Slashdot Mirror
Today's Fastest Retail LCD
An anonymous reader writes "ViewSonic has recently released a very exciting product, a nineteen inch LCD display with a 3ms response time. This is the fastest LCD panel currently available to consumers, and it is clearly aimed at gamers and movie watchers. Dubbed the VX924, the display is part of ViewSonic's X series which tries to comnbine performance with style. The word on the street is that Samsung will have a 4ms display available this year, but this may be the only 3ms."
Most of the super fast LCD's are 6-bit, which kind of sucks.
...when will manufacturers manage to produce LCD screens with more accurate colour renditioning?
If you're into digital photography in any kind of non-serious way and actually want to preview pictures the way they'll look when they print, then I believe that a CRT is still the best method of doing this.
A shame really, as I'd save a load of deskspace with an LCD screen...
.19" LCD have only 1280x1024 resolution like the 17" why not a 1920 x 1200 ?
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
Also, remember that a fast response time does not mean you will see smooth moving images.
There will still be smearing because the LCD has a sample-and-hold characteristic and shows each image the full time between refreshes.
To solve this, a strobing backlight that flashes shortly during each frame is required.
another AC heard to reply "hey, isn't that the really good product I've heard so much about? I'm definitely buying one! And another for my friend!"
this brings back memories of when I worked in a supermarket and watched a couple of guerilla-advertising whores (it's only counts as "acting" if you can act) pretending to really like ice cream and buying lots of it. then doing it again. the pathetic thing is that they were acting in the most over the top stereotypical "American-TV" way (think Ally McBeal) in the middle of a UK supermarket.
I thought the Refresh Rate (Hertz) didn't apply to LCDs because the pixel on a CRT has to be constantly refreshed, where as with a LCD its only refreshes when it needs to, needs to change that is.
But I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.
While this is true, I think just about any technology to get the image data to the monitor relies on some sort of "frame rate". You aren't going to notice any difference between a 16ms LCD and a 3ms LCD if you are playing some FPS and getting only 30 frames per second out of your graphics card because the pixels won't need to change more than once every 33ms.
the 3ms is for gray to gray
<rant>
Honestly, I would never buy an lcd (or just about anything else) without first reading a Tom's Hardware review since they actually review the item.
For me personally, it'd be cheaper to get another fat crt and get a deeper desk than to replace my existing crt with a smaller, thinner lcd that has usable. resolution and color reproduction. If I was looking for something comperable, I'd have to buy one that was 21", 8bpp color (not 6bpp), non-existent The only advantage I can see is the fact that an lcd base takes 4" on the desk, while a crt takes 14"+. As long as I'm not stuck in a cubicle (an all too harrowing memory) I will most likely never switch to lcd because of their price versus performance. At work it's easier to ask for a new desk than to ask for an expensive lcd. At home it's easier to swallow the price for a desk than an expensive lcd.
</rant>
><));>
Two weekends ago I met a guy who works part-time for Cingular. All he does is walk around downtown Chicago for six hours pretending to talk on a cellphone and throwing in an occasional pro-Cingular phrase, like "Oh it's okay, I've got unlimited minutes through Cingular", or "Man, even in an elevator I get great reception with Cingular", etc.
THEN, last week US Cellular hired people to paint their faces blue and do pretty much the same thing. Just people in business attire with blue faces riding the subway and talking up US Cellular. And probably plotting how to take back Scotland from Edward the Longshanks...
The ASUS PM17TU Monitor will also offer 3ms response time. More specifically this is gray to gray (Just like the Viewsonic). But the I don't think the viewsonic nor the ASUS is anything "revolutionary". Besides the contrast ratio's aren't that good... The Asus is 600:1 and the Viewsonic is 550:1 There are more important things than just response time. I do though like thier zero dead pixel policy, I'm glad to see more manufacturers offering this as a standard.
Start gimp, create a 1024x1024 image.
Select gradient tool, disable dithering/sampling
Draw black->white gradient top to bottom of image
Zoom in a bunch.
You should see a band every 4 "gimp pixels" since 1024 / (2^8) == 4.
If you only have 6-bit color you'll get a band every 1024 / (2^6) == 16 pixels.
Anybody know it that's correct or not? Is it that 6 bits of the color settle in 8ms/3ms/whatever and the other 2 bits settle later, or is it just 6bits per color no matter what?
-1 blatant advert
:)
-1 lies on specs
-256 6bit color, that's crap.
Keeping my CRT thanks very much
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
If this is such a gaming LCD, why doesn't it support a higher resolution? Granted, with LCD's, either you get resolution or a nicer "refresh rate," but AFAIK, most game enthusiasts who go out and get the blazing hot, fast LCD's don't want the be bottlenecked by a fixed native resolution of 1280x1024 or the hindrance of ghosting.
Until gamers can get both "3ms" and higher resolutions, I don't see the market for gaming LCD's going too, too far. I've been looking at these things for weeks as a serious purchase (and have been watching them over the years), and I like Dell's 2001FP, but I just don't know about how it will match up to my five year old Sony E400 19" CRT that can do the same resolution at a crisp 75Hz. Plus, if my CRT evar goes bad, I can replace it with a better one at about a tenth of the cost of a "decent" LCD.