Stupid question, I think...

[Paul2]

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:

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

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.

[Paul2]

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?

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

Not really, its just the way crts work.

[Paul2]

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?

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

nope, how is it overkill?  i don\'t believe in overkill unless it cost s@#tloads to do it. if its cheap, who cares.

[Paul2]

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.

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

Dood, when i say cheap, i mean by the time its 1ms, it\'ll most likey be cheap.   So who cares.