[lastdon00]

I just got a general question..

i have the sharp 1080p 42u72 which is 4ms responce rate...


and an LG 42LC2D with a 8ms responce rate..


anyway..


I used my ps3 via HDMI and tried both tv's at 1080i

and I notice more articfacts is fast moving scenes on the SHarp then i do on the LG


even when the sharp is at 1080p and has fast motion on, the artifacts are still visible more on the Sharp..


even in the departed when head movements occur etc.


shouldn't a lower responce rate help with this?

 

[Joe741]

Take this with a grain of salt....


I saw a post from a guy claiming that LG uses some tech called ISP? to reduce motion blur.


You might be seeing this in action?

 

[lastdon00]

yeh its not an actual blur, maybe it is, but with the movement u can see the artifact blocks on the sharp on certain things......


whereas the LG u dont, but yet LG told me they use an IPS? display


/?

 

[Alain_D]

Response time, I'm doing a study remotely related to that, so here's my take:


This can be quoted in "Full black to full white to full black again" time, which is certainly not typical usage or... much more meaningful in "GTG" (Gray to Gray) time, the problem is, you often don't know what response time manufacturers are quoting.


To make things worse, even GTG is not standardized. It can be the average of GTG response time or GTG for "close shades of gray" only.


It gets even better when you think about "uniformity" of response time. For example, a panel might super quick to switch between light grays but slow between dark and light greys. In that case, the average might be flattering but the screen will at times feel unresponsive with blur and ghosting.


FWIW, IPS has a more uniform GTG response time than competitive technologies (whiwh might explain your perception).

However, sad to say that but, while quoted response time might be an indication of how responsive a screen might be, the best is to see the actual screen (if possible a sport event, or a game session).

 

[DBLASS]

Back in the olden days (1995) black to white to black was the "standard" for response speed. It turns out, these days, black to white to black switching is actually very easy to do. They smack the drive lines with a large amount of voltage so the LCD switches real fast. GTG uses such a small voltage, that the LCD material does not switch quickly. This means that gray to gray is potentially much harder to switch quickly. Regardless, response speed is moving target and does not mean all that much since it has as much to do with an individual's eye response.

 

[Alain_D]

Yes indeed DBLASS,


and as long as Response Time will not be standardized measure (we can dream...) the initial post in this thread will keep coming.


I've heard/read the "why does this 8ms look more responsive than this 'clearly faster' 5ms?" countless times!


C/R (now with the added fun of "dynamic" C/R) and response time are a real headache and I'm not sure that this confusion is really helping the industry...

 

[MitsuDude]

Trust your eyes...'nuff said...