, or equivalent to 33.3333...Hz doesn\'t seem to show any flicker...
i guess it have to do with what you said way earlier on page 1.
refresh rates work differently in LCD monitors, they don\'t use a electron beam, they use a active element (TFT), which is why there isn\'t tearing etc on lcd monitors.
or flickering problem....
okay, refresh rate and pixel response isn\'t the same thing...I will agree with you on that...but they do the same thing...except pixel response time doesn\'t sync with refresh rate and even frame rate...they are too independent...i guess....
and the part where you got confuse is how they are being measure...
refresh rate are measure how many times it "refresh" per second.
while pixel response are measure at how fast it take or the time it take to "refresh" or change to a different color at a time.
Again, I agree with you pixel response time isn\'t the same as refresh rate as LCD "pixel response" doesn\'t sync with the refresh rate.
But again, I AM RIGHT ABOUT THE SPEED OF THE PIXEL RESPONSE.
I think you don\'t know how to do the math or something....you probably didn\'t even know what 20 milliseconds mean...maybe you know milliseconds mean thousandth of a second...but you are not sure what the heck it is...I am pretty good at Math dude....
I wonder THX, who I guess is pretty good in math can decide if the formula i posted above is correct or incorrect....
Anybody knows good math here can give some inputs about this?
-
what are your right about?. You keep going from it isn\'t the same thing to it is the same thing. dood make up your mind.
I know what refresh rates are, i know pixel response times are. I\'ve already proven they\'re different from each other. I\'ve said that from the start.
My first post in the whole thread was about refresh rates.
Basically its to stop tearing (when vsync is enabled)
Its the amount of times your monitor redraws the display per sec. 85hz = redrawing 85 times a sec and it stops eye fatigue
Try reading my past posts man.
ps. I\'ve never said you\'re wrong about pixel response times or even how to measure them. I\'m saying u were wrong when you was saying they\'re the same thing as refresh rates.
-
really,
but 12 ms does equals approx 83 Hz. I just make it short.
And I know for sure you didn\'t even what 12 milliseconds really mean.
If you do know what it means, you wouldn\'t agree with a website that said CRT monitors have less than 1 ms of pixel response time....whatever.
Or you need the LCD pixel response time to be less than 1 ms which is ridiculous.
You are also wrong about the per pixel response time. There is no such thing.
by what i mean the response time is the same thing is,
the pixel response does what the refresh rate does.
both of them draw all the pixels or changing color and one is measure by per a second and the other per a hertz.
but unfortunately, LCD pixel response is different than CRT. Is that they can\'t sync at all.
They don\'t sync with refresh rate and frame rate.
Honestly, you wouldn\'t know how fast say, a 16 ms is and stuff. You wouldn\'t even know how to convert it to per a second either. you wouldn\'t have a clue that 16 ms does equal 62.5 Hz per second....
If you knew, you would have believe the LCD that NVidia said have a 12 ms change the color a bit more than 83 times per second. I just make is short as 83 Hz. That\'s pretty fast.
-
dood, I’m not bothering anymore. You have no clue. You keep saying refresh rates are the same as pixel response times. I\'m not wasting anymore energy in this thread.
wow 12ms i really don\'t what means :rolleyes:
1 dived by .016 (because its milli sec its in the hundreds of a sec which is 3 decimal places .000 etc) which = 83.33hz
Heres another one. 15ms = 66.66hz wow i\'m so cool.
I can throw around some equations that YOU learnt from tomshardwareguide most likely.
by what i mean the response time is the same thing is,
the pixel response does what the refresh rate does.
LOL. When they say ms, they are talking about pixel response times not refresh rates. They\'re 2 different things.
Once again, refresh rates are when the screen redraws a image.
Pixel response times are the speed the pixels change color.
But only now the pixel response times have started to catch up to the refresh rates.
I\'ve even given you a link to a monitor the PROVES they\'re 2 different things...
When you start listening to me, you\'ll start learning something.
-
you are so wrong and very stubborn to admit that you are wrong. As if you have problem of admitting it. Tomshardware? What?
And, also, you know how to do that by using my equation. I didn\'t even know what is tomshardwareguide nor do i even go there...never heard of it...
I use my head to do it as i am very good in math.
I think you can\'t believe you lost to me and still stuck up....gosh, in my entire life, i never seen a stuckup person like you...you see if i am wrong, i will admit it. But i am not...
look at my other previous posts in component video thingy....where i once said RGB is better than YUV because i said YUV output 4:2:2...than later I realize YUV can output 4:4:4 and i said i was wrong about that because 4:4:4 does equal RGB 8:8:8....i was wrong about it, but nobody knows...and i find out by myself i was wrong. what did i do? I tell everybody about it.
But about this stuff I am talking about, i am right! You don\'t know me, if i am wrong, I will admit it...but how can i fasely admit i am wrong and you are right when you are not? What you said also confuse me and i tried to visualize what you said and do some heavy thinking, but it doesn\'t work nor does it make any sense....so you are wrong...
I used to think you are cool, but now i realize you are very arrogant.
look at your previous post.
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
It is when it comes to Refresh Rates (Full screen redrawing)
but when referring to Pixel Response times (Per Pixel)
Its when a pixel goes from black to white or how long it takes to change colour from one to another and vice visa. It\'s measured in ms. CRT monitors have less then 1ms for pixel response times, LCD range from 10ms to 30 from what I’ve seen anyway. The lower the ms the better.
you got that out of a website that fill with some wrong/bad information and you didn\'t know. also, you failed to prove what you are talking about. you said CRT need to be less than 1 ms, where you got that out of the website which had wrong information.
and you said LCD have 10 ms to 30 ms...see that time which is yesterday, you didn\'t even know what that really mean and i try to prove you to and do this conversion.
Look, I am video/audio freak...I know my stuff.... as i am very good with math, and i used it to see if those are right and i am right.
Whereas, you go to internet link and there some bad information out there you fall for it not even knows what it means....
its when you actuallly get out of that stuck up and ignorance mind of your and admit that you are wrong...look, you learn from me how to use the calculation and you realize what i said was correct, but i was devastated at how you said if i listen to you, i may learned something from you...
I did try to listen to you, but you are wrong. and i try to rationalize it, but it didn\'t work out what you are saying...and i didn\'t learn much from you....instead, its the other way around, you learned from me and you realize what i said makes sense...
Once again, refresh rates are when the screen redraws a image.
Pixel response times are the speed the pixels change color.
dude,
look refresh rate are when the screen draws the image...tell me how does it draw the image. BINGO! by changing the color.
pixel response draw the image too, by changing the color
both are measure how fast it draw the image. One is measure at how fast it draw/change color total in 1 second. While the other is measure at how fast it took to draw/change to a different color.
wow 12ms i really don\'t what means
1 dived by .016 (because its milli sec its in the hundreds of a sec which is 3 decimal places .000 etc) which = 83.33hz
Heres another one. 15ms = 66.66hz wow i\'m so cool.
I can throw around some equations that YOU learnt from tomshardwareguide most likely.
dude, you learned that equations from me at the earlier post today...look yesterday, you didn\'t even know it and it shows on page 1.
-
Now who’s telling who what they know. lol. How am I wrong? Because pixel response times are different from refresh rates, and I’m not saying otherwise. How am i stuck up?
Good one man. I gave you a link to a monitor that has a 40ms pixel response time and a refresh rate of 75hz. Now go do your little math equation (which your so good at) and come back and tell me if the refresh rates match 40ms (pixel response times). I\'ll tell you right now they won\'t match, why because they\'re 2 different things. You give me a website saying pixel response times are the SAME thing as refresh rates and I’ll gladly believe you.
Ps. I give more credibility to a site BASED on monitors to what you say your friend tells you.
you said CRT need to be less than 1 ms,
I did not say that, I said CRTS have a pixel response time 1ms or less. If you wanna do a pissing contest I was a PC technician for 3 years, it was my job to know this stuff.
Its this simple. Do u think refresh rates are the same thing as Pixel Response times?
Hell, I’d be surprised if you even know HOW the refresh rate actually works inside the monitor, or even how many electron guns they use or what part decays the quickest. (referring to crt for your google search) Very easy questions to answer too.
You being a expert and all should be able to answer them. But i guess anyone could. With google and all.
read
http://compreviews.about.com/library/weekly/aa-crtvlcd.htm
I Quote
"The high refresh rates and response times of CRT monitors also makes them ideal for video purposes."
Notice the and. sounds like 2 different things to me.
I\'ll say it one last time. Pixel response times are not the same as refresh rates. They are 2 different things.
Heres another site saying the same thing about CRT response times being 1ms or less, they even refer to the original link i gave you.
http://www.bjorn3d.com/_preview.php?articleID=318
heres another
http://www.mikhailtech.com/modules.php?name=Articles&rop=showcontent&id=67
Do u still need more links man, i\'m getting tired of proving stuff to you, then you just saying the sites are wrong.
Now this is my last post for good in this thread. Call me wrong, call me whatever you want. You\'ve made up your mind, so be it.
-
Like I said in way previous posts, the reason why say 40 ms or 25 Hz per second doesn\'t sync with 60 Hz on computer refresh rate is because they are independent. Way on page 1, I say Lcd pixel response time doesn\'t sync with framerate. So, I am very convince pixel response time is the same stuff as refresh rate. Except they don\'t sync. Again and again, pixel response time doesn\'t sync with computer monitor 60 Hz or whatever, is because they don\'t sync at all. Say if one runs at 40 ms, or 25 Hz, it doesn\'t sync with computer "refresh rate". I believe it just go 25 Hz constantly even though you output 60 Hz, 75 Hz, and its show that the pixel response time or the refresh rate of 25 Hz per second get "ghosting" color smeared and such because of slow "frame rate" when play videogames running at 60 frames per second. Now again, its a fact that refresh rate is the same as pixel response time.
Plus, you kept saying i use googles and stuff while you are the one that get wrong information from your "search engines."
Just because you used to be a computer technician doesn\'t mean you knows everything about computer or what to make a monitor. You are not even an engineer.
Look, my math level in my Senior year is Geometry. I use to learned Algebra in my 11th grade. And I get As and Bs.
Soulgrind, what\'s your math level in your high school or college for that matter? do you even go to college?
If you say i use googles or whatever, then go find me a link that show you how to convert ms to per second and believe me, many video engineer experts (you not being one of them) know that pixel response time is the same as refresh rate.
You say I google and comes up with the formula...sure, go look for it...you don\'t even know the formula if it wasn\'t for me. and you act like you know that formula a long time ago...whatever!
If you do, you would have realize first, pixel response time is the same as refresh rate.
and second, a CRT with less than 1 ms of "pixel response time" doesn\'t make sense as they are over 1000 hz per second, or 1000 times it refresh/draw/change color per second.
You see on the bottom of page 1, you say CRT need to have pixel response time of less than 1 ms and you say the lower the LCD pixel response time, the better..which is right. but you don\'t time what 1 ms means...like how fast that is or the speed or how to get that total up in 1 second...and less than 1 ms, that is all bull.
-
read
http://compreviews.about.com/librar.../aa-crtvlcd.htm
"The high refresh rates and response times of CRT monitors also makes them ideal for video purposes."
Notice the and. sounds like 2 different things to me.
I\'ll say it one last time. Pixel response times are not the same as refresh rates. They are 2 different things.
Okay, all its say the high refresh rates and response times of cRT monitors.....
If they are two different things, how come they didn\'t tell them the different or tell how its different. Because they can\'t, and i am right. Its the same thing.
I am very technical and when i see thing, I usually use my math to figure how comes it get this number and that...that even some lab tests expert who do lab tests didn\'t even know.
Engineer knows what they are saying and but again, they are not always right. But I trust an engineer more than an used to be "computer technician" who didn\'t know squat about pixel response time or refresh rate.
from the link you posted
The current magic number in LCD land is 16... a 16ms pixel response time is the highest (any higher is too slow) a gamer should consider in order to have virtually all ghosting eliminated. No doubt we will see even faster, such as 12ms, LCDs soon. For comparison, a regular CRT monitor has a response time of less than 1ms, so ghosting is never an issue with CRTs.
that link is bull, it doesn\'t even know how fast 16 ms is, if it does, it should have say about 62.5 times per second. and would have realize 1 ms equal 1000x per second.
-
paul... you say one minute there 2 different things, then the next they\'re the same. I\'m not even gonna bother reading your babble anymore.
You say I google and comes up with the formula...sure, go look for it...you don\'t even know the formula if it wasn\'t for me. and you act like you know that formula a long time ago...whatever!
Heres the little formula u keep crapping on about
http://www4.tomshardware.com/display/20020429/17lcd-01.html
The first example you gave was the same one as on this site. hmmmmm strange don\'t you think. Also note the date. 2002, OVER 2 YEARS AGO You just won "open mouth insert foot award"
I didn\'t know the formula without you. LOL "wipes tear from eye"
You act like you\'ve discovered the holy grail or something. lol
Again, i\'ve proven to you over and over and you\'ve just ignored the links, called the sites wrong blah blah blah. You\'re not worth my time anymore. I trust the word of multiple websites over your so called friend anyday. (which is most likely a made up person, so you can backup your bs) I think you\'re just alittle confused. You see, they work in a similar fashion, but they\'re not the same thing. ohh and paul, i\'ve got plenty of electronics engineer friends. Big friggin whoop.
btw, you still haven\'t answered those questions i gave you. Your engineer friend should be able to quite easily.
You know what I think, I think you’re full of s@#t, you just go to websites, read a little info and sprout crap you don\'t fully understand. Or even just rewrite what websites say. Thats fine, just make sure you give the sites the credit too.
And again, per pixel.
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/samsung_syncmaster_
173p_lcd_6.php
"This is the one Gamers should be on the lookout for. The response time is the time it takes for a single LCD to twist on or off"
Now, i don\'t think they\'re talking about the WHOLE screen there. But i guess you do. You see paul, most websites don\'t talk about what’s not important.
Pixel response times on CRT monitors aren\'t important. They\'re fast enough. The refresh rates for LCD monitors aren\'t important (ATM) The response times are.
So the manufactures and websites talk more about them, and rate the monitors on them. Why? Because that’s what people want to know about. When the response times catch up to the refresh rates or even crt monitors. Resolutions and refresh rates is what the LCD monitors will start being rated on. When pixel response times are no longer important why talk about them.
Let’s recap; I’ve proven the CRT 1ms or less. I\'ve proven there’s a difference between response times and refresh rates. I\'ve proven the little formula you go on about has been on the net before you posted it here and no paul, I didn’t learn it from you.
And you\'ve proven NOTHING. Just your word and your so called friends word.
Paul, why am i bothering with you.
-
Whoops. Double post. Look below.
-
Look dude, I don\'t know tomshardware. If so, explain how did i got the other math problem right? the toms hardware only show how to convert ms to per second.
And I write both, the conversion of per second to ms and ms to per second.
Also, I just read the link you posted, neither does the tomshardware say anything about the refresh rate is not the same as pixel response.
The other link you posted had an error!
And again, per pixel.
http://www.overclockersclub.com/rev...ung_syncmaster_
173p_lcd_6.php
link doesn\'t work...hello!
btw, you still haven\'t answered those questions i gave you. Your engineer friend should be able to quite easily.
Let’s recap; I’ve proven the CRT 1ms or less. I\'ve proven there’s a difference between response times and refresh rates. I\'ve proven the little formula you go on about has been on the net before you posted it here and no paul, I didn’t learn it from you.
And you\'ve proven NOTHING. Just your word and your so called friends word.
Paul, why am i bothering with you.
what questions did I not answer you? You are the one dodging my questions.
Again, where in any websites did it say response time is different than refresh rate? Okay, you proven some website says CRT have 1 ms or less. But I still doubt it.
Again, I never say i have any friends that tell me this. I said someone told me, and that person is in a different forum. I never said I have any engineer friends. Did I? I said even engineers and computer technicians could be wrong too.
-
ok, i\'d like to see where this engineer you refer to say that they ARE the same thing.
heres the link
http://www.overclockersclub.com/reviews/samsung_syncmaster_173p_lcd_6.php
Just look at any monitor specs, they all have the response times and refresh rates. if they were the same thing, they wouldn\'t list 2 different things. They do because they\'re not the same friggin thing.
read.
And i quote
"Response time is the amount of time that it takes the display to change a specific pixel from one (display) state to another."
http://www.ctlmonitors.com/monitorglossary.html
and another
http://www.cmo.com.tw/english/tech-2.jsp
and another
http://www.infonetwork.com.au/lcd.htm
and i quote
"Response time is a specification important for LCD monitors. Don\'t confuse it with Refresh Rate. Response time refers to how quickly a liquid crystal can twist, then untwist to either pass or block the light of each pixel. "
I love that bit, don\'t confuse it with refresh rates. ahhhh so good.
You notice how they always refer to them as a single pixel.. Not fullscreen.
Again, they\'re 2 different things. One is talking about PER PIXEL Response times. The refresh rate is full screen drawing. Now stop being a troll and just admit you have no idea. How many friggin links does it take to convince you? YOU\'RE WRONG!!!! You have NO idea what you’re talking about. You just sprout crap and can\'t accept the truth when its shown over and over to you.
Paul, if you continue to not accept the truth, your just gonna make yourself look more and more stupid and stubborn.
-
think of it this way. what\'s the different between the word "resolution" and "pixel"?
-
paul.. game over, you lose.. my last post had countless links proving theres a difference.. get over it and learn from it.
ps. This is for your next reply.
whatever.
-
Here is the link:
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/idealbb/view.asp?sessionID=E992139A38004CEC9B5AAC353275437C&topicID=31890&pageNo=1
As i haven\'t do any search engines that you falsely accused me of yet. I am now doing a search to look up the difference between pixel response time and refresh rate.
this link here say:
http://www.computerhope.com/jargon/r/refrrate.htm
LCD displays do not have a refresh rate, however if you need to set a rate values of 40Hz or 60Hz can be used.
but i also found out that:
on
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/response_1.html
This parameter is also specified for classic cathode-ray tube displays and gas panels, but it is less crucial for them, as their response time is measured in microseconds. As for LCDs, the response time in them can reach tens of milliseconds, which may be noticeable for the human eye.
so, CRT have pixel response time measure in microseconds? million of a second? what?
But also, soulgrind, i don\'t know what you mean by "per pixel". do you mean 1 pixel at a time or each and every of those pixels at the same time?
Because i believe it makes more sense on each of those pixels at the same time.
COF said refresh rate and pixel response time is different.
i am tired of quoting from the first link forum i am talking about.
But as you can see, he say you don\'t need the LCD pixel response to be under 1 ms. Even in 1 ms isn\'t really necessary...
I admit that I am wrong that there is a different between pixel response time and refresh rate as I did some search engine myself later to find it doesn\'t seem to be same thing.
But you are also wrong about LCD needing to be under 1 ms for its to sync....
and he said CRT is deceiving on the 1 ms thing...its not even 1 ms...crt refresh rate is different than LCD pixel response...
let me quote his last sentence:
It isn\'t as simple as the pixel being suddenly switched to a different color. That is not how it works.
An LCD with a pixel change rate of 8mS or faster would appear as fast as any CRT HDTV.
-
This has been a very enjoyable thread to read, Gentleman.
-
"But you are also wrong about LCD needing to be under 1 ms for its to sync...." where did i say this, i never said this at all. Only thing i said is i\'ll wait till the response times catch up to refresh rates.. thats it.
Pixel responses aren\'t to do with refresh rates as such. (they work together, but are different things)
When they rate them they\'re talking only about the speed a pixel changes state. (all of them do it together though)
That’s it, not the entire screen just the speed of a individual pixel.
Refresh Rates is how quickly the entire screen updates/redraws, but the response times for the pixels are fast enough to keep up (discharge etc) thats why u get ghosting issues.
I can\'t explain it any easier then that.
As the pixel response times get better, the pixels will discharge fast enough for them to either sync to the refresh rates or faster etc.
Heres a very rough example.
Think of it this way, imagine you\'ve drawn 2 different pics that are transparent.. You put one on the table. Then put the other on top of it. (refresh rate)
But you don\'t remove the bottom picture fast enough. (Response times)
Now if u had removed the back picture while you put down the top picture you\'d have 1 clean image. The response time is = to or faster then the refresh rate etc.
I hope that made sense.
-
"But you are also wrong about LCD needing to be under 1 ms for its to sync...." where did i say this, i never said this at all. Only thing i said is i\'ll wait till the response times catch up to refresh rates.. thats it.
Go back to page one and read it.
-
Pixel responses aren\'t to do with refresh rates as such. (they work together, but are different things)
When they rate them they\'re talking only about the speed a pixel changes state. (all of them do it together though)............
..............Think of it this way, imagine you\'ve drawn 2 different pics that are transparent.. You put one on the table. Then put the other on top of it. (refresh rate)
But you don\'t remove the bottom picture fast enough. (Response times)
Now if u had removed the back picture while you put down the top picture you\'d have 1 clean image. The response time is = to or faster then the refresh rate etc.
Okay....and i been trying to tell you even though a monitor with 40 ms or 25 times pixel response per second still work with 75 Hz because its independent...the reason why a 40 ms pixel response have color smears or ghosting have to do with the speed of frame rates, not the refresh rate!
unless the frame rate is 12.5 frames per second, you won\'t see it as the pixel response is twice that speed. But a great speed video games run at 60 frames per second.
As the pixel response times get better, the pixels will discharge fast enough for them to either sync to the refresh rates or faster etc.
You finally use my word "sync" to refresh rate. I told you before, it need to double pixel response speed for framerate to sync or refresh rate for that matter.
And by better, do you mean less than 1 ms like you said on page 1?
I told you its only need to double that pixel response to sync...
Admit it, we both are wrong and i did learn something new. Probably you too now realize it too that CRT don\'t have "under 1 ms response time" nor do you need the LCD response time to be as low as 1 ms or under....
-
Where did i say LCD monitors need 1ms or under to sync?
Don\'t put words in my mouth man.
All i said is CRTS have 1ms or less response times. That till LCD monitors catch up i\'ll stick to CRT.. Thats it.
You haven\'t proven otherwise, i\'ve givin countless links saying they do. Hell you though they are judged in microseconds.
I haven\'t learnt anything new, because i already knew wtf i was talking about. When response times get faster, they\'ll catch up to refresh rates. Pretty much Eliminating any ghosting issues. Its that simple. After all this i\'m STILL sure you don\'t fully understand.
And ghosting problems ARE from refresh rates being to fast for pixel response times.. Thats why when u do simple application work you still get blurring effects. Its because of ghosting. Dood, just stop talking please... just stop.
When i refer to sync man, i\'m just saying when the pixel response times = the refresh rates or get better. There\'ll be no ghosting issues. Its just that simple.
-
Okay, I was wrong that you said you need LCD need less than 1 ms to sync. I meant to say is you want LCD to have less than 1 ms of pixel response time...well you didn\'t really say it like that,...
But you did say "CRT pixel response time have less than 1 ms."
You say you will stick to CRT when LCD catch up and say less than 1 ms response time...oh yeah...
Also, you say CRT have 1 ms or less.
Nope, you didn\'t say that. You said, "CRT have less than 1 ms..." not 1 ms or less...even the links you posted said that....and i am still not sure if CRT have less than 1 ms.
Also, do you agree with that it need to have twice the pixel response time for the framerate to sync?
Again, I know what you meant by refresh rate drawing the lines while pixel response change the color...which i realize it quite two different thing...I used to thought refresh rate also change the color too...but i was wrong...
-
You don\'t need twice the pixel response. You just need the pixel response to be equal to the refresh rate or faster (which most likely won\'t have with lcds) Doesn\'t matter what the refresh rate is. As long as the pixel response is on or over the refresh rate speeds. You won\'t get ghosting. It doesn\'t have to sync to it, it just has to be equal to or faster then it.
-
forget refresh rate for the moment.
How about pixel response time versus framerate?
so what you are trying to say is pixel response time = framerate is good enough or faster. But doesn\'t necessary need twice that speed of pixel response...
because from the beginning,
it sounded like you need LCD to have "less than 1 ms" and you will get one, as for now. You stick with CRT. Again, it really does sounded like you need LCD to have less than 1 ms...not sure if that\'s what you meant...(but something tells me that\'s what you meant.)
And that time, I thought, it not necessary as 1 ms equal 1000 times it change color. But i just say it as 1000 hz....
that time, i thought why do you need more than 1000 times of changing color for say 60 frames per second or 72 fps or 75 fps for that matter?
now, it makes more sense that you say pixel response time need to = refresh rate and framerate too eliminate ghosting and color smear or faster pixel response.
not less than 1 ms or 1 ms of pixel response time for that matter. Because of your "less than 1 ms" response, we have this pretty long battles between us.
If you want to hold the "holy grail". I am willing to say I lost to stop this post as its driving me nuts.
:banghead::boom:
-
I simply meant crts are very good monitors. When LCDS catch up to them or even get decent refresh rates and pixel responses i\'ll get one. Thats my own choice.
Crts do have a 1ms or less pixel response time. Its not even a issue thats why crts are even rated with response times.
Lcds on the other hand have a issue with response times. so people want to know them. its that simple.
Paul, this has nothing to do with the 1ms comment on pixel responses. This was all about you saying its overkill and that they\'re the same thing as refresh rates... Which you finally understand that they\'re not.
-
but its true, 1 ms on pixel response is overkill. Although I was wrong to think they are the same as refresh rate...
Seriously, don\'t you agree 1 ms is overkill?
-
Not really, its just the way crts work.
-
Originally posted by §ôµÏG®ïñD
Not really, its just the way crts work.
EDITED: But you do know I am talking both LCD and CRT. Again from page 1. I said its overkill to have both CRT and LCD to 1 ms of pixel response time.
Forget about CRT for now.
How about LCD, you don\'t think its overkill for LCD to have 1 ms of pixel response time or less?
-
nope, how is it overkill? i don\'t believe in overkill unless it cost s@#tloads to do it. if its cheap, who cares. :)
-
you say its cheap for LCD to have a pixel response time of 1 ms.
So how come no LCD reach there yet and still cost expensive?
Again, I believe you do know what i mean by overkill. By that, I mean its not necessary to watch an LCD with 1ms pixel response time or less for that matter.
Because you even said a fast LCD say 12 ms of pixel response is good enough to display with 75 Hz of refresh rate.
So, why do you need LCD to have 1 ms or less of response time?
And that\'s why I said that\'s overkill.
-
Dood, when i say cheap, i mean by the time its 1ms, it\'ll most likey be cheap. So who cares.