| Author |
Message |
Lars-Erik Østerud
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 7:21 pm Post subject:
Re: DVI vs VGA |
|
|
Phil Weldon:
| Quote: | You bring what is called an anecdote, a story of one experience by one
person with one set of equipment.
|
Well well, I have several types of LCD at work, same experience.
LCD is great for still images and Office work, terrible for movement
--
Lars-Erik - http://home.chello.no/~larse/ - ICQ 7297605 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Andrew
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 7:22 pm Post subject:
Re: DVI vs VGA |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:20:07 +0100, Lars-Erik Østerud <.@.> wrote:
| Quote: | Yep, 50hz (or is it 60), to low anyway. But that why it's real strange
that using analog input and higher refresh makes movement smoother. It
shouldn't as the display is locked to 50/60hz anyway. So why does it?
|
Mine is 75hz which isn't "to low".
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lars-Erik Østerud
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 7:23 pm Post subject:
Re: DVI vs VGA |
|
|
Benjamin Gawert:
| Quote: | Strange this is that using analog it looked much smoother. If that is
a illution it doesn't matter. It look smoother and is easier to play.
You probably have vsync turned on so the fps is limited by the refresh
rate. Turn it off in the gfx drivers...
|
And get image tearing instead (that looks even more terrible)?
| Quote: | Simply because LCDs don't flicker, and higher refresh rates don't make
sense....
|
Stop kiddin. The refresh affects how many frames is updated each
second. Games don't have motion blur (like movies). So with 50hz you
only can display 50 images pr sec. If you move fast or turn in a game
that will look stuttering (if you look at a detail it will jump
between each frame). An LCD can't smooth out this (ok, I know some TVs
too, Philips have something called "natural motion" or something to
fill in frames between the 50 ones making 100).
--
Lars-Erik - http://home.chello.no/~larse/ - ICQ 7297605 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 7:27 pm Post subject:
Re: DVI vs VGA |
|
|
On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 14:23:50 +0100, Lars-Erik Østerud <.@.> wrote:
| Quote: | Stop kiddin. The refresh affects how many frames is updated each
second. Games don't have motion blur (like movies). So with 50hz you
only can display 50 images pr sec. If you move fast or turn in a game
that will look stuttering (if you look at a detail it will jump
between each frame). An LCD can't smooth out this (ok, I know some TVs
too, Philips have something called "natural motion" or something to
fill in frames between the 50 ones making 100).
|
You are completely confusing TV's, CRT's and LCD's and making up
wildly inaccurate generalisation's as you go along which isn't helping
yourself or anyone else. It is a case of a little bit of knowledge
being a dangerous thing.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lars-Erik Østerud
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 7:33 pm Post subject:
Re: DVI vs VGA |
|
|
Andrew:
| Quote: | You are completely confusing TV's, CRT's and LCD's and making up
wildly inaccurate generalisation's as you go along which isn't helping
yourself or anyone else. It is a case of a little bit of knowledge
|
I know how it looks. I can stand in the middle of a room in a game and
turn round. On a 75hz CRT the motion is smooooooth (no "jumping"), on
an LCD with 85hz and analog input, it jumps some (but the most
annoyance is the "afterglow" on red colors), with an LCD using digital
input (and native refresh 50 or 60 hz), the "jumps" are HUGE, and
turning round looks terrible. If you don't belive me try it.
And yes, I have VSYNC on. If not the image tearing would be HUGE (if
you then turn around fast some parts of the screen will move at
different times, making vertical lines "break" (look terrible).
--
Lars-Erik - http://home.chello.no/~larse/ - ICQ 7297605 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scotter
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 8:35 pm Post subject:
Re: DVI vs VGA |
|
|
Did you all forget "Response Time" measured in milliseconds?
What little I know on this topic:
There are quite a few factors influencing how smooth a game will play on
various monitors:
- Your computer's firepower (cpu, bandwidth, ram, video card, etc.)
(we'll assume this factor has not changed when you switched from CRT to LCD
or from LCD-dvi to LCD-vga)
- Monitor resolution
- Monitor refresh rate
and a factor, maybe the most important, something I see not mentioned by you
all:
- Monitor Response Time
I remember reading an article in PC Gamer magazine a few months back that
raved about a certain new 24" Flat Panel LCD by Dell because, for being an
LCD and that large, it had a great "response time" of 12 ms. Apparently
LCD's usually have lousy response times. I'm starting to hear about more and
more LCDs coming out with faster response times. BTW, in native resolution,
my monitors will go no higher than 60 MHz refresh rate.
For the record, I play mostly fast-paced first person type games like Unreal
Tournament and Planetside on this massive 24" wide-aspect Flat Panel LCD and
I get NO ghosting EVER. I have two of these monitors side-by-side, by the
way. Not sure if that second one drains firepower or not but I would assume
it does. Although, that part is irrelevant to this particular thread, I
think.
--
Scotter
Opteron 250
2 gig Corsair XMS RAM
BFG 6800 GT OC w/nvSilencer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Benjamin Gawert
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:46 pm Post subject:
Re: DVI vs VGA |
|
|
Lars-Erik Østerud wrote:
| Quote: | Simply because LCDs don't flicker, and higher refresh rates don't make
sense....
Stop kiddin. The refresh affects how many frames is updated each
second. Games don't have motion blur (like movies). So with 50hz you
only can display 50 images pr sec. If you move fast or turn in a game
that will look stuttering (if you look at a detail it will jump
between each frame). An LCD can't smooth out this (ok, I know some TVs
too, Philips have something called "natural motion" or something to
fill in frames between the 50 ones making 100).
|
Seems your brain is confusing a few things, maybe you should read a bit
first:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refresh_rate>
<http://www.pcguide.com/ref/video/modesRefresh-c.html>
"Note: Do not confuse the refresh rate with the term "frame rate", often
used for games. The frame rate of a program refers to how many times per
second the graphics engine can calculate a new image and put it into the
video memory. The refresh rate is how often the contents of video memory
are sent to the monitor. Frame rate is much more a function of the type
of software being used and how well it works with the acceleration
capabilities of the video card. It has nothing at all to do with the
monitor."
This is also worth to read:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate>
And here you can find some informations how LCDs work and why they don't
really flicker:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCD>
You will experience motion blurr effects on LCDs which have a very slow
response time. Most modern displays are quite good, though, with a very
good response time avoiding such effects in games...
TV is a totally different story as it uses odd resolutions, interlaced
pictures and also in case of NTSC a very odd color scheme. All of that
has nothing to do with signals you usually find on computers these days...
Benjamin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Inglo
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:50 pm Post subject:
Re: DVI vs VGA |
|
|
On 11/11/2005 5:20 AM Lars-Erik Østerud brightened our day with:
| Quote: | Joe Mama:
Do LCDs have a *native* refresh rate? Never owned one, but I know CRTs
don't.
Yep, 50hz (or is it 60), to low anyway. But that why it's real strange
that using analog input and higher refresh makes movement smoother. It
shouldn't as the display is locked to 50/60hz anyway. So why does it?
Is it that the frames in between each 50 hz (almost 2) gets displayed
partly on top of each other, making the eye think it's smoother?
Just FYI LCDs don't refresh like analog monitors do. If you have a big |
solid red picture on your screen it doesn't redraw 60 times a second, it
just stays red. The millions of TFTs that make up your screen are
either turned on to one color or another. The response time measured in
milliseconds is how fast those TFTs can change color.
If you're having problems with smoothness, turn on VSync.
--
Steve €»Inglo«€
www.inglostadt.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lars-Erik Østerud
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:21 am Post subject:
Re: DVI vs VGA |
|
|
Inglo:
| Quote: | Just FYI LCDs don't refresh like analog monitors do. If you have a big
solid red picture on your screen it doesn't redraw 60 times a second, it
|
But moving parts will change anyway, and it's in the moving parts the
smootness is bad :-/ LCD needs better pixel on/off times, and higher
refresh rates the DVI (if it is locked to 60hz it can not update
anything more often, and that gives less smoothness compared to 85)
| Quote: | If you're having problems with smoothness, turn on VSync.
|
The you will get stuttering as that will lock to max 60 frames/sec
(visible when turning fast, just try in a game like Half-Life)
--
Lars-Erik - http://home.chello.no/~larse/ - ICQ 7297605 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lars-Erik Østerud
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:24 am Post subject:
Re: DVI vs VGA |
|
|
Benjamin Gawert:
| Quote: | "Note: Do not confuse the refresh rate with the term "frame rate", often
used for games. The frame rate of a program refers to how many times per
second the graphics engine can calculate a new image and put it into the
video memory. The refresh rate is how often the contents of video memory
are sent to the monitor. Frame rate is much more a function of the type
|
OK, but DVI has a refresh rate of 60. Then it doesn't matter if the
frame rate is 85. The image is only updated 60 times pr second. And if
moving fast (again :-) that will not look as smooth.
With VSYNC on the framerate can not be higher that the refresh either
With VSYNC off, you can update faster, but not the whole screen, and
that WILL give image tearing.
There is no point discussing this without trying it. I have tried it.
I know it looks bad on LCD with DVI (jerky, "jumping", not smooth).
If you still say it's not so then try and compare for yourself.
--
Lars-Erik - http://home.chello.no/~larse/ - ICQ 7297605 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Benjamin Gawert
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:38 am Post subject:
Re: DVI vs VGA |
|
|
Lars-Erik Østerud wrote:
| Quote: | OK, but DVI has a refresh rate of 60.
|
Not necessarily. Depending on the resolution and the DVI interface
(single or dual link) the refresh rate can be even lower (down to 50Hz)...
| Quote: | Then it doesn't matter if the
frame rate is 85. The image is only updated 60 times pr second. And if
moving fast (again :-) that will not look as smooth.
|
It will. Unlike TVs which use interlacing a gfx card outputs
non-interlaced signals. That means unlike TVs where you end up with 50
(or 60) half-frames (which really are just 25 or 30 frames per second) a
computer display offers real 50-60 images per second, which is far over
what the human eye and brain see as fluid motion.
| Quote: | With VSYNC on the framerate can not be higher that the refresh either
|
Right...
| Quote: | With VSYNC off, you can update faster, but not the whole screen, and
that WILL give image tearing.
|
Not necessarily. Image quality with vsync off is usually as good as with
vsync activated. But usually turning vsync off makes no sense since
already 50-60fps are more than enough to provide fluid motion. It only
gets a problem if the gfx card already reaches its rendering limits at
this fps rate and if the fps break in as soon as complexity increases.
| Quote: | There is no point discussing this without trying it. I have tried it.
I know it looks bad on LCD with DVI (jerky, "jumping", not smooth).
If you still say it's not so then try and compare for yourself.
|
Well, I do actually. I'm currently sitting in front of a Dell 2005FPW
20" widescreen TFT that replaced my Sony GDM-FW900 24" crt, and I do use
it for games (like HL2, GTASA, Far Cry, and currently FEAR and due to
the fact I missed that title when it came out also "Thief - Dark
Project"). The display is connected via DVI and gets 60Hz refresh rate.
There is no backdraw compared to the FW900 crt that I usually ran with
100-120Hz...
At work we also use TFTs for displaying motion gfx, also no problem...
Benjamin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dromiz
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 12:53 am Post subject:
Re: DVI vs VGA |
|
|
BINGO that is your problem using analog input on a LCD. I moved over to
DVI-I and that problem is gone. LCDs work best with Digital since the
faster video card is doing most of the work and not the monitor.
"Lars-Erik Østerud" <.@.> wrote in message
news:Z41df.691$zc1.65@amstwist00...
| Quote: | Andrew:
You are completely confusing TV's, CRT's and LCD's and making up
wildly inaccurate generalisation's as you go along which isn't helping
yourself or anyone else. It is a case of a little bit of knowledge
I know how it looks. I can stand in the middle of a room in a game and
turn round. On a 75hz CRT the motion is smooooooth (no "jumping"), on
an LCD with 85hz and analog input, it jumps some (but the most
annoyance is the "afterglow" on red colors), with an LCD using digital
input (and native refresh 50 or 60 hz), the "jumps" are HUGE, and
turning round looks terrible. If you don't belive me try it.
And yes, I have VSYNC on. If not the image tearing would be HUGE (if
you then turn around fast some parts of the screen will move at
different times, making vertical lines "break" (look terrible).
--
Lars-Erik - http://home.chello.no/~larse/ - ICQ 7297605 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Benjamin Gawert
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 3:22 am Post subject:
Re: DVI vs VGA |
|
|
Dromiz wrote:
| Quote: | BINGO that is your problem using analog input on a LCD. I moved over to
DVI-I and that problem is gone. LCDs work best with Digital since the
faster video card is doing most of the work and not the monitor.
|
Right, DVI is the best connection. But not because any work is done by
the gfx card instead of the monitor but simply because with DVI there is
no need for the gfx card to convert the digital signal to analog,
transmit it in analog over the cable (which is sensible to lots of
distortions) and having the monitor to convert the signal back to
digital again.
Benjamin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joe Mama
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:15 am Post subject:
Re: DVI vs VGA |
|
|
Inglo wrote:
| Quote: |
Just FYI LCDs don't refresh like analog monitors do. If you have a big
solid red picture on your screen it doesn't redraw 60 times a second, it
just stays red. The millions of TFTs that make up your screen are
either turned on to one color or another. The response time measured in
milliseconds is how fast those TFTs can change color.
If you're having problems with smoothness, turn on VSync.
|
So would the commonly-published 'response time' specs (8ms, 12ms, etc.)
be basically the native refresh expressed in a different way? Kinda
like milliseconds vs. MHz for RAM? Or am I misunderstanding? I suppose
Google is my friend... :)
Cheers,
-joe.
_________________________________________________
Two fish are in a tank.
One says to the other, "I'll man the guns, you drive." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joe Mama
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Nov 12, 2005 7:35 am Post subject:
Re: DVI vs VGA |
|
|
Benjamin Gawert wrote:>
| Quote: |
Right, DVI is the best connection. But not because any work is done by
the gfx card instead of the monitor but simply because with DVI there is
no need for the gfx card to convert the digital signal to analog,
transmit it in analog over the cable (which is sensible to lots of
distortions) and having the monitor to convert the signal back to
digital again.
Benjamin
|
That makes sense to me, due to my main frame of referance being
professional audio (excessive D/A-A/D conversion is almost always
audible), but if Wikipedia is to be believed:
"However, the use of a DVI video signal does not automatically guarantee
better image quality: a good video card RAMDAC and properly shielded
analogue VGA cable may produce the same display."
from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFT_LCD
I'd still probably use DVI over VGA if given the option though.
Cheers,
-joe.
____________________________________________________
The problem with the youth of today is that
one is no longer part of it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in