I've got an 181T and the slow response certainly shows. Time quoted 25ms I reckon thats 25 rise plus 25 fall.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
??? where's the LCD thread?
Collapse
X
-
-
The 1280x1024 resolution has got me wondering...
This resolution is not 4:3, but 5:4. In regular CRTs, this results in "non-square" pixels; but what do they do in LCDs ? Are the dimensions 4:3 (and thus the pixels non-square) or are the dimensions 5:3 with square pixels) ?
(for computer graphics, this doesn't matter that much, but for photo-editing it becomes more important)
Jörg
Comment
-
The dimensions are 5:4, thus 1280x1024 looks fine, but interpolated resolutions look a little stretched (nothing too bad though, since you'd only play games at those resolutions, all your work and picture viewng and such would be done with square pixels ).
Cochese: No manufacturer states higher numbers than the panel reaches in reality, but some people are more sensitive to ghosting than others
AZ
Comment
-
NP
Note that the "cheaper" screens we are talking about here ALWAYS interpolate to full-screen for lower resolutions. They have no option to display lower resolutions in a smaller, 1:1 window.
AZ
Comment
-
Another thing that has to be mentioned about response rate here.
The 16ms claimed by NEC would be for a pixel going White to Black and back or vice-versa.
Considering the fact that you would only be very rarely going from extreme to extreme the overall response rate and "general speed" will be faster.It cost one penny to cross, or one hundred gold pieces if you had a billygoat.
Trolls might not be quick thinkers but they don't forget in a hurry, either
Comment
-
Actually, no. Going from an 80% black pixel to a 20% black pixel is slower than from full black to full white, AFAIK. Don't ask me why, though
But debating about these numbers is kind of moot, anyway. Important is that we don't see ghosting.
AZ
Comment
-
whoops that 15ms thing was a typo... haha i wish it were 15ms. i meant to type 25msIntel Pentium 4 2.53Ghz@2.63Ghz | Intel "Blue Mountain" D845PEBT2 (845PE) |1GB Mushkin PC2700 2-2-2 |ATI All-In-Wonder Radeon 9700 Pro |Matrox G450 PCI 32MB | (2) WD360GD Raptor SATA (36GB, 10,000rpm) | (2) WD1200JB (120GB, 7200rpm) | Sound Blaster Audigy 2 | Plextor 40x12x40x CD-RW | Toshiba 16x DVD | Cooler Master ATC-710GX2 | Zalman ZM400A-APF 400w PSU | Zalman CNPS7000-CU HSF | Cambridge Soundworks Microworks | Silicon Graphics USB Keyboard | Logitech MX700 Wireless Mouse | Samsung SyncMaster 191T | Samsung SyncMaster 172W | Windows XP Professional SP1
Comment
-
Originally posted by az
Actually, no. Going from an 80% black pixel to a 20% black pixel is slower than from full black to full white, AFAIK. Don't ask me why, though
AZGigabyte P35-DS3L with a Q6600, 2GB Kingston HyperX (after *3* bad pairs of Crucial Ballistix 1066), Galaxy 8800GT 512MB, SB X-Fi, some drives, and a Dell 2005fpw. Running WinXP.
Comment
-
Comment