When do you think response times will get better?

P

phetttt

Guest
Ive been reading this forum for ages, and having returned return a Sagem 27 inch screen for its blurring, when will response times be comparable to crt screens? Ive seen many screens with a 8ms response time just now, but will any of the models coming out this year be any better? Do you get blurring on 8ms screens?
 

Sporran

Prominent Member
i got the Sony V32 which is *ms, on normal tv or 360/ps2 dont get blurring. YOu may see somehting that resembles blurring on the V32 from default but thats the noise reduction, turn it off and hey presto :)
 

dllord

Established Member
Responce times arn't the problem once you go below 8ms, you might still get a bit of bluring but thats just the way LCD works! Because the backlight is always on, it makes the screen look like its bluring! Phillips clear LCD is your best bet for the near future or just wait for SED!
 

Teppic

Established Member
I honestly believe that in most cases picture processing creates more image issues than response times these days. I've tried an 8ms set which was awful for blurring, and a 16ms set which didn't blur at all. You'll often find that two sets from different manufacturers which use the exact same panel will behave entirely different from each other.

To put the response time situation into perspective a little, i had a 32" 100hz CRT from a major brand which blurred far worse than the majority of LCD screens i've looked at recently.
 
I

ijdfme

Guest
The reason everyone harps on about LCD response times is the same reason as behind the "megapixel madness" in digital cameras -- it's a headline figure which the punters think is important, but mostly isn't.

Now that the panels are good enough (which they have been for at least a year) it's the quality of the signal processing that matters, which is difficult to measure and understand -- but it's very easy to quote a panel response time (which is largely meaningless).

Similarly for digital cameras -- once the sensors reached about 4Mpixels the picture quality depends on lens quality, sensor SNR, and signal processing, which are also difficult tomeasure and understand -- but it's easy to impress naive punters by screaming "8 Meagpixels!" In fact most of the newer cameras with more megapixels (and smaller image sensors to save money) produce worse pictures than those from a couple of years back, because the image noise is much worse.

I've also seen the same thing happen with LCD TVs, where "faster panel" does not equal "less smearing". Most of the so-called "image smearing" is *nothing* to do with panel response time, it's the algorithms used to convert from interlaced to progressive, do any motion compensation, picture noise reduction, interpolation up to panel resolution, detection/switching between film and video source material, 2/3 pulldown processing and so on.

All this is impossible to specify except as "mine is better than yours" (but everyone says that :)

Think of how a CRT displays a picture -- the phosphor decay time (equivalent to LCD panel response time) is chosen to be long enough that the image from one interlaced frame (40ms apart at 25Hz) has mostly disappeared by the time the next frame comes along, but is still visibly there when the other frame (with the other half of the lines) happens 20ms later -- so on this basis, the "smearing-free" CRT that we all know and supposedly love has a response time slower than any current LCD TV panel.

Many of the "100Hz" CRT TVs had very bad smearing/juddering on moving images, which obviously can't be anything to do with "response time", only poor signal processing.
 

dacco

Established Member
ijdfme said:
The reason everyone harps on about LCD response times is the same reason as behind the "megapixel madness" in digital cameras -- it's a headline figure which the punters think is important, but mostly isn't.

Now that the panels are good enough (which they have been for at least a year) it's the quality of the signal processing that matters, which is difficult to measure and understand -- but it's very easy to quote a panel response time (which is largely meaningless).

Similarly for digital cameras -- once the sensors reached about 4Mpixels the picture quality depends on lens quality, sensor SNR, and signal processing, which are also difficult tomeasure and understand -- but it's easy to impress naive punters by screaming "8 Meagpixels!" In fact most of the newer cameras with more megapixels (and smaller image sensors to save money) produce worse pictures than those from a couple of years back, because the image noise is much worse.

I've also seen the same thing happen with LCD TVs, where "faster panel" does not equal "less smearing". Most of the so-called "image smearing" is *nothing* to do with panel response time, it's the algorithms used to convert from interlaced to progressive, do any motion compensation, picture noise reduction, interpolation up to panel resolution, detection/switching between film and video source material, 2/3 pulldown processing and so on.

All this is impossible to specify except as "mine is better than yours" (but everyone says that :)

Think of how a CRT displays a picture -- the phosphor decay time (equivalent to LCD panel response time) is chosen to be long enough that the image from one interlaced frame (40ms apart at 25Hz) has mostly disappeared by the time the next frame comes along, but is still visibly there when the other frame (with the other half of the lines) happens 20ms later -- so on this basis, the "smearing-free" CRT that we all know and supposedly love has a response time slower than any current LCD TV panel.

Many of the "100Hz" CRT TVs had very bad smearing/juddering on moving images, which obviously can't be anything to do with "response time", only poor signal processing.

One of the best replies I've read on this subject....take note.
 
P

phetttt

Guest
so, if any of you guys could do an experiment for me it would be interested to hear the results…

When I had my Sagem and Denon 1910 dvd player a good test for blurring would be Attack of the Clones.

When Obi-Wan visits the Kaminoans, there is a sequence when he inspects the clone embryos, the camera pans round from right to left inside the tunnel.
This is when the screen was shuddering or blurring.

if you enjoy AOTC, can you watch this sequence, let me know what screen you have and if it shudders. cheers
 

Ramspeed

Established Member
Two examples to confirm ijdfme's argument.

1. Digital cameras. I used to have a Canon Ixus 500 (5MP). Brilliant camera. Got caught up in megapixel madness and 'upgraded' to a more expensive Canon S70 (7.1MP). Result? The same or slightly WORSE.

2. LCD TV. Anyone notice that the best reviewed sets of last year were the Panasonic 50/52/500 series? Time and time again reviewers marvelled at their ability to handle motion with a minimum of smearing. Panel response time? A 'pathetic' 14ms. Now if that doesn't show the importance of good picture processing nothing does. It's not the speed of the panel it's what you do with it.
 

dacco

Established Member
Required reading for newbies-bumps a daisy:thumbsup:
 

neilmcl

Prominent Member
phetttt said:
so, if any of you guys could do an experiment for me it would be interested to hear the results…

When I had my Sagem and Denon 1910 dvd player a good test for blurring would be Attack of the Clones.

When Obi-Wan visits the Kaminoans, there is a sequence when he inspects the clone embryos, the camera pans round from right to left inside the tunnel.
This is when the screen was shuddering or blurring.

if you enjoy AOTC, can you watch this sequence, let me know what screen you have and if it shudders. cheers
This is nothing to do with response times. The picture shuddering/stuttering when a fixed camera pans around a large area is an effect of the deinterlacing thats being employed and will be visable in just about any fixed-pixel display regardless of response speed. This effect is not the same as motion blur which as the name suggests gives the effect of the image blurring during high speed motion which is more noticeable the slower the response time. However, unless you're a serious gamer, a response time below 16ms should be more than adequate for a decent picture.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 8K TV dead? Philips OLED+907, Pioneer LX505 AVR plus B&W 700 S3 Reviews & Visit + AV/HiFi News
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom