LCD, ghosting and "hardcore gamers"

U

Ummagumma

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
82
What is all this I hear about ghosting on low latency displays from the "hardcore gamers"? Ok, I can understand that some displays have an actual higher latency then in the specs. http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/07/06/nec_and_lacie_lead_on_professional_lcd_gear/page13.html Still, now that the really low latency displays that are down in 3 and 2 ms, there should be no ghosting (from the display at least).

According to pure math, a display that has latency below 16,67 ms should be able to show 60fps without ghosting. The calculation goes like this: 1 sec = 1000 ms. 1000ms /60 (frames per second) = 16,67 ms (per frame). So, if the display`s latency is below 16,67ms per frame and the machine connected to it can display 60 frames per second, shouldn`t ghosting be eliminated then?

Is there a factor missing in this equation, or is ghosting in low latency LCD`s just something "hardcore gamers" like to complain about in fustration after flunking math? :p
 
Ummagumma said:
or is ghosting in low latency LCD`s just something "hardcore gamers" like to complain about in fustration after flunking math? :p
Click to expand...

Or blaming the response time on getting whooped.

There's your answer. Wouldn't say I play games 20hrs a day but I do play a lot and have not seen any ghosting on my last 4 tft's.

*shrug* some ppl will blame anything. I think the difference in milliseconds is unrecognisable by the human eye so any bitching is just excuses IMO.
 
A few months ago i tried out a VX924 which supposedly has 3ms response and i definetly saw a fair amount of ghosting in games, even at 60+ fps. I also have a 12ms Sony LCD here and man is it ever bad on that one, hurts my eyes just thinking about it. :p

I wouldn't call myself a hardcore gamer but i am hardcore enough to be picky about smooth visuals, and to me LCD's just aren't good enough in that category.
 
Deetox said:
A few months ago i tried out a VX924 which supposedly has 3ms response and i definetly saw a fair amount of ghosting in games, even at 60+ fps. I also have a 12ms Sony LCD here and man is it ever bad on that one, hurts my eyes just thinking about it. :p

I wouldn't call myself a hardcore gamer but i am hardcore enough to be picky about smooth visuals, and to me LCD's just aren't good enough in that category.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. You are picky about smooth visuals. But, the math speaks for itself and couldn`t it be a possibility that its all in your head, or eyes to be exact? That its not ghosting you see, only that you have a need for higher fps then 60? http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
 
It's fact that some people are more sensitive over LCD latency like some people are over CRT refresh. I can also see where something like that can bother someone and cause them gaming grief.
 
Because gaming is just like racing, for example, uh Nascar. Those guys squeeze every bit of performance they can out of their cars until it is in the best condition it is in. Then you begin to win races once you have a good car.

If you have a good rig, including a good LCD, you are squeezing that much more performance in for being the best. Those who want the fast response time, probably do a LOT of gaming. It is not just an excuse to waste money. If you can see your enemy faster than he can see you. YOU WIN. lol

A guy that has raced for a long time will notice the slightest change on his car because he is a professional. Just the same for gamers, they can notice the ghosting when making fast movements and trying to squeeze performance. Maybe your monitor could make the difference between winning or losing in some cases, and also looking good!
 
i think this has kinda been beaten to a pulp, but i also think that people are mistakeing refresh rate for FPS, the human eye cannot percieve any thing above 60hz.... (that not to say the 80 90 or even 150hz isnt easyer on the eyes over long sessions, but that just sitting there staring at a static image you cant tell the difference over shot ammounts of time... ) this is the reason why house hold lights all run at 60 hz, as well as tv's house hold surrent is 60hz... thats all there is to it... this is why your lights dont flicker... if you turn it down to 54 or 48 hz, you will start to see it flicker... now.. that said, i do beleave that the human eye can percieve more than 60 frames per seconed, the reason for this is that every line is not drawn at the same time... its drawn left to right and top to bottom, when your playing a fps game , you may only be focusing on a small part of the screen, lets say the top right hand quater, your only seeing that part of the image, and your eyes are waiting for it to redraw that section, if the vid card is only putting out 60fps, your eyes are only perciveing 30fps on the top half, when you draw 120fps, your perciveing 60...ect, and in turn the part you are perciveing seems smother, this dosent just apply to the top or the bottom, it applys to any part of the screen you happen to be focusing on, he smaller the part of the screen you focus on the faster it will need to be for you to percive it as being fluid, this is why guys that write text and code crt moniters often have eye problems, even on 150hz moniters, because they spend most of the time focusing on one word or even one letter at a time, where as with lcds, this isnt so much of a problem any more, simply because they dont draw in the same way, but fps is still percieved in the same way,but when you stare at a small part of an lcd, you still see the ghosting for the same reason, your only perciveing a small ammount and therefor the rates must be higher, if your only seeing 1/2 then it must be 120vs 60, if you only seeing 1/4 then it must be 240...

now.. this is all just a theroy.... but in my head it sounds right... give this a shot... try sitting back about 4 ft from your screen, and see if the refresh rate, and fps makes any difference... i have a feeling it wont nearly as much...

thore
 
Ummagumma said:
What is all this I hear about ghosting on low latency displays from the "hardcore gamers"? Ok, I can understand that some displays have an actual higher latency then in the specs. http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/07/06/nec_and_lacie_lead_on_professional_lcd_gear/page13.html Still, now that the really low latency displays that are down in 3 and 2 ms, there should be no ghosting (from the display at least).

According to pure math, a display that has latency below 16,67 ms should be able to show 60fps without ghosting. The calculation goes like this: 1 sec = 1000 ms. 1000ms /60 (frames per second) = 16,67 ms (per frame). So, if the display`s latency is below 16,67ms per frame and the machine connected to it can display 60 frames per second, shouldn`t ghosting be eliminated then?

Is there a factor missing in this equation, or is ghosting in low latency LCD`s just something "hardcore gamers" like to complain about in fustration after flunking math? :p
Click to expand...

I can tell you right now that it's not just "in our heads". I have a 2ms monitor, which should effectively allow 500fps, and yet there is still a noticeable delay. I know it seems absurd to think you can tell the difference between 500fps and lower, but I doubt the response time is consistent or something, because in practice ghosting/blurring is VERY noticeable.
 
thore, that must be the longest sentence I've read in my life ;)

anyway, ya, despite the math, ghosting is easily noticable in some cases, but only in some. for example on my 193p+ it's very visible when I move a red object on a grey background, but non-existent when I move it on a white background.

In practice though, so far ghosting hasn't been a problem for me. Maybe in FarCry there were a few places where I thought things behaved strangely. Like on the Fort level at the beginning they got this hut and when I walked on the wooden boards they kinda "flickered", which I guess was the effect of darker colours of the boards leaving a blur on the grey colours.

In WC3 I haven't noticed anything so far, same for Doom3, NFS, Civ4.

I think the debate isn't gonna bring anything new to the subject - LCDs got their pros and cons, just like CRTs. Out of curiosity I plugged in my old (very old) CRT to the analog port and ran both monitors together and the LCD had a definitely better picture, sharper, brighter, prettier, more alive. That said, when I played DVDs some darker scenes definitely looked better on the CRT, which is due to the blacks on LCDs not being perfect. But the majority of the scecnes look awesome, and if it's not a very dark one, the LCD is a definite winner (at least in my case, I know there are better CRT's than mine out there).
 
Wait for SED and save your money you will need it. Iam going from a 2405 to a 21" DELL P1130 where the original plan was going to be the 244T however it was £50 VS £850, the money gained from the 2405 will go towards my SED.
 
The simple truth is: the numbers lie. Or, more correctly, the LCD manufacturers do.

Delay times for LCD displays are different for different pixel transitions. You could represent this as a graph, where one axis is the type of transition and the other is the delay in the transition. THG does this in some reviews. What a monitor spec does is pick *one* point on this graph (white-to-black (or was it black-to-white) usually, but some overdriven panels uses "gray-to-gray") and list it as if it was true for all transitions. The manufacturers have optimized the transitions for this simple number. So, generally, even if your monitor says 2ms on the box, expect much higher delay on the other transitions.

I don't think you would see ghosting one a *true* 4ms display, but there are none of the sort out there yet.
 
thore...switching my crt from 85hz to 60hz is very noticeable to me. If I'm staring at my desktop, with nothing moving, 60hz feels like a strobe light to me. The second I go above 75hz, the strobe effect goes away.

to the OP...nice math, but you really need to compare the two side by side. Real world comparisons are far more revealing than calculations in a thread. If you put a quality crt next to a quality lcd, you will see the difference. Moving images are much more crisp on a good crt. I play games after hours sometimes at work (on my Samsung 213T), and when I go home, I can immediately notice a difference on my Sony GDM-FW900 (24" WS CRT).
 
Those calculations don't always speak for reality. LCD monitors are just not as fast as CRTs. Some LCD's in certain games don't show any blurring or ghosting but for fast paced games like UT2k4 you will see bluring to the surroundings when lookin around using the mouse. Some people learn to live with it and don't notice it as much as others but people like me are very sensitive to blurring.
 
I said CRT, LCD is another story. To put it bluntly LCD's will ALWAYS have the problems that are associated with them, yes they will improve but by the time that happens SED will be here. LCD is dead IMO and I'am skipping it after trying the 2405.
 
Yeah Thore you're wrong about not being able to perceive anything over 60 Hz, maybe with light bulbs, but definitely not with monitors and TV's. I perceive a HUGE difference between 60 and 85 Hz. As mentioned earlier, staring at a 60 Hz monitor, especially through peripheral vision is like a seizure-inducing strobe light. ;)
 
SEDs are a year away, at least. If you need a display it's asking much by saying wait a little while.
 
60Hz flickers like hell 85Hz doesnt period.

I say wait for SED like I'am, I couldnt justify a 24" LCD with SED only a year away. Also note that they will blow everything else away like you wouldnt believe.
 
believe me, i've used tons of monitors in the past and you can notice ghosting and streaking and other LCD bound cons, they may not make you die but they are annoying, and they aren't fun on the eyes either - that's why I think for the most part and for most gamers CRT is the way...but some people say LCDs are easier on the eyes...which I've never noticed (on a flat screen CRT)

kleox64 said:
I said CRT, LCD is another story. To put it bluntly LCD's will ALWAYS have the problems that are associated with them, yes they will improve but by the time that happens SED will be here. LCD is dead IMO and I'am skipping it after trying the 2405.
Click to expand...

yes, idiots are always trying to convince me that "lcds are getting so much better now - they're better even for gaming and graphics work now"

well...LCDs will never lose their flawing characteristics, no matter how much they improve
 
kleox64 said:
60Hz flickers like hell 85Hz doesnt period.

.
Click to expand...



You are wrong, LCD's do not flicker, PERIOD, since they don't actually refresh like a CRT...if you think you can tell a difference staring at a 60hz LCD compared to a 75hz LCD, you are full of it....
 
TheRapture said:
You are wrong, LCD's do not flicker, PERIOD, since they don't actually refresh like a CRT...if you think you can tell a difference staring at a 60hz LCD compared to a 75hz LCD, you are full of it....
Click to expand...


Its amazing how people think they see a difference between 60hz and 75hz on a LCD screen.
 
Shottah_king said:
Its amazing how people think they see a difference between 60hz and 75hz on a LCD screen.
Click to expand...

:p tis true, it's like how kids think they get "sugar high" (considering it's been proven scientifically time and time again that this does not and can not happen)
 
im soo tempted to get an lcd to save some desk space but i do a lot of gaming and im sure i would notice the ghosting. lcds with those ultra low response times i think those are the "record best they can do" and they arent always that low. im sure the best screens would probably be OK for me but i dont want to have to settle, so i suppose ill just save my pennies and wait for an SED.
also i can easily notice the difference between 60 and say 75 - 85 fps in game, also i can tell differences even just on my desktop when the refresh rate is changed, so im pretty sure i would be one of those guys complaining about ghosting if i got an lcd, so ill save myself and everyone else the agony of my tears okbye :D
(ps.. HURRY UP SED OR SOMEOTHER NEW TECHNOLOGY, I NEED DESK SPACE!)
 
donn said:
im soo tempted to get an lcd to save some desk space but i do a lot of gaming and im sure i would notice the ghosting. lcds with those ultra low response times i think those are the "record best they can do" and they arent always that low. im sure the best screens would probably be OK for me but i dont want to have to settle, so i suppose ill just save my pennies and wait for an SED.
also i can easily notice the difference between 60 and say 75 - 85 fps in game, also i can tell differences even just on my desktop when the refresh rate is changed, so im pretty sure i would be one of those guys complaining about ghosting if i got an lcd, so ill save myself and everyone else the agony of my tears okbye :D
(ps.. HURRY UP SED OR SOMEOTHER NEW TECHNOLOGY, I NEED DESK SPACE!)
Click to expand...


your going to be waiting a long time

i highly doubt that you understand about noticing ghosting - go to a lan party and find someone with an ultrasharp (not too hard) and watch - you wont notice and if you slightly do notice you probably won't care too much

and there's nothing wrong with a modern day CRT, like an FW900 or an FE2111 or a 1100
 
TheRapture said:
You are wrong, LCD's do not flicker, PERIOD, since they don't actually refresh like a CRT...if you think you can tell a difference staring at a 60hz LCD compared to a 75hz LCD, you are full of it....
Click to expand...

Im pretty sure he is talking about a CRT...


since it was a responce to this post...
sarbz said:
thore...switching my crt from 85hz to 60hz is very noticeable to me. If I'm staring at my desktop, with nothing moving, 60hz feels like a strobe light to me. The second I go above 75hz, the strobe effect goes away.
Click to expand...
 
Crosshairs said:
Im pretty sure he is talking about a CRT...


since it was a responce to this post...
Click to expand...

Perhaps so, but he was responding to me saying LCD's don't have that problem.
 
I wouln't really say that specs don't matter... I tried alot of different monitors and as far as ghosting goes I have to say that the LG's seemed to ghost the most. Even though I don't care for Viewsonic so much, Id have to say that the 3ms VX924 model was the best regarding this that I have seen so far.. I will back LCD monitors to people/customers because they really are easier on the eyes. My suggestion though is if your happy with your CRT than keep it!
 
systemlines said:
My suggestion though is if your happy with your CRT than keep it!
Click to expand...

QFT...this is really all that matters. No one is forcing anyone to stare at their display. It all boils down to a matter of preference.
 
On the subject of fps what is the highest fps before you can no longer tell the difference? shudder etc.

For me it's 30fps. anything under 30fps and there is a noticable lag and shudder but above 30fps it's smooth and fluid like it should be. Also I see no difference 30fps and 100fps...it looks the same.
 
HopePoisoned said:
your going to be waiting a long time
Click to expand...
i kno :( but hopefully not toooooo long.

HopePoisoned said:
i highly doubt that you understand about noticing ghosting - go to a lan party and find someone with an ultrasharp (not too hard) and watch - you wont notice and if you slightly do notice you probably won't care too much
Click to expand...
i have tried several and i do notice it alot (sensitive eyes ;/ )
my crt has atleast another year left in it hopefully :eek:
 
qb4ever said:
On the subject of fps what is the highest fps before you can no longer tell the difference? shudder etc.

For me it's 30fps. anything under 30fps and there is a noticable lag and shudder but above 30fps it's smooth and fluid like it should be. Also I see no difference 30fps and 100fps...it looks the same.
Click to expand...

30fps looks choppy to me, heck even in the 40's it does. It isn't until it goes past 50 that things start to smooth out, once it hits about 80 i stop noticing a difference. It took a long time to develope such a keen eye for fps though, i do remember back in the days of Quake2 and Halflife 30 fps was the holy grail of smoothness to me. But as time progressed and i was able to afford better and better hardware i started to see the differences, and now i'm to a point where i absolutley cannot stand anything below 50 fps. Except in racing games like NFSMW, even 20fps looks fast in that one lol.
 
M'ichal said:
thore, that must be the longest sentence I've read in my life ;)

anyway, ya, despite the math, ghosting is easily noticable in some cases, but only in some. for example on my 193p+ it's very visible when I move a red object on a grey background, but non-existent when I move it on a white background.

In practice though, so far ghosting hasn't been a problem for me. Maybe in FarCry there were a few places where I thought things behaved strangely. Like on the Fort level at the beginning they got this hut and when I walked on the wooden boards they kinda "flickered", which I guess was the effect of darker colours of the boards leaving a blur on the grey colours.

In WC3 I haven't noticed anything so far, same for Doom3, NFS, Civ4.

I think the debate isn't gonna bring anything new to the subject - LCDs got their pros and cons, just like CRTs. Out of curiosity I plugged in my old (very old) CRT to the analog port and ran both monitors together and the LCD had a definitely better picture, sharper, brighter, prettier, more alive. That said, when I played DVDs some darker scenes definitely looked better on the CRT, which is due to the blacks on LCDs not being perfect. But the majority of the scecnes look awesome, and if it's not a very dark one, the LCD is a definite winner (at least in my case, I know there are better CRT's than mine out there).
Click to expand...

LOL@ comparing very OLD CRT's to new LCDS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top