"DaveW" said in news:5heWb.273620$xy6.1386432@attbi_s02:
> Yes. With 25ms response times you'll get bad ghosting during motion
> in games.
>
>
> "mikhail" <mikew01 DeleteThis @blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:vD3Wb.221$CV6.88@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> Can anyone reccomend a good 17 or 19 inch tft monitor for me from
>> experience for everyday apps and gaming.
>> Ive read lots of reviews and am getting a bit despondant by them all
>> now. From what I can make out ideally for games I need a 16-20ms
>> response time of which there are loads of 17inch but I would like
>> the extra size of a 19inch but these all seem around the 25ms range.
>> Is there really a great deal of difference between these times?
Also remember that a certain percentage of the pixels will be dead (each
manufacture differs as to what level qualifies a monitor as bad). Since
they are dead, you get a tiny dark speck there. If it's just one that is
dead with no other dead ones next to it, you'll see a pinpoint dot on the
screen that's not lit (often you won't see until you notice it and then
you'll see it all the time). You can't tell what the manufacturer deems as
too high a percentage of dead pixels until you try to exercise the warranty
to get rid of the specks.
Many of the TFT vendors are now lying about their refresh time. Instead of
measuring the refresh time from full off to full on, they instead measure
from some threshold less than full off and less than full on; i.e., they
measure only through a partial range of intensity so make their numbers look
better. Since the measure is over a shorter range in the change and the
non-linear and slower portion of the change curve is lopped off, the
measured time is shorter and the refresh rate looks better (see
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://snipurl.com/4f4t" target="_blank">http://snipurl.com/4f4t</a>). So what if the latest TFT LCDs can achieve 16ms
for refresh time. Even if it were a true value, that's only a 62 Hz refresh
rate. That's the LOW end of a CRT. You'll need to play some old or slow
games to not be disappointed with LCD. For applications, LCDs are nice.
For games, or anything else that moves fast across the screen, LCDs suck
(well, not as bad as they used to but I still wouldn't waste my money on LCD
when I can get a better CRT at the same price).
See tomshardware.com for some other articles on LCDs. Some info articles
are:
LCD Roundup V: 17" LCDs Panels Compared
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://snipurl.com/4f4u" target="_blank">http://snipurl.com/4f4u</a>
Review: 20" LCD S-IPS Panels
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://snipurl.com/4f4v" target="_blank">http://snipurl.com/4f4v</a>
Feed Forward Makes LCDs Faster
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://snipurl.com/4f5g" target="_blank">http://snipurl.com/4f5g</a>
Since you get a better buy with a CRT monitor, why do you need LCD? Are you
going to tote it around? Is space really cramped and, if so, what are you
using now? Why do you need to blow more money on a smaller monitor? Maybe
you just feel the need to be trendy, sort of like when all the yuppies felt
the "need" to drive a Beamer. For the same price of a 17-inch LCD, I can
buy a flat 21-inch CRT. The bigger the size the better, plus I can get
twice, or more, the refresh rate on a CRT than an LCD. What would be the
point of running 1600x1200 that gets squashed into a 17-inch panel? With a
larger monitor size, you can up the resolution without reducing the actual
size that your eyeballs have to focus on.
--
____________________________________________________________
*** Post replies to newsgroup. E-mail is not accepted. ***
____________________________________________________________<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
>> Stay informed about: tft 
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
