24" Monitor 120hz and 1920x1200

[mdouglas10]

Damn it, I want a 1920x1200 24" monitor. Not the new 16/9 ****
I couldn't care less about 3D. But these 120Hz monitors are perfect for blur and ghosting-less gameplay. We're talking close to CRT performance.

My current 24" monitor is killing me... everything looks so pristine when static... when things start moving all I see are color smudges. (exaggeration, but still). I didn't buy a high end PC for this crap.

But there's no way I'm downgrading from 1200 vertical resolution to 1080. (say goodbye to older 1600x1200 games, say hello to even larger vertical black bars in 4:3 content). Most movies are still wider than 16/9 anyway, the horizontal black bars won't go away with the new monitors.

Give me 16/10 24" 120Hz LCD!
I just hope 1920x1080 isn't the max a dual DVI can take at 120Hz... I'll wait for display port then.

You're still going to see motion blur with motion blur with 120 hz. Combine 120hz with 2ms response time and you have just about 600 lines of motion resolution from that 1080. 60hz manages about 200-300, 240hz manages up to 900, and CRT/Plasma can provide full 1080+ motion resolution. So while it is 2-3 times better in that area, it is still nowhere near crt/plasma levels.

BTW, I would go with the viewsonic, as it is the only one to combine edge lit led with 120hz!

 

[Transsive]

I heard the Viewsonic has bad backlight bleeding.
I'm not sure what you're talking about when you refer to lines of motion.

The problem with LCDs and motion blur is due to the screen's pixel persistence.
Say we have a white background and a black box moving horizontally. Once the object has moved out of an area those pixels should turn back to white. But they don't, it takes 1-3 frames for this to happen, leaving behind a trail of fading black.

120Hz should look better because the pixel persistence has been reduced, and also the distance between frames is now 50% smaller. So even if you have residual frames behind the object the trail will be much smaller.

While the pictures above are fabricated I can tell the first one is a rather good representation of movement looks on my screen (a 2ms screen mind you). I'm expecting 120Hz to look closer to CRT quality.

My screen has 1 residual frame and the 24" Acer has 0.15 residual frames.
Here's a review on the Acer
http://www.digitalversus.com/article-357-7352-38.html

 

[ZenGeekDad]

I've seen this in a store, a few times. It looks very good. Clean, sharp, and the 3D effect feels very natural. The glasses are comfortable. And with the (RF?) emitter, there is no cord to mind. The emitter config I used had no problems at all with syncing correctly -- that is, no ghosting or bleed-over across frames meant for the other eye.

I also saw no other artifacts of pushing frame rate so high. No motion-blur / motion-ghosting.

I couldn't really assess the brightness, since the game in demo is darkish normally (some combat game), but nothing said to me "Hey! Wasn't this game brighter last time I saw it? (in store)" ... so, perhaps they got this right too.

I've seen a different 3D technology demo'd in the same store -- I'll omit the brand name here -- but if you've seen it, and thought "Is that the best they can do?" (I did), well, this Nvidia gig is completely different. This 3D is flawless.

I want it. But I don't want to give up my 1920x1080 just yet. It's frustrating. Nvidia really got the 3D dead right. It's stunning. I just hope enough of people buy this to keep the product line afloat until Samsung or whoever comes out with a 24" 1920x1200 monitor at 120Hz (certified for Nvidia 3D).

7-2-2010 Update:

I later bought this very Samsung 2233RZ 120 Hz 3D-ready monitor, and the Nvidia shutter glasses + emitter. The monitor image is very nice looking; the best I bought then-to-date in a year long oddessy to find the best monitor under $1000. But the sacrifice is only 22" and only 1680 x 1050 resolution.

But here is the 3D scoop: for my money, the 3D is "SO CLOSE," but not 100% there yet. That was last October (2009). Maybe by now they have the major kinks worked out. The most damning one for me was the ghosting. Forget my earlier comments based solely on playing demos in a store. After 3 weeks of home use, I returned the monitor and glasses.

Any dark character moving against a light background (and visa versa) has very visible ghosting. Distractingly-so. For regular environments you can talk yourself into not seeing it, though. The 3D is otherwise very good, and my system had no trouble keeping up. This is probably helped by the reduced pixel count, compared to 1980x1080. I REALLY liked the improved awareness I felt of the physical terrain in my gaming. Whenever they get this 3D right, I will buy in again for that alone (budget allowing).

There is also a bit of a brightness issue. The technology works by blocking half the light from your screen to each eye. For someone like me who still looks at his keyboard often, that was a real problem: to see the screen as normally bright, you have to darken your room, so your eyes adjust to that. By itself, that's workable, ... but it makes the keyboard, in contrast, nearly invisible through the shutter glasses. I tried various little LED spot lights without finding anything I felt resolved the problem. (A backlit keyboard should work, but I am really fond of the ergonomic keyboard I have.)

So I gave up on 3D (for now) and bought a Samsung 32" LED TV as a monitor. I'd seen them in stores, and the picture was the most stunning I'd then seen; clearly better even than the 2233RZ. (I haven't checked out the new Aquos, so can't compare them.) I've used it as my monitor since (eight months), and been quite happy with it. The colors are great. Lots of image adjustments, and it remembers them independently for for multiple inputs, and for each of four adjustable presets, accessible via the remote. Tons of input jacks (HDMI, DVI, etc.). The speakers are at best fair, but no one should buy any TV today for its built-in speakers, at least not for your main media system.

 

[Probound]

Damn it, I want a 1920x1200 24" monitor. Not the new 16/9 ****
I couldn't care less about 3D. But these 120Hz monitors are perfect for blur and ghosting-less gameplay. We're talking close to CRT performance.

My current 24" monitor is killing me... everything looks so pristine when static... when things start moving all I see are color smudges. (exaggeration, but still). I didn't buy a high end PC for this crap.

But there's no way I'm downgrading from 1200 vertical resolution to 1080. (say goodbye to older 1600x1200 games, say hello to even larger vertical black bars in 4:3 content). Most movies are still wider than 16/9 anyway, the horizontal black bars won't go away with the new monitors.

Give me 16/10 24" 120Hz LCD!
I just hope 1920x1080 isn't the max a dual DVI can take at 120Hz... I'll wait for display port then.

Dude I am in the SAME exact bout as you are haha. I have been looking for a 1920x1200, 16:10, 24"-26", 120Hz, and HDMI. I ended up buying an ASUS 1920x1200 with HDMI but the colors are just lame compared to my M17x R1 samsung screen.

I just hope that I can find a monitor that has all that Im looking for though it seem there is a very short supply of companies that are making Gaming Monitors with what we rally want as consumers!!!

 

[mergatroid]

120Hz tech for HDTV differs from that of PC monitors.

120Hz mode on a HDTV during gaming will increase input lag. What the internal electronics basically does is create interpolated frames that are inserted in between the actual frames received to improve image quality and smoothness. It takes a little bit of time to create an interpolated frame, thus input lag is induced.

Therefore, when looking for a 120Hz or 240Hz HDTV that you want to game on make sure you can manually switch it back to 60Hz to reduce input lag.

Interesting take. Do you know the difference between an LCD monitor and an LCD TV? The tuner. That's it. All the tech that goes into high end TVs could easily be transferred into an LCD monitor, including the increased refresh rate.

Increased refresh rates were introduced to try and alleviate motion blur. They had been using a combination of faster pixel response and increased refresh rate. Now they are also being used for 3D, allowing a 120Hz monitor to produce two images at 60 Hz each. I don't know why they have not introduced 120Hz to more computer monitors, since motion blur can be just as annoying in gaming as it is in movies or sports. Perhaps they figure most people would not be willing to pay for better motion technology in a computer display. Personally, I would rather have 3D on my PC than my TV.

The amount of time it takes to produce "tweens" is pretty much negligible. They are only drawing the frames faster in order to input more frames in the same amount of time. They are not increasing the overall time for a complete frame and so there can be no delay caused by 120Hz. There are plenty of LCD TVs out there that had lag issues long before 120Hz technology was introduced. I would not expect a computer monitor to suffer from this issue, especially considering they are made for gaming (in this case, specifically 3D gaming). A computer monitor that suffers from lag issues would be useless to a gamer, and therefor 3D gaming would be a bust.

Please also note that the PS3 supports 3D gaming and that in order to get 3D you require a 120Hz plus LCD TV. I highly doubt they would be selling the 3D gaming aspect of an LCD TV/PS3 combo if input lag was an issue.

 

[mergatroid]

But there's no way I'm downgrading from 1200 vertical resolution to 1080. (say goodbye to older 1600x1200 games, say hello to even larger vertical black bars in 4:3 content). Most movies are still wider than 16/9 anyway, the horizontal black bars won't go away with the new monitors.

Give me 16/10 24" 120Hz LCD!
I just hope 1920x1080 isn't the max a dual DVI can take at 120Hz... I'll wait for display port then.

That's the same thing people said when widescreen monitors came out. I swore I would never purchase one, but 4:3 monitors got so hard to find eventually I bought a couple of widescreen units. I use a 23" Samsung 16 x 9 monitor that does 2048 x 1152. I love this monitor and would not trade it for a 16 x 10, 1920 x 1200.

Of course, my monitor is the exception. I bought it so I could display a 1080p movie in a window. I bought the 16 x 9 so that, if I put the video into full screen mode I would not get any uneven stretching or distortion of the video since the aspect ratio is the same. At full screen the video is not 1:1 with the pixels on the screen, but you really can't tell by looking at it. Why purchase a monitor for your awesome updated gaming rig based on software that's old? Why keep your gaming rig updated but not your display?

The other thing is that all the games I play on my PC now pretty much support any resolution your monitor will display. Most of the games will run in 2048 x 1152, and they look awesome.

On older games, which I no longer play much, I just allow the system to stretch the video to fit the display. Since these are older games, the graphics are not pristine anyway and a little stretching is not going to bother me. There are no black bars involved at all. Even an older copy of Serious Sam II (we have three computers all with SSII installed) runs in 2048 x 1152. Any game that's strictly 4 x 3 is pretty old and likely wouldn't interest me in playing it anyway. Having said that however, I do play Mech Warrior 4 running (I think) 1280 x 1024, and it looks fine stretched. I don't notice the distortion at all.

Unfortunately if you are running an XBox, it may max out at 1080P. However, since the XBox is designed with 16 x 9 in mind, a 16 x 9 monitor with the Xbox running at 1080p would be perfect for it.

Note, one of my roommates has an Acer 26" LCD monitor that does 1920 x 1200. Sure, it has a few more vertical pixels than I do, and I have a few more horizontal. Overall the difference is not enough to take note of. I would be happy with a 24" to 27" monitor running 1920 x 1080 with an aspect ratio of 16 x 9. I would prefer that over a 16 x 10 any day just for the distortion free 1080p video.

 

[mergatroid]

7-2-2010 Update:


But here is the 3D scoop: for my money, the 3D is "SO CLOSE," but not 100% there yet. That was last October (2009). Maybe by now they have the major kinks worked out. The most damning one for me was the ghosting. Forget my earlier comments based solely on playing demos in a store. After 3 weeks of home use, I returned the monitor and glasses.

Any dark character moving against a light background (and visa versa) has very visible ghosting. Distractingly-so. For regular environments you can talk yourself into not seeing it, though. The 3D is otherwise very good, and my system had no trouble keeping up. This is probably helped by the reduced pixel count, compared to 1980x1080. I REALLY liked the improved awareness I felt of the physical terrain in my gaming. Whenever they get this 3D right, I will buy in again for that alone (budget allowing).

Thanks for that. I had been considering 3D for my PC. After reading your experience I think I'll wait for a while too.

 

[DarkUltra]

That's the same thing people said when widescreen monitors came out. I swore I would never purchase one, but 4:3 monitors got so hard to find eventually I bought a couple of widescreen units. I use a 23" Samsung 16 x 9 monitor that does 2048 x 1152. I love this monitor and would not trade it for a 16 x 10, 1920 x 1200.

Note, one of my roommates has an Acer 26" LCD monitor that does 1920 x 1200. Sure, it has a few more vertical pixels than I do, and I have a few more horizontal. Overall the difference is not enough to take note of. I would be happy with a 24" to 27" monitor running 1920 x 1080 with an aspect ratio of 16 x 9. I would prefer that over a 16 x 10 any day just for the distortion free 1080p video.

I must disagree. We have 16:9 monitors at work, and they are simply too wide for computer use. Maybe apps will be more "16:9" optimized in the future, but today, and ability to play older games at a exactly doubled resolution of 800x600 (600x2=1200), and rts games I prefer the 16:10 my dad have at home.

I myself have a 22" lacie crt today. If a good 24" 1920x1200 @ 120hz does not come out soon, I might go for an Acer GD245HQ:

- As you might know, we prefer to examine the responsivess of a monitor by counting the number of frames of ghosting, those traces that take too long to disappear and end up on top of images that are currently on show, rather than in milliseconds. That's because you can't really compare figures for response time from one display technology to another. Even on two typical 2 ms TN monitors, the results aren't identical.And as we hoped, the GD245HQ did better than all of them:
[0.15 colour frame, 0.15 transparent frames]
Even more surprisingly, it also beats the two 120 Hz that are already available. The gap isn't huge, with just half a frame less of ghosting in each case, but it's enough to displace the VX2268wm from the podium, which itself had lead the 2233rz by a similar margin. The icing on the cake is that the input lag is on average only a single frame: taken together, these two scores make this monitor any gamer's new best friend.
http://www.digitalversus.com/acer-gd245hq-p357_7352_38.html


Also, if the motion is faster then 60 pixels per second, or is variable, it is much better with more Hz I think. Then the frames can "hit" a screen refresh twice as close, and you get less judder in variable fps (which applies to both pcs and consoles today). So i'd say 120hz is the future. We just need more HDMI bandwidth

 

[Mousemonkey]

This topic has been closed by Mousemonkey