Hey there, CRT fanboy here. From the day i first played quake3 on my 15" CRT on 640x480 just to strive for the ultimate 120Hz smooth gaming experience I've been waiting for this day to come and finaly they're boosting the Hz on LCD'S i think its more of a "trick" than actualy increasing the HZ though. Anyways i think there are some models out now with the 100Hz technology but they're all like 40"+. Basically i want something 30" or under for my pc monitor that supports this "100Hz" technology but i cant find anything small enough, has anyone any idea of when/if smaller sized LCD TV'S will have this, or even when they will be bringing out 100Hz computer LCD monitors?

Good question ~ Let me/us know when you find out the answer!

What's this 100Hz LCD business? The refresh rate of an LCD does not have the same meaning nor implications as a CRT, as an LCD does not need to 'refresh' rapidly to maintain the image. The thing you should be looking at with LCDs is the response time. So are we talking 1ms response times then? Or is this some new LCD TV techno-babble that I'm unaware of.

they're boosting the Hz on LCD'S i think its more of a "trick" than actualy increasing the HZ though. Parabol you're right i've been researching it for a while and its just upping the framerate double and a few other little tweaks as far as i understand. They are just lableing it as 100hz.

Also i've seen mates playing games on 2 - 4ms LCD's and it realy doesnt appeal to me so i was hoping that i could see one of these "100Hz" LCD's in action.

last edited by Imperial at 20:48:18 05/Dec/07

last edited by Imperial at 20:48:22 05/Dec/07

30 Hz is all you need

Also i've seen mates playing games on 2 - 4ms LCD's

Do you remember the model names? Because some of the ones that claim 2-4ms are just the best case under specific conditions, when normally they'd be much higher (peaking at say 12-16). Sometimes higher quality LCDs specify a more conservative figure (e.g. 6ms) but are way better since that's the consistent response. (I'm referring to monitors, not TVs anyway).

last edited by parabol at 20:57:08 05/Dec/07

Holy f***, just get with the times and buy an LCD ffs.

I assume they're referring to the bulbs behind the panel.
Higher Hz for a smoother glow.

eg. Watch flouresant bulbs(the long ones)(50-60hz) from the corner of your eye to really notice the flicker.
Tho I have no idea

I can't see a flicker in my lcd. 2ms represent (or something)

I was under the impression that LCDs don't flicker? Isn't the flickering low refresh rate issue of CRTs the "equivalent," if you will, of the blurry high response-time issue of LCDs? And they're simply avoided by higher refresh rates and lower response times, respectively?

Isn't the flickering low refresh rate issue of CRTs the "equivalent," if you will, of the blurry high response-time issue of LCDs?

Not really. The refresh rate of CRTs imply how well an image can be maintained without 'pulsating'. An LCD response time dictates how fast a pixel can change brightness/colour.

Yeah, I know the difference between them, what I was getting at is that aren't you trading the flickering problem for the blurring problem when going from CRT to LCD? Because I've never seen LCDs flicker like CRTs do when on a low refresh rate.

I didnt mean LCD's flicker, i just meant that with pretty much all FPS games i've seen/played on an LCD they FEEL.. not look, like poo. I'm used to my frames @ 120 with 120hz and a mouserate of 125hz wich is pretty damn smooth. I was just wondering if anyone had seen or heard of some smaller sized "100Hz marketed" LCD TV's/Monitors.

Midda thats right.

LCD panels pixels are always lit and only the pixels that need to change to make the new screen redraw, whereas a CRT monitor the pixels are constantly redrawing hence the flicker.

The blurring/ghosting phenomenon with LCDs is governed by the response rate, so the lower the less ghosting you should get theoretically.

However seeing there is no industry standard for representing "response rate" in the specs it can be hard to tell what they genuinely are from model to model. Some measure response rate "grey to grey" and other manufacturers do "black to white".

Response time is defined as the time required for an LCD pixel to change from fully active (black) to fully inactive (white), then back to fully active again. Many manufacturers, on the other hand, report their LCDs' gray-to-gray response times. Pixels are rarely completely on or off--instead they cycle between gray states, that is colors--and, in general, switching between gray states is much slower than switching between black and white. However, some also argue that measuring gray-to-gray response time is pointless, since the manufacturers rarely tell where in the cycle they start and end their measurements.

I personally would much rather have minute ghosting over refresh flicker any day. Even with high refresh CRTs I can still see a difference and prefer the LCDs.

last edited by rubba-chikin at 00:18:25 06/Dec/07

well, i sell these at work. and while i'm not going to give a discertation on the relative strengths and weaknesses of 50hz and 100hz, i can say this. i've got 2 models of the same brand and same size, side by side, and the 100hz version has a lot less ghosting.

You sound like you are your best customer

I'm still using a 19inch Sony CRT.

It rules!

I just live with the crap feeling you get with LCD's. My LCD died and while it was in being repaired I used a crt. It is amazing how much smoother it was. If you have never gotten use to 120hz on a crt(to the point where you can immediately tell if its not at 120hz) then you will probably never know why LCD sucks.

Who cares about the response and refresh rates, lets get some dam pixel density on LCDs ffs. I got a 19" Viewsonic CRT at home and it can do well beyond 1080p resolution, yet my 22" Samsung LCD can only manage 1050. Surely with all the new tech out there someone can make us an LCD screen that isn't 24" that can play 1080p.

Shad and pyth are on the money, mainly because they were/are both into quake3, but if you've never expeienced a game @ 120hz on a CRT you'll have nothing to compare it to.

nothing will ever beat the smoothness of 120hz synced imo

Did you ever find out which monitors had the 100hz refresh rates? I just switched back to a 19" CRT and played some CS and my kill rates went through the roof. I can't stand the motion blur you get with LCD's, i'm used to q3 and the good old days as well and LCD's just don't cut it for me when gaming either. Some of the ASUS 2ms LCD's aren't bad, i definitely noticed a difference between them and my chimei 22", but i'm curious if its a gimick as well. Keep us all posted :)

im with you brother, whilst i run dual 19" non-ws lcds presently, nothing is as smooth on the eyes as a super high res CRT.

I think no matter what LCD you get you'll still get input lag.
(or output lag, the time taken for an action done by mouse look to actually happen on the screen)

You gotta watch this to understand it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi2OE6hSh00

I'm wondering how OLED screens will go, but at the moment there's just no CRT replacement when it comes to playing Quake 3.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who still thinks 120hz/120fps looks the best for First Person Shooters. 19" Hitachi here. The thing does weigh a ton though :D

That thing of yours is bigger than my house, guv.

Until recently I still used my 21" trinitron, 120/120, but alas, it died.

So spewin. Had to get an Asus 2ms 22", but yea, just not the same.

You are right LCD's are s*** for games/movies/TV and you would have to be a moron to buy one for those purposes. Except for maybe games due to widescreen and think PC gaming on a plasma is excessive. 100hz stops a lot of flicker and blurry bits on LCD's but its still s*** and unfortuantely the plasma's that claim to be 100hz aren't really yet either. They use chips to guess the inbetween frames to bring up something that is meant to represent 100hz but in most cases is useless. That being said I would much rather game on a plasma at 60hz or 72hz than on an lcd with the best response times. It may burn my eyes but at least its crisp and clear.

lulz

When did mongie steal ross's account?

I haven't noticed any problems with LCD screens. They show you what's going on.

LCD's are awesome for games/movies/TV

i have a 17" lcd, 75hz. if i change this to 60hz, i can notice a quick flicker just like i do with crts. it gives me headaches :-(

You're all a bunch of f***ing pussies. Take your skirt off and buy an LCD.

switching between gray states is much slower than switching between black and white

Seriously? I always thought manufacturers started using GTG specs to make their panels look better than others quoted in BTB?

jim, just because you f***ed up and purchased a s***ty LCD TV don't spew bad advice and ruin it for people who might be looking to buy in the near future.

maybe that's where you're going wrong - by looking at s***ty LCD's or not ensuring your glasses are providing optimum viewing for your eyes or something. I haven't bought a s***ty LCD or any s***ty tv at all. I bought a plasma first which still rocks after 5 or 6 years and an LCD later for another room a couple of years ago. it rocks too

we play games, watch movies and tv on both of them and neither of them is even remotely close to being short of excellent, let alone s***.

i was going to buy an LCD and replace my sony 19"
but having read this thread, i'm not going to now

thanks qgl. i nearly made a big mistake

lol i reckon you're smoking ice if you think you can see bluring in games on a recently made lcd

i wish!

LCD's are awesome for games/movies/TV

werd. you anachronisms still using blurry crts probably still swear by your logitec ball mice, ps2 connections & 640x480 picmip 1zillion... stop livin' in the past you has-beens. heh.


:D

I believe the "100hz trick" you refer to is that the TV can OUTPUT at 100hz, but can still only receive INPUT at 60hz max.

This is so it can accept a 24 frames per second input (ie, a movie), and output it closer to the source framerate than when displayed at 60hz. Displaying 24fps at 60hz, every second frame is duplicated an extra time (called 2:3 pulldown), at 100hz you're only showing every 6th frame for longer (instead of every second frame), so you get less juddering on camera pans.

Likewise, some sets are now doing 120hz which is exactly 24fps x 5 (every input frame shown for 5 hz), giving no judder at all.

And I believe there's some fancy pants TV's that can output directly at 24hz without any frame duplication, though it seems like there would be no difference between this and 120hz.

Jim I was taunting sorry, and yes I do require glasses and NEVER watch tele with them.

Hi Nats! scalers can produce pretty much any format you want to post to a panel and things can be tweaked to minute detail. I use a DVDO VP50 which works pretty well but absolutely hates my rt3 and all the macro's it fires at it. It lets you save up to 10 profiles for all the different devices, has 5 hdmi inputs and the difference on the scaling of SD on the foxtel in my study through a normal marantz receiver compared to the living room with a larger display is huge.

The panel in the study is also of much better quality than the living room and kicks ass on 24fps playback on 36bit colour at 24hz :)

Although I could go watch shows on the lcd upstairs OR i could put a fishtank with a bunch of flouros above it infront of my plasma to get a similar experience.

how dare you taunt

AFAIK scalers cant do anything about the 24hz/60hz mismatch that occurs if the TV can only accept 60hz input, and assumedly (?) has no benefit if the source material is 1080/24p and your TV/monitor can only take 1080/60p

this looks pretty sweet new Sony XBR 52" got 240hz with 10bit colour

XBR7 Series features: Full HD 1080p, Motionflow™ 240Hz, BRAVIA Engine™ 2,
10-bit display panel and processing, x.v.Color™ capability, Deep Color, DMex™



http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665532061

Youre right nats it can't line it up if the teev doesn't allow it. thats whats wrong with my setup in the living room at the moment the closest I can get smoothness is 1920x1080p at 50hz for bluray and 1920x1080i at 60hz for foxtel. For the media box I tried f***ing around with increasing playrates by 3 or 4% etc.. to bump to 25fps helps but nothing I do seems to get rid of this taring thing I have going on with the mediabox. All encoded video files playback with either a little taring here or there and then some are unwatchable. I don't have the same issue with my laptop, my wife's laptop, my old laptop or my pc (with same settings all nvidia) so it has to be something to do with the mediabox but everything in there is as standard as you get. Anyone else had a problem like this?

The scaler still makes a huge difference in the image quality though on SD programs and even on HD channels as well. Watching foxtel on a smaller panel at a greater viewing distance in the study without a scaler is worse than a larger panel at a closer distance in the other room.

Also when we where playing with it on my study display it also cleared up bluray's on 24fps at 72hz as well. Although its hard to know if the difference is just a better panel that is smaller.

my lcd and lappy play all my media fine