On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 07:23:35 +0200, "anm" <geenemail@ivmspam.nl>
wrote:
>for games 25ms can be slow, but they build these slower responce time
>monitor because they can produce more colors than a 12ms monitor. If you are
>a webdesigner you better buy a 20ms,25ms or up lcd monitor (the best for
>colorreproduction is still the old crt monitor) because it just looks
>better, for games it can be wiser to get 20ms or faster, but you must
>consider the faster the responcetime the lesser colors it can show at the
>same time. Fast responcetimes arent always better (the most beautiful lcd
>screens i have seen were 20ms or 25ms). A friend of mine has an older 50ms
>lcd monitor and he enjoys playing games for time to time and doesnt have any
>trouble with normal gaming. And its not always that a monitor with the
>highest responcetime is the best for games, i have seen in tests that a 20ms
>monitor did a better job then a 12 or 16ms monitor. Ask for a demonstration
>of the monitor you like in a shop, maybe they have a 3dmark test (always has
>some gaming tests). Good luck.
Heres a perfect example. I mentioned this in posts elsewhere. In
Europe and Australia I noticed they are much more savvy. They really
make a big deal about 6 bit panels and 8 bit while in the US everyone
tends to focus totally on response time. Toms Hardware and Anandtech
both made the point you cant take the figures they give at face value
.. Heres a bit from a review :
--------------------------------
Just to rehash - we don’t have a lot of faith in advertised response
times. If there are significant response time differences, there is
usually a hit in performance somewhere else, like luminance or
contrast ratio. It becomes easy to fall prey to benchmarks that
measure response times in only certain scenarios, which is why all of
our reviews use comprehensive real world comparisons between all of
our displays to set the playing field level.
---------------------------------------
Heres some bits from a early test of a BenQ FP931 which was popular as
one of the fast 19" coming on the scene a while ago its a 6 bit but it
was faster than the 25ms standard time.
--------------------------------------------
BenQ's FP931 is based on a TN 6-bit LCD panel. While it is advertised
as a 16.2M color display, each pixel can only display 262,000 hues;
the other 16M hues are "simulated" using dithering techniques.
You'll notice that our LCDs grab 4.5s pretty much across the board
with the exception of the BenQ. Spotting 6-bit LCDs are fairly easy
for people who do a lot of graphics work. The image below displays 256
different shades of blue across the top; it represents the 256 hues of
blue that are found in an 8-bit sub pixel. No amount of dithering can
render this square correctly on a 6-bit LCD.
http://www.anandtech.com/displays/sh...px?i=2289&p=16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thats not to say 6 bits are bad either. I have a 6 bit Viewsonic and I
actually dont notice any problems though a review in the UK where its
was reviewed postively they said they saw banding when they tested it
with LCD test software that shows a zillion shades to show color
accuracy. But then I dont do critical graphics work. So though people
in the US tend to view greated that 16ms panels as KA KA , in Europe I
see posts at sites where they talk about using an 8 bit to watch
movies and do graphics work and a 6 bit panel for games and even then
as the poster says its not quite as simple as going by reponse times.
Ive seen posts from consumers where they claim some slow reponse time
rated screens were OK with games.
why 25ms for some upper end lcd monitors 
Linear Mode
