or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › LCD Flat Panel Displays › Input lag wars!, post your input lag results of your LCD display here for reference
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Input lag wars!, post your input lag results of your LCD display here for reference - Page 9

post #241 of 4189
Thread Starter 
ok i watched it

i'm sure it can work to get that game to be playable for the end user but its still not an accurate way to measure input lag

I also wonder if that guy realizes that if he hooked up any external audio system to his console the audio would never be delayed or need to be adjusted because if you use the TV's speakers most LCD TV's will compensate for their input lag by delaying the audio output and the same goes for if you use the TV's audio outputs to connect to a stereo. the Audio must bypass the TV completely

this is why LG had to patch firmware on many of their TV's they forgot to have the TV delay the audio output to match the input lag for every picture setting that effected input lag namely the motion enhancer
post #242 of 4189
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahzel View Post

The auto calibration (using the stratocaster) always gave me numbers 15-20ms higher.

Interesting -- that's right around a one frame difference. Not sure just what that means, though.

I'm wondering if using the console's scaler requires additional lag that isn't accounted for in stopwatch tests. What console and resolution are you using?

Quote:
Originally Posted by frito View Post

ok i watched it

i'm sure it can work to get that game to be playable for the end user but its still not an accurate way to measure input lag

The explanation of the "hit box" (which I always called "timing window") is pretty helpful, but it's probably still only doable by proficient players.

He doesn't do a particularly good job of explaining controller lag, though, other than to say that lag in general is different between controllers. He should have one more paper slider up there.


I think you are wise to keep RB calibration numbers out of the 'official' stats. It is still a useful way to look for "interesting" sets that are worthy of further testing, though.


Quote:


I also wonder if that guy realizes that if he hooked up any external audio system to his console the audio would never be delayed or need to be adjusted

There is one case where audio lag can still occur: using Dolby Digital. It takes time to compress / decompress the audio. I've seen at least one claim that the delay on free-form drum sections was terrible, and switching to PCM resolved it.

I remember thinking it was neat that the original XBox could do 5.1 encoding of game sounds on the fly, but that the lag would make it rather undesirable in practice.

I suppose it's also possible for the signal processing in a surround preamp to introduce lag, but I've never heard it mentioned.

Hmmm... Actually, if you have a large enough room, you can pick up some audio delay there, too. Sound travels at 1,100 feet per second, so every foot of distance between you and the speakers adds about 1ms lag.
post #243 of 4189
Figured I would post letting everyone know that I will be purchasing the Samsung 32C450 (720p) and will be receiving it tomorrow (Amazon). The sole purpose is to test and return. It'll give me something to do until the new LG and Panny sets are released :P

I may also be purchasing the 32C530 once this unit is returned if the LG and Panny sets aren't out by then.
post #244 of 4189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odysseus18 View Post

Figured I would post letting everyone know that I will be purchasing the Samsung 32C450 (720p) and will be receiving it tomorrow (Amazon). The sole purpose is to test and return. It'll give me something to do until the new LG and Panny sets are released :P

I may also be purchasing the 32C530 once this unit is returned if the LG and Panny sets aren't out by then.

I admire your curiosity and dedication.

It's too late for me, but I'm still very interested to see if the C-series is an improvement. I'd gladly have paid more for a Samsung if not for the lag.

The game mode description is the same as last year's, but I suppose they can't exactly add "and we really mean it this time!" to it.
post #245 of 4189
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odysseus18 View Post

Figured I would post letting everyone know that I will be purchasing the Samsung 32C450 (720p) and will be receiving it tomorrow (Amazon). The sole purpose is to test and return. It'll give me something to do until the new LG and Panny sets are released :P

I may also be purchasing the 32C530 once this unit is returned if the LG and Panny sets aren't out by then.

Sweet, look forward to seeing the results and if Samsung made any input lag improvements
post #246 of 4189
I have attached some pics of my new Samsung XL2370 tested against my 13" LED Macbook Pro. No lag between the them at all. Tested over HDMI at native 1080P (mini displayport to HDMI adapter).

I have not tested my Macbook pro against a CRT so possibly my baseline is off if someone has tested a LED Macbook pro against a CRT please reply or post results.
LL
LL
post #247 of 4189
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamdanwilliamson View Post

I have attached some pics of my new Samsung XL2370 tested against my 13" LED Macbook Pro. No lag between the them at all. Tested over HDMI at native 1080P (mini displayport to HDMI adapter).

I have not tested my Macbook pro against a CRT so possibly my baseline is off if someone has tested a LED Macbook pro against a CRT please reply or post results.

thanks for the results but your display is a TN based PC monitor and its not at all surprising that it has low input lag

This thread is dedicated to TV's not computer monitors. 85%+ computer monitors out there have nearly no input lag because input lag is a major concern with PC displays
post #248 of 4189
Regarding the RB2 auto test, I can say this much for sure, I tested my old 13" CRT SDTV with it, and it showed a lag of 3 ms (while all the LCD HDTV's I've tested with it so far have shown 40-80 ms).

That says to me it's likely pretty accurate. Otherwise, it would give some other reading than near zero, just as you'd expect for a CRT. For example, I saw the theory earlier that it may be adding 20 ms to results. well if so, then it would have showed the CRT at ~20 ms, not 3.

If anything from what I've seen so far, I think timer tests may UNDERESTIMATE the true lag, while the RB2 test is giving the true, more harsh picture, and that's why people may not like it.

I generally think it's probably more accurate than timer tests, for the simple reason there's so much possible variability in the timer test between testers (things like video card output lag between outputs, the timer program used, the control monitor used, etc, and somebody claimed there's an innate margin of error of 16 ms in timer tests too, something to do with frames I'm sure, pretty big innate error) I dont really trust the results that much. If it's the same user, and one who knows what he's doing like Frito it's one thing, but just these random timer tests from random users that you see at various forums, who knows what accuracy they really have. For example, if some post on these forums touts a monitor as having low lag, proved via timer tests, some part of me wants to "verify" that with the RB2 test, before I would purchase it. It's as if I'm a bit skeptical of low lag claims via timer. I think human nature is nobody wants to admit the display they just bought has a lag problem, so you almost wonder if some of these timer testers are getting the results they want, not always the true results.

It would really be nice to get a timer test and a RB2 test on some of these same monitors..

The RB2 test isn't a long term solution though, the game wont go on forever, and the guitars will break down, become less common etc.
post #249 of 4189
Thread Starter 
if anything timer tests over estimate rather than under estimate because if your camera's shutter speed is set too low you end up with larger lag numbers

if you have the camera set to 1000/1 the results get very consistent and lower but this only works if you have a very fast LCD monitor to test against otherwise you will never capture a whole frame scanned on the CRT

in order to capture a whole frame on a CRT you must have the camera set to 1/60 so the shutter stays open for 16.66 ms and when you do this you end up seeing part of one frame on the CRT and part of the other frame on the CRT from top to bottom due to their scanning design

same thing happens on LCD's except you see ghosts of numbers due to pixel lag the lowest numbers you can come up with are the correct ones i'm sure of this now

other people have tested the RB2 auto cal method on a CRT and ended up with 20 ms lag so i think there are different controllers perhaps and they are the source of the lag.

or it could the console creating it if it up scaling the video game image, once again too many variables to control properly for it to be accurate
post #250 of 4189
I have the B8500 LED from Samsung and wanted to know the input lag testing for this set. If it has been indicated

I know that in game mode i feel no input lag or at least not enough to bother me since I can get kills on line with MW and timing games like baseball are fine

But when i tried to use regular mode the lag was horrible unlike any other tv i have seen

I could not hit a fastball in the show and on MW 2 I was getting no kills when I am a decent player

even in the basketball game 2k10 when I was on defense and pressed the analog stick up to move up.. it took a few split seconds for the player to move up after i had moved the stick.

Good thing that game mode on this Sammy allows for tweaking of settings which help the pq stay nice for the most part
post #251 of 4189
Just received the Sammy... its a CMO panel. For this specific model, you can verify panel type by looking for a sticker on the outside of the box or by looking through the top vent on the back in the upper left hand corner.

I'm hooking everything up at the moment and will report back with results.
post #252 of 4189
So far the results aren't good. The "Game Mode" seems to only work if it picks up a signal from an XBOX360 or PS3. Otherwise the option to turn it on is grayed out.

Im jumping on for a short session of MW2 and will post pictures of the results from the timer.
post #253 of 4189
Played around with RB2 some more today and even if I set the offset to 0, there isn't any noticeable lag which seems to suggest that my manual calibration is far more accurate than the stratocaster's auto calibration. I consistently got between 15-25ms whereas the auto calibration said ~40-45ms. Manually calibrating RB2 with my A650, I got similar numbers to what people were getting with the stop watch, and again, the auto calibration got numbers 15-25ms higher.

Regardless, I'm quite happy with how low the input lag is on my 55LH90. S-IPS panels are supposed to be lower than PVA panels and I definitely see a huge improvement over my A650.
post #254 of 4189
Tests were done at a 1360x768 resolution and tested against a 16" CRT.
Samsung 32C450 w/ CMO Panel- HDMI
CRT- VGA

Camera- ISO 800

Standard:





HDMI1 "DVI PC":





HDMI1 "PC":






As stated earlier, the "Game Mode" on this set can only be turned on if the set picks up a signal from either an XBOX360 or PS3. It did not allow me to do so while being connected to my PC via HDMI.

I only played one round of MW2 on Karachi as it was enough to make my judgment... it was painful. The typical smearing/blurring and the horrible delay in response. I still managed to pull off a win in FFA, however, I wanted to quit halfway through. Knifing was the worst part. With my 32S1, as soon as I press down on the joystick I knifed without delay. With the Sammy, I would have to knife ahead of time before I had visual on an enemy instead of on sight (still couldn't get the knifing down on the Sammy).

I also took these pics to show where you can find the panel type on this set.

On the outside of the box


Through the vent on the back in the upper left hand corner. I flipped the picture in my editor due to the sticker being upside down. I also linked it instead because of the size of the picture.
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/2630/dsc01988x.jpg
post #255 of 4189
Thread Starter 
do me a favor

look on the back of the TV and use the HDMI input labeled HDMI/DVI the one that also has an analog audio input (if it exists on these new samsungs)

if it is there then relabel the input name in the TV menu to PC and tell me what you see as far as the picture changing and re test for input lag
post #256 of 4189
HDMI1 is the port with "DVI" printed on the back and that is the port I tested.
post #257 of 4189
Quote:
Originally Posted by rahzel View Post

Played around with RB2 some more today and even if I set the offset to 0, there isn't any noticeable lag which seems to suggest that my manual calibration is far more accurate than the stratocaster's auto calibration. I consistently got between 15-25ms whereas the auto calibration said ~40-45ms. Manually calibrating RB2 with my A650, I got similar numbers to what people were getting with the stop watch, and again, the auto calibration got numbers 15-25ms higher.

Regardless, I'm quite happy with how low the input lag is on my 55LH90. S-IPS panels are supposed to be lower than PVA panels and I definitely see a huge improvement over my A650.



No way I would trust the manual test. You can easily, subconsciously or otherwise, compensate for whatever lag there is and get 0 lag readings on any manual test. Not to mention, human reaction time alone is quite large.

I did literally dozens of runs with the guitar hero manual calibration on several sets, and in the end decided the results were worthless. I could get anywhere from 0 to 100 ms lag on the same set if I did enough runs. I dont get near that variability with the auto test. I fond myself way too easily "anticipating" when to hit the button. And I definitely believe human bias creeps in. I wanted my newly purchased set to perform better than my old one, so I had to constantly guard against bias when testing the new set (hitting the button early to get a lower lag number), since I can pretty much get whatever numbers I want out of the manual test. Then, I often wondered if by being so cautious to not be biased for the new set, I was actually biasing against it...

You can believe what you want, but I think you're believing what you want to...the higher auto calibration figure is likely correct.

If you can find a CRT to test, try that. I bet it will convince you the auto test is working.

All this has me more curious than ever, tonight I will try to do more testing with the RB2 auto. I'll test the 13" CRT some more, since I only did one run on it the first time. And I'll test my PC monitor, a 22" Westinghouse. I'm assuming the lag for it will be something like 20 ms, much lower than the HDTV's, but higher than the CRT...
post #258 of 4189
Well you obviously haven't read through my posts.

My manual calibrations with my A650 are inline with people's results using the stop watch test whereas the auto calibration was consistently 15-20ms later. I've used both the built-in manual calibration and the complete manual calibration and have consistently got between 15-25ms, which is considerably lower than the auto calibration offset of 40-43ms (which again is 15-25ms later than my manual tests).

I've been playing drums on RB2 for years and I play much better with the offset set to 25ms or lower. Not to mention it's been proven that S-IPS panels have lower input lag than PVA panels.

Why would I believe what I want to when it would affect my performance in RB2? I wouldn't set incorrectly just because I want my newly purchased TV to have low input lag. Ultimately, all I care about is what gives me better performance.

I don't think I will ever get my hands on a CRT monitor. Best thing I can do is get a laptop.

edit: Another thought: it could be possible that HMX purposely set the auto calibration so it makes the offset slightly larger for the more inexperienced players that are more likely to be late on a note than early.

I realize my findings aren't definitive... I just thought I'd share my findings using what I have.
post #259 of 4189
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Odysseus18 View Post

HDMI1 is the port with "DVI" printed on the back and that is the port I tested.

but did you change that input's label to PC? if you didn't you never put the TV into samsung's special PC mode that removes almost all image processing done to the signal and lowers input lag further on many previous samsung TV's

The A series had a huge drop in input lag when in this mode with a native resolution input on the port the B series did not however but it still went down slightly and the image was much cleaner making it good for PC use
post #260 of 4189
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharky974 View Post

No way I would trust the manual test. You can easily, subconsciously or otherwise, compensate for whatever lag there is and get 0 lag readings on any manual test. Not to mention, human reaction time alone is quite large.

I did literally dozens of runs with the guitar hero manual calibration on several sets, and in the end decided the results were worthless. I could get anywhere from 0 to 100 ms lag on the same set if I did enough runs. I dont get near that variability with the auto test. I fond myself way too easily "anticipating" when to hit the button. And I definitely believe human bias creeps in. I wanted my newly purchased set to perform better than my old one, so I had to constantly guard against bias when testing the new set (hitting the button early to get a lower lag number), since I can pretty much get whatever numbers I want out of the manual test. Then, I often wondered if by being so cautious to not be biased for the new set, I was actually biasing against it...

You can believe what you want, but I think you're believing what you want to...the higher auto calibration figure is likely correct.

If you can find a CRT to test, try that. I bet it will convince you the auto test is working.

All this has me more curious than ever, tonight I will try to do more testing with the RB2 auto. I'll test the 13" CRT some more, since I only did one run on it the first time. And I'll test my PC monitor, a 22" Westinghouse. I'm assuming the lag for it will be something like 20 ms, much lower than the HDTV's, but higher than the CRT...

Quote:
Originally Posted by rahzel View Post

Well you obviously haven't read through my posts.

My manual calibrations with my A650 are inline with people's results using the stop watch test whereas the auto calibration was consistently 15-20ms later. I've used both the built-in manual calibration and the complete manual calibration and have consistently got between 15-25ms, which is considerably lower than the auto calibration offset of 40-43ms (which again is 15-25ms later than my manual tests).

I've been playing drums on RB2 for years and I play much better with the offset set to 25ms or lower. Not to mention it's been proven that S-IPS panels have lower input lag than PVA panels.

Why would I believe what I want to when it would affect my performance in RB2? I wouldn't set incorrectly just because I want my newly purchased TV to have low input lag. Ultimately, all I care about is what gives me better performance.

I don't think I will ever get my hands on a CRT monitor. Best thing I can do is get a laptop.

edit: Another thought: it could be possible that HMX purposely set the auto calibration so it makes the offset slightly larger for the more inexperienced players that are more likely to be late on a note than early.

I realize my findings aren't definitive... I just thought I'd share my findings using what I have.


i'm not sure why you guys are pursuing this test method, its likely to be flawed either way and most of all will never be used to produce real results do the simple fact that you can never prove the results

I need photo evidence proof that a TV has a X amount of lag before i will report its lag figure on the first post.

I know you guys got computers because your typing on them as you post and then you also have a basic PC monitor as well, cheaper the monitor the better because it means its a TN panel and its got next to no input lag, laptop screens work as well provided they are TN panels and most are. if your not sure what type of panel you have in you monitor or laptop theres a few easy ways to tell.

if your monitors color gets terrible or even inverts when you look at it from an off angle, most notably vertical off angles its a TN monitor no question about it. if they do not exhibit this problem then they are either VA or IPS. VA are the bad panel's that should be avoided for control monitors.

they can be identified easily by putting up a black screen and tapping on the display.

on an IPS panel you will just see a distorted picture where you finger directly press.

on a TN you will see some flash around your finger but not all that much.

on a VA panel you will see a big light halo for as long as your pressing on the screen.

VA Panels are pretty uncommon in PC monitors so its not a huge concern.

lastly i'm sure you got a digital camera, even if it does not have an adjustable shutter speed or ability to set a very fast shutter speed the results you get will still be within 1 frame of error (16ms) and if you take enough pictures you can determine how fast the TV is absolutely by either averaging all the results or just tossing all but the fastest results for the same round of tests in the same picture mode/resolution because this is what happens when you have a slow shutter speed

with a typical 1/60 shutter speed you capture the TV and monitor almost always inbetween 2 frames because when the shutter opens they are on frame 1 at some point in frame 1's hold time of 16.66ms the chances are very high that the shutter will remain open long enough for frame 2 to come into view by the camera.

what this results in is you see numbers overlapping numbers and ghost numbers from the previous frame(s) due to LCD's poor pixel response time

this is why running multiple timers is useful. only compare timer numbers between the same timer of course but having more than one timer running on screen raises your chances of getting a photo with both display's showing numbers as close together as possible and if you run 2-3 or more timers on screen it will only take about 10 pictures to get 3-4 low lag results out of the photo's even with a slow camera and that is your lowest lag figure.

alternatively if your running vista/win7 x64 I have a copy of a semi free program i paid about 5 dollars for off a European PC monitor review site. they wrote this timer to increase accuracy of the results by using directX rather than flash so the frame rates are sky high (2000+ FPS on my PC) and it runs depending on the resolution your in 6-8 timers down both the left and right edges of the screen. they are synchronized from left to right so the top left timer is the same as the top right timer and each timer below the top one is offset by 1ms

this means you get 6-8 chances per photo taken to get a clean low result

this timer is also configurable for different colors in the even your LCD monitor has a smearing problem with a certian color combination but this is unlikely with most recent displays

here is the website for the program if you wish to purchase a copy for yourself, as i said in my somewhat recently edited first post if you PM me your e-mail i will send you the Vista/win7 x64 version of the program that i have. they allow people to distribute the program for private use for free to friends. if you do want to pay for another version of the program that i do not have i would appreciate it if you contact me so i can get a copy of it to have to distribute to other users wanting to test their TV's

http://smtt.thomasthiemann.com/index_en.html
post #261 of 4189
Did some more tests with RB2 auto method tonight. Pain to lug all these monitors out to the living room lol.

The testees are: Old cheap 13 SDTV CRT purchased at Wal Mart years ago. My current PC monitor, a 22" Westinghouse LCM-22w3, and my current (for now) HDTV, 42" Philips 42PFL3704D/F7.

The CRT I took 4 readings, they were (in no particular order) 13 ms, 9, 3 and 9. Average 8.5 ms.

I dont take the readings not being near zero for the CRT to mean the test is inaccurate though. This is an old, cheap brand TV (probably Emerson or something), I'd almost expect some lag.

The Philips, I've tested dozens of times and know it's in the upper 40's to 60 range. This time took two readings, 49 and 55.

Most intriguing to me was the monitor, and 4 readings gave 31-33 ms each time.

Now, that monitor score was higher than I expected. Still better than any HDTV I've yet tested, but higher than I expected/wanted. Bit surprised there! Might have to start looking for a new monitor since I do game on it.

The monitor was hooked up to the Xbox via VGA though, where it's hooked to my PC via DVI (dont have a PC VGA cable). So I dont know the results from DVI.

I have to say, I'm pretty far from a videophile, but I thought the monitor picture did look pretty good, has me wondering now if it's not TN. The fact it's a "cheap" Westinghouse probably isn't good lag-wise either.

I would say using Frito's method, my Westinghouse monitor is either an IPS or TN, I cant tell which because his description is too vague. It's definitely not a VA, pressing my finger on it does not give a big halo, I have to use some pressure to get any halo at all and it's almost nonexistent, not even a full circle usually, more like little flashes of white. Looking at it off angle, I dont know. I guess it looks "bad", but then so do all LCD's from overhead. It doesn't look unusually bad too me. I dont know. I really cant tell. I'm guessing it has to be TN because it seems IPS panels in a cheap PC monitor would be unheard of?

I'm sure the Philips HDTV is VA.
post #262 of 4189
Quote:
Originally Posted by frito View Post

but did you change that input's label to PC? if you didn't you never put the TV into samsung's special PC mode that removes almost all image processing done to the signal and lowers input lag further on many previous samsung TV's

The A series had a huge drop in input lag when in this mode with a native resolution input on the port the B series did not however but it still went down slightly and the image was much cleaner making it good for PC use

Yes, that is why when I posted the results, I added the "DVI PC" and "PC" labels next to HDMI1.
post #263 of 4189
Guys I've given up on the RB2 auto test. It's too finicky. Tonight for the first time I got some odd results, I found a HDMI-DVI converter laying around, and decided to measure the Westy monitor through DVI with that (since I had no other way to go Xbox>DVI). The first few runs I was getting great low lag, anywhere from 15-27 ms, with many runs in the mid teens. Then suddenly for no apparent reason, the runs started going from ~16 to about 48 ms in one swoop, and stayed there. I've never seen that much deviation in the test.

So then I tried VGA again, which I was getting 30-ish before, and it too was now running upper 40's.

I decided there's no way to tell what the hell it's measuring, really. Many times you can see the test bar doesnt advance, so it's not picking up all the flashes.

It still bother me that it measures the CRT at low lag (though that too, it started measuring at 14 ms, higher than before) but oh well. I think it may just pick the CRT's brighter flashes up more consistently or something like that.

I think I'm out, I may toy with some timer tests (do have a laptop, and a oldass digital camera) or I may just exchange my philips for something Frito says has low lag, or I may just forget all this and keep everything I have, and just hope it all has low lag since I dont know.
post #264 of 4189
Quote:
Originally Posted by frito View Post

i'm not sure why you guys are pursuing this test method, its likely to be flawed either way and most of all will never be used to produce real results do the simple fact that you can never prove the results

I need photo evidence proof that a TV has a X amount of lag before i will report its lag figure on the first post.

I know you guys got computers because your typing on them as you post and then you also have a basic PC monitor as well, cheaper the monitor the better because it means its a TN panel and its got next to no input lag, laptop screens work as well provided they are TN panels and most are. if your not sure what type of panel you have in you monitor or laptop theres a few easy ways to tell.

if your monitors color gets terrible or even inverts when you look at it from an off angle, most notably vertical off angles its a TN monitor no question about it. if they do not exhibit this problem then they are either VA or IPS. VA are the bad panel's that should be avoided for control monitors.

they can be identified easily by putting up a black screen and tapping on the display.

on an IPS panel you will just see a distorted picture where you finger directly press.

on a TN you will see some flash around your finger but not all that much.

on a VA panel you will see a big light halo for as long as your pressing on the screen.

VA Panels are pretty uncommon in PC monitors so its not a huge concern.

lastly i'm sure you got a digital camera, even if it does not have an adjustable shutter speed or ability to set a very fast shutter speed the results you get will still be within 1 frame of error (16ms) and if you take enough pictures you can determine how fast the TV is absolutely by either averaging all the results or just tossing all but the fastest results for the same round of tests in the same picture mode/resolution because this is what happens when you have a slow shutter speed

with a typical 1/60 shutter speed you capture the TV and monitor almost always inbetween 2 frames because when the shutter opens they are on frame 1 at some point in frame 1's hold time of 16.66ms the chances are very high that the shutter will remain open long enough for frame 2 to come into view by the camera.

what this results in is you see numbers overlapping numbers and ghost numbers from the previous frame(s) due to LCD's poor pixel response time

this is why running multiple timers is useful. only compare timer numbers between the same timer of course but having more than one timer running on screen raises your chances of getting a photo with both display's showing numbers as close together as possible and if you run 2-3 or more timers on screen it will only take about 10 pictures to get 3-4 low lag results out of the photo's even with a slow camera and that is your lowest lag figure.

alternatively if your running vista/win7 x64 I have a copy of a semi free program i paid about 5 dollars for off a European PC monitor review site. they wrote this timer to increase accuracy of the results by using directX rather than flash so the frame rates are sky high (2000+ FPS on my PC) and it runs depending on the resolution your in 6-8 timers down both the left and right edges of the screen. they are synchronized from left to right so the top left timer is the same as the top right timer and each timer below the top one is offset by 1ms

this means you get 6-8 chances per photo taken to get a clean low result

this timer is also configurable for different colors in the even your LCD monitor has a smearing problem with a certian color combination but this is unlikely with most recent displays

here is the website for the program if you wish to purchase a copy for yourself, as i said in my somewhat recently edited first post if you PM me your e-mail i will send you the Vista/win7 x64 version of the program that i have. they allow people to distribute the program for private use for free to friends. if you do want to pay for another version of the program that i do not have i would appreciate it if you contact me so i can get a copy of it to have to distribute to other users wanting to test their TV's

http://smtt.thomasthiemann.com/index_en.html

I get all this testing stuff, good to know my cheap old digital camera still should work. But now these problems:

My laptop runs 1366X something res I think, dont you really need your source to be 1080P to measure 1080P HDTV's?

How will you connect at all? I imagine the laptop has VGA out at best, while many HDTV's may not have VGA, and if they do it may not accept 1080P.

So even if you can connect in this simple scenario, at the least you've probably introduced scaling lag, correct?

And how do you know if your video card may add latency to the second monitor connected?

BTW, this thread, very active at Shoryuken.com has some info http://www.shoryuken.com/showthread....74085&page=101
post #265 of 4189
Thread Starter 
well the best and easiest way is to use a PC with an Nvidia or ATI video card that has 2 DVI/HDMI outputs if your monitor does not do 1920 x 1080 that is ok because at least nvidia cards by default will do upscaling of the lower mirrored resolution to 1920 x 1080 unless the mirror resolution is at or under 1366 x 768 (720p)

Nvidia cards are very fast at upscaling at least mine is (8800 GT) it has negligible lag 8ms at the most when doing this.

in a perfect world yeah you want a monitor that does 1920 x 1080 natively or higher and will allow you turn off its internal scalier

a buddy of mine has a dell monitor thats 1920 x 1200 so hes gonna check for me if we can do that and i'm going to barrow it just to see how much lower my numbers get on my panny but even using the scaling of my video card i stil end up with extremely low input lag figures of 4-8ms but i'm almost positive i can end up with lower
post #266 of 4189
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharky974 View Post

I dont take the readings not being near zero for the CRT to mean the test is inaccurate though.

Perhaps it takes time to downscale from 720p to 480i.

It sure would be nice to know how the RB2 test accounts for sensor/controller/scaler lag.

Quote:


This is an old, cheap brand TV (probably Emerson or something), I'd almost expect some lag.

The older and cheaper it is, the better. On an all-analog set, unless it has a 1- or 2-line delay in the comb filter, there is literally zero lag. The incoming video signal directly controls the current going to the electron beam and the deflection coils. Speed of light the whole way through.

A 2D comb filter generally causes a 1-line delay, which is 64µs (millionths of a second.) It's only 3D comb filters that can cause significant delay, perhaps up to one field (17ms.)

High-def CRTs are likely to have more processing (deinterlacing at a minimum), so they're a bit murkier.
post #267 of 4189
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by wondras View Post

Perhaps it takes time to downscale from 720p to 480i.

It sure would be nice to know how the RB2 test accounts for sensor/controller/scaler lag.



The older and cheaper it is, the better. On an all-analog set, unless it has a 1- or 2-line delay in the comb filter, there is literally zero lag. The incoming video signal directly controls the current going to the electron beam and the deflection coils. Speed of light the whole way through.

A 2D comb filter generally causes a 1-line delay, which is 64µs (millionths of a second.) It's only 3D comb filters that can cause significant delay, perhaps up to one field (17ms.)

High-def CRTs are likely to have more processing (deinterlacing at a minimum), so they're a bit murkier.

yes you are correct the older the CRT the more likely it has absolutely no measurable lag

HD CRT's do not deinterlace anything. even the ones that are 1080i native will also do 480i/p natively but sometimes they do downscale 720p to 480p to be displayed.

what they can have is as you said a 3D comb filter but that will only be active on a composite/S-Video input if it is an HD display and its getting component video feed theres no reason for a comb filter
post #268 of 4189
Quote:
Originally Posted by frito View Post

HD CRT's do not deinterlace anything. even the ones that are 1080i native will also do 480i/p natively but sometimes they do downscale 720p to 480p to be displayed.

Maybe if it is a really bad HD CRT, the later Sony's like the 960 and 970 (even earlier ones), would actually display 720P as 1080I. It looked really good.
post #269 of 4189
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sodaboy581 View Post

Maybe if it is a really bad HD CRT, the later Sony's like the 960 and 970 (even earlier ones), would actually display 720P as 1080I. It looked really good.

i brought that up because a friend just got a Sony 57" 1080i CRT RPTV and thats what it says it does with a 720p input
post #270 of 4189
Quote:
Originally Posted by frito View Post

HD CRT's do not deinterlace anything. even the ones that are 1080i native will also do 480i/p natively but sometimes they do downscale 720p to 480p to be displayed.

what they can have is as you said a 3D comb filter but that will only be active on a composite/S-Video input if it is an HD display and its getting component video feed theres no reason for a comb filter

Not to get too far OT, but I was thinking about how an HD set handles 480i. It looks pretty bad on a large screen without deinterlacing, so a fair number of sets do it. It was even marketed as a feature (IDTV for "Improved Definition") sometimes.

You are of course correct that an HD CRT running an HD format it natively supports won't do any lag-inducing processing.

I wish I had tried running a 360 into my Barco FPTV before I took it down. Giant, lag-free gaming... but I didn't think the next person to get it would want a big fat note runway burned into the middle of it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: LCD Flat Panel Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › LCD Flat Panel Displays › Input lag wars!, post your input lag results of your LCD display here for reference