Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Sifter3000, 2 Jan 2010.
With a good panel.
I'd like this one reviewed, if you guys get your hands on it - it would be so damned good for home 3D to work properly, and a 24" 1080p is the way forward... http://twisted-reviews.com/acer-3d-vision-ready-24-incher-gd-245hq-coming-in-january/
You are reviewing this now?
The VX2265wm has been out for the best part of a year in America (I think it was the first nvdia 3D vision compatible LCD display). Europe at least got the updated VX2268wm last Autumn.
interested in the acer model, more interested whether there will be a glut of cheap 120 htz monitors in march
I dont mean to start a fight here, but more a constructive response, if im worng in anything pls feel free to correct me
FIRST. I dont see the point of having a 120Hz pannel if is not meant to be used for 3D Vision, as you know the human eye see at a rate of 60 Frames per Second, and 120Hz means the image is refreshed 120 times in a second. you wouldnt notice this.
SECOND. i dont know if maybe is a typo you had, but a 24'' in 1080p makes a lot of sense, since this means the pixels are closer to each other (better dot pitch) than the average 32'' 1080p screen and bigger, i mean, i know a 22'' screen would have even better dot pitch but a 24'' its still really veeery good.
depends how far away you're sat, but yes generally a finer pixel pitch is better. also means having to use less AA in a lot of cases (which is a god send at 1920x1200)
A lot depends on the physical differences between individual persons.
Just as an audiophile can tell the difference between a £500 audio sound system and a high end system costing thousands of pounds - others may have a harder time telling the difference in quality. Some people can't tell the difference between a Blu-ray movie and the same movie on a lower resolution / bitrate output DVD.
For framerates, 60 fps is generally considered the absolute minimum the 'average' person requires in order to interpret the video as 'fluid'.
Some people can require well over 200 frames per second.
The subjectivity of these things is the best bit.... http://forums.audioholics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15412&postcount=28
this and mouse lag are two things I am famous for (or not)
there IS a difference between 60 and 120hz. If you deny it, you are wrong. Plain and simple.
Allow me to explain, otherwise what kind of reply would that be
I personally can see a difference between 60 and 85hz and back in the days I could also tell if my CRT was at 85hz instead of 100hz just by moving the mouse in Windows.
However, there is a reason why everyone should be able to see a difference between 60hz and 120hz in games. That reason is called "tearing". Explanation. When your videocard gets a scene to render, it tries to render it as fast as possible, ie rendering as many frames as it can as fast as it can. This means that if the scene is simple to render, the framerate will be greater. The problem is when the framerate becomes greater than the refresh rate of the monitor, meaning that the monitor cannot display all the frames received from the video card because it just can't keep up. When that happens, some frames are cut in half (not exactly but whatever). 1 frame cut in half isn't very noticeable but when you get tons of them per second, you can see a pattern in the screen where some parts are flashing and the display seems to be cut in half.
There are two ways to get rid of tearing. The one I hate and never want to use is vsync, which synchronizes your monitor and videocard to ensure that there will not be more frames rendered than what the monitor can handle. This works perfectly to get rid of tearing but is complete **** for input devices (keyboard and mouse) because of the major, MAJOR lag it creates
The other solution is to have a monitor that displays more frames than what the videocard can render, hence the advantage of a 120hz monitor. Theoretically, tearing still exists with a 120hz because the same logic can be applied (150fps would be too much for a 120hz display) but this is where the limit of the human eye actually exists. Despite my ability to notice a difference between 85 and 100hz, I cannot really see tearing at 120hz. I can, but I have to concentrate on it rather than the game, which was the opposite with tearing at 60hz
Tearing is what makes a game unplayable in my opinion (for fast paced FPS) and it can also kill the ambiance for other games. Games like Mirror's Edge and GTAIV, whom both have lots of buildings everywhere, suffer greatly from tearing as it mostly affects vertical objects moved horizontally by the camera
Apologies if the text wasn't well worded (and if worded is not a word) or if it was too long
You're right man, i understand your point and in that perspective a 120Hz pannel makes lots of sense, even more for us the gamers. thnx for your reply.
I guess your right, even expending good amount of hours in gaming (like most of us do) can improve the eyesight of the person (like improved contrast between similar colors, etc...).
I gotta say that i havent try any framerate higher than 75Hz (actually because my Display cant go higher than 75), so i cant honestly say if a could tell the diference between 60Hz or 120 Hz.
Thnx guys for your reply
I have my doubts about improving your eyesight. I think it's like your hearing, if you damage it, it'll never get good again
(it's just my perception of things, not a fact)
that might explain how I kept my vision decent for so long then ... It kept getting worse and worse the last few years and coincidentally I was also playing less
I now have glasses and just can't do anything without them
Ghys has been a bit of a legend in this thread, he's doing that dance right now
I can tell the difference. on my old CRT I never gamed at less that 100hz so I had perfect motion blend. I can't wait for a decent LCD screen to arrive that'll match that. 200hz 3D will be silky smooth as well.
everyone seems obsessed with 24" @ 1080p. 22" is fair enough since its an improvement over 1050 but most 24" us 1200 i would feel cheated if it was only 1080
I need a new monitor but would not consider a move back down to 1,680 x 1,050 no matter what bells and whistles the monitor may have. I won't even consider a 1920x1080 monitor cos I value extra space over not seeing black bars during movies or tv.
I need to see a review of the Acer 243HLbmii, I saw one on Scan.co.uk but havent seen a review anywhere and google searches give different specs, some say 1920x1200 others 1920x1080.
I went from 1920x1080 (24") to 1680x1050(22" in sig) and it didn't change much for me ... I never feel like I need more space or anything. Of course it might be different for you, but for me the 'speed' of the monitor is what's on the top of my list of priority. I sacrificed HDMI, speakers, 2" of diagonal, and a few other options just to get the 120hz cheesecake ... I sacrificed all that and I paid twice the price of my previous monitor but holy crap is it worth it !
I think 3D Effect will disappear if the observer sits too far or too close to the screen, or from wrong agle. This would lead to worlds of disappointment for everyone who thinks that the coming years will be era of 3D television. Too high price for too little profit
I think Nvidia shoud stop going that way. Really worry for it!!!
Please pester acer for a review of their new monitor as my experience of it is that it is the next evolution
Separate names with a comma.