Recently I've been searching about monitors to understand how CRT makes a difference when you compare it to LCD (Modern Monitor).
I hear that CRT monitors are better for fps and rts games compare to LCD monitors. When I looked at my monitor's spec, I found out that my monitor response time is 5 ms and 60&75 Hertz for the refresh rate.
Sometimes I feel somewhat slow when I play my games to do some mutalisk micro or wraith micro. So what I am wondering is that 1 ms with about 150 Hertz refresh rate monitor would make a difference to my 5 ms response time and 60 Hertz setting.
After I've been searching for the information, I remembered what effort said about xp and win 7 slow response issue. Do win xp and win 7 make a difference with the response time? Because I don't think that way anymore after I watched a few games of reesep7's stream (he uses win xp, and looks about the same response time).
So, here are my questions, and somewhat we should all discuss and understand more about this.
1) is there a difference between win xp and win 7 in game?
2) related to question #1, what if both operation systems use same monitor? One for CRT and LCD setting.
3) how is 5 ms response time and 60 to 75 Hertz monitor different to 1ms GTG (Grey to Grey) response time and about 150 Hertz monitor when you are playing starcraft?
For question #3, I read the information, but I would still like to hear from people who actually have tried playing with a 1 ms response time and high refresh rate monitor. Here is a link I read about monitor's advertisement (it's Korean, but there are a lot of images so it will be easy to understand).
On March 18 2016 11:02 Scarbo wrote: I have a 120hz CRT and a 60hz LED 5ms and there's a noticeable difference in BW. Reason I don't have a 144hz LED is because of money.
Can you possibly record a video for both monitors in games? (#L2 game room and UDP)
On March 18 2016 11:02 Scarbo wrote: I have a 120hz CRT and a 60hz LED 5ms and there's a noticeable difference in BW. Reason I don't have a 144hz LED is because of money.
Can you possibly record a video for both monitors in games? (#L2 game room and UDP)
I can't, but even if I could you wouldn't be able to see any difference if you're using a 60hz monitor to watch the videos,
btw that standard 5ms response time is based off how the pixel changes from black white black, its not the same variable as the GtG 1ms response time. also neither of these are the same as input lag (which is also a key factor for gaming) which is not advertised by the manufacturer.
also manufacturers love to cough up any numbers they want for advertising, so don't take the numbers at face value. BTW is usually higher than GtG, manufacturers will just simply pick the latter for advertising.
also you might want to read up on the different panel technologies TN, VA, IPS... the one monitor you linked is a TN panel which is generally good for fast -paced gaming but may have lower display quality
On March 18 2016 11:02 Scarbo wrote: I have a 120hz CRT and a 60hz LED 5ms and there's a noticeable difference in BW. Reason I don't have a 144hz LED is because of money.
Can you still record a video with 120hz CRT? You can easily record a video with OBS or FRAPS.
On March 18 2016 11:02 Scarbo wrote: I have a 120hz CRT and a 60hz LED 5ms and there's a noticeable difference in BW. Reason I don't have a 144hz LED is because of money.
Can you still record a video with 120hz CRT? You can easily record a video with OBS or FRAPS.
I can't. Recording a video at 120fps is no joke, and too much for my old computer. Like I said it won't make a difference unless you're watching on a high frequency monitor, in which case you might as well just play on it and see for yourself. All I can say is that it makes a noticeable difference (mouse moves smoother, screen moves smoother and response time is faster). The monitor you're using seems to be the bottom of the barrel for gaming. Any game that's not locked at 60fps and you're gonna have a disadvantage.
Just want to put this here because it is relevant; eye speeds differ from one person to another as well. As a result, for some purposes/people, a monitor might be perfect but seem choppy for another person.
On March 18 2016 11:02 Scarbo wrote: I have a 120hz CRT and a 60hz LED 5ms and there's a noticeable difference in BW. Reason I don't have a 144hz LED is because of money.
Can you still record a video with 120hz CRT? You can easily record a video with OBS or FRAPS.
I can't. Recording a video at 120fps is no joke, and too much for my old computer. Like I said it won't make a difference unless you're watching on a high frequency monitor, in which case you might as well just play on it and see for yourself. All I can say is that it makes a noticeable difference (mouse moves smoother, screen moves smoother and response time is faster). The monitor you're using seems to be the bottom of the barrel for gaming. Any game that's not locked at 60fps and you're gonna have a disadvantage.
Wait.. I don't understand. What's your computer's operating system? Btw, you can lock and record a video at 30fps with fraps and OBS. Can you also describe how fast it responds?(in terms of seconds please)
Also, what do you mean that any games that are not locked at 60fps will give you the disadvantage?
On March 18 2016 11:02 Scarbo wrote: I have a 120hz CRT and a 60hz LED 5ms and there's a noticeable difference in BW. Reason I don't have a 144hz LED is because of money.
Can you still record a video with 120hz CRT? You can easily record a video with OBS or FRAPS.
I can't. Recording a video at 120fps is no joke, and too much for my old computer. Like I said it won't make a difference unless you're watching on a high frequency monitor, in which case you might as well just play on it and see for yourself. All I can say is that it makes a noticeable difference (mouse moves smoother, screen moves smoother and response time is faster). The monitor you're using seems to be the bottom of the barrel for gaming. Any game that's not locked at 60fps and you're gonna have a disadvantage.
Wait.. I don't understand. What's your computer's operating system? Btw, you can lock and record a video at 30fps with fraps and OBS. Can you also describe how fast it responds?(in terms of seconds please)
Also, what do you mean that any games that are not locked at 60fps will give you the disadvantage?
Win7 64bits
Here's how it works: the frequency that your monitor runs is how many times the monitor updates per second. A 60hz monitor will update 60 times, a 144hz one will do so 144 times. This means that if you, for example, switch your screen from your main to your natural, the monitor that updates more times per second will show the image you want first.
Response time (in ms) is how fast the pixel can change from one color to the next. This also affects how fast the monitor shows you what you want to see, and also how clear moving images appear (as opposed to blurred).
That's why you can't just watch a video at 30fps and see those differences. The only way is for you to have the monitor in front of you and try it for yourself. When I talk about games not locked at 60fps is because 60hz is the standard refresh rate for most LCD and LED monitors, so if the game you're playing is capable of going higher (for example StarCraft, Counter-Strike, Quake), you're going to be at a disadvantage vs players with better monitors.
On March 18 2016 11:02 Scarbo wrote: I have a 120hz CRT and a 60hz LED 5ms and there's a noticeable difference in BW. Reason I don't have a 144hz LED is because of money.
Can you still record a video with 120hz CRT? You can easily record a video with OBS or FRAPS.
You set the frame rate separately from the Hz of your monitor.
Also in almost all cases 30 fps for a recording is plenty.
On March 18 2016 11:02 Scarbo wrote: I have a 120hz CRT and a 60hz LED 5ms and there's a noticeable difference in BW. Reason I don't have a 144hz LED is because of money.
Can you still record a video with 120hz CRT? You can easily record a video with OBS or FRAPS.
I can't. Recording a video at 120fps is no joke, and too much for my old computer. Like I said it won't make a difference unless you're watching on a high frequency monitor, in which case you might as well just play on it and see for yourself. All I can say is that it makes a noticeable difference (mouse moves smoother, screen moves smoother and response time is faster). The monitor you're using seems to be the bottom of the barrel for gaming. Any game that's not locked at 60fps and you're gonna have a disadvantage.
Wait.. I don't understand. What's your computer's operating system? Btw, you can lock and record a video at 30fps with fraps and OBS. Can you also describe how fast it responds?(in terms of seconds please)
Also, what do you mean that any games that are not locked at 60fps will give you the disadvantage?
Win7 64bits
Here's how it works: the frequency that your monitor runs is how many times the monitor updates per second. A 60hz monitor will update 60 times, a 144hz one will do so 144 times. This means that if you, for example, switch your screen from your main to your natural, the monitor that updates more times per second will show the image you want first.
Response time (in ms) is how fast the pixel can change from one color to the next. This also affects how fast the monitor shows you what you want to see, and also how clear moving images appear (as opposed to blurred).
That's why you can't just watch a video at 30fps and see those differences. The only way is for you to have the monitor in front of you and try it for yourself. When I talk about games not locked at 60fps is because 60hz is the standard refresh rate for most LCD and LED monitors, so if the game you're playing is capable of going higher (for example StarCraft, Counter-Strike, Quake), you're going to be at a disadvantage vs players with better monitors.
True, but that difference between 60-120 will not matter unless your a top player in your game, and even then I doubt it would change anything unless your playing something like cs or quacke.
On March 18 2016 11:02 Scarbo wrote: I have a 120hz CRT and a 60hz LED 5ms and there's a noticeable difference in BW. Reason I don't have a 144hz LED is because of money.
Can you still record a video with 120hz CRT? You can easily record a video with OBS or FRAPS.
I can't. Recording a video at 120fps is no joke, and too much for my old computer. Like I said it won't make a difference unless you're watching on a high frequency monitor, in which case you might as well just play on it and see for yourself. All I can say is that it makes a noticeable difference (mouse moves smoother, screen moves smoother and response time is faster). The monitor you're using seems to be the bottom of the barrel for gaming. Any game that's not locked at 60fps and you're gonna have a disadvantage.
Wait.. I don't understand. What's your computer's operating system? Btw, you can lock and record a video at 30fps with fraps and OBS. Can you also describe how fast it responds?(in terms of seconds please)
Also, what do you mean that any games that are not locked at 60fps will give you the disadvantage?
Win7 64bits
Here's how it works: the frequency that your monitor runs is how many times the monitor updates per second. A 60hz monitor will update 60 times, a 144hz one will do so 144 times. This means that if you, for example, switch your screen from your main to your natural, the monitor that updates more times per second will show the image you want first.
Response time (in ms) is how fast the pixel can change from one color to the next. This also affects how fast the monitor shows you what you want to see, and also how clear moving images appear (as opposed to blurred).
That's why you can't just watch a video at 30fps and see those differences. The only way is for you to have the monitor in front of you and try it for yourself. When I talk about games not locked at 60fps is because 60hz is the standard refresh rate for most LCD and LED monitors, so if the game you're playing is capable of going higher (for example StarCraft, Counter-Strike, Quake), you're going to be at a disadvantage vs players with better monitors.
True, but that difference between 60-120 will not matter unless your a top player in your game, and even then I doubt it would change anything unless your playing something like cs or quacke.
It matters at any level, it becomes unsurpassable at the highest levels. Same can be applied to other high-end peripherals. There's also the quality of life factor.
On March 20 2016 13:55 LaStScan wrote: I think most of people did not understand what I'm saying here. When people are playing on #l2, it's not fast response as CRT monitor's #l2.
and so? are you really going to switch to using a CRT monitor to play? at this day and age? 10 years ago yeah LCD are inferior to CRT for gaming but now good LCD/LED monitors today are almost comparable to CRT in terms of input lag anyway.
unless you live in a developing country and/or don't mind the awkwardness of a CRT monitor taking space in your home theres no reason to ever switch back to old CRT monitors again.
On March 20 2016 13:55 LaStScan wrote: I think most of people did not understand what I'm saying here. When people are playing on #l2, it's not fast response as CRT monitor's #l2.
and so? are you really going to switch to using a CRT monitor to play? at this day and age? 10 years ago yeah LCD are inferior to CRT for gaming but now good LCD/LED monitors today are almost comparable to CRT in terms of input lag anyway.
unless you live in a developing country and/or don't mind the awkwardness of a CRT monitor taking space in your home theres no reason to ever switch back to old CRT monitors again.
That is why I've been asking If 1ms GTG monitor with 144 Hertz is almost nearly same as CRT monitor. I'm currently playing on 19" 1440x900 (8:5 aspect ratio) 5ms response time Asus monitor. I feel it's a bit slow of response time when I keep switching back and forth between SC1 and SC2.
Once I can get some good information, I probably would like to try 1 ms GTG monitor and compare CRT monitor in the future.
On March 20 2016 13:55 LaStScan wrote: I think most of people did not understand what I'm saying here. When people are playing on #l2, it's not fast response as CRT monitor's #l2.
I don't think latency settings have anything to do with the monitor. The monitor's job is to display whatever is sent to it by the computer. It doesn't get involved in the processing of data at all. The games you showed are from Koreans, whereas as far as I know you live in the US, playing vs Koreans, so you can't compare lantecy and response times with those examples.
On March 20 2016 13:55 LaStScan wrote: I think most of people did not understand what I'm saying here. When people are playing on #l2, it's not fast response as CRT monitor's #l2.
I don't think latency settings have anything to do with the monitor. The monitor's job is to display whatever is sent to it by the computer. It doesn't get involved in the processing of data at all. The games you showed are from Koreans, whereas as far as I know you live in the US, playing vs Koreans, so you can't compare lantecy and response times with those examples.
unlike CRT, LCD/LED do have an (albeit small) input lag (time taken between pressing the key and the result showing on the screen). but this is separate from in built Bnet latency (which is fixed by latencychanger's #l1, #l2 etc..)
also scan is playing from US so that 100+ms latency is pretty significant at his level of play no matter how optimal his setup is. though playing terran helps to mitigate that a little.
What I heard from forums, people did try out LCD LED monitor in 2007 or some around there, and players said that the response was so slow (50 ms or something).
전에 LCD로 경기한 적이 있었는데 반응이 안좋아서 철회됐습니다. 덕분에 세팅하시는 분들만 힘들죠 ~.~
Translation: They have played with LCD, but the response was not good so they withdrew the match. Unfortunately, staffs had to do more work for the setting ~.~
CRT monitor always been superior to LCD, reason is simple, it has a much better color rendering and a much higher refresh rate, the only reason i am not using a CRT is because I am no progamer and it takes too much space on my desktop. Now I am not too convinced about the difference between winxp and win7 on brood war, but i can tell that brood war never worked better for me than on win98 with a 17 inches CRT monitor, I was very disappointed by the lack of fluidity when I switched to winxp and even more when I sold my crt for a lcd. I think CRT are even more superior when it comes to fps.
I've kept using CRT for gaming because I've never had a similarly good experience with LCD. For arcade games like shoot'm ups, players always want to play on CRT if possible. The difference is smallish but it matters to anyone who want top notch performance, the LCD technology seems unable to perform as efficiently, always a little bit of lag. I haven't necessarily tested it on the very best LCD, but they're probably still not as good.
On March 20 2016 17:05 iFU.pauline wrote: CRT monitor always been superior to LCD, reason is simple, it has a much better color rendering and a much higher refresh rate
This is not true, crt montiors can only reach 155Hz at 640x480 if im not mistaken, meanwhile there are (expensive) lcd screens on the market at 240hz.
On March 20 2016 17:05 iFU.pauline wrote: CRT monitor always been superior to LCD, reason is simple, it has a much better color rendering and a much higher refresh rate
This is not true, crt montiors can only reach 155Hz at 640x480 if im not mistaken, meanwhile there are (expensive) lcd screens on the market at 240hz.
The only 240hz on the market are upscaled, not true 240hz.
Experience fluid gameplay free from motion blur with the gaming industry's first 240 Hz monitor. EIZO's Turbo 240 converts 120 Hz input signals to 240 Hz for a refresh rate double that of conventional gaming monitors so you can enjoy the smoothest motion display yet for first-person shooter, racing, and other fast-action genres.
Since when the PS4 can run games at 240fps? They go so far as require companies to lock games at 60fps on PC so that the console version doesn't look that bad in comparison.
It's probably possible to make an actual 240hz monitor but I can see there being not enough people interested to justify the costs.
Your point holds true to the resolution issue though. In LED and LCD you can get 144hz at 1080p, which doesn't happen on CRTs.
Some of the main differences between CRT's and LCD's are not viewable by a normal camera because our eyes view and track images in different ways to cameras.
"response time" on any monitor stats is not referring to input lag (it is something else) and is hard to directly compare between brands and technologies
------
the LCD technology seems unable to perform as efficiently, always a little bit of lag
Good LCD's have input lags roughly comparable to CRT's. What they do NOT have is motion clarity anywhere near CRT level which is important for some games and is quite often visible. Some LCD's have strobed backlight options to get CRT-level motion clarity but that comes with drawbacks
It's also worth noting that old LCD's were nowhere near as good as more modern ones
On March 20 2016 15:50 LaStScan wrote: What I heard from forums, people did try out LCD LED monitor in 2007 or some around there, and players said that the response was so slow (50 ms or something).
전에 LCD로 경기한 적이 있었는데 반응이 안좋아서 철회됐습니다. 덕분에 세팅하시는 분들만 힘들죠 ~.~
Translation: They have played with LCD, but the response was not good so they withdrew the match. Unfortunately, staffs had to do more work for the setting ~.~
Not sure what you're getting at, LCD's are normally 5ms response time, you wouldn't notice any difference with a CRT even if it was 0ms.
I think this whole argument for a game like StarCraft is silly. This may be worthy of discussion for a game like O2Jam, but single digit milliseconds on StarCraft really doesn't matter.
I think this whole argument for a game like StarCraft is silly. This may be worthy of discussion for a game like O2Jam, but single digit milliseconds on StarCraft really doesn't matter.
CRT's don't beat modern LCD's by large amounts for input lag. They win in areas like motion clarity where they are not just a bit better, but in a completely different league
A 100hz CRT has motion clarity in the level of 10-20x better than a 60hz LCD, which is easily visible even when dragging a folder on the desktop if you know what you're looking at
My whole thing right now is that the game (excluding mouse) renders in 24 frames per second on Fastest speed and the mouse renders in 60 frames per second, so all this talk is almost useless. Not only that, but this isn't a game that requires much visual comprehension aside from cloaked units or bunches of stacked flying units, which comes down to the visual quality of the monitor.
This is a game where these discussions are important:
On March 23 2016 04:16 Cyro wrote: ^those games benefit probably the most from motion clarity, it sucks to play them on LCD
That's me playing, I'm one of the best players on the private Korean server. I play with a 75Hz LCD monitor from Dell. My point here is that people seriously overestimate the effect their monitor has on StarCraft or even these crazy games.
If your monitor is hurting your play, chances are it's simply a pile of garbage.
On March 23 2016 04:01 WinterViewbot420 wrote: My whole thing right now is that the game (excluding mouse) renders in 24 frames per second on Fastest speed and the mouse renders in 60 frames per second, so all this talk is almost useless. Not only that, but this isn't a game that requires much visual comprehension aside from cloaked units or bunches of stacked flying units, which comes down to the visual quality of the monitor.
This is a game where these discussions are important:
Both your informations are wrong. As far as I can tell, BW is uncapped. There may be a cap but it's very high. The animations (tank sieging, lurker burrowing, units attacking) are indeed limited at 24fps. Having a high framerate monitor makes a huge difference. For example, if you move your mouse around at high refresh rates, and low motion blur, the movement is going to be a lot smoother, same goes for moving your screen.
I have a 120hz CRT and can assure this info is accurate. I'd give some sort of proof but unfortunately there's no way for you to experiment it unless you have a good monitor to try for yourself.
On March 23 2016 04:01 WinterViewbot420 wrote: My whole thing right now is that the game (excluding mouse) renders in 24 frames per second on Fastest speed and the mouse renders in 60 frames per second, so all this talk is almost useless. Not only that, but this isn't a game that requires much visual comprehension aside from cloaked units or bunches of stacked flying units, which comes down to the visual quality of the monitor.
This is a game where these discussions are important:
On March 23 2016 04:01 WinterViewbot420 wrote: My whole thing right now is that the game (excluding mouse) renders in 24 frames per second on Fastest speed and the mouse renders in 60 frames per second, so all this talk is almost useless. Not only that, but this isn't a game that requires much visual comprehension aside from cloaked units or bunches of stacked flying units, which comes down to the visual quality of the monitor.
This is a game where these discussions are important:
isn't this more like a game that is playable without a monitor as you can just memorize the moves and the rythm.
Please tell me how in the name Aiur a human is supposed to memorize over three thousand key presses on seven different lanes, all timed by the millisecond.
On March 23 2016 05:32 AleXoundOS wrote: mostly unacceptable "Grey to Grey" response time of LCD monitors plus it's input lag makes gaming experience so much worse compared to CRT
The motion blur on modern LCD's is not due to response times, it's due to the way the screen tech interacts with eye tracking.
Input lag is practically the same on good LCD's.
Early LCD's (like 10 years ago) often sucked at both of those things
isn't this more like a game that is playable without a monitor as you can just memorize the moves and the rythm.
Rhythm games usually have you reacting and processing information that's shown around a quarter of a second to a few seconds before, depending on the game and setting
Why are people talking about smoothness here? I am talking about game response time issue. I am investigating that playing on CRT monitor response faster than lcd monitor. How much easy do I need to clarify you?
well, I can make an example. 2 players are playing on #l2 room. One uses CRT, other one uses LCD. CRT user plays as near as #l1 and other one plays like no latency changer(old b.net). Does this help to understand? If not, I can make an another example from sc2. A person who lives in EU plays KR server. He plays with 200 ms ping (about 0.5~0.8 sec slow response). The guy who lives in KR and plays against him will take the advantage over European player because he plays with nearly 2 ms ping.
Have you ever thought why pros and even in competition prefer to use CRT monitors all that year? (Talking about KeSPA Scene)
By the way, most of Korean streamers use lowlat program. Not just launcher that improves latency.
On March 23 2016 06:26 LaStScan wrote: Why are people talking about smoothness here? I am talking about game response time issue. I am investigating that playing on CRT monitor response faster than lcd monitor. How much easy do I need to clarify you?
well, I can make an example. 2 players are playing on #l2 room. One uses CRT, other one uses LCD. CRT user plays as near as #l1 and other one plays like no latency changer(old b.net). Does this help to understand? If not, I can make an another example from sc2. A person who lives in EU plays KR server. He plays with 200 ms ping (about 0.5~0.8 sec slow response). The guy who lives in KR and plays against him will take the advantage over European player because he plays with nearly 2 ms ping.
Have you ever thought why pros and even in competition prefer to use CRT monitors all that year? (Talking about KeSPA Scene)
By the way, most of Korean streamers use lowlat program. Not just launcher that improves latency.
Latency has nothing to do with the monitor and it has already been explained to you in this very thread. Yes we thought why pros prefer CRT and it's because of a lot of reasons also explained in this thread. Do you even read before posting? Or you think all of us are wrong? If so, why ask for help in a place where you assume everyone is wrong?
On March 23 2016 06:26 LaStScan wrote: Why are people talking about smoothness here? I am talking about game response time issue. I am investigating that playing on CRT monitor response faster than lcd monitor. How much easy do I need to clarify you?
well, I can make an example. 2 players are playing on #l2 room. One uses CRT, other one uses LCD. CRT user plays as near as #l1 and other one plays like no latency changer(old b.net). Does this help to understand? If not, I can make an another example from sc2. A person who lives in EU plays KR server. He plays with 200 ms ping (about 0.5~0.8 sec slow response). The guy who lives in KR and plays against him will take the advantage over European player because he plays with nearly 2 ms ping.
Have you ever thought why pros and even in competition prefer to use CRT monitors all that year? (Talking about KeSPA Scene)
By the way, most of Korean streamers use lowlat program. Not just launcher that improves latency.
Latency has nothing to do with the monitor and it has already been explained to you in this very thread. Yes we thought why pros prefer CRT and it's because of a lot of reasons also explained in this thread. Do you even read before posting? Or you think all of us are wrong? If so, why ask for help in a place where you assume everyone is wrong?
Yes, I read it. But I feel that it is going to the wrong direction. That's why I replied in this thread again.
Btw, I just found out this YouTube video. Take a look, and you can see that LCD seems a bit slow compare to CRT. Should I just say that this is "input lag?" or how should I word it? From Korean forums, I think people were saying that Pros preferred to play on CRT because LCD response a bit slow.
On March 23 2016 06:26 LaStScan wrote: Why are people talking about smoothness here? I am talking about game response time issue. I am investigating that playing on CRT monitor response faster than lcd monitor. How much easy do I need to clarify you?
well, I can make an example. 2 players are playing on #l2 room. One uses CRT, other one uses LCD. CRT user plays as near as #l1 and other one plays like no latency changer(old b.net). Does this help to understand? If not, I can make an another example from sc2. A person who lives in EU plays KR server. He plays with 200 ms ping (about 0.5~0.8 sec slow response). The guy who lives in KR and plays against him will take the advantage over European player because he plays with nearly 2 ms ping.
Have you ever thought why pros and even in competition prefer to use CRT monitors all that year? (Talking about KeSPA Scene)
By the way, most of Korean streamers use lowlat program. Not just launcher that improves latency.
Latency has nothing to do with the monitor and it has already been explained to you in this very thread. Yes we thought why pros prefer CRT and it's because of a lot of reasons also explained in this thread. Do you even read before posting? Or you think all of us are wrong? If so, why ask for help in a place where you assume everyone is wrong?
Yes, I read it. But I feel that it is going to the wrong direction. That's why I replied in this thread again.
Btw, I just found out this YouTube video. Take a look, and you can see that LCD seems a bit slow compare to CRT. Should I just say that this is "input lag?" or how should I word it? From Korean forums, I think people were saying that Pros preferred to play on CRT because LCD response a bit slow.
There are two thing that you're talking about here. One is game latency, the other one is input lag (response time). They don't have a relationship with each other and only response time has to do with the monitor.
When you do any input (mouse/keyboard) that affects what's shown on screen, a signal is sent to the CPU, which processes it, renders a new image (with the aid of the video card), and sends it back to the monitor. The monitor only displays said image. At the same time that's happening, if you're playing BW, the information is sent to the other player via the internet. The time it takes for the monitor to display the image after it's received is what we call input lag/response time. This shouldn't be confused with internet lag, which also affects the game's response time, and is indeed diminished by lowlat.
On top of that, there's the amout of images a monitor is able to display per second (measured in hertz), and how much blur it generates in moving objects. CRTs are better because they have high refresh rates, fast response times and low motion-blur, which makes for much smoother, clean and more responsive visual feedback. That's why it's preferred by BW pros.
These days, however, there's the option for 144hz low response-times LCDs and LEDs, which claim to be able to do the same. They don't, but it's already a big improvement and a lot more convenient due to space limitations and the fact that CRTs are no longer produced.
On March 23 2016 06:26 LaStScan wrote: Why are people talking about smoothness here? I am talking about game response time issue. I am investigating that playing on CRT monitor response faster than lcd monitor. How much easy do I need to clarify you?
well, I can make an example. 2 players are playing on #l2 room. One uses CRT, other one uses LCD. CRT user plays as near as #l1 and other one plays like no latency changer(old b.net). Does this help to understand? If not, I can make an another example from sc2. A person who lives in EU plays KR server. He plays with 200 ms ping (about 0.5~0.8 sec slow response). The guy who lives in KR and plays against him will take the advantage over European player because he plays with nearly 2 ms ping.
Have you ever thought why pros and even in competition prefer to use CRT monitors all that year? (Talking about KeSPA Scene)
By the way, most of Korean streamers use lowlat program. Not just launcher that improves latency.
Latency has nothing to do with the monitor and it has already been explained to you in this very thread. Yes we thought why pros prefer CRT and it's because of a lot of reasons also explained in this thread. Do you even read before posting? Or you think all of us are wrong? If so, why ask for help in a place where you assume everyone is wrong?
Yes, I read it. But I feel that it is going to the wrong direction. That's why I replied in this thread again.
Btw, I just found out this YouTube video. Take a look, and you can see that LCD seems a bit slow compare to CRT. Should I just say that this is "input lag?" or how should I word it? From Korean forums, I think people were saying that Pros preferred to play on CRT because LCD response a bit slow.
On March 23 2016 06:26 LaStScan wrote: Why are people talking about smoothness here? I am talking about game response time issue. I am investigating that playing on CRT monitor response faster than lcd monitor. How much easy do I need to clarify you?
well, I can make an example. 2 players are playing on #l2 room. One uses CRT, other one uses LCD. CRT user plays as near as #l1 and other one plays like no latency changer(old b.net). Does this help to understand? If not, I can make an another example from sc2. A person who lives in EU plays KR server. He plays with 200 ms ping (about 0.5~0.8 sec slow response). The guy who lives in KR and plays against him will take the advantage over European player because he plays with nearly 2 ms ping.
Have you ever thought why pros and even in competition prefer to use CRT monitors all that year? (Talking about KeSPA Scene)
By the way, most of Korean streamers use lowlat program. Not just launcher that improves latency.
Because monitors are OUTPUT devices. OUTPUT devices have nothing to do with latency issues. Here is what could relate to it: Network connection.
You play the game on a PC, PC reads the input from Keyboard Mouse and process the input within in the CPU. The output result is displayed on the screen.
The difference between CRT and LED / LCD is that CRT produces 144 images per second while LED / LCD produces 60 images per second. Since the PC that is processing the input and transmitting data over the network is the same, the only thing will change is how it will LOOK and that's it.
Check this video, it explains better how it looks:
On March 23 2016 06:26 LaStScan wrote: Why are people talking about smoothness here? I am talking about game response time issue. I am investigating that playing on CRT monitor response faster than lcd monitor. How much easy do I need to clarify you?
well, I can make an example. 2 players are playing on #l2 room. One uses CRT, other one uses LCD. CRT user plays as near as #l1 and other one plays like no latency changer(old b.net). Does this help to understand? If not, I can make an another example from sc2. A person who lives in EU plays KR server. He plays with 200 ms ping (about 0.5~0.8 sec slow response). The guy who lives in KR and plays against him will take the advantage over European player because he plays with nearly 2 ms ping.
Have you ever thought why pros and even in competition prefer to use CRT monitors all that year? (Talking about KeSPA Scene)
By the way, most of Korean streamers use lowlat program. Not just launcher that improves latency.
Good LCD's have similar display latencies to CRT's.
The difference between CRT and LED / LCD is that CRT produces 144 images per second while LED / LCD produces 60 images per second
That's completely arbitrary, there are plenty of LCD's with CRT-like refresh rates and there are plenty of CRT's that are not set to ~120hz+
Again, as said earlier, it is important to note that network latency (i.e. the time it takes the data your computer is sending over the network to wherever it is sending the data) is completely irrelevant. Monitors never affect network latency. There is a separate thing which you might call display latency which actually does depend on the monitor. In the rest of this post, when I say "latency" I am referring to display latency: the time that elapses between when your PC sends the signal to the monitor and when that image actually appears on the monitor.
---
Framerate is not directly connected to display lag. Most CRTs used a refresh rate of ~85hz or less in most situations, as far as I can tell. Higher refresh rate does not automatically mean less display lag.
---
There are two causes for LCDs to have more display latency than CRTs. Response time is reasonably well known and is some measure of the time it takes a display to change from displaying something to displaying something else. CRTs do this faster (order of 1 microsecond, which as far as I know is completely beyond human perception, though CRT images work differently anyway), but good LCD displays are still on the order of 1 millisecond. I think that's likely not noticeable on its own, since you will get similar lag issues from how games poll for input. For reference, that's 1/16ish of a frame at 60hz.
Technically the response time sets an upper limit on the monitor's refresh rate (if the liquid crystals physically cannot change from displaying one image to another in 1/144 of a second then the monitor obviously cannot be a 144hz monitor), but this relationship only goes in this direction. It's entirely possible for a 60hz monitor to have the same response time (or even same display lag) as a 144hz monitor. But it's best to not worry too much about response time on its own, because there's another thing creating display lag that is usually (?) a larger effect.
This other factor is that LCDs do some processing of their own* on the signal your computer sends them before they actually send an image to the liquid crystals comprising the display. This processing time is the main source of display lag for most LCDs these days as far as I can tell from some quick research, and is not particularly well-documented (manufacturers do not supply it). Most LCD displays' "game mode"s, if they have one, reduce the amount of processing the display itself does to the image so there will be less delay between the PC sending the signal to the monitor and the monitor displaying the image.
As far as I can find, good LCDs have on the order of 10ms total display lag, but as I said this is not well-documented in general, so the actual number could be lower for very good ones. One frame at 60hz is 16ish ms, so if you can notice your display being one frame behind your input then you can probably notice the total effect. I'm pretty sure this is possible to notice, at least for some people (I personally did not notice extra lag from switching from a CRT to an LCD). Bad LCD displays or ones using suboptimal settings could be much higher, to the point where you're multiple frames behind, and that would definitely be noticeable. You might not be able to always avoid suboptimal settings with Brood War, since running at a resolution that is not the monitor's native resolution increases processing time.
*I'm unsure what kind of processing CRTs need to do to convert the signal the PC sends into (ultimately, I'm going to ignore details here) an image on the screen, but it is definitely faster than what most LCDs do. Possibly fast LCDs are in the same neighborhood now though.
---
Anyway the only site I could find with actual display lag measurements is the aptly-named DisplayLag. The database is far from complete, but it's a lot better than the nearly-zero other information I could find.
---
Also important to note: you cannot measure any of this with screen-capture software like OBS. OBS works perfectly fine without any monitor at all, since it is just also rendering the signal that your PC is sending to your monitor. In theory you might be able to notice with a high-speed video camera pointed at the PC monitor that is also capturing the player's inputs (good luck getting that from someone in this topic), but it would be extremely difficult to do this with just a general recording of gameplay. You mostly need a controlled test setup to really measure display lag.
Higher refresh rate does not automatically mean less display lag.
It actually does (if everything else is the same), since the biggest delay in decent lcd's is the time between refreshes. If you do an action on a part of the screen that was just refreshed on 60hz, it can't start to be displayed for about 16ms no matter what happens. With a 120hz monitor, it could start to be displayed after half of that time.
This other factor is that LCDs do some processing of their own* on the signal your computer sends them before they actually send an image to the liquid crystals comprising the display. This processing time is the main source of display lag for most LCDs these days as far as I can tell from some quick research
With bad LCD's, this is true. With the best ones, this lag is very minimal (as low as a few milliseconds out of a ~10-20 millisecond screen delay)
@60hz, the peak latency added from the refresh alone (not counting signal lag, time for pixels to change color or anything else in the input latency chain) is +16.67ms. At 144hz, that's +6.94ms.
When the total time from action to seeing your input is about 15-40 milliseconds (on the desktop or in a low-lag game rendered at a high framerate), that +10 milliseconds matters a lot.
This also adds a pretty huge variance. The lag range for a 60hz refresh is basically 0.0 - 16.67ms, while for 144hz refresh it's 0.0 - 6.94ms. That means you could have for example 20 - 37ms lag on 60hz, but 20-27ms lag on 144hz - a faster on average, but also more consistent experience because of the higher refresh rate.
In theory you might be able to notice with a high-speed video camera pointed at the PC monitor that is also capturing the player's inputs (good luck getting that from someone in this topic), but it would be extremely difficult to do this with just a general recording of gameplay. You mostly need a controlled test setup to really measure display lag.
http://www.blurbusters.com/gsync/preview2/ - exactly what you're looking for. It's testing an early implementation of gsync specifically, but it has control tests for 300fps vsync off and 143fps cap vsync off.
Most of those game engines suck for latency when responding to clicks, CSGO does not.
On March 23 2016 06:26 LaStScan wrote: Why are people talking about smoothness here? I am talking about game response time issue. I am investigating that playing on CRT monitor response faster than lcd monitor. How much easy do I need to clarify you?
well, I can make an example. 2 players are playing on #l2 room. One uses CRT, other one uses LCD. CRT user plays as near as #l1 and other one plays like no latency changer(old b.net). Does this help to understand? If not, I can make an another example from sc2. A person who lives in EU plays KR server. He plays with 200 ms ping (about 0.5~0.8 sec slow response). The guy who lives in KR and plays against him will take the advantage over European player because he plays with nearly 2 ms ping.
Have you ever thought why pros and even in competition prefer to use CRT monitors all that year? (Talking about KeSPA Scene)
By the way, most of Korean streamers use lowlat program. Not just launcher that improves latency.
Latency has nothing to do with the monitor and it has already been explained to you in this very thread. Yes we thought why pros prefer CRT and it's because of a lot of reasons also explained in this thread. Do you even read before posting? Or you think all of us are wrong? If so, why ask for help in a place where you assume everyone is wrong?
Yes, I read it. But I feel that it is going to the wrong direction. That's why I replied in this thread again.
Btw, I just found out this YouTube video. Take a look, and you can see that LCD seems a bit slow compare to CRT. Should I just say that this is "input lag?" or how should I word it? From Korean forums, I think people were saying that Pros preferred to play on CRT because LCD response a bit slow.
That "input latency" is something like wireless mouse or keyboard difference between wired as I understand? I think for BW that 0,x sec. delay isn't important. What more you should bother is on which screen I can play long so my eyes won't get tired.
In other hand this "game latency" is a really good thing to fix for Blizzard for next patch. C'mon, this game can run with 56kpbs modem and everyone should allowed to play on same latency without hack/tool.
Input latency and output latency are completely different, and usually your keyboard and mouse have higher input latency than your monitor does output latency. If you don't notice it, you don't need to worry about this.
On March 23 2016 21:05 mca64Launcher_ wrote: Cause works only for one side?
Ok, make sense. Then the question remains, why is this latency option not implemented in the launchers for both players via #L3 for example. Would especially be useful for the Koreans.
On March 23 2016 04:01 WinterViewbot420 wrote: My whole thing right now is that the game (excluding mouse) renders in 24 frames per second on Fastest speed and the mouse renders in 60 frames per second, so all this talk is almost useless. Not only that, but this isn't a game that requires much visual comprehension aside from cloaked units or bunches of stacked flying units, which comes down to the visual quality of the monitor.
This is a game where these discussions are important:
isn't this more like a game that is playable without a monitor as you can just memorize the moves and the rythm.
Please tell me how in the name Aiur a human is supposed to memorize over three thousand key presses on seven different lanes, all timed by the millisecond.
Well at least in the posted vid there are long part following a pattern, so you don't actually have to memorize each three thousand individual key presses.
How can a musician play an instrument without notes?
On March 23 2016 04:01 WinterViewbot420 wrote: My whole thing right now is that the game (excluding mouse) renders in 24 frames per second on Fastest speed and the mouse renders in 60 frames per second, so all this talk is almost useless. Not only that, but this isn't a game that requires much visual comprehension aside from cloaked units or bunches of stacked flying units, which comes down to the visual quality of the monitor.
This is a game where these discussions are important:
isn't this more like a game that is playable without a monitor as you can just memorize the moves and the rythm.
Please tell me how in the name Aiur a human is supposed to memorize over three thousand key presses on seven different lanes, all timed by the millisecond.
Well at least in the posted vid there are long part following a pattern, so you don't actually have to memorize each three thousand individual key presses.
How can a musician play an instrument without notes?
This isn't an instrument, and this is too much to memorize. Your argument is silly.
On March 18 2016 11:02 Scarbo wrote: I have a 120hz CRT and a 60hz LED 5ms and there's a noticeable difference in BW. Reason I don't have a 144hz LED is because of money.
Can you still record a video with 120hz CRT? You can easily record a video with OBS or FRAPS.
...OBS doesn't record the screen, What OBS records has nothing to do with the screen.. It is not some kind of video camera put infront of your monitor
My LCD is about 3.5 frames, or about 50ms (0.050 seconds) behind the CRT.
Does this affect my gameplay? If it does, I haven't noticed. Just thought I'd share.
Your result is messed up in some ways because your camera exposure setting was too long and you captured multiple frames in a single picture, even on the CRT. Also again to note you're using the Input Lag / Display Lag test, not the Response Time test. Those two things carry very different meanings in display technology.
There are differences in screen technology that are very relevant - a 60hz LCD, even a good one will display information for about 20 milliseconds after a refresh - LCD's continuously display the last frame until refreshed with a new one, which takes 16.67ms plus transition times.
A CRT will only display the information for about 1ms - it flashes it once, then it's done. You can't capture "old" information from it using either your eyes or a camera which has significant meaning for both
Stuff like that will give you confusing results if you don't understand them.
I guess in this picture you have a screen that's not great for input lag (unlike many other lcd's) combined with camera setting issues due to the difference in screen tech. IMO investigate the lcd more, if it's really anything anywhere near +50ms of lag then it's important. To get this result you could have 50ms+ of total lag, while an optimized system with a high refresh rate (LCD, but CRT works fine too ) monitor can get that down to 20ms or so.
A 10ms difference in lag is roughly where it becomes blind testable for me personally if you want to know how big +40ms is.
I think when the OP uses the expression "response time", he doesn´t intend it to have the meaning it usually has in discussions of display technology - grey to grey or black to black response time. What he is interested in is really input lag.
But yeah, it appears that the Asus P248Q is particularly bad in the input lag department, and that corn322's test isn´t accurately representing the typical input lag differences between a CRT and a decent LCD.
Edit: Did you edit your post Cyro? I think I wrote the above responding to a somewhat different post of yours. But maybe I´m just in the need of coffee.
The page has both Response Time and Input Lag (actually more accurately called display lag in this situation) tests, the previous poster used the Input Lag test and called it Response Time
to get 24 to 60, you have to do 24*2.5 - specifically, you have to alternate between displaying a frame on every second and every third refresh which is very unsmooth.
On March 24 2016 23:34 Cyro wrote: 24fps plays fine on 120hz and 144hz, btw
24*5 = 120 24*6 = 144
to get 24 to 60, you have to do 24*2.5 - specifically, you have to alternate between displaying a frame on every second and every third refresh which is very unsmooth.
I think after around 2005 they had some digital reformatting with motion estimation and "fake" frames.
120hz and 144hz displays are less than 0.1% fraction probably closer to 0.01%, manufacturers don't like giving up profit margins.
Besides , when it comes to eye-tracking blur 120fps is nearly as bad as 60hz, ~600lines vs. 300 lines equivalent of motion resolution. Not worth it.
Probably some flicker countermeasure at <100fps is better way than "mindless" >100fps .
Besides , when it comes to eye-tracking blur 120fps is nearly as bad as 60hz
Eye-tracking related motion blur is literally half as bad at 120fps as 60fps. It's based on the average error on what the screen is displaying vs how far ahead your eyes have tracked
Yes I know, but it is not widely known , that "normal" 120fps translates to only 600 lines equivalent eg. 720p (unless there are "fake " or black frames,and only the latter can be inserted without extra lag) also to maintain 120 actual frames without software optimization seems quixotic , so no wonder 120hz monitors never succeeded really.
I don't understand what lines you're talking about there
120hz did succeed, the main reason that they're not highly popular is cost and the vast majority of consumers not caring or not caring enough about input lag, motion quality etc.
60hz is a relatively low refresh rate that's on the bottom end of acceptable, yet not abhorrent enough to inspire mass adoption of another standard
On March 25 2016 01:35 Cyro wrote: I don't understand what lines you're talking about there
120hz did succeed, the main reason that they're not highly popular is cost and the vast majority of consumers not caring or not caring enough about input lag, motion quality etc.
60hz is a relatively low refresh rate that's on the bottom end of acceptable, yet not abhorrent enough to inspire mass adoption of another standard
so, on a framebuffer display like LCD , without eye-tracking-blur countermeasure, the blur results in "resolution overlap",multiple rows of pixels turn into single lines in effect
1920x1080x 30fps @ 60hz = slide show
1920x1080x 60fps @ 60hz = 300 lines of motion resolution
1920x1080x 120fps @ 120hz = 600 lines of motion resolution
120hz not succeeds because you can't reliably hit 120fps, and without that it's the same. And even if you have constant 120fps (no chance really ), it will look only as good as 1280*720 , because that amount of blur makes 1080 vertical resolution redundant. Or you can "empty" the framebuffer between frames to emulate the CRT ( I know blanking is the better word but I wanted to illustrate with 'emptying' ).
On a display without framebuffer (high intensity in short time slice), you have all the motion resolution you'd ever want, however , without v-sync you get tearing, and with v-sync there will be hiccups if the framerate is too high - 120hz is way too high.
120hz failed , because pixel count always gets the priority , and 4K60hz will be the next interesting format to most people since they still seem to enjoy whatever bad temporal behaviour, even slide shows, and they'll buy incrementally better hardware to hit steady 60 frame.
120hz is marginally better than 60hz even if you're running @60fps
blurry 1080p is blurry 1080p, it's still 1080p. The blur doesn't effectively lower the resolution, it just makes the image look relatively worse. I think this part
it will look only as good as 1280*720 , because that amount of blur makes 1080 vertical resolution redundant
is outright false or at least poorly understood
---
because pixel count always gets the priority
That's extremely subjective. A LOT of people use >60hz monitors. It's a minority, but so what? Almost everyone uses crap.
1080p monitors are about 400x more popular than 4k monitors on the Steam hardware survey, another minority for you.
VR headsets are also going performance absolutely over pixel counts with 90-120hz displays across the board and promises of further improvement past gen 1.
Indeed they are. When unable to control shutter speed of your camera, well, it sucks. Do note that I was testing for input lag and not response time in these images. I used the stopwatch method as described by tftcentral. Further down that page the explain their new methods of testing which are more accurate than photographing webpages.
Now response time, on the other hand, was found to be between 4.6 and 12.6 ms, depending on which greys you were transitioning between and what monitor setting you have chosen.
--
I don't understand what lines you're talking about there
1920x1080x 60fps @ 60hz = 300 lines of motion resolution
1920x1080x 120fps @ 120hz = 600 lines of motion resolution
Yeah I'm lost too. Maybe do you mean that an image moving across a 60Hz screen at 60FPS will move 8 pixles/frame and a 120Hz screen at 120 FPS will move 4 pixles/frame?
because pixel count always gets the priority
I play SC2 on the CRT at 1024x768 @ 85Hz, just so I could experience (if I could detect it) the increased frame rate and lower frame time compared to the Asus at 1920x1200 @ 60HZ
4K60hz will be the next interesting format
I read a rumor that higher color gamut and contrast is the "next big thing."
1. It depends on mice drivers. Also, ps/2 was vastly faster than usb, and many winxp machines still used ps/2 mices (this is because ps/2 bypasses the software waiting line and goes straight to the processor).
2. LCD wiill always be slower than CRT. This is simply because of the technology: CRT creates images at the speed of light (cathode tube), LCD crates images by partially covering light sources (has moving parts, not as fast as light).
3. Response time can be measured in many ways: Black to white, White to black, Black to White to Black and finally Grey to grey.
Grey to grey tells you nothing. The reason is because you dont know what shade of grey (no pun intended) is used, and it is important to know.
Black to white is not that useful because you dont know white decay (how fast white vanishes after you switch to black again), meaning you can have ghosting or similar (It also does not give you much since different monitors will have different brightness settings, and you dont know how it was measured).
White to black tells you how good the brightness control and decay is, and it is a decent way to identify the response time of a monitor.
Black to white to black (or white to black to white) is the only solid form of testing response time as it has to do the full cycle. Anything 5ms and under is perfect.
In other words, Id take a 5ms b-w-b before a 1 ms GTG.
Finally, please dont mistake response time with input lag (from the monitor) and total input lag (from your system).
Total input lag is quite higher than just input lag, usually about an additional 300-400 ms.
Test here for knowing your response time (mine with lag free plasma tv is at 230 best, 280 worst).
In terms of Hz, the more, the more fps you can get. Good in shooters, not so much in rts.
In theory the more hz, the more frames, the less time (delay) between frames. But the delay is very low even in a monitor of 60hz (if i remember correctly its like 16,6666 ms of delay between each frame). Other factors just take priority over hz in monitors.
On March 25 2016 04:39 Cyro wrote: 120hz is marginally better than 60hz even if you're running @60fps
blurry 1080p is blurry 1080p, it's still 1080p. The blur doesn't effectively lower the resolution, it just makes the image look relatively worse. I think this part
it will look only as good as 1280*720 , because that amount of blur makes 1080 vertical resolution redundant
is outright false or at least poorly understood
it does, "effectively lower the resolution" ,it's called 'smearing' , it means high frequency details get turned into some blobby mess.
Assuming ideal anti-aliasing, 1080p at 120hz with framebuffer blur is only better than 720p (and framebuffer blur) in slow motion , close-up scenes.
It's debatable if the usual RTS ingame camera position constitutes a good scenario for this "tilt" for spatial resolution fidelity because you can't have too much movement if viewed from that far. 60fps at 120hz is the very same thing as 60hz except for lag.
Oh, if something is even more quixotic than 120hz it's the AR/VR stuff, especially with the close to eye scenes (haha) , instead of solutions I see ostentatious stuff .
Test here for knowing your response time (mine with lag free plasma tv is at 230 best, 280 worst).
The input lag - as in actual time between giving an action and having it performed on screen - is about 20ms on an optimized system (>60hz LCD, CRT, vsync off etc)
My reaction times are about 170ms visual, 130ms auditory but it's very important to know that reaction time is not directly comparable to input lag. You can have a 170ms reaction time and 50ms input lag - or a 210ms reaction time and 10ms input lag and the input will happen at the same time if you're reacting to something on the screen, but it will feel very different to the users.
The difference between a 20ms and 30ms lag - or especially between a 20ms and 40ms lag is easily visible and feelable in a blind test.
This video should show some of that:
-------
In theory the more hz, the more frames, the less time (delay) between frames. But the delay is very low even in a monitor of 60hz (if i remember correctly its like 16,6666 ms of delay between each frame).
With a typical optimized system right now, you can have about 15ms latency from everything outside of the display refresh.
A 144hz refresh makes the lag time about 15.00 - 21.94ms on the screen A 60hz refresh makes the lag time about 15.00 - 31.67ms on the screen.
The average lag is substantially higher, the peak lag is way higher and more importantly, the variance in input lag is much bigger as well. A screen refresh of 60hz can often be over half of the total peak input lag of a whole system.
So bisu did the Human Benchmark today and his score is nothing to brag about IMO in RTS games minor response or/and input lag doesnt affect gameplay unlike FPS games...
On March 27 2016 00:54 Cyro wrote: This thread is a confusing mess of people comparing display latency to display response time to human reaction times etcetcetc
I literally work with this stuff for a living and people were telling me I'm wrong. I gave up and now I just bask in the stupidity of others.
The issue is not just about monitor refresh rate. Refresh rate can be even 1000Hz. But does it really matter if it refreshes after a significant delay? In practice these flat screen high refresh rate monitors cannot perform the full refresh to the desired value of colour on fast switching scenes. Pixels are just not fast enough to switch the colour at desired refresh rate. And what we get is not the real requested color, but partially changed color on the way to the requested.
The issue is not just about monitor refresh rate. Refresh rate can be even 1000Hz. But does it really matter if it refreshes after a significant delay?
For input lag, yes. The monitor refresh time adds a delay, other stuff just adds yet more delay. Depending on the system, the refresh can be 50%+ of the lag or only a small fraction like 10% of it.
That video does not seem to have an issue with display lag; what's highlighted is the motion blur on the LCD. That kind of blur happens even with near-instant pixel switching because of the sample-and-hold effect described here - http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/oled-motion-blur/
That effect is the difference between this:
and this:
on a fast moving object, even on the same monitor with the same pixel transition times. It shows up differently depending on how the camera is set up - cameras act quite differently to human eyes, and these two images were taken with a pursuit camera^ aimed to simulate human eye tracking. Either way, you can see that something is screwy with the motion performance in your video.
First generation LCD's were pretty awful for pixel change times, but we've gotten to the point where they are of little relevance on the fastest monitors compared to motion-ruining effects like sample+hold.
CRT is in the ~1ms region. Half a millisecond isn't very noticable in practice, but motion blur increasing by a factor of 15 is painfully obvious.
On March 23 2016 04:01 WinterViewbot420 wrote: My whole thing right now is that the game (excluding mouse) renders in 24 frames per second on Fastest speed and the mouse renders in 60 frames per second, so all this talk is almost useless. Not only that, but this isn't a game that requires much visual comprehension aside from cloaked units or bunches of stacked flying units, which comes down to the visual quality of the monitor.
This is a game where these discussions are important:
isn't this more like a game that is playable without a monitor as you can just memorize the moves and the rythm.
Please tell me how in the name Aiur a human is supposed to memorize over three thousand key presses on seven different lanes, all timed by the millisecond.
Well at least in the posted vid there are long part following a pattern, so you don't actually have to memorize each three thousand individual key presses.
How can a musician play an instrument without notes?
Piste, I watched the entire video with my mouth wide open. It was very impressive.
And yes I am a musician who can play my instruments without notes. It's a different thing. For starters, in an instrument like a piano, each key sounds the same, whereas in the game there's no such thing, so the same type of memorisation is not possible.
Since this conversation goes to anywhere, I'll be keeping to use another program to make my game response time faster... Take a look at this and compare to Flash's FPVOD's game response time.
The answer is that the delay to move a unit left vs right is practically the same on CRT and a decent LCD, but there are other significant advantages for CRT like the motion performance
On March 28 2016 20:46 LaStScan wrote: Since this conversation goes to anywhere, I'll be keeping to use another program to make my game response time faster... Take a look at this and compare to Flash's FPVOD's game response time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlbKyloOQLc
On March 28 2016 20:46 LaStScan wrote: Since this conversation goes to anywhere, I'll be keeping to use another program to make my game response time faster... Take a look at this and compare to Flash's FPVOD's game response time.
Yeah that looks like nothing short of hacking the engine to make it consider your moves in earlier simulation ticks. For more info on how some RTS engines (i think BW's included) work, read this: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131503/1500_archers_on_a_288_network_.php . This applies to Starcraft 2 as well. For SC2, one turn is about 50 milliseconds (~20-22 "turns" per second)
Their comments of a quarter to half second of lag not being noticed are quite amusing, but they're talking about more average users. Today in SC2 and i assume brood war with settings that multiplayer is played on, the actual delay is more around 100 milliseconds i think.
Pluses: - The lowest input lag (0.7-3ms) - 1ms response time - 144hz
Minuses: - TN matrix - High price
2. ASUS MX239H. The best choice if need monitor for work+gaming. This one is a compromise solution. Gaming characteristics a bit worse, but most of gamers won't see the difference between them.
Pluses: - AH-IPS matrix - Good price
"Minuses": - 10 ms input lag, which is also low, very good value - 5ms response time - 60hz
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UaUWEL4.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IZzu4mf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9BYDdJb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZMUTaBJ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/CxpL6Rb.jpg)
) monitor can get that down to 20ms or so.
![[image loading]](http://www.blurbusters.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CROPPED_60Hz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.blurbusters.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CROPPED_120Hz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.blurbusters.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/motion-blur-graph.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XDPiL5m.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.blurbusters.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/CROPPED_LightBoost50.jpg)
