Slashdot Mirror
LCD Pixel Response Time Halved
kagaku writes "Japanese newspaper the Nihon Kaizai Shimbun (evil registration required) said that Mitsubishi has mastered a technology to improve the response speed of pixels on LCDs by 100 per cent or more. It's done this by getting rid of the afterimages on screens which known as "ghosts", said the newspaper, and invented a proprietary system called Dual Domain Bend.
It cites unnamed sources at Mitsubishi saying that this method produces a response speed of one millisecond when power is applied and five milliseconds when the lights go off and the power goes down. That, the paper said, compares to up to forty milliseconds to switch pixels on and off. While the technique, when it gets to the manufacturing stage, will have immediate benefits for PC monitors, it will also help narrow the gap between LCD TVs and plasma displays, which have a quicker response speed. Here's a non-registration required link."
I thought LCD technology was being replaced by DLP? Is this not the case?
Sucks to be me. Bought a 42" plasma television 9 months ago and the brightness has dropped significantly in that time, probably a half of what it was when I bought it. Thats under heavy use, maybe 16-18 hours/day it's on. Anybody else here have the same experience ?
Skype Me! username: john_allen_mohammed
If the pixels can respond to any signal within 5 ms, that means the highest framerate that can be displayed without ghosting is 200 fps (1 / 5ms = 200 Hz). Which is more than you should ever need, and a big improvement on current LCD displays (a good consumer display has a ~20ms response time; 1 / 20ms = 50 Hz, not even 60 fps, but good enough for TV's 30 fps.)
main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
No ghosts and (suposedly) heaps better responce time is much better than the second hand CRT I was using last lear, which had burn in of previous companys logo. I guess the guy who worked on it went on holiday and left his screen on... Wonder if new LCDs will have a hidden down similar to plasmas (colour fade) ? I'm just waiting till direct neural wireless interface is invented so I can burn out my optic nerves watching ultraviolet!
"Persistance is Fertile" - Me. I can quote myself if I want to.
Faster switching == more power needed? Not good for laptops..
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
From The Enquirer.net.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Yes, but the 710T uses 6bit rgb pixels and dithering to emulate 24bit color. It's easier to switch between fewer states and it's kinda application dependent whether you notice.
That monitor has a claimed 12ms response time, which is equivilent to 83Hz (1 / 0.012s), which is as good as if not better than most CRTs out there, although some people claim to be able to see flicker right up to 85Hz (although much of the time I think the problem is about 5cm behind the eye, not in the eye itself).
I can see flicker at 70Hz, but I can usually get on with 75Hz or 80Hz. I hate CRTs anyway, wouldn't touch them unless forced to nowadays. The geometry and sharpness of an LCD more than make up for any ghosting you see when playing FPS, which I hardly notice even with a 20ms screen.
The authorities played a similar sort of game in Mexico City in the late 70s by repainting the lines on the roads to carry more lanes and then boasting that they had "increased capacity by 50%!" - from four lanes to six IIRC. Then when the inevitable happened and far more accidents happened because of decreased room to manoeuvre, they reduced it back to four and claimed that there was now "33% less congestion!" Of course, nothing had changed (and certainly not the physical width of the road): 6 lanes is 50% more than 4 lanes, and 4 lanes is 33% less than six lanes.
I'd welcome the exact details of this story - googling picks up the Economist's link but I can't get it to open.
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
If only those numbers weren't just pulled out of some marketroid's arse just because they look good.
Remember that it's from the same guys who brought you the 14" display with only 10" visible. Or 16ms TFT panels which actually show about 120ms worth of ghosting.
Or 18 bit colour TFT panels + dithering being sold as 24 bit panels. On account that surely making the display shimmer and flicker as it approximates colours by switching between other colours, is exactly what you always wanted in a TFT.
(Someone remind me why a 20-30 Hz shimmer on TFT is better for my eyes than the 85 Hz flicker of a CRT? No really, I keep forgetting.)
The computer industry as a whole is a pretty sad display of lies, shameless lies and IT marketting. But the display part of the industry has got to take the cake.
At least half of the progress since the days of 120ms panels is just more creative ways to measure it, and/or to fudge the numbers.
So basically what I'm getting at is: when you'll see a 5ms display on sale, you can rest assured that it's really a 30-40ms real latency fudged down to 5ms by the marketting department. And after the dithering is applied too, you can probably count on 40-50ms or more.
I really wouldn't set my hopes too high about being able to display 100 fps without ghosting anywhere in the next 5 years.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.