Originally Posted by frito
Tomas good to see you on here helping educate folks, hope you don't hold any grudges against me for giving out copies of SMTT V1
It (SMTT v1 - not SMTT 2.0) was intended to be shared after first purchase. So there is nothing wrong about it. You did it in a responsible manner without mass distribution. That's fine. Edit
: You will love the improved display of the numbers in SMTT 2.0. It's much easier to get the results now compared to SMTT v1. It's worth the upgrade.
I'd really like to distribute it for free but there have been some remarkable costs and I spent a lot of time in the development so I have to get at least a small refund for the work.
And don't forget: "If you don't pay for it YOU are the product that is being sold!"
I don't have any advertisements at the SMTT website or within SMTT 2.0. There is no DRM crap inside or something that forces you to be online just to use SMTT. It's just a tool that offers some nice tests to check your monitor. From input lag testing over banding/color clipping (gradients) to FullHD scaling tests and even a basic 10 bit per color test (if you have appropriate hardware). Nothing special but quite effective and easy to handle.
Every test does exactly what it should - no strings attached.
Well, if it would be that easy there would be some alternatives that could produce identical results. EDIT 2:
I'd also like to implement an improved 10 bit per color test if I had the needed monitor to test it myself. I already coded the needed stuff for a university in Germany that requested it - but I did it in C++ and OpenGL instead of DirectX 11 and C# because they needed it for a WindowsXP based system. To add these new features to the SMTT 2.0 deep color test wouldn't be that complicated but I won't start it if I can't test it myself. I don't want to release untested crap that doesn't work at all but I can't afford to buy a new monitor that offers 10bit support. I tried to contact some monitor manufacturers for some sort of sponsoring but they didn't reply. So it won't be implemented. :-/
Who ever thinks: Hey, I have too much money and I would like to sponsor a monitor that is able to display 10bit per component: Feel free to contact me.... (I prefer NEC. xD just kidding) I can't offer much in return. Maybe that's the problem. SMTT is somehow "one of a kind" but not important or famous enough to get the attention from monitor manufacturers at all. It would be easy for them to measure the input lag of their devices but none of them does it. Some of them offer "gaming modes" to reduce lags - but sometimes these modes don't change anything.
As long as they don't care I won't be recognized by them.
Results from 0 ms up to 50 ms are not a great basis to rate your monitor at all. These values just reveal that there is a major problem with the measurement technique used.
Please don't forget that you compare your laptop's TFT with the external monitor: Therefore you are comparing TFT-lag (laptop) vs TFT-lag (external monitor)
. This might even cause negative numbers if the external display is remarkably faster than the internal TFT.
As long as you use your internal TFT you will not
be able to measure the lag of the second monitor because you can't measure the lag of the internal screen. All you may measure is some sort of "difference". But even if this difference would be as small as 0 ms your total lag could still be much higher - it would just mean that both displays are equally slow - or equally fast.
That's why a CRT is required as reference: It's easy to read, it does not show pixel response time* and it does not have an input lag*.
*) The time untill the phosphor emits photons and the input lag are that short that they don't matter at all.Edited by ThomasSMTT - 9/5/12 at 12:50pm