Sub 1 frame HDTV/Monitor Input Lag Database

1252628303134

Comments

  • pablofsipablofsi Joined: Posts: 124
    edited January 2014
    Moonchilde wrote: »
    pablofsi wrote: »
    0, 1 and 2 input delay frames are absolutely easily noticeable in my case.

    I have a 32LM3400 low profile LED TV with 3D, and it has less than 1 frame of input delay. Trust me, since vendors in the US mostly offer high end models only people don't have a chance to check these out but low end TVs have low delay, ideal for games.

    Quoting this here before you edit it out. BTW, DisplayLag.com always tests using the fastest input method, whether it be set to PC mode or Game mode or whether or not a TV even offers those options.


    You're so full of it. You know what, I can prove it right now. The display you're using is 35 ms of input lag, and don't try to pull some 32 vs 42 size non-sense, them shits all use the same components across size models. That's technically 3 frames man. Haha!!

    2012 42" LG 42LM3400 1080p 60hz 3D LED HDTV BTM 35ms

    Look, I've been gaming on a CRT all my damn life until the last year. That's 32 years of CRT gaming. I can't fucking tell the difference between 1 and 2 frames of lag, when I play on a ASUS monitor my only gripe is how shitty they look. I can tell the difference at 4 to 5 frames of lag, but the difference is incredibly small and doesn't affect my gaming much.

    To put it into perspective for you, 2/60th's of a second (which is 2 frames of lag) is equal to missing 1 frame of animation in a 30 fps game. I bet you anything I could do a double blind test and 95% of humans tested wouldn't be able to see a single dropped frame in a 30 fps game. Let alone a 60 fps game that is much smoother, no human will ever notice that, ever.

    Response time =/= Input lag:

    "1) Reponse Time is the time taken for a pixel to change value and back again (effectively in an LCD display, how quickly the pixels shift to allow different amounts of light to pass through).
    - In simple terms, the lower this number the better as it means the pixels will shift quicker; therefore displaying fast-paced motion with less visual artefacts than a display with a higher pixel response time.
    ==> Response Times tend to decrease with advances in display technology

    2) Input Lag is the delay in time between a signal being input to a display and that same signal being displayed on-screen."

    I'm pretty confident to say 35ms is the response time of the TV since that's listed as response time in it's manual, which I have in my hands at this moment. Input lag wasn't measured anywhere and yes, 32" and 42" models can be different.

    This TV has less than one frame of delay, probably around 13-14ms (my 2006 LCD set had 8-9ms...), has no hardcore processing to talk about or anything (which is disabled anyway by customization, better than choosing Game mode) and is a low end model. That is why I chose it, since I knew the more processing there is, the more delay. Low end models are perfect. Since you have no access to such models, you have no idea how it is and I do, since I use it everyday and am typing this with stuff appearing 1 frame later. Actually I think it might be close to 1 frame, less or more. Enjoy playing on a 22" soul-less PC monitor. In the worst case that the site you mention had actually conducted a test and measured 35ms, I'd say that's without the trick I just mentioned. If you disconnect both or all HDMI cables on your TV, and then reconnect all the last one you connected will give you less input delay. When I play without doing this I feel like a 2 and a half input delay frames. It's a trick like the PC label thing...

    "If people were able to notice 1 frame they wouldn't be able to watch motion and some other blah blah blah"

    I said I can notice the difference in response time, not watch letters and numbers ala Matrix in slow motion, literal, elitist, arrogant pricks.

    It's similar to this... concentrating on the effect instead of the movement itself: in the third experiment in that video posted above, I could notice that in the second try the guy actually cut the 'bullet', how? because I could see the bullet didn't fly past the sword. I can see the bullet if it has a long enough trajectory, not frame by frame (but almost...). You can concentrate on comparing the difference of time between instant reaction and any amount of time additional to that in stuff appearing on screen on a TV, that difference tells you how much delay there is.
    Post edited by pablofsi on
  • RampageRampage Lurkin' Joined: Posts: 4,993
    How are you testing your input lag? That is the important thing.
  • RampageRampage Lurkin' Joined: Posts: 4,993
    MarkMan wrote: »
    Went into this thread hoping for some new valuable information. Instead I get a shitty TV drama. Thanks. Happy New Years everyone!

    @MarkMan Displaylag.com seems to be the best bet for recent information on input latency. :tup:
  • pablofsipablofsi Joined: Posts: 124
    Or you know, you can head to a physical store like a normal human being would and look for low end TV sets and test a bit by yourself, ultimately a webpage is only theorical information. I actually took my PS3 one year ago to stores and tested it on every TV set I could arguing I wanted to buy it but I had to test input latency first and that that was important to me. There's nothing like making sure by yourself and feeling yourself the delay the TV gives you.
  • RampageRampage Lurkin' Joined: Posts: 4,993
    @Pablofsi
    pablofsi wrote: »
    Or you know, you can head to a physical store like a normal human being would and look for low end TV sets and test a bit by yourself, ultimately a webpage is only theorical information. I actually took my PS3 one year ago to stores and tested it on every TV set I could arguing I wanted to buy it but I had to test input latency first and that that was important to me. There's nothing like making sure by yourself and feeling yourself the delay the TV gives you.

    You missed my question. (Or avoided?)
    Rampage wrote: »
    How are you testing your input lag? That is the important thing.


    Also, I'm not so sure that a "normal human being" would walk around with a PS3 to somewhere selling low-end sets to complete lag-testing.

    There are multiple scientific ways to test. None of them so far include connecting a PS3 to anything.

    http://smtt.thomasthiemann.com/index_en.html
    http://www.leobodnar.com/shop/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=89&products_id=212
  • pablofsipablofsi Joined: Posts: 124
    edited January 2014
    I didn't have the specific Guitar Hero version that had the tester and which I think was infamous for being innacurate, and I won't buy $80 hardware to test either. I didn't at the time, so all I had was my sensitivity and awareness, which were enough. Now I'm happily gaming and PS4 works wonderfully.

    I'm just living a heads up about low end sets for whoever decides to get up from his lazy ass, go to a store and test himself.
  • RampageRampage Lurkin' Joined: Posts: 4,993
    I'm not trying to be an asshole, but you pretty much just invalidated your opinions in this thread.

    You're giving hard numbers that you are literally just making up. Muscle memory allows me to hit 1-frame link on TVs with 3+ frames of lag. That doesn't mean that those TVs are sub-16ms input latency.

    I think that you're a little in over your head here with some legitimately technical guys who aren't interested in hearing your opinion on what latency you "feel" the TV may or may not have. I mean that in the nicest, most civil way possible - I just want to explain why people in here aren't jumping all over your info and thanking you for it. In the scheme of this thread, it is not pertinent, because there are no actual hard numbers that you can prove. That's what this thread is for.

    (Hopefully this doesn't come across as "WHARRRRGARBL OMG NOOB GTFO".)
  • pablofsipablofsi Joined: Posts: 124
    edited January 2014
    I'm not asking them to jump at all. It's empyrical advice for those that read, not comment and want to trash those PC monitors that are dull and dumb devices, not to mention too small.
  • NENDONENDO I will meditate and then destroy you. Joined: Posts: 3,346
    edited January 2014
    You mean empirical and while your advice is based on observations it is certainly not verifiable at all. In fact, your advice is actually made invalid by commonly accepted theory, hard fact, and logic.
  • ShinMagusShinMagus Joined: Posts: 417 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    I'm against relying on subjective error-prone human perception for evaluating input lag; there are more reliable methods. Leo Bodnar's Input Lag Tester is practical and most of the time does the job... Also, I recently came across http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/input-lag for an additional list of TV/monitor models - I still use http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/ primarily.
    Magus
    12000 B.C. - Dark Ages
    "The black wind begins to blow..."
    "Can you hear that? It's the sound of the Reaper."
  • MoonchildeMoonchilde Resident tech talk double poster Joined: Posts: 4,837
    pablofsi wrote: »
    Response time =/= Input lag:

    "1) Reponse Time is the time taken for a pixel to change value and back again (effectively in an LCD display, how quickly the pixels shift to allow different amounts of light to pass through).
    - In simple terms, the lower this number the better as it means the pixels will shift quicker; therefore displaying fast-paced motion with less visual artefacts than a display with a higher pixel response time.
    ==> Response Times tend to decrease with advances in display technology

    2) Input Lag is the delay in time between a signal being input to a display and that same signal being displayed on-screen."

    I'm pretty confident to say 35ms is the response time of the TV since that's listed as response time in it's manual, which I have in my hands at this moment. Input lag wasn't measured anywhere and yes, 32" and 42" models can be different.

    *snip*stupid bullshit*snip*

    Are you serious? Do you honestly think I don't know what the fuck response time is vs input lag? Your display is 35 ms of INPUT LAG, as measured by a Leo Bodnar device. This isn't response time. I'm not some dumb fuck nitwit dude. Any display with 35 ms of response time is going to be a huge smear fest of shit that no one would look at. Maybe the first LCD screens that were available since ghosting was a common issue back in the mid 90's. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Don't down-vote me because you don't know your shit.

    The differences in the TV models when it comes to size will only be the PCB's that give voltage and information to the screen along the edges, they will be longer rather than shorter. The actual video processor chips will be the same, which means the same lag. I've taken TV's apart and I've seen the differences, their motherboards will be the same.

    You know how I know you can't tell the difference between 1 and 2 frames of lag from no lag? Because you didn't even know you were gaming on a 3 frame laggy TV. You've invalidated your own opinion and have no say in this conversation anymore, and have completely proven yourself wrong.
    Rampage wrote: »
    Muscle memory allows me to hit 1-frame link on TVs with 3+ frames of lag. That doesn't mean that those TVs are sub-16ms input latency.

    I can hit 1 and 2 frame links on display with 5 frames of lag. Other than 1 frame links being generally difficult in general, it's not a visual and react thing it's mostly muscle memory for me. Visual indicators are done earlier than usual, so you aren't doing things as deep as you normally would, but it's entirely possible to do. 4x Vega jab links isn't easy but I can pull it off on my laggy display, because it's a timing I adjust and learn as I do it.

    Now, I don't think a display with high lag is good, everyone should have sub 1 frame lag displays available, but that isn't the reality we live in. 1 to 2 frames is ok to play mostly seriously on, no one is going to notice, 1 frame or less for anything tournament play just because. But for general gaming 3 frames should be ok and are much more common. 4 to 5 is pushing it (I tend to notice a slight delay in jumping easiest, lagless will jump immediately vs mostly imperceptable delayed jump) and anything more (6+) is simply not playable. It's good to have a display with no lag to remove any outside variables, and I wish all TV's were lagless.
  • SaucyPinoySaucyPinoy Ako Joined: Posts: 215
    I found this website and i'm not sure if you guys heard about it. http://pcmonitors.info/ He does reviews on monitors and does test on the input lag, colors, and other stuff on them. I was looking for info on the AOC i2367fh, an AH-IPS Monitor, but I found info on the i2369Vm instead http://pcmonitors.info/reviews/aoc-i2369vm, I read somewhere that they are the same monitors, but with different features. This guy claims the i2369Vm has 4ms of input lag, which i believe should be about the same as the AOC i2367fh if they are the same monitors, but with just different features.
    "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes." - Andy Warhol
  • MoonchildeMoonchilde Resident tech talk double poster Joined: Posts: 4,837
    SaucyPinoy wrote: »
    I found this website and i'm not sure if you guys heard about it. http://pcmonitors.info/ He does reviews on monitors and does test on the input lag, colors, and other stuff on them. I was looking for info on the AOC i2367fh, an AH-IPS Monitor, but I found info on the i2369Vm instead http://pcmonitors.info/reviews/aoc-i2369vm, I read somewhere that they are the same monitors, but with different features. This guy claims the i2369Vm has 4ms of input lag, which i believe should be about the same as the AOC i2367fh if they are the same monitors, but with just different features.

    Nice site. I'm glad there are more of these sites and we're not all in the dark like we were 10 years ago. This site seems to focus mostly on monitors which is good, because DisplayLag seems to focus mostly on TV.
  • underwingunderwing Modder Joined: Posts: 500
    edited January 2014
    Just gonna drop in and say that the reaction times and Phi phenomenon claims aren't *quite* true; the "skipping" of frames is but one way that the human brain fills in the gaps of our perception; it's not *entirely* relevant to the latency discussion. It mostly has to do with the concept of a meta-perception that prevents our brains from treating certain perceived things (like individual frames) on their own, outside the context of things in their temporal proximity. Which, yes, is kinda why we don't spot the aforementioned Aladdin frames.

    That's actually not even entirely accurate of a statement, either, but it's too late to get it 100% correct (and honestly, I'm not an expert; I *have*, however, talked at length on the topic with a grad student friend of mine who is doing research about the brain, image perception, motion tracking, and gender).

    I'm not trying to make a major definitive claim here, only that I'd submit that "the human brain can't detect the difference between 0 and 2 frames" is a gross and inaccurate oversimplification. It absolutely can -- screen capture a mouse with software that only lags by 1-2 frames and you'll certainly perceive the lag in a preview window, next to the mouse that's moving "in real time" (actually at the base delay of your graphics pipeline+display). Drawing tablets with sub-two-frames of latency? Not at all good enough -- Microsoft had that crazy-low-latency theoretical drawing surface in their labs a couple years ago for a reason, the latest Wacoms are only a couple frames latent and every traditional artist I've talked to have complained about them.

    "Perceiving" latency is a matter of our brain; it's a relative thing that's nearly impossible to make absolute statements about. If you had a 1 frame and a 2 frame monitor, mirrored and next to each other, and you watched closely (say, moved a mouse quickly), your periphery would be able to catch the different timing of when the mouse stopped or changed direction (oh man the brain is freaking AWESOME at motion stuff you guys like that gets into some crazy genetics shit from when we were hunting, and it looks like that perception has a statistical delta gap giving males the advantage; ladies have other perception advantages, it's all real fascinating). Take it to the limit and just do a black-to-white-to-black single-frame-flash, and it's even more likely the delta will be noticed. If you then *just* had the slower monitor hooked up, would you "notice the lag"? Yeah, maybe. Because you just saw it slower, so your brain's thinking it. Would you have noticed it had we not done that earlier comparison? Almost certainly no. When our brains want to pair up and associate multiple inputs (proprioceptive input of a button press registering with something on screen, like frame of an animation), there's some leniency. Sometimes it's a little, sometimes it's a lot.

    But yeah, TL;DR the brain's cool, making sweeping statements about how it works is hubris at best, but people aren't out there reliably noticing a 2-frame monitor because that's just silly. And even if we don't "notice" it, it's still there, which is why we measure. Latency is a measurement, and a valuable one; numbers are things that, when properly and consistently acquired, tell everyone the same thing; statements like "it feels fine and I've been playing games since forever" don't do others much good, because different people are different. This is supposed to be a discussion of the numbers, because we're all crazy enough to care about those; go to SlickDeals if you wanna just recommend people decent deals on monitors that feel good to you. They'll probably complain about your lack of numbers, too, but at least it won't be on a thread whose sole purpose *is* said numbers.

    </walloftext>
  • pablofsipablofsi Joined: Posts: 124
    edited January 2014
    I'll probably do a video comparison with the ps4 controller in front of the screen so you can see the button presses. Meanwhile, enjoy your Leo Bonard set in stone while I game happily.

    Evidently, Leo Bonard didn't do the HDMI ports trick on this set.

    underwing: you re explained it (I'm gonna ignore the last part of your post) in the first part of your post and they will probably get it this time, because it's more explicative. I don't care about explaining something that should be natural to any individual with two fingers of brain. Or at least, someone who has played for years on GGPO/Supercade and knows exactly how much 0, 1 and 2 frames -feel- and -look- like.

    I also want to add that, with a low latency device (DS4, computer keyboard with PS/2 port), with my finger as vertical as possible above the button or key, try to press and let go of it as quickly as I can so I don't concentrate of that; instead, I concentrate on the time it takes for stuff to happen on the screen. It's simple, the difference between instant reaction (which I know) and the time it actually happens at is the delay there is, combine that with knowning how much 0, 1 and 2 frames are and I'm doing a good approximate measurement. This is all, I repeat, WITH THE HDMI PORTS TRICK WHICH LOWERS DELAY EVEN FURTHER.

    Believe in yourselves... not on damn machines and the internet.
  • DarksakulDarksakul Your lack of faith disturbs me Joined: Posts: 23,386
    MarkMan wrote: »
    Went into this thread hoping for some new valuable information. Instead I get a shitty TV drama. Thanks. Happy New Years everyone!
    I think it gotten worst.
    “Strong people don't put others down... They lift them up.”
    - Darth Vader, Philanthropist
  • Mike RobertsonMike Robertson Joined: Posts: 942
    just a quick question, do rear projection TVs have good latency? I just assumed they would be because its all analog (and how the old arcade machines ran) but maybe these new flatscreen HDMI tvs have better technology to reduce the delay somehow further. i dont need massive details, thanks!
    STEAM: OG_Rawbertson (CFN: OG_Rawbertson)
    PSN: OG_Rawbertson (CFN: Rawbertson)
    Honda / Birdie
  • DarksakulDarksakul Your lack of faith disturbs me Joined: Posts: 23,386
    newer machines have more delay due to post image processing.
    Older Analog TVs have zero delay. Now that said I don't recommend gaming on a rear projection TV, you can accidentally get burn in way to easily.
    “Strong people don't put others down... They lift them up.”
    - Darth Vader, Philanthropist
  • MoonchildeMoonchilde Resident tech talk double poster Joined: Posts: 4,837
    edited January 2014
    just a quick question, do rear projection TVs have good latency? I just assumed they would be because its all analog (and how the old arcade machines ran) but maybe these new flatscreen HDMI tvs have better technology to reduce the delay somehow further. i dont need massive details, thanks!

    Like any modern tech it depends on the RPTV you are using. If it has any sort of processing, even analog hardware, it could have some latency. If it's a old TV, then you will have a hard time finding information on it.

    However, you CAN test it by using a video splitter to a CRT monitor and to your TV. Then use a tool like multirefreshrate by shurcool and use a camara that captures at 60 fps and take a picture. multirefreshrate shows you a grid that represents each frame rendered (and renders per frame) so you can count the frames and see how far behind one display is next to the other. It's not as accurate as a Leo Bodnar device but it's probably the next most accurate method to use when both displays are synced to 60 hz.

    Oops, I forgot to add. Modern TV's actually have slower processing which increase the frame delay because they are using software to do the processing instead of dedicated hardware. For example, my older Sony WEGA XBR910 had dedicated hardware to doing minor image processing. This stuff was fast and pretty much as lagless as it can get, because it's dedicated hardware boards to do 1 thing and 1 thing only, and multiple image processing required separate hardware boards and chips. CRT had a bunch of extra space for that kind of thing so they could do that.

    Modern TV's all have much less space to work with. Basically anything they can flat mount against the back of the chassis will do, but most of that stuff is for local LED dimming, voltage, power board, and the likes. So now what they do is put ARM based processors on the back to run a minimal Linux kernal with software that does all the video processing and other shit like running Android apps, Skype, Netflix, and the like. My plasma has a quad core ARM in it, with 1 or 2 gb of SSD storage for apps, a built in skype camera, motion control and voice recognition. All of this is mostly driven in software which is why they're packing these things with quad fucking core CPU, lol. They're basically Linux PC's built into your TV, which is soooooo dumb, but I digress, I'm the extreme minority who doesn't give a fuck about bells and whistles on my TV. I'd be much happier to have that quad core do minor image processing (if any) instead of running a Skype app in the background. This is one reason why modern TV's are so slow. No room for dedicated hardware video processors and most processing is done via software. Even if there isn't a lot of processing going on, some controls like contrast and brightness may be controlled via software as well.
    underwing wrote: »
    *snip*

    Sure, with 2 displays mirroring each other yes it is easier to tell when one has lag vs one that doesn't. It's especially noticeable during mouse movement and moving windows up and down. 1 frame is not so noticeable, and 2 frames not so bad. 3 frames and greater is visually noticeable (less so at 3 and obviously increases as the frame count gets higher) and that's when you can easily see it in action when you have 2 displays side by side. It's a good point, but kind of irrelevant to the discussion of can you notice 1 or 2 frames of lag during normal play. Why? Because we aren't playing on cloned display setups. If you have a single display then most people will not notice the delay up to 2 frames from the time they press a button to what they see on a screen.

    Touch screens is easier to see display lag because a pointer will trail your finger or touch device like a pen. It's because you have a visual indicator showing you the difference, vs a controller in your hand not showing you the difference, plus the touch device is right on top of the display. Motion control tracking is another indication, but the visual difference won't really pop up until about 3 frames (33 ms or greater) IF the motion device is lagless.

    But for normal gaming in normal situations where you are not moving a device according to your hand movement on a touch screen or a cloned display, then 2 frames of lag is no big deal. Even trying to hold a controller up to a screen and pressing a button and watching the input come out is difficult to see until you hit the 3 frame threshold.

    We talked dropped frames and such because it shows a good point that extremely short time spans goes mostly unnoticed by humans because of our brains and their noise and temporal filters, such as mentally removing minor debris from our site, filtering out constant droning noise after a while from our hearing, blending motion together, and all that awesome and interesting stuff. The point was made because without any sort of example like a moving finger or cloned display to show you exactly what is lagging our brain will adapt to how we play and we won't notice minor input lag. If it didn't then many things in our lives that are not constant would always aggravate our brains and cause us issues, lol.

    I liked your post a lot btw. Great stuff, and thank you for sharing.

    Post edited by Moonchilde on
  • underwingunderwing Modder Joined: Posts: 500
    edited January 2014
    pablofsi wrote: »
    underwing: you re explained it (I'm gonna ignore the last part of your post) in the first part of your post and they will probably get it this time, because it's more explicative. I don't care about explaining something that should be natural to any individual with two fingers of brain. Or at least, someone who has played for years on GGPO/Supercade and knows exactly how much 0, 1 and 2 frames -feel- and -look- like.

    Man, don't read me wrong, I'm agreeing with the established people on the thread, not you. "Believe in yourself" is some crap, people are on this thread because they want numbers that are verifiable and repeatable. If you can measure using reproducible, non-human-being methods that get consistent, precise results, that's the science we're wanting. "I know it when I feel it" is not that. Just because I disagreed with your opposition on a point does not mean I'm agreeing with you on... anything. In a vacuum, it's really easy to subconsciously adjust to minimal latency deltas, and that's what we're trying to avoid.

    I'm glad you've found a display you dig. Please stop trying to get this thread to accept an opinion as an objective fact.
    Moonchilde wrote: »
    *snippity*

    Thanks! Yeah, cognition is awesome stuff, kinda sad I didn't study more of it in college. Def. didn't mean to come off as condescending or anything, I hope nobody took offense. It's just really easy to oversimplify this stuff, since it's complex and sometimes counter-intuitive, so I wanted to make sure that a generalization didn't stay unchallenged. I hope that it's clear that I'm actually agreeing with the "Yeah, it's easy to miss a couple frames of lag" point of view, I just wanted to bring in the fact that perception of delay is all about context and stuff.
  • MoonchildeMoonchilde Resident tech talk double poster Joined: Posts: 4,837
    underwing wrote: »
    Thanks! Yeah, cognition is awesome stuff, kinda sad I didn't study more of it in college. Def. didn't mean to come off as condescending or anything, I hope nobody took offense. It's just really easy to oversimplify this stuff, since it's complex and sometimes counter-intuitive, so I wanted to make sure that a generalization didn't stay unchallenged. I hope that it's clear that I'm actually agreeing with the "Yeah, it's easy to miss a couple frames of lag" point of view, I just wanted to bring in the fact that perception of delay is all about context and stuff.

    Fully agreed. We don't really notice the lag until it's put into context. I can game fine on a display with 4 and 5 frames of lag and don't notice too much of a difference (though I am for sure at the point that I am noticing, however it isn't as drastic as say, 8 frames, when it becomes extremely noticeable) but the second I clone display it becomes beyond obvious. Or, even going back and forth from one to another. 2 frames though, it's for sure harder to notice unless it's side by side with a lagless display. Even then it's a bit harder to see, but within the context you can. 1 frame is pushing it and most people won't be able to see even side by side. Comparing 1 frame display to 2 frame display is the same as lagless to 1 frame, no one will notice even side by side. This is one reason I say just play on a 2 frame display and enjoy it, because most tournaments are using ASUS which is 1 frame or slightly less. To go from 1 to 2 is nothing, but going from 0 to 3 is, but not drastic.
  • pablofsipablofsi Joined: Posts: 124
    "I can game fine on a display with 4 and 5 frames of lag and don't notice too much of a difference..."

    I should remember to not discuss with ego-full morons and science whores. People with 2 fingers of brains will go to a store and check for themselves like I suggested and those don't comment here.

    Unsuscribed from this thread after reading the above... lol, ah well.
  • WarpticonWarpticon Main otaku of SRK #2 Joined: Posts: 9,968
    I have no idea what "science whores" or "2 fingers of brains" are supposed to mean, but I do know that in a thread that is supposed to be an archive of verified 1-frame displays, saying that your TV is good because you said so is completely useless, and acting like a baby because you are told so just makes you look stupid--almost as much as you do for saying stuff like "science whores" or "2 fingers of brains." So, have fun unsubscribing from the thread. Can't say you'll be missed.
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the compound.
  • underwingunderwing Modder Joined: Posts: 500
    pablofsi wrote: »
    I should remember to not discuss with... science whores...

    You're on tech talk, you realize? Engineers and people who respect and value science? Maybe not the community for you if that's your attitude.
    Warpticon wrote: »
    I have no idea what "science whores" or "2 fingers of brains" are supposed to mean...

    I think he thinks brains and alcohol are interchangeable, seeing as how he measures them the same. Oh well. Good riddance, I guess.
  • Ragnorok64Ragnorok64 My muscles have no memory. Joined: Posts: 4,947
    Is there some unwritten rule that every couple of months some clueless poster has to stumble into this thread and tout their own perception as hard fact?
  • DarksakulDarksakul Your lack of faith disturbs me Joined: Posts: 23,386
    edited January 2014
    Man I am such a science whore, that I watch Ted Talk documentaries instead of porn.
    I think Hedy Lamarr inventor of Frequency-hopping spread spectrum communication is one of the hottest women ever.

    She the mother of mobile phones and wifi
    Post edited by Darksakul on
    “Strong people don't put others down... They lift them up.”
    - Darth Vader, Philanthropist
  • MoonchildeMoonchilde Resident tech talk double poster Joined: Posts: 4,837
    Darksakul wrote: »
    Hedy Lamarr

    Good lord she is hot. I'd like to scientifically measure her...

  • ShinjiGohanShinjiGohan Joined: Posts: 5,124 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    I measured my Asus VG248QE at 2.5ms or so using the Leo Bodnar lag tester.
  • MoonchildeMoonchilde Resident tech talk double poster Joined: Posts: 4,837
    I measured my Asus VG248QE at 2.5ms or so using the Leo Bodnar lag tester.

    Damn, that's pretty good man. Too bad it's LCD. I really want us to move on from LCD already, and OLED is looking like garbage as well. Too bad SED never took off, would have been nice to have a true successor to CRT.

    BTW did you measure at the top or bottom? Because of the nature of LCD and pixel response it has to be measured at the bottom of the display.
  • ShinjiGohanShinjiGohan Joined: Posts: 5,124 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    At the top. Because the bottom is a waste of time since it takes 15-16ms to draw the whole screen anyway so any measurements taken down there would be inflated by 15-16ms. Even lagless CRTs measure at 15-16ms at the bottom.
  • MoonchildeMoonchilde Resident tech talk double poster Joined: Posts: 4,837
    Not quite, CRT and plasma tends to pulse the image which is why people read the center vs the bottom. LCD is a little difference because of the pixel response in addition to any input lag, it's a little slower per frame (still no more than 16.7) but the tech is a tad diff which is why the tradition is to read at the bottom.
  • DarksakulDarksakul Your lack of faith disturbs me Joined: Posts: 23,386
    She the mother of mobile phones and wifi
    Ragnorok64 wrote: »
    Is there some unwritten rule that every couple of months some clueless poster has to stumble into this thread and tout their own perception as hard fact?

    Dude I am doing to modify that statement a bit and use it as my signature.
    “Strong people don't put others down... They lift them up.”
    - Darth Vader, Philanthropist
  • Ragnorok64Ragnorok64 My muscles have no memory. Joined: Posts: 4,947
    At the top. Because the bottom is a waste of time since it takes 15-16ms to draw the whole screen anyway so any measurements taken down there would be inflated by 15-16ms. Even lagless CRTs measure at 15-16ms at the bottom.

    I'd say it'd be most important to know how fast the slowest portion of the display updates.
  • ShinjiGohanShinjiGohan Joined: Posts: 5,124 ✭✭✭✭✭ OG
    Ragnorok64 wrote: »
    At the top. Because the bottom is a waste of time since it takes 15-16ms to draw the whole screen anyway so any measurements taken down there would be inflated by 15-16ms. Even lagless CRTs measure at 15-16ms at the bottom.

    I'd say it'd be most important to know how fast the slowest portion of the display updates.
    its not slow, it draws that portion of the screen last, same as on crts.

    Unless you want to flip your monitor/tv upside down and find a way to flip the image, your tv will always have the bottom lagging by 15-16 ms.

  • Mike RobertsonMike Robertson Joined: Posts: 942
    Thanks for your help guys. I mean it is really the only TV I have and it feels great to play on compared to other TVs I have had / played on. I suppose that is all that matters in the end.

    I do have this TV;

    http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/insignia-insignia-24-1080p-60hz-led-hdtv-ns-24e40sna14-ns-24e40sna14/10253618.aspx?path=a5b2bcd29eadf3ad378016e618ef21cden02

    it says it is 5ms response time, does that not necessarily mean there is sub 1 frame reponse time? I am still thinking the rear projection is going to be a better bet, this best buy TV was quite cheap.
    STEAM: OG_Rawbertson (CFN: OG_Rawbertson)
    PSN: OG_Rawbertson (CFN: Rawbertson)
    Honda / Birdie
  • RampageRampage Lurkin' Joined: Posts: 4,993
    Response time is not the measurement that you are looking for. You're looking for input lag (aka input latency), which the vast majority of manufacturers do not advertise.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Input_lag has some more info that might be of interest.
  • MoonchildeMoonchilde Resident tech talk double poster Joined: Posts: 4,837
    edited January 2014
    Thanks for your help guys. I mean it is really the only TV I have and it feels great to play on compared to other TVs I have had / played on. I suppose that is all that matters in the end.

    I do have this TV;

    http://www.bestbuy.ca/en-CA/product/insignia-insignia-24-1080p-60hz-led-hdtv-ns-24e40sna14-ns-24e40sna14/10253618.aspx?path=a5b2bcd29eadf3ad378016e618ef21cden02

    it says it is 5ms response time, does that not necessarily mean there is sub 1 frame reponse time? I am still thinking the rear projection is going to be a better bet, this best buy TV was quite cheap.

    Response time is a LCD thing. It's how long it takes for the pixel to change. So frame by frame, you have an additional 5 ms of time required for the image to update, because that's how long it takes the pixel to change color. It's one reason you take measurements at the bottom of the screen because the top still has pixel response time to deal with.

    Your TV is about 30 ms of lag, that is the average for most Insignia TV's. http://www.displaylag.com/display-database/#participants-list

    If it feels good to you then that's all that matters. It's a 2 frames of lag TV so should be more than good enough for most gaming.
Sign In or Register to comment.