---

Originally posted by Ionik
Probably the best monitor imo.
 
* 21.5-inch Widescreen Flat Panel LCD
* 1920 x 1080 Full HD Resolution
* Ultra-Fast 2ms Response Time
* 16.7 Million Colors for Richer Images
* 80,000:1 Dynamic Contrast Ratio
* Low Input-Lag for Intense Gaming
* Tilt, Swivel and Height Adjustable Stand
 
http://www.alienware.com/accessories/gear-shop-Detail.aspx?ItemId=17567&CatId=1441
 
80,000:1 Dynamic Contrast Ratio <--- that right there is worth the money.

---

Well, since dynamc contrast is not really LCD 'physical' parameter, I would be more of worried about such high number...

Originally posted by Hoobley

I've been using one of these for a couple of years now and it's been flawless for me, I'd recommend it even though I'm sure that there are much better screens available now.

 

www.trustedreviews.com/monitors/review/2007/03/09/Samsung-SyncMaster-226BW/p1

Samsungs screens are among the best out there, however don't they support 120 hz either as the OP wants.

I had one Samsung 22" before myself, but I got a Philips 24" now instead. It is thicker but have about the same specs and I got it to a great price, you can't have a too large screen :)

Correct me if I am wrong but I think only Viewsonic makes 120hz screens right now, a friend just bought one and it is really nice.

i have the same problem with LCDs, i've been tempted to go back to my 21inch crt for a while.

its not the refresh rate that bothers you (and me), its the ms rating. all LCDs have high ms rates compaired to crts and even plasmas. it causes the "ghosting" effect thats ruining our eyes. when objects pan or move side to side they start to blur. alot of ppl dont even notice or care. but obviously some can and do:) i stopped playing fps when i got my first lcd and haven't really gone back since. i can't stand the bluring.

i can't wait for oleds, heard those should be near perfect. and i don't think lcds can improve beyond what they are b4 they become oleds. i wont buy another monitor unless its well under 1ms. like .02ms responce time:P

Get a higher quality LCD and you won't have to deal with ghosting.

Originally posted by whozthisguy

i have the same problem with LCDs, i've been tempted to go back to my 21inch crt for a while.

its not the refresh rate that bothers you (and me), its the ms rating. all LCDs have high ms rates compaired to crts and even plasmas. it causes the "ghosting" effect thats ruining our eyes. when objects pan or move side to side they start to blur. alot of ppl dont even notice or care. but obviously some can and do:) i stopped playing fps when i got my first lcd and haven't really gone back since. i can't stand the bluring.

i can't wait for oleds, heard those should be near perfect. and i don't think lcds can improve beyond what they are b4 they become oleds. i wont buy another monitor unless its well under 1ms. like .02ms responce time:P

lol dude, you live in the stone age. They haven't made an LCD that still ghosts in the last 5+ years.

---

Originally posted by whozthisguy
its the ms rating. all LCDs have high ms rates compaired to crts and even plasmas.

---

Originally posted by Defect

lol dude, you live in the stone age. They haven't made an LCD that still ghosts in the last 5+ years.

Well I was going to post in this thread this morning but I didn't.  While I wouldn't go so far as to word it like this .. I don't know what the OP was using for a monitor besides it was an Asus... how old it .. the model it was etc

I know for work (we run a business out of the house and all we do is custom textures, animations etc) I personally use two monitors.

Just to make it short, one is a Samsung 22" with a 2ms response time and the other is a Dell 23" with a 5ms response time.

From work to videos to gaming I have never had any ghosting etc on either of these monitors.  The only issue I have ever seen is taking certain videos from their native playback size and stretching them to full screen.

Videos etc in situations that natively support the full ress 1920x1080 (wide) as an example on the dell never show any issue.  This is still never ghosting tho..  when you stretch some videos you will get more of a blotchy effect but that's just due to what you did to a video that wasn't intended to be done.  video play back in games or "native" playback mode always look fine.  Not sure I explain this well but overall just take it as meaning I don't have any issue with either of these monitors.

I have seen issues on LCD's when people changed certain settings in display settings that aren't supported by LCD's...  oddly enough on some LCD's if you actually change the refresh rate in your vid settings to higher than 60hz eventually you will have issues.  I'm not sure I can explain why.. its just something i have actually seen to the point that some monitors would actually exhibit burn in of images... and that hasn't been a problem with monitors for a very long time.

However, if you think you are seeing something... that's just how its going to work for your personally.. and you are going to have to find a solution you are comfortable with.

Originally posted by Defect

Originally posted by whozthisguy

i have the same problem with LCDs, i've been tempted to go back to my 21inch crt for a while.

its not the refresh rate that bothers you (and me), its the ms rating. all LCDs have high ms rates compaired to crts and even plasmas. it causes the "ghosting" effect thats ruining our eyes. when objects pan or move side to side they start to blur. alot of ppl dont even notice or care. but obviously some can and do:) i stopped playing fps when i got my first lcd and haven't really gone back since. i can't stand the bluring.

i can't wait for oleds, heard those should be near perfect. and i don't think lcds can improve beyond what they are b4 they become oleds. i wont buy another monitor unless its well under 1ms. like .02ms responce time:P

 

lol dude, you live in the stone age. They haven't made an LCD that still ghosts in the last 5+ years.

like i said, alot of ppl dont even notice or care.

i grew up with crts, started my fps with wolfenstien3d (caveman? sure i guess. how old are you, dude? 12? proud?). i used to compete in quake tournaments. Thresh is still my hero. responce times mean alot to me.

maybe ghosting was the wrong term and i should have just stayed with blurring or said streaking maybe. try to read text as it moves side to side either in a game or while moving a window. lcds can't display a moving object without losing crispness and or detail. they kick ass with displaying stationary objects tho

whats the lowest ms time of an lcd? 4ms? 2ms? i have a syncmaster 275t, it's response time is 6ms. plasmas and crts are nearly none-existant; 0.02ms as an example.

6 or 4 or even 2ms compaired to 0.02ms, makes a difference. to some ppl atleast.

 

---

Originally posted by whozthisguy
 
like i said, alot of ppl dont even notice or care.
i grew up with crts, started my fps with wolfenstien3d (caveman? sure i guess. how old are you, dude? 12? proud?). i used to compete in quake tournaments. Thresh is still my hero. responce times mean alot to me.
maybe ghosting was the wrong term and i should have just stayed with blurring or said streaking maybe. try to read text as it moves side to side either in a game or while moving a window. lcds can't display a moving object without losing crispness and or detail. they kick ass with displaying stationary objects tho
whats the lowest ms time of an lcd? 4ms? 2ms? i have a syncmaster 275t, it's response time is 6ms. plasmas and crts are nearly none-existant; 0.02ms as an example.
6 or 4 or even 2ms compaired to 0.02ms, makes a difference. to some ppl atleast.

---

I bet you are the person who can notice the difference between 30 and 100 FPS too.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by whozthisguy
 
like i said, alot of ppl dont even notice or care.
i grew up with crts, started my fps with wolfenstien3d (caveman? sure i guess. how old are you, dude? 12? proud?). i used to compete in quake tournaments. Thresh is still my hero. responce times mean alot to me.
maybe ghosting was the wrong term and i should have just stayed with blurring or said streaking maybe. try to read text as it moves side to side either in a game or while moving a window. lcds can't display a moving object without losing crispness and or detail. they kick ass with displaying stationary objects tho
whats the lowest ms time of an lcd? 4ms? 2ms? i have a syncmaster 275t, it's response time is 6ms. plasmas and crts are nearly none-existant; 0.02ms as an example.
6 or 4 or even 2ms compaired to 0.02ms, makes a difference. to some ppl atleast.

---

 

I bet you are the person who can notice the difference between 30 and 100 FPS too.

You would have to be blind to not notice the difference between 30 and 100 fps.

Please don't tell me you believe that old "the eyes can't detect over 30 fps" trope. Because it's flat wrong.

Edit: whozthisguy, the Syncmaster 275t is a massive monitor from a few years ago. I'm willing to bet that if you got an LCD monitor today (possibly at a somewhat smaller size) you wouldn't have the issues you're having. I can read moving text quite clearly on my LCD monitor.

---

Originally posted by Tykero

You would have to be blind to not notice the difference between 30 and 100 fps.

---

It's flat truth.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Tykero

You would have to be blind to not notice the difference between 30 and 100 fps.

---

No, you would need to be some kind of cyborg to consciously register more than 24 FPS...

 

It's flat truth.

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate#How_many_frames_per_second_can_the_human_eye_see.3F

Oh hey look at that two seconds of google search proved you wrong; funny how that works.

Originally posted by Gdemami

---

Originally posted by Tykero

You would have to be blind to not notice the difference between 30 and 100 fps.

---

No, you would need to be some kind of cyborg to consciously register more than 24 FPS...

It's flat truth.

While the human brain only registers 24 frames per second, it is found that up to 60 frames a second can improve visuals because it reduces the chance of the eye catching refresh shots between the frames.
 

Despite this, if you are getting fps over 60 then you are overdoing it because the brain will not see the difference as any benefit is lost after this point.

For reference: Cartoons run at 24fps, cinema at 50fps, and television at 60fps. (some slightly different)

Originally posted by haratu

Originally posted by Gdemami

---

Originally posted by Tykero

You would have to be blind to not notice the difference between 30 and 100 fps.

---

No, you would need to be some kind of cyborg to consciously register more than 24 FPS...

It's flat truth.

While the human brain only registers 24 frames per second, it is found that up to 60 frames a second can improve visuals because it reduces the chance of the eye catching refresh shots between the frames.
 

Despite this, if you are getting fps over 60 then you are overdoing it because the brain will not see the difference as any benefit is lost after this point.

There is no functional limit on the framerate that the brain can register because neither the brain nor the eye works in frames. It is a purely technological concept.

At the very least, read the two links I posted.

Originally posted by Tykero

Originally posted by haratu

Originally posted by Gdemami

---

Originally posted by Tykero

You would have to be blind to not notice the difference between 30 and 100 fps.

---

No, you would need to be some kind of cyborg to consciously register more than 24 FPS...

It's flat truth.

While the human brain only registers 24 frames per second, it is found that up to 60 frames a second can improve visuals because it reduces the chance of the eye catching refresh shots between the frames.
 

Despite this, if you are getting fps over 60 then you are overdoing it because the brain will not see the difference as any benefit is lost after this point.

 

There is no functional limit on the framerate that the brain can register because neither the brain nor the eye works in frames. It is a purely technological concept.

 

At the very least, read the two links I posted.

the brain constructs images using multiple images from different views... it does this refresh rate of multiple images at 24 fps... this is why cartoons run at this speed, because it is simply a waste of time to make more frames.

And yes I read the links... neither more reliable than the stack of science magazines and 4 years of a bachelor of science.
 

Originally posted by haratu

Originally posted by Tykero

Originally posted by haratu

Originally posted by Gdemami

---

Originally posted by Tykero

You would have to be blind to not notice the difference between 30 and 100 fps.

---

No, you would need to be some kind of cyborg to consciously register more than 24 FPS...

It's flat truth.

While the human brain only registers 24 frames per second, it is found that up to 60 frames a second can improve visuals because it reduces the chance of the eye catching refresh shots between the frames.
 

Despite this, if you are getting fps over 60 then you are overdoing it because the brain will not see the difference as any benefit is lost after this point.

 

There is no functional limit on the framerate that the brain can register because neither the brain nor the eye works in frames. It is a purely technological concept.

 

At the very least, read the two links I posted.

the brain constructs images using multiple images from different views... it does this refresh rate of multiple images at 24 fps... this is why cartoons run at this speed, because it is simply a waste of time to make more frames.

And yes I read the links... neither more reliable than the stack of science magazines and 4 years of a bachelor of science.
 

You are simply wrong, and it's sad that you state it so confidently.

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

Edit: You do realize that part of HDTV's quality is the fact that it runs at a higher framerate?

You do realize that the frame rate that cartoons run it has everything to do with the animation standards and absolutely nothing to do with human physiology?

Please scan me some of those science magazines with the information you claim to be true.

I better go get my biology text books out and look through the thousand pages to find the mistakes... because your random internet searches must be more reliable than a university text book. 

If you read any of your searches you would find all relate to the motion blur effect to artificially trick the mind... not how many frames the brain sees

---

Originally posted by Tykero
 
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate#How_many_frames_per_second_can_the_human_eye_see.3F
 
 
Oh hey look at that two seconds of google search proved you wrong; funny how that works.

---

Also the first link is very badly written or the person is some retard because he mixes things up...

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Tykero
 
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate#How_many_frames_per_second_can_the_human_eye_see.3F
 
 
Oh hey look at that two seconds of google search proved you wrong; funny how that works.

---

Reading is good, not understanding what's written there is bad.

 

Also the first link is very badly written or the person is some retard because he mixes things up...

I understand quite well what's written there.

Perhaps you don't.

Point out what's mixed up, I'd appreciate it.

Originally posted by haratu

I better go get my biology text books out and look through the thousand pages to find the mistakes... because your random internet searches must be more reliable than a university text book. 

 

If you read any of your searches you would find all relate to the motion blur effect to artificially trick the mind... not how many frames the brain sees

 

Oh hey super you read the first few sentences. Good for you.

Now continue reading to learn why that motion blur effect is used.

Is it really this hard to comprehend that the eye and brain do not process information in frames, and, thus, are not limited to some arbitrary processing limit in regards to them?