You lost me on that 600ms calculation. 600ms = 0.6 second. Response time is the time it takes a pixel to respond to a change in signal.
If the signal is changing more quickly than the pixels can respond, then the pixels do not faithfully reproduce the signal. 60 fps means the possibility of a completely new frame and new signal every 16ms. If the response time is slower than 16 ms then the pixels can't keep up. Movies are 24 or 30 fps. As far as HD signals of 1920x1080 displaying to lower native resolution screens, on a 19" monitor you're not going to see the difference. Carl -----Original Message----- From: Windows Home/SOHO [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Button Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 12:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Deal on Monitor Carl, Overall, yes, but a slight addition to your reply The 3ms response time is not quite relevant to the fps The 3ms is the time it is supposed to take for the screen cells to show the specified colour at the specified intensity So - divide the fps into a second and you get the time between changes in the image 60fps means the requirement could be to show a different picture every second - perhaps change from alternate blue and yellow to red and white lines or to go from black to white and back 30 times a second. The (more usual 10ms) response time means that it takes that long for each pixel to show what's required, so at 60fps, and 10 ms - the screen wouldn't be expected to be showing what's required for up to 600 milliseconds of every second.. or .. for over half the time And.. that could one heck of a headache inducing flicker effect Then you need to consider the physical resolution that the screen can show sending a 1920 x 1080 HDTV film from a posh (expensive) DVD to a screen with 1280 x 768 pixels could lose much of the fine detail in the picture. Sending a 640 x 400, 15fps VGA phonecam video to use the full extent of a screen with 1920 x 1080 pixels will require a lot of image smoothing (mostly via the video board settings) , or apparent pixilation using a 3 x 5 block of the screen pixels (cells) for every 2 pixels of the image Me - I'm looking forward to using a 40" 1920 x 1080 screen as a display from my PC that should hopefully make the DVD capability worth while. All I've got to do is decide which screen, and pay for it! JimB ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl Houseman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 3:18 PM Subject: Re: Deal on Monitor > Contrast 700 or 800:1 for reasonably priced LCDs is a number I've only seen > in the past 6 months or so. Prior to that 500:1 was excellent and 400-450:1 > was typical. The only thing higher contrast gets you is darker black > levels. > Likewise, response times < 10 ms have only been common in the last year. > Prior to that 16 ms was considered plenty good for gaming and DVDs, cheaper > screens were 25ms. Ultra low response times are good for subliminal > advertising - otherwise you won't notice a difference. 3 ms is way ahead of > the FPS you'll get out of a video card that costs less than the computer. > The usual 17" and 19" 4:3 monitors are 1280x1024, 16:9 widescreens are > 1366x768. AFAIK you have to go to 20 or 21" screen to get higher > resolution than that. > Carl > -- ---------------------------------------- To Change your email Address for this list, send the following message: CHANGE WIN-HOME your_old_address your_new_address to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Note carefully that both old and new addresses are required.
