dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1336
share rss forum feed


Ryan777

@distributel.net

is direct-LED less blurry than 8ms Edge lit?

[this could have gone in the Audio video forum but wasn't sure]

Hi I just got a Philips 22PFL4507 22" 720p LED-LCD TV, with 8ms response time. I read somewhere that anything under 8 and you can't really tell the difference. I can't believe how bad the motion blur is on this.

Does motion blur on LCD's not get much better than this?
If I try and find a 5-2ms response would that really make that much of a difference? Cause I might just be more sensitive to the blur if everyone else seems to think these displays are fine.

I read somewhere that 'direct LED' has 'superb motion' compared to 'Edge-lit'. Would it be worth trying to find one? And if so , how can I find one? The selling sites are so inconsistent with what specs they list that I need some expert help on this.

Thanks for any help.



aurgathor

join:2002-12-01
Lynnwood, WA
kudos:1

I presume by 'direct LED' you mean full array back lit.

Response time is completely independent of the type of backlight, be it CCFL, edge-lit LED, or full matrix LED. What full matrix can do for you is local dimming for better contrast. (supposedly, edge-lit can do some dimming, too, but it can't be as good)
--
Wacky Races 2012!



FizzyMyNizzy

join:2004-05-29
New York, NY
kudos:1
reply to Ryan777

Shouldn't it be anything under 5ms and lower(Most people prefer 2ms.). You might also want to try 120Hz or 240Hz(Remember it must have the Hz symbol. Some company just put 240. When it isn't a true 240Hz).


oryan707

join:2004-04-17
canada

So does that mean you can tell a difference between 8ms and 2ms?

Would you know if there's a good site to search for montiors that reliably lists the same specs 'cause all the selling site's I've found, they'll list some specs on one profile but not another (like backlight type or panel type). It' s maddening.

Does anyone have any experience with any particular model of monitor that would be good for gaming?

Idealy I'm looking for a 19-22" LED(or just LCD if it has everything else), 2ms, VA panel+direct-backlight for better uniformitiy, with HDMI at least.

So far I think this monitor simply does not exist



Raphion

join:2000-10-14
Samsara
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to Ryan777

Any display that leaves video frames on the screen for more than an instant is going to exhibit motion blur, even if it has 0ms response time. The reason is that the eye moves smoothly to track a "moving" object or scene on the display, but the object isn't really moving, it's only a series of stills, so each successive still image smears across the moving retina for the duration it is on the screen. This is the root of nearly all the motion blur in modern LCDs.

There are three reasonable solutions to this issue:

1) The use of a stroboscopic backlight. A backlight that flashes very brightly only once per frame of video, so that a succinct, unsmeared image is seen by the retina even when it's in motion. This is the simplest solution, and is basically how CRTs displayed images, which is why motion seemed much clearer on them. This approach seems very rare though, in spite of being arguably the best.

2) Use very quick response times and video frame rates. You would need less than 1ms response time and greater than 1200hz frame rate for this approach to approximate the clarity of an oldschool CRT. It would work, however it's very wasteful, as the human visual system doesn't really need anywhere near 1200 frames per second for a satisfactory illusion of motion, and this requires very high end hardware/software to create such high rates. This approach boils down to packing hundreds of extra video frames into spaces of time that could just as well have contained nothing but black screen, and have looked just as well to the human eye. Unfortunately, display engineers seem to be trying to reach for this solution, rather than the much more accessible stroboscopic backlight solution.

3) A completely new display technology that actively generates light from it's pixels, rather than acting as a light-gate for a static backlight. True LED screens are one contender, that is, where each sub-pixel IS and LED, not talking about LED backlighting of LCD here. Provided that the LEDs are sufficiently powerful, they could light for only half a millisecond or so to flash up each video frame. Again, this is like the phosphors of a CRT being lit for only a fraction of a millisecond.

I'm pessimistic that the LED displays would be designed to work as above though, because it's cheaper to use LEDs that can only reach satisfactory light levels by being lit up to 100% of the time, and the only "stroboscopic" thing going on might be pulse width modulation for brightness control. That wouldn't fix the motion blur, but it would introduce some "interesting" looking effects into the blur.



aurgathor

join:2002-12-01
Lynnwood, WA
kudos:1
reply to oryan707

said by oryan707:

Idealy I'm looking for a 19-22" LED(or just LCD if it has everything else), 2ms, VA panel+direct-backlight for better uniformitiy, with HDMI at least.

So far I think this monitor simply does not exist

First, monitors/TVs with full array backlight are vey rare, and this page should help you explain part of the issue: »www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a···24176106
So don't even think about direct backlight, unless you have very deep pockets.

VA panels seem to have fallen out of favor lately because:
a) they are also slower than TN
b) they are significantly more expensive than TN
You can probably still find some models with VA, but for gaming you're probably better off with TN.

Many recent monitors have HDMI, so that one shouldn't be much of an issue.
--
Wacky Races 2012!

oryan707

join:2004-04-17
canada
reply to Raphion

ok... so your saying if I got a brand new 8ms I won't see much difference in a 2ms model?

This 'stroboscopic backlight' you said it's rare, do you know of any models out there that actualy use it? I'm willing to splurge if I think it's worth it.



Raphion

join:2000-10-14
Samsara
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

No, I know of none being sold now. Your best bet is to look at the higher refresh rate models for now.

I just like to explain the issue in detail when it comes up, hoping that more awareness of what it really is will have the eventual effect of good solutions to it hitting production.

The current school of thought - increasing frame rates - is wasteful and misguided, like trying to increase the light in the bathroom by leaving the door open and installing brighter lights in the bedroom. It works... sort of, but not satisfactorily, and is not targeting the root issue precisely.



aurgathor

join:2002-12-01
Lynnwood, WA
kudos:1
reply to oryan707

Unfortunately, the options are somewhat limited on how to make LCDs better suited for certain uses. They're actually fine for the majority of users. I think because of certain inherent limitations of LCDs, at some point in time we'll probably end up with something radically different.

Unfortunately, one of the most promising technology SED has been abandoned, partly due to some unnecessary litigation, partly due to the recession, and partly due to the competitive pressure from the ever better LCDs. A somewhat similar technology, FED is on life support.

So for all practical purposes, right now it's either LCD, plasma, or a leftover CRT. (of which there are still plenty)
--
Wacky Races 2012!



NotTheMama
What Would Earl Do?

join:2012-12-06

OLED seems to be getting more "popular" (still with the small screens though); if it gets cheaper from scaling up production, then it might actually make it to the "big time". But, yeah, I like my cheap Samsung T24B350ND quite well.
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!"



aurgathor

join:2002-12-01
Lynnwood, WA
kudos:1

Well, OLED's been around for, what, 10+ years, but aside from one 10" TV costing several grand, I don't remember anything remotely usable as a monitor.
--
Wacky Races 2012!



NotTheMama
What Would Earl Do?

join:2012-12-06

Maybe the next "big thing" will be small stereoscopic OLED glasses? You never know when or where the next major breakthrough will happen, only that it will involve a reduction in the cost to produce something that has the features and attributes that "everyone" wants (which is where OLED certainly satisfies). But it's not like I'm waiting on anything.
--
"...but ya doesn't hasta call me Johnson!"



aurgathor

join:2002-12-01
Lynnwood, WA
kudos:1

Stereoscopic OLED glasses will probably have their own niche, but I kinda doubt that they would replace monitors.