Display Technology FAQ / Mythbuster

[Northmountain]

This thread is made of boatloads of win and pure gold. Thanks for posting Glenwing.

[Skrizzles]

About Contrast Ratio: The biggest lie used to sell tvs and monitors

 

Even if you don't bother to read the full post, know this - ALL contrast measurements are flawed, highly exaggerated and completely unregulated. There is no governing board to say precisely what is what, and as a result every manufacturer has different ways of calculating these numbers, and different scales for measuring. For this reason, comparing 20 million:1 from one brand to a 50 million:1 from another brand is absolutely pointless.

 

Contrast ratio is simply the ratio between the brightest white measurement and the darkest black measurement. A recent example of the ratio is 10,000:1 meaning there are 9,998 shades of gray between the darkest black and the brightest white that the TV will produce. One of the big problems with this ratio is that there is no standardized testing procedure by which all manufacturer's must measure and report the ratio. We have our own standardized procedure for the contrast ratio which is to measure white and black levels on an ANSI checkerboard pattern after having previously calibrated the TV to a D6500K color temperature picture setting.

 

Dynamic Contrast Ratio is a very non-dynamic specification for the fact that it has little to do with reality and everything to do with fantasy. The calculation manufacturer's use to generate wild dynamic contrast ratio measurements is anyone's guess. Our best approximation is that they (manufacturer's) derive these figures is by measuring different input signals from an isolated panel with an extremely photosensitive measuring device. The TV is turned off to measure black, while tweaking to full power and contrast settings to measure white.

 

Native contrast ratio is a narrower measurement generated also by manufacturers to denote that the ratio is confined at least to white and black measurement from the same screen at the same time from the same source. This would compare to our ANSI checkerboard pattern. However, the manufacturer may still be using the highest contrast ratio setting for the TV (even from the service menu which consumers do not have access to). Certainly the TVs are not set to a standard color temperature settings when calculating the measurement.

 

So, look at the TV or monitor you're thinking about buying, and compare it to others in the store. Pick the one that you like best, or looks best to you(YOUR EYES MATTER, not the salesperson). But leave contrast ratio out of it, as this number has had little to no meaning since its inception, other than "big numbers sell TVs."

 

Good luck, happy hunting.

[Geekazoid]

Great post mate! I hate dynamic contrast ratio figures also. What's really annoying is when the dynamic contrast ratio is listed as the native/static contrast ratio. This only confuses people more and then people like us have to explain to them, who don't realise or understand, what they've done. It's makes me kinda annoyed, to be honest. :rolleyes:

@Skrizzles

[hitardo]

Great article!

 

I am tired of explaining AMOLED is the same as OLED

[Vozella]

I'm looking to buy a monitor and this is really helpful.

Also, I'm shocked to see that people can see more than 60Hz. 

I looked it up and found this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2IF9ZPwgDM

[Glenwing]

I'm looking to buy a monitor and this is really helpful.

Also, I'm shocked to see that people can see more than 60Hz. 

I looked it up and found this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2IF9ZPwgDM

Yeah, the difference is actually quite prominent to me It probably depends on the person.

[Glenwing]

I edited number 13, the AHVA/PLS vs. IPS section to elaborate a little more since people still argue with me. Feel free to link here whenever you see someone say "that new Acer monitor isn't IPS, it's AHVA!"

Every time I read that I just hear "That's not an IPS monitor, it's AH-IPS!"  <_<

[Geekazoid]

I edited number 13, the AHVA/PLS vs. IPS section to elaborate a little more since people still argue with me. Feel free to link here whenever you see someone say "that new Acer monitor isn't IPS, it's AHVA!"

Every time I read that I just hear "That's not an IPS monitor, it's AH-IPS!" <_<

Thank you for doing that, I sure will be linking others here who say that. It frustrates me too, definitely a triple facepalm moment (but I don't do memes anymore because I find them kinda demeaning, much like LMGTFY and LMFTFY style posts).

It's also annoying when someone is looking to buy a monitor and they compare dynamic (ridiculously inflated) resolutions from one monitor to another. It's like "THEY'RE NOT REAL, IGNORE THEM!". *sigh* :rolleyes:

[-TesseracT-]

This might be a noob question, but... Would any response time that is lower than the amount of time it takes to refresh the image (60hz would be about 16.7 ms then) useless? As long as it has below that, shouldn't there be no ghosting or anything at all? The monitor can't refresh the image faster than that anyways, so why do people say that the can notice the difference between a 8ms response time monitor and a 2ms one? What am I missing? I'm aware of the fact that these numbers might not accurately represent what the monitor is actually capable of.

[Glenwing]

This might be a noob question, but... Would any response time that is lower than the amount of time it takes to refresh the image (60hz would be about 16.7 ms then) useless? As long as it has below that, shouldn't there be no ghosting or anything at all? The monitor can't refresh the image faster than that anyways, so why do people say that the can notice the difference between a 8ms response time monitor and a 2ms one? What am I missing? I'm aware of the fact that these numbers might not accurately represent what the monitor is actually capable of.

 

No, because the refresh cycle is continuous and independent of your input. It doesn't refresh 16.67ms after you press a button, it just refreshes 16.67ms after the previous refresh. If you have a monitor with 2ms of latency and you hit a button 3ms before the next refresh, then you'll only feel 3ms of latency. If you had hit the button 15ms before the next refresh you'd feel 15ms of latency. However, if you only hit the button 1ms before the next refresh, then you'll feel 17.67ms of latency because that 2ms of actual latency hasn't passed by the time the refresh comes along. You'll have to wait for the following refresh to see the effect, another 16.67ms down the line. A low refresh rate introduces a stuttery and generally laggier feeling, but the time between frames isn't the "minimum latency" or anything like that, although it does determine what the "maximum" latency is (frame time + actual latency). The latency that you feel in the end is all about how your inputs line up with the refreshes, and it will vary a lot. The lower the refresh rate the wider the variance.

 

It's also important to keep in mind the difference between response time and latency. People who "feel" the difference between an 8ms monitor and a 2ms monitor are usually feeling a difference in the latency of the monitor, which actually is not related to those two numbers, and what they are "feeling" has nothing to do with the 2ms and 8ms. The fact that one monitor happens to have a lower 2ms response time is basically a coincidence and not related to feelings of "less lag" or whatever.

 

Although let's not forget, in the majority of cases when people say they can notice a difference between 2ms and 8ms monitors it's simply because they're looking for it.

[Geekazoid]

Never seen the word "latency" so many times! ^ LOL

About 9 - 10 times.

@Glenwing

[Aphala]

I don't know about not seeing over 60Fps considering Fighter Jet pilots can see around 255 FPS even though the eye shouldn't be measured in FPS concidering it's biological

 

"I have done academic courses on cognitive neuroscience at the university of Utrecht (Netherlands). It all depends on the training a person has had. Fighter pilots have been recorded spotting 1/255th of a frame. That's right: 255 frames per second And they could give a rough estimate as to what they've seen."

 

Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1vy3qe/how_many_frames_per_second_can_the_eye_see/(Saw this a while back)

 

Good thread, many details that are over looked in most peoples "explainations"

[Glenwing]

I don't know about not seeing over 60Fps considering Fighter Jet pilots can see around 255 FPS even though the eye shouldn't be measured in FPS concidering it's biological

 

"I have done academic courses on cognitive neuroscience at the university of Utrecht (Netherlands). It all depends on the training a person has had. Fighter pilots have been recorded spotting 1/255th of a frame. That's right: 255 frames per second And they could give a rough estimate as to what they've seen."

 

Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1vy3qe/how_many_frames_per_second_can_the_eye_see/(Saw this a while back)

 

Good thread, many details that are over looked in most peoples "explainations"

 

Indeed  

[Aphala]

Indeed

Good read, I need a new monitor! one of mine is 1440x900 PnP Generic junker with enough Jack Daniels spilt on it to be declared an alcoholic 4K AWAAAY!

[Aphala]

What you could do is add links to Local suppliers in some countries such as Scan.co.uk as it's always good to get a link to some local suppliers and maybe add some brand names giving breif desicrptions like adding AOC, ASUS, Samsung and then some lesser known brands like PnP Generics?

[Geekazoid]

What you could do is add links to Local suppliers in some countries such as Scan.co.uk as it's always good to get a link to some local suppliers and maybe add some brand names giving breif desicrptions like adding AOC, ASUS, Samsung and then some lesser known brands like PnP Generics?

In the guide somewhere?

[Aphala]

In the guide somewhere?

Blind

[Geekazoid]

Blind

No, I was asking.

[Aphala]

No, I was asking.

Ahh Yeah would be nice to reference some local suppliers for several countries so people don't just need to stick with amazon (sometimes it's "meh" for deals on equipment) Scan is dam good for stuff price wise

[Geekazoid]

Ahh Yeah would be nice to reference some local suppliers for several countries so people don't just need to stick with amazon (sometimes it's "meh" for deals on equipment) Scan is dam good for stuff price wise

Ah, no worries!

[Aphala]

Ah, no worries!

I swear I replied...but yeah it's nice to get some reference point for US / UK and other country suppliers. 

[Glenwing]

I swear I replied...but yeah it's nice to get some reference point for US / UK and other country suppliers.

It's not a shopping guide

[Aphala]

It's not a shopping guide

Any chance of adding it or making another sticky? Or will I attempt to make one?

[Glenwing]

On 4/5/2015 at 0:56 PM, Aphala said:

Any chance of adding it or making another sticky? Or will I attempt to make one?

I have no plans for it, things change too fast and it's prone to personal bias.

[Aphala]

I gave no plans for it, things change too fast and it's prone to personal bias.

Okay, Keep it in mind