I have some questions for Jim.
---Who makes MVA panels?---
Is mva a technology for which fujitsu holds the patent license to? Are companies that wish to use mva required to pay a fee to use this technology or is fujitsu the sole manufacturer of mva panels. In other words, if one buys a viewsonic, cornerstone, and planar (all mva based) LCD, will each panel be manufactured by fujitsu or by those respective companies? Maybe you can't comment on other companies methods but can you tell us whether cornerstone purchases mva panels from fujitsu or do they manufacture them in house?
---How is response time measured?---
Next, even if response time is reported with different methods (i.e. typical vs minimal vs maximum) and (combined vs rise vs fall) is there at least a standard for how response times are measured? Does everyone use the same method and equipment for performing these measurements? What exactly is measured? Is it the time from black to white and white to black? This method would be very inefective for determining gaming performance which is mostly more subtle color changes. Incidentaly, it is these subtle color changes that my mva based LCD has so much trouble with. For instance, black to white and white to black transitions really don't look bad compared to going from dark red to grey. Assuming that black/white and white/black transition times are used to calculate a response time specification, this could help explain why measured/reported response times seem to have little bearing on actual gaming performance. I certainly don't claim to know if this is in fact how response times are measured but it is at the very least a logical hypothesis.
---What parts of the LCD are responsible for good/bad response times?---
For my next question, please assume that all other variables that may or may not influence response time besides the ones I am asking about are exactly the same. Is the response time determined only by the panel used or can the same panel have different response times based on what electronic components are used in the finished unit? For example, let us suppose that fujitsu is the sole manufacturer of mva panels, does every fujitsu mva panel have the exact same rating for response time or will that vary from unit to unit depending on what other electronics are used? I just re-read Jim's post regarding mva and will quote him below:
"Any number of factors including the following, temperature, video card, video card driver, video electronics inside the monitor, refresh rate, FPS rate, pixel response rate, video cables, contrast / brightness settings, gamma settings, etc. etc. etc. all can cause ghosting."
Correct me if I'm wrong here but "pixel response rate" seems to be the orange in that list of apples. It seems to me that all the other items listed would be causes of a low/high pixel response time which would be exhibited as ghosting. Am I looking at this wrong? Is pixel response time perhaps measured on the panel before the LCD is assembled as a unit (I'm not sure how that would work)? If not, I don't think it would be practical to seperate "electronics inside the monitor" and "pixel response rate" as seperate causes of ghosting as stated. Wouldn't pixel response rate (and associated ghosting or lack there of) be more of a function of the panel and electronics in use?
If response time is indeed based on a combination of the panel and other electronics used (disregarding all possible external causes of ghosting), this is encouraging because it indicates that it would be possible to produce an LCD based on mva that has minimal ghosting as compared to the rad-5. I site the rad-5 as an example because I have seen and compared it to the pv150.
---Pixel response rating does not always correspond to the level of ghosting!---
I was glancing through Tom's Hardware's LCD comparison guide again and noticed something I had missed before. Below, I have pasted the text from the article:
"This makes us wonder what measurement methods the manufacturers used and whether the specifications are accurate. For example, some manufacturers will provide an average response time, while others provide a maximum value and yet others only list the minimum time. However, manufacturers who specify how they determine response times are few and far between. This makes it particularly difficult to compare monitors, since the measurements were obtained by using different approaches. Ideally, all manufacturers would give the maximum response time when the monitor is being pushed to its limits. After all, even if two monitors are supposed to have an average response time of 30 ms, the afterglow will most probably differ radically. If we take a look at the come-up time, say 15 ms, will that be the average value from (10 + 20)/2=15, or from (5 + 25)/2=15? In the second instance, the monitor might require up to 25 ms to change a color and evidence a longer afterglow, despite having the same specifications."
AND:
"When the monitor was launched in the first half of 2001, its specs placed it among the upper echelons of displays. At that time, its most attractive features were a contrast ratio of 350:1 and a response time of 40 ms.
By the end of this year, however, new monitors are likely to surpass the Belinea, at least on paper. Unfortunately, though, most of these newcomers will consist of a press release only, nothing more. The 10 15 35 remains one of the best TN + film monitors available today. Its main strength continues to be its response time, which is astonishing when you consider that some displays claim to have a response time of 25 ms (come-up and come-down). In fact, the Belinea has the shortest and least noticeable afterglow of all."
Here are links to the specific pages on which the above quotes appear:
http://www4.tomshardware.com/display/02q1/020114/lcd-16.html
http://www4.tomshardware.com/display/02q1/020114/lcd-12.html
This information seems to indicate that reported response times are not the end all specification for determining the amount of afterglow/ghosting. It certainly corresponds with my own experience with the pv150 and rad-5. Both are rated at a total typical response time of 25ms. In actuality the pv150 (an mva panel) was MUCH worse than the rad-5 (not mva). Please note that I tested these two monitors immediately one after the other on the exact same pc with the exact same scene of the exact same game. So, please do not tell me that any variables other than the LCD unit itself and the components/panel used in them are responsible for the severe difference in ghosting/blurring/afterglow.
I have already indicated in a previous post that the pv150 looks better in almost every aspect than the rad-5 EXCEPT ghosting, so I am certainly not biased against mva. I would love to see an mva panel with the image quality of the pv150 and the minimal ghosting of the rad-5.
Quote by Jim Witkowski in reference to ghosting:
"In the case of MVA we know it cannot be pixel response time because MVA panels are very fast at 25MS compared to many other panels."
I challenge the validity of this statement due to my belief that 25ms on one panel can look very different than 25ms on another panel.
---Notes---
*Edit* This post seems to have become a work in progress for me so it may have changed quite a bit from the first time you read it. Sorry for any confusion this may cause, I am trying to consolidate my questions/comments/opinions about this topic into one coherent whole instead of scattered pieces here and there. I have now even added section headings, lol. I hope to be done with this post some time tonight. Thanks for your patience.
P.S. Is there a way to change the size of the post editing box? I can only display 5 lines at a time. I could use an external text editor, but that might be more hassle than it is worth.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eviscerate on 02/13/02 11:17 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram