LCD Blur

[isucamper]

Ok Gene.  Lets have it out.  LCDs and motion blur.  Here's our own little thread we can go crazy in and debate this without hijacking everyone else’s topics. 

You purport that 120hz LCDs do not blur.  I've actually gone back and brushed up on the subject, as I've been more distracted with the arcade building the last 8 months.  Your claims completely contradict what I've seen with my own eyes, and I wanted some facts to back up what I've witnessed. 

Here's an interesting article:

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/the-trouble-with-lcd-tvs-motion-blur-and-the-120hz-solution-290237.php

It talks about how the blur in 60hz HDTVs is not directly due to the refresh rate of the TVs (CRTs refresh at or below this rate and they have no blur) but rather because of the lack of a "strobe" frame in between the picture frames (which CRTs have inherantly) which allow your retina to pick apart the different frames easier.  I was surprised to read that, theoretically, a 120hz LCD with a true 120hz video source would actually refresh fast enough to eliminate this blur at the retina (I guess you were right about this after all).

Here's the problem, and the fact that kills your argument.  There are no true 120hz video sources right now.  Movies are 24 hz and games are somewhere between 30 hz and 60 hz.

Just because you have a 120hz TV, doesn't mean your seeing 120 unique frames.  The TVs are simply repeating frames to get to 120hz and thus, there is the same amount of jerk happening at your retina and the same amount of motion blur is present. 

There are special digital enhancements that engineers have tried to use in conjunction with the 120hz displays in an effort to reduce the motion blur.  The first effort was to introduce a strobe frame (black frame) in between the 60hz picture frames in an effort to emulate a 60 hz CRTs inherent strobe effect.  This worked to varying degrees, but it also had a vary drastic effect on the image, dimming it considerably. I have seen this personally on Sharp models from 18 months ago and I was totally underwhelmed by it.  Picture was vary dark and worst of all, it didn't even completely eliminate the blur in 60 fps video games I tried.  Most manufactures have given up on this technique because of the loss in brightness (and consequently contrast).

The second effort (which is in mainstream use today) is to use a complex algorithm to interpolate new frames in between the 60hz frames, offering a smoother picture for the eye (120 frames per second instead of just 60).  This kind of emulates a 120 hz video source as you are looking at 120 unique frames per second.  However, as you can imagine, this works to varying degrees.  In my opinion, this creates a very "etheral" (ghost like) image, that has a very unnatural smooth movement to it.  Movies shot on 24 fps film end up looking like cheap soap operas shot on 60hz video, and games look not like they should, unnaturally smooth and 3D like when they aren‘t supposed to look 3D.  Additionally, you often get crappy interpolated frames that have artifacts and other ugliness in them.  It is not an ideal solution.  I don't want my games looking like something different than what the original programmers intended. 

So, until there are true 120hz video sources for our games, LCD blur is going to be an unavoidable reality when it comes to video games (and our arcade cabinets).  It doesn't matter that you have a 120hz display.  Your display cannot invent frames (ok, it can if you turn on the motion interpolator, but it looks like crap when you do this).  I'm not sure why you can't see the blur on your displays (are you running with a motion enhancer or a motion interpolator on?), but it might just be that you aren't sensitive to it the way others are. 

[Ginsu Victim]

Do we really need another of these?

Gene....don't take the bait!

[genesim]

Ginsu if you don't like it then go away.   Don't read, don't partake.   Easy huh?

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

isucamper,

Ok first of all, yes lets hash it out.   Lets keep it civlized.   If you feel I am being unfair to you, then let me know and I will happily change it up.   We are both willing to do this and I find the debate facinating.  So lets begin:

Here's the problem, and the fact that kills your argument.  There are no true 120hz video sources right now.  Movies are 24 hz and games are somewhere between 30 hz and 60 hz.

Movies are a great example.   The fact that they are an even divisor of 120hz means that the frames are repeated 5 times.   If the display unit is doing their job then you will get incredible quality.   No frames are being "made up" they are simply being repeated.    

As for VCR quality and video games, I agree that anything that was not made for a specifice source will not look as good as say a Bluray that matches the resolution of the TV 1:1 as well as the 24p standard..but guess what..neither do CRT's.

The TVs are simply repeating frames to get to 120hz and thus, there is the same amount of jerk happening at your retina and the same amount of motion blur is present.  

Not exactly.   If a correct upscaler of the refresh rate is used like I say it is an even divisor and the frame is simply repeated.   This does not hurt picture at all and it is miles beyond a 60hz display which not only repeats the frame but does not finish drawing it.   So what do you get with an uneven divisor...one last partial frame on a CRT same as you get with an LCD except at least with an LCD you get a higher refresh rate that can compesate for the obvious tearing effect inherent on both.

But lets get down to the "blur".   While you concede that 120 hz can eliminate the effect, what about the obvious problem of phospher glow that happens on a CRT display?   To me this is also a "blurring" effect, except it actually is producing color in between the frames that was never there!

Movies shot on 24 fps film end up looking like cheap soap operas shot on 60hz video, and games look not like they should, unnaturally smooth and 3D like when they aren‘t supposed to look 3D.

I guess this is where you and I part, because having seen so many of the movies in the theator that is exactly how I remember them looking.  Smooth and absoluetly 3D.   There are no frames created.   It is just a higher refresh rate that will draw whatever is presented.

If it refreshes faster then you are going to get the frames in between drawn again...not made up frames as you put it.   Though software does alot of things and the specific examples you mention probably exist...except any real film lover TURNS THEM OFF.    Most models have the ability to do this.  

I don't want my games looking like something different than what the original programmers intended.  

I personally don't get how this is somehow a bad thing.   If we all thought like that then we would never have stuff transferred digitally.   Sure All In The Family was shot on video tape and it was never meant to be seen on my high def screen...yet the upscaler I have on my PS3 actually does an incredible job on the original source and having watch these gems when they were broadcast I don't see the problem at all.   The good ol' days weren't always so good.

So, until there are true 120hz video sources for our games, LCD blur is going to be an unavoidable reality when it comes to video games (and our arcade cabinets).  It doesn't matter that you have a 120hz display.  Your display cannot invent frames (ok, it can if you turn on the motion interpolator, but it looks like crap when you do this).  I'm not sure why you can't see the blur on your displays (are you running with a motion enhancer or a motion interpolator on?), but it might just be that you aren't sensitive to it the way others are.  

I have a big problem with this paragraph.   Phospher glow and glare and color bleeding are a much bigger problem to me then the "blur" that doesn't exist on a 120hz display.    The human eye cannot see the blur, but it can see a tear in the image. ....of course MAME has ways of changing this with Vertical sync etc.    Is it totally true to the original game...uh no, but who cares.  

Unless you go with the original display with the original equipment you are always going to have compromise.

That said, I really think you need to look into this inventing frames business.   That is like saying a 75hz CRT invents frames..no it doesn't it just simply redraws what it drew before.   That is not the same thing at all.   Its like taking a picture of a instant picture developing.    If the shutter speed is faster then the development then it will simply repeat the status again.   This does not hurt the effect, it just gives a smoother look.

I guess to each his own.   I think the supposed effect is fantastic, and yes the original analog film prints on most older movies have a 3D look.   Alot of people have forgotton just how good those films looked way back when.    Not me.   Some people actually are so used to crap quality that they will put down anything that actually displays closer to the original source.   Never understood how so many could ignore the actual shortcomings of a CRT while boasting minor differences as some kind of great advancement.

Even with the ability to have the brightest display which is obviously and advantage for vector graphics...people still refuse to even look.

You yourself said you compared a 120hz at the store???  This is so puzzling to me because the stores do not have the HDTV's even hooked up right.   I doubt very seriously that they let you hook up Asteroids and see the incredible difference.   All I can say is own one first.  Look at it for months, then come back and tell me how oh so better a CRT display is.    I know better...why..because I owned all the above and I speaking from an informed opinion from experience.

[Nemss316]

Not again!

[isucamper]

Movies are a great example.   The fact that they are an even divisor of 120hz means that the frames are repeated 5 times.   If the display unit is doing their job then you will get incredible quality.   No frames are being "made up" they are simply being repeated.   

Ah ha.  You have a misconception here.  What you are referring to here is 5:5 pulldown.  On old 60 hz displays, 24 frames per second movies would exhibit motion "judder" (not to be confused with motion blur), a jerkyness as the display tried to fit the 24 into the 60 hz refresh rate.  24 does not go evenly into 60, so some frames would get repeated more often than others, causing the film to jerk.  24 goes evenly into 120 (24*5) so in 120hz displays, you can simply repeat each frame 5 times and you get a very smooth picture.  None of this has ANYTHING to do with motion blur.  It has everything to do with motion judder.  Furthermore, this is only an effect that happens with 24 fps film, and has nothing to do with games. 

As for VCR quality and video games, I agree that anything that was not made for a specifice source will not look as good as say a Bluray that matches the resolution of the TV 1:1 as well as the 24p standard..but guess what..neither do CRT's.

I don't think I have an argument here, but I might not be understanding you completely.

The TVs are simply repeating frames to get to 120hz and thus, there is the same amount of jerk happening at your retina and the same amount of motion blur is present. 

Not exactly.   If a correct upscaler of the refresh rate is used like I say it is an even divisor and the frame is simply repeated.   This does not hurt picture at all and it is miles beyond a 60hz display which not only repeats the frame but does not finish drawing it.   So what do you get with an uneven divisor...one last partial frame on a CRT same as you get with an LCD except at least with an LCD you get a higher refresh rate that can compesate for the obvious tearing effect inherent on both.

Not sure what your talking about 60hz displays not finishing frames.  Are you still talking about 24 fps movies?  If so, we’re still talking about judder and not blur   Regardless,  video signals from game consoles and PCs are 60 hz and will divide evenly whether you are using 120hz or 60 hz and the higher refresh rate does not buy you anything.  It only affects movies, which I don't think is what we are debating here. 

But lets get down to the "blur".   While you concede that 120 hz can eliminate the effect,

Only if you are feeding it a 120hz video single... which does not exist in the consumer market yet!!!  Even if it did, today's TVs cannot actually accept a true 120hz video signal, they can only upscale 60hz and 24hz to 120hz. 

what about the obvious problem of phospher glow that happens on a CRT display?   To me this is also a "blurring" effect, except it actually is producing color in between the frames that was never there!

Back when CRTs were first invented, maybe people might have thought phosphor glow was a flaw of the display.  Now, if there isn't a phosphor trail behind my ship in Asteroids, I don't consider it to be authentic.  Is it a flaw?  Debatable.  But I do know that a nice phospher trail looks about 1000 times cooler than motion blur from an LCD.  Honestly, I don’t consider phosphor glow to be a flaw.  It’s warm, and bright, and looks damn cool to me.  Maybe I’m just nostalgic.

Movies shot on 24 fps film end up looking like cheap soap operas shot on 60hz video, and games look not like they should, unnaturally smooth and 3D like when they aren‘t supposed to look 3D.

I guess this is where you and I part, because having seen so many of the movies in the theator that is exactly how I remember them looking.  Smooth and absoluetly 3D.   There are no frames created.   It is just a higher refresh rate that will draw whatever is presented.

When you go to the theater, movies do not look unnaturally smooth and 3D.  Even if you go to a digital theater, you are getting a natural 24 frames per second.  Motion interpolators and enhancers in today's 120hz displays make movies look artificial and not how the directors intend their film to look.  If you’re watching a movie with motion enhancment on, it is not what you saw in the theater. 

If it refreshes faster then you are going to get the frames in between drawn again...not made up frames as you put it.   Though software does alot of things and the specific examples you mention probably exist...except any real film lover TURNS THEM OFF.    Most models have the ability to do this.   

Absolutely, and when you turn them off, you are back to simply repeating your frames. 

I don't want my games looking like something different than what the original programmers intended. 

I personally don't get how this is somehow a bad thing.   If we all thought like that then we would never have stuff transferred digitally.   Sure All In The Family was shot on video tape and it was never meant to be seen on my high def screen...yet the upscaler I have on my PS3 actually does an incredible job on the original source and having watch these gems when they were broadcast I don't see the problem at all.   The good ol' days weren't always so good.

Motion interpolators are creating frames that don't exist in the original film.  And sometimes, they create the frames badly.  It would be like having a machine add strokes to a Da Vinci painting based on analyzing the strokes that already exist.  I don't want a machine trying to create art… in paintings, movies, or games. 

So, until there are true 120hz video sources for our games, LCD blur is going to be an unavoidable reality when it comes to video games (and our arcade cabinets).  It doesn't matter that you have a 120hz display.  Your display cannot invent frames (ok, it can if you turn on the motion interpolator, but it looks like crap when you do this).  I'm not sure why you can't see the blur on your displays (are you running with a motion enhancer or a motion interpolator on?), but it might just be that you aren't sensitive to it the way others are. 

I have a big problem with this paragraph.   Phospher glow and glare and color bleeding are a much bigger problem to me then the "blur" that doesn't exist on a 120hz display.    The human eye cannot see the blur, but it can see a tear in the image. ....of course MAME has ways of changing this with Vertical sync etc.    Is it totally true to the original game...uh no, but who cares.   

But phosphor glow, glare and color bleeding have always existed.  If they don't happen in our MAME cabinets, the old games won't look how we remember them.  LCD blur is a new problem.  You can say you prefer it to phosphor glow, but that is incomprehensible to me.  LCD blur is about the ugliest thing I've ever seen and it kills any game experience for me.  AND YES, for the 1000th time, THE HUMAN EYE CAN SEE THE BLUR.  Even if you are using a 120hz display, you still transition from between unique frames at the same rate as a 60 hz display.  Repeating frames inbetween has no affect on this!  Your retina still sees the blur.  Absolutley it does.  This is scientific fact.  I've posted 3 articles for you on this topic and you HAVE to concede here.   I am not going to find another article to post that says the same thing. 

That said, I really think you need to look into this inventing frames business.   That is like saying a 75hz CRT invents frames..no it doesn't it just simply redraws what it drew before.   That is not the same thing at all.   Its like taking a picture of a instant picture developing.    If the shutter speed is faster then the development then it will simply repeat the status again.   This does not hurt the effect, it just gives a smoother look.

Not sure what your getting at here. 

I guess to each his own.   I think the supposed effect is fantastic, and yes the original analog film prints on most older movies have a 3D look.   Alot of people have forgotton just how good those films looked way back when.    Not me.   Some people actually are so used to crap quality that they will put down anything that actually displays closer to the original source.   Never understood how so many could ignore the actual shortcomings of a CRT while boasting minor differences as some kind of great advancement.

If you prefer the look of the motion interpolator for movies, more power to you.  I couldn't disagree more, but it's cool.  For games, even if I could live with the look, the fact remains that the extra processing it takes to interpolate the in-between frames adds a great deal to the response time of the display, an area where LCDs are still way behind to begin with.  It is simply NOT and acceptable solution for games.   But it is not meant to be used with games.  That’s why when you turn “Game Mode” on on your LCD, the motion enhancer shuts off.

You yourself said you compared a 120hz at the store???  This is so puzzling to me because the stores do not have the HDTV's even hooked up right.   I doubt very seriously that they let you hook up Asteroids and see the incredible difference.   All I can say is own one first.  Look at it for months, then come back and tell me how oh so better a CRT display is.    I know better...why..because I owned all the above and I speaking from an informed opinion from experience.

As I've stated in the past, I have done EXTENSIVE testing in store on these TVs.  I do haul in my 360, ps3 or ps2 and hook them up.  I have spent dozens of hours doing this.  I have done extensive testing on my brother's SXRD which offers the same 120hz of their LCD line, and the result is the same.  To test, I will pick a 60 frames per second  first person shooter, pick a texture on a wall, and then turn the camera.  On a CRT, the texture stays in focus.  On every 120hz LCD I've tried (without motion interpolators), I get blur, blur blur.  Same is true for side scrollers, though the effect is not nearly as pronounced because their isn't nearly as much detail in the low res sprites, but the blur IS still there.  Typically, when side scrolling, you see the picture fade, you see trails behind bright objects, and smaller objects disappear completely.  And for the record, (again, as I have already stated to you) I have done this research in an attempt to find a replacement for my 36 HD-ready Sony CRT.  Even the top of the line LCDs today (Samsung 950 series, Sony XBR8) can't cut the mustard when it comes to high frames per second gaming. 

Btw, a good way to frustrate me in this debate is to make me repeat myself. 

[BASS!]

LOL I have read all your wok mates, and at last you have finally taken the initiative to "take it outside" how about next time you want to go on a tirade a little link appears that says "lets take it outside"   

edit for html link

[genesim]

None of this has ANYTHING to do with motion blur.  It has everything to do with motion judder.  Furthermore, this is only an effect that happens with 24 fps film, and has nothing to do with games. 

Never once said it did and at no point have I ever been confused between blur and "judder".

So thanks for repeating everything I have posted many times..but lets move on.  At least we are in agreement that a 60hz display can never produce a 24p print in "judder free" form because it is an uneven divisor.   "Only for movies..." oh ok.

Furthermore, this is only an effect that happens with 24 fps film, and has nothing to do with games. 

Except for the fact that 60hz displays are only best with 60 frames per second or 30 frames per second or any other such dvisior...which of course is actually perfect for 120hz as well because again...even divisor.   I fail to see the problem here when it comes to games that are natively put out this way.    I don't agree that there is "nothing to be gained" by having a higher refresh.   Redrawing a frame can have benficial results.

Back when CRTs were first invented, maybe people might have thought phosphor glow was a flaw of the display.  Now, if there isn't a phosphor trail behind my ship in Asteroids, I don't consider it to be authentic.  Is it a flaw?  Debatable.

I don't think it is debatable at all.   The code IMHO never supported the "glow" because no monitor "glows" the same, and it certaintly doesn't glow in the same way for every pixel.   This is the nature of phospher coating and of course they do not have perfect color for each part.

  When you go to the theater, movies do not look unnaturally smooth and 3D.  Even if you go to a digital theater, you are getting a natural 24 frames per second.  Motion interpolators and enhancers in today's 120hz displays make movies look artificial and not how the directors intend their film to look.

First of all, you do agree that what is being filmed is indeed 3D right?   We do live on a 3D plane...so film prints in their finest form can give 3D elements/illuisions.   That is the quality I am referring to and that is what I am saying that you get with a 120hz display which is essentially repeating the frames.   You keep talking about this "motion enhancer" and I am not.    A real film buff turns this crap off.   Why have any of it when the frames are a perfect divisor? 

With higher resolution and higher refresh those elements are at least presented correctly when it comes to film.   Not much different concept then what goes with a 60 frames per second game.    Nothing is lost in a perfect upscale.

Motion interpolators are creating frames that don't exist in the original film.  And sometimes, they create the frames badly.  It would be like having a machine add strokes to a Da Vinci painting based on analyzing the strokes that already exist.  I don't want a machine trying to create art… in paintings, movies, or games. 

I do not talk in absolutes.   Software can do things quite well and I encourage all to watch Video tape quality transfers on DVD upscaled on a PS3 player to your HDTV.   It is amazing.

But that said this has nothing to do with the nature of a 120hz display at its raw form.    I am not arguing what a manufacturer decides to put into their displays.   

Apples and oranges.

But phosphor glow, glare and color bleeding have always existed.  If they don't happen in our MAME cabinets, the old games won't look how we remember them.

And who said the good ol days were always good?  Its like listening to scratches on records.   Are you going to tell me that people actually sang a certain way because that was the medium that they recorded on?   While I am sure that some did things to the limitations of what they had, this was not the rule as I have argued on here many many many times.   

You like glow, glare and color bleeding..cool I don't.

LCD blur is a new problem

1ms response time with 120hz display..

Nope old problem.

You can say you prefer it to phosphor glow, but that is incomprehensible to me.  LCD blur is about the ugliest thing I've ever seen and it kills any game experience for me.  AND YES, for the 1000th time, THE HUMAN EYE CAN SEE THE BLUR.  Even if you are using a 120hz display, you still transition from between unique frames at the same rate as a 60 hz display.  Repeating frames inbetween has no affect on this!  Your retina still sees the blur.  Absolutley it does.

No I never said I prefer blur to glow, I said that I prefer the "blur" that isn't there!   Read closer..I was referring to the "supposed" blur...the imaginary blur..etc.

I used to see blur on older displays and I never argued for them.   That changed the time I saw displays under 4ms response time.   NO BLUR.

Even if you are using a 120hz display, you still transition from between unique frames at the same rate as a 60 hz display. 

No you cannot.   I guess we will have to agree to disagree.   No human eye can discern the difference in any real consistent way.   Detecting is another story, and that is something that the mind conjures after having loads of data.   

But of course we are talking about something even worse.  BLUR....you think the mind can see BLUR which is basically one picture trasitioning to another?   At 120 frames per second...and in that 5 repeated frames???   I don't believe it for one second.

Not sure what your getting at here.

Ok lets me break it down better.    If you take a picture of a banana and it is developing from the "white to the yellow".     But lets say it develops fast.   Well you may blink and not see it going from white to white/yellow...yet with a higher refresh of a display showing this production..at the time of your blink the white/yellow may be repated in such a way that your mind will conjure what the in between should look like.

More data gives more accurate representation through the fault that is the human eye.   60hz in this example may not be enough.   For a film print what you get is the "judder" which may not be so bad if it game you what a 120hz  gives which is twice the refresh.    So one time you get a judder of one frame while another pass gives you a judder of another frame..but at least you get all frames at one point or another!   Get it?

If you prefer the look of the motion interpolator for movies, more power to you.  I couldn't disagree more, but it's cool.  For games, even if I could live with the look, the fact remains that the extra processing it takes to interpolate the in-between frames adds a great deal to the response time of the display, an area where LCDs are still way behind to begin with. 

I don't use motion interpolators for movies that are in proper resolution...my PS3 knows better.   As for LCD's being "way behind"..yeah way behind that they have crushed all competition and there isn't a CRT display that matches resolution or refresh rate out there.

The response time I say is good enough 1ms response is insane, and my 4ms response shows no blur to me at all.

Typically, when side scrolling, you see the picture fade, you see trails behind bright objects, and smaller objects disappear completely.  And for the record, (again, as I have already stated to you) I have done this research in an attempt to find a replacement for my 36 HD-ready Sony CRT.  Even the top of the line LCDs today (Samsung 950 series, Sony XBR8) can't cut the mustard when it comes to high frames per second gaming. 

And I don't buy this coming from a 120hz display.   I too have done extensive testing on my own frickin' machine!   I do not see this "fade" or "objects dissapearing completely" this is respectfully the biggest line of blull I have ever heard.   There isn't a 120hz display out there that makes object dissapear.     If it does, then it should be taken off the market.   You lost all credibility with that statement.    I think you need to show examples on that...even the shortcoming of my laptop display should be able to pick this out.

I play tons of computer games and I do nothing but run around in circles and I have no clue what you are talking about.    It is an insult to me who has played games for 30+ years who has seen every type of display possible accused of not "seeing the blur".   

Btw, a good way to frustrate me in this debate is to make me repeat myself.

Easy there buddy.   If you recall you have essentially quoted things that I have said to you verbatim..and of course I repeat myself because you vomit it back as if I never said it in the first place!

Patience, it is the internet and getting meaning across through text is a challenge.   If we were in a room we could hash it alot faster...or maybe not.   You sound like you lose patience quickly.

[isucamper]

Never once said it did and at no point have I ever been confused between blur and "judder".

We are arguing about blur and you bring up the benifits of displaying 24hz with 5:5 pulldown on a 120hz LCD.  This has nothing to do with blur.   Why would you even bring it up if you weren't confused? 

Furthermore, this is only an effect that happens with 24 fps film, and has nothing to do with games. 

I don't agree that there is "nothing to be gained" by having a higher refresh.   Redrawing a frame can have benficial results.

No it doesn't!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Displaying single frame for 0.0167 seconds on a 60hz TV looks EXACTLY the same as displaying the same frame twice for 0.0084 seconds on a 120hz TV.  For 60hz source material, repeating frames has absolutely NO BENEFIT if your not doing anything in between!   It looks exactly the same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   

Back when CRTs were first invented, maybe people might have thought phosphor glow was a flaw of the display.  Now, if there isn't a phosphor trail behind my ship in Asteroids, I don't consider it to be authentic.  Is it a flaw?  Debatable.

I don't think it is debatable at all. 

Absolutely it is.  I love the look of phosper trail, especially in vector games.  It adds warmth and I find it quite cool.

First of all, you do agree that what is being filmed is indeed 3D right?

Um... no I don't agree.  Films are photographed on 2D print.  That's why movies have a "Director of Photography."  There is no real depth unless the film is digitally altered and you put on cheap 3D goggles. 

Motion interpolators are creating frames that don't exist in the original film.  And sometimes, they create the frames badly.  It would be like having a machine add strokes to a Da Vinci painting based on analyzing the strokes that already exist.  I don't want a machine trying to create art… in paintings, movies, or games. 

I do not talk in absolutes.   Software can do things quite well and I encourage all to watch Video tape quality transfers on DVD upscaled on a PS3 player to your HDTV.   It is amazing.
 

Upscaling is all about bringing out the beauty of what is in the original print.  Interpolators are creating and displaying NEW frames... frames that were never photographed or approved by the film's director.  And most of the time, the new frames are flawed.

And who said the good ol days were always good?  Its like listening to scratches on records.   
 

I did.  Old games look better on old monitors.  Period.  And don't start with the vinyl record debate.  Audio enthusiasts (people who know a lot more than you or I about how things should sound) perfer (unscratched) vinyl to digital recordings.  That's why you can still by vynil records of brand new albums.  You are making me repeat myself here.   

LCD blur is a new problem

1ms response time with 120hz display..

Repeating myself.  Response time has nothing to do with blur.

No I never said I prefer blur to glow, I said that I prefer the "blur" that isn't there! 

Except the blur is there.  This is devolving into a "no it isn't", "yes it is debate".  I've given you mathematical and scientific proof that the blur is there (no, I'm not posting the articles AGAIN).  I'm starting to not care why you don't see it. 

 

I used to see blur on older displays and I never argued for them.   That changed the time I saw displays under 4ms response time.   NO BLUR.

Absolutely 100% false.  I've tested TVs with response time less than that.  Repeating myself:  Response time has NOTHING to do with motion blur.  It's the 60 hz transitions between the frames which you get on 120hz TVs because they are just repeating frames. 

 

Even if you are using a 120hz display, you still transition from between unique frames at the same rate as a 60 hz display. 

No you cannot.   I guess we will have to agree to disagree.   No human eye can discern the difference in any real consistent way.   Detecting is another story, and that is something that the mind conjures after having loads of data. 

Jebus H.  You aren't understanding something here.  Repeating frames (120hz tvs) has the same effect as simply displaying frames for a longer period of time (60hz tvs).  The transitions between new frames still happens at 60hz and your retina still sees blur.

But of course we are talking about something even worse.  BLUR....you think the mind can see BLUR which is basically one picture trasitioning to another?   At 120 frames per second...and in that 5 repeated frames???   I don't believe it for one second.

Jebus H.  You aren't understanding something here.  Repeating frames (120hz tvs) has the same effect as simply displaying it for a longer period of time (60hz tvs).  The transitions between new frames still happens at 60hz and your retina still sees blur.

PS:  Just because you don't believe it doesn't change scientific fact.

Ok lets me break it down better.    If you take a picture of a banana and it is developing from the "white to the yellow".     But lets say it develops fast.   Well you may blink and not see it going from white to white/yellow...yet with a higher refresh of a display showing this production..at the time of your blink the white/yellow may be repated in such a way that your mind will conjure what the in between should look like.

YOU AREN'T DISPLAYING UNIQUE FRAMES ANY FASTER ON A 120HZ TV.  IF YOU WERE, ALL OF YOUR MOVIES WOULD RUN TWICE AS FAST AND EVERYONE WOULD SOUND LIKE CHIPMONKS.  STOP MAKING UP SCIENCE.

More data gives more accurate representation through the fault that is the human eye.   60hz in this example may not be enough.   For a film print what you get is the "judder" which may not be so bad if it game you what a 120hz  gives which is twice the refresh.    So one time you get a judder of one frame while another pass gives you a judder of another frame..but at least you get all frames at one point or another!   Get it?

No, I can't follow this paragraph at all.  Please fix the grammer.  Are you talking about games or movies?  There is no judder in games because there are 60 hz. 

I don't use motion interpolators for movies that are in proper resolution...my PS3 knows better.   As for LCD's being "way behind"..yeah way behind that they have crushed all competition and there isn't a CRT display that matches resolution or refresh rate out there.

I'm starting to think you have no idea what you are talking about.  What does resolution have to do with whether you use motion interpolators?  And CRTs have refresh rates in the MICRO seconds.... a thousand times less than even a 1 MILLI second LCD.  LCDs ARE STILL way behind in this category. 

And... <sigh>... again.... if you are shutting your motion interpolator off, you are basically using it as a 60 hz TV.  Repeating each frame from a 60hz source to get to 120hz has absolutely no benifit (on blur) whatsoever.  Show me scientific data otherwise.  Please. 

The response time I say is good enough 1ms response is insane, and my 4ms response shows no blur to me at all.

It is there I promise you.  What is your brand.   I've probably test it.  I've test Sharp, LG, and Phillips TVs with 4ms response time.  RESPONSE TIME HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BLUR. 

And I don't buy this coming from a 120hz display. 

Good, cause I'm not selling it.  It's fact.  You don't know what you're looking at.  By the way, putting little laughing icons don't drive your point home any better.  They just make you look like your compensating for lack of knowledge. 

[Ummon]

That CRT 'blur' is the difference between water colors mixing and neon lights moving. Dazzling (the latter), rather than disappointing. ---fudgesicle--- all mighty, wave your hand around. I bet you see blur.

[genesim]

Ummon,

Your preference..not truth.  Read on, but I prefer to debate one person first.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

isucamper,

By the way, putting little laughing icons don't drive your point home any better.  They just make you look like your compensating for lack of knowledge. 

You say this as you put exclamation points and all caps?   I will tell you what I will stop using those emoticons that "compensate for lack of knowledge" if you learn to stop your behavior that to me spells out emotional instability fair enough?  Lets see who cracks first.

This has nothing to do with blur.   Why would you even bring it up if you weren't confused? 

I brought it up because I was bringing up issues with a display that is not 120hz.   Just switched gears.   Not a big deal.   

But what you ignore is the benefits of a 5:5 pull down.  A point that you ignore with me is that the mind interpolates on its own what a moving image should look like.   So the more data(even if the same) the more it can see the motion.   24p repeated accurately as opposed to a 60hz display which actually tears it to make "judder" will mess up the whole interpretation.   Depending on what tears, you can get a blurring effect on any display for every second of refresh.   

So what does it have to do..well seeing a perfect flow of motion can actualy help your mind finish what it is supposed to look like...no different then a 24p movie.   

The human eye doesn't really "see" beyond that because "seeing" is not just about the eye doing the physical act, but it is about how the mind processes the information.    Much like the simpleton view on analog records.   Forget the fact that you are getting a huge "tear" in the image because of the uneven divisor...just like with scratches on a record that obliterates the sound...yeah lets forget about all that.

Absolutely it is.  I love the look of phosper trail, especially in vector games.  It adds warmth and I find it quite cool.

Just because you love it...doesn't make it true to the code.   Oops I am repeating here..but I guess that only works for you right?    Newsflash, if you have pixel that is supposed to look yellow, then you have the next one that is supposed to look green...then the phospher should only display those colors.   But of course that is not how phoshers work..they glow and actually produce color in between.  Light yellow is not the same as dark yellow is not the same as yellow green..light green..etc.   The difference is that unlike a LCD you cannot turn this effect off.

But hey, you like it..so it must be right???   A blur on the other hand is at least the original pixel that is paused to go to the next frame.   Quite a bit different then a completely made up phospher color that comes from the phosphers inability to go back to black and then back to green.   GLOW BABY GLOW.

You feel nostaligic so the world changes.   Just like with a record.   Like I said good ol' days aren't always so good.

And yes no code can account for this because no phospher glows exactly alike.  It is the nature of how a phospher coated lightbulb works.   Any fool who argues for this doesn't understand the fact that the code is consistent, the phospher is not.  That is what I mean by it isn't accurate.

Um... no I don't agree.  Films are photographed on 2D print.  That's why movies have a "Director of Photography."  There is no real depth unless the film is digitally altered and you put on cheap 3D goggles.

You obviously didn't get what I said so I will repeat again.   What is being filmed...that is if you film a picture of a naked girl riding a bike is a 3D image.   Not what is on the film...but the naked girl riding on the bike.    Let me try it again,  if you are filming a pink elephant eating peanuts then the 3D image is the pink elephant eating the peanuts.   Got it?

So what I stated is that a good film print can have 3D effects even though it is on a 2D plane.   Any highschool photography interest class will understand this when it comes to things like forced perspective or lighting..etc.    What we are seeing on a 120hz display is actually better then has ever been seen because we are seeing the effects of having an even divisor displayed properly.   This is just an illustration of a how a 5:5 pulldown can be beneficial.

As for blur, as I stated above, the effect can also be changed up because we are talking about more information given to the human mind.   The more that you see in an uncluttered way(like a "judder" effect) is more that you can process the real nature of the motion picture.

Interpolators are creating and displaying NEW frames... frames that were never photographed or approved by the film's director.  And most of the time, the new frames are flawed.

And as I repeat again, I am not arguing for those "effects".   For someone that claims they have to repeat, you sure ask alot of it from me.   Do not bring this up again, because it is a waste of time.

I did.  Old games look better on old monitors.  Period.  And don't start with the vinyl record debate.  Audio enthusiasts (people who know a lot more than you or I about how things should sound) perfer (unscratched) vinyl to digital recordings.  That's why you can still by vynil records of brand new albums.  You are making me repeat myself here. 

No not true.   Any old monitor will not do.   You have to match the refresh rate.   Old monitors have other problems as well and as I stated with glare, color bleed, glow..etc it is all a matter of opinion.   For someone who supposedly argues in fact you sure lay down alot of this.

"Audio enthusiasts" are often record collectors and they hate the facts that support DVD Audio and SACD are beyond the human ear.

The tech has smashed all record arguements that didn't even exist as, far as I am concerned, when it comes to to the old comparison to CD's!

"enthusiasts" often say they sound so warm and yet ignore the fact that the dynamic range prohibits most records from even getting all the information from the 24 inch master tapes.    The scratches(which all records, there is no such thing as a record without blemishes..which can be determined as a scratch...a sleeve causes such minor artifacts which change sounds) tear apart the sound....because where there is a scratch there is often missing information.  No record master is even the same because with every pressing more is lost from the master because of physics 101..you press a record, you will get a wore down metal master to some degree.   And of course with sampling rates in the upper stratosphere of what a dog can hear and humans can't this is mored proof to me that debating with you just might be futile.   

The reason you can buy vinyl(and might I say in much less ways then CD's ever), is because you have people unwilling to let go.   Do not kid yourself into thinking it is for any other reasons.   The real facts do not support it.   Records are inferior to high resolution audio in every way.    If there is a problem with the sound it is a mastering error..not the error in tech.

Which of course is the same arguement here.   Games, movies..etc.   The blur you see or think you see is the source print or source game.    1ms with 120hz is beyond what the human mind can interpret on a consistent basis...oops I am repeating again.   I guess you either get it or you don't.

Repeating myself.  Response time has nothing to do with blur.

Not if you take the time to soak in anything I have said to you.   We are human beings that are more then just data points.

I've given you mathematical and scientific proof that the blur is there (no, I'm not posting the articles AGAIN).  I'm starting to not care why you don't see it.

Good, because I don't kindly to reading essays.  I know the information well and if you want to post a quote fine, but it will likely be things that I already know.   Yeah I have read up on the subject as well and I know the weak arguements like the back of my hand.   Most don't even apply here because they are talking about motion software.

YOU AREN'T DISPLAYING UNIQUE FRAMES ANY FASTER ON A 120HZ TV.  IF YOU WERE, ALL OF YOUR MOVIES WOULD RUN TWICE AS FAST AND EVERYONE WOULD SOUND LIKE CHIPMONKS.  STOP MAKING UP SCIENCE.

Never said I was, if you bother to read this post maybe you will finally get it.

No, I can't follow this paragraph at all.  Please fix the grammer.  Are you talking about games or movies? 

Right...well I guess that is why you missed it all.   I have repeated myself again and again hopefully you got it.   Sorry if my typing and grammar isn't up to your standard.   If me putting emoticons is some kind of shotcoming..what do you call this weak part of your criticism?    Seems like quite the excuse to me.  When talking about games or movies it doesn't matter.   I am talking about the nature of motion on a visual display.   You don't have to separate the two when you are talking basic concepts.

There is no judder in games because there are 60 hz.

Wrong.   You are aware that games are made in different frame rates..so again repeating..no wait I won't.    But of course if I misread your statement quoted here perhaps you should do a little fixing of your own.  I await this reply above all others.

I'm starting to think you have no idea what you are talking about.  What does resolution have to do with whether you use motion interpolators?

That was a typo.  I can make a mistake, I am not a robot.   That said you have too, but I wouldn't go so far as to say something as sweeping as "you don't know what you are talking about".  I just say that what you state is wrong with the rationale that you might have made a mistake, or you just have one aspect of your arguement wrong.   I never presume you know "nothing", this is obviously not the case.   If it was, I wouldn't waste my time.

And CRTs have refresh rates in the MICRO seconds.... a thousand times less than even a 1 MILLI second LCD.  LCDs ARE STILL way behind in this category.

Not really when you talk about the ability of the human mind to process information.   Millisecond paired with a high refresh is all you need.   But of course there is that glow again...   Looks like that is that many more seconds to get the image wrong if we are talking a higher refresh rate.

And... <sigh>... again.... if you are shutting your motion interpolator off, you are basically using it as a 60 hz TV.  Repeating each frame from a 60hz source to get to 120hz has absolutely no benifit (on blur) whatsoever.  Show me scientific data otherwise.  Please.

Doesn't hurt either, but that wasn't the benefit that I was talking about.   The "scientific data" is the fact that a 60hz monitor is an analog connection.   So you will always get a degree of change in signal.  It is the nature of the beast.   At least with a repeated signal you can actually get error correction.

But of course like I stated above, there are other benefits that aren't worth repeating.

Post another persons opinion is not scientific data.   I am a scientist and everything I am stating is entirely provable.   There is data out there to back this but I am not the one doubting it.  Go look it up yourself.   I urge you if you are curious.

It is there I promise you.  What is your brand.   I've probably test it.

But your tests are flawed because you are not using proper sources.  I have a Sony XBR4 but if you are running 2D sidescrollers that are meant for NTSC displays then it is futile.   Sorry I don't trust your "tests".   

RESPONSE TIME HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BLUR. 

Now response time has nothing to do with blur???   So a pixel that is moving at 20ms response is no different then a 1ms repsonse.   Same "blur" huh??

And you say I don't know what I am talking about?

Let me give you an idea that you may not have put together.   

Film prints are 24 frames per second which is what is accepted by people that watch movies.

so every 1/24th of a second a new frame is displayed

A millisecond is 1/1000's of a second.

So every 41.66 milliseconds a new frame is displayed.  So film prints often are doubled in refresh to 48 frames per second so you can divide this by two to get 20.83ms.

And you don't think even 4ms is enough?  Talk reasonable.   Its a dead duck.

[genesim]

Actually this is sick when you think about it.

You have to divide the equation further if you go by motion picture standard which is 72 frames per second which is 3 cuts of frame which is 13.89ms

Now you say..but that gets closer to the 4ms....not exactly.

First of all the 72 frames per second are also "made up frames".   Why...because to simulate motion in the movie house they take the same frame and show it in 3 different places.   So the motion blurring of newer LCD's are not so far off in that regard because they do the same dang thing!

But I don't like either one...hence the 24p standard.  No motion blurring..no repeated frames in different spots.

Add to it that the frames are being shown 5 times to make it a pefect divisor...ta dah...you get what you can't get with a 60hz display...perfect judder free image.   

The "blur" as illustrated does not exist when you have response rates that high because the human eye does not consistently detect it.   If it did, the 72 frames per second which in review is 13.89ms would not be enough.   So this blows away the whole 60frames games arguement.

But of course this also blows away the lower refresh rates of older video games too which wouldn't need that quick of a response to draw the image fast enough.    That is if upscaled correctly, which can be done, but that is a whole other arguement.

This is about blur and motion something isucamper thinks he can separate.

[isucamper]

Gene, I'm going to be honest with you.  I don't want to read through your last few posts.  The more I explain to you, the more you wander further off into space. 

Lets switch gears here.

You tell me the  make and model of the TV you are using, any game consoles you have at your disposal, and the cable types that you are using to hook them up.  After all, maybe you really aren't seeing any blur and we're just beating our heads together.  I will hunt one down and do my motion test (you don't by chance live in Iowa do you? an in-person test would be easiest).  If, by some miracle it does not blur, I will change my quote to "Gene knows." 

If it does blur, I will dictate the exact test for you to do so you can repeat it and see the blur for yourself.  If you see the blur, then you have to change your tag to "Do not listen to me, I only think I know what I'm talking about."

Deal? 

[genesim]

Gene, I'm going to be honest with you.  I don't want to read through your last few posts.  The more I explain to you, the more you wander further off into space.

Then you say

"Do not listen to me, I only think I know what I'm talking about."

"Gene knows." 

Spot the difference? hmmm

You are a complete waste of time.   I spent alot of time explaing your obvious misunderstanding of my view.    I don't even know how you get through the internet.   There are tons of people I disagree with and even getting through your post wasn't exactly fun, but it is a necessary evil if there is to be communication.   It is a task/courtesy that I can handle....especially if I was the one that invited the "debate".   

By the way, I call it for what it is an excuse.

Now to the next part why would I want a person like you at my house?   And yes despite your obvious real problem which is way you write only matters and your tantrem only matter, I still read your post.

I should have listened to Ginsu because like alot of people here instead of taking on the issues you act like a coward and refuse to even read my post.    Then you claim I don't know what I am talking about?    Just like with simple monitor concepts you have to have an informed opinion...that also includes making an assessment on myself.   

If you bothered reading my post you would also understand how futile it is to do an "in person test".   I can picture it now...with your little home kit you are going to bring out a disc of Super Nintendo roms and then some Genesis roms and say see....

Oh man this is great.   It was almost worth it just to get that vision.   

As it stands if Saint doesn't delete this post it will stand and I will just simply refer people back to it.   This whole blur crap is just like with records capturing the "warmth"(geez you could have at least come up with a better word for your phospher glow) it is a blind belief that the facts do not support.

[genesim]

By the way you wanna know the funny part your link was actually referenced by me quite a few times.   And I actually hashed out my points completely around it.   If you would have bothered to read maybe you would have recognized this.

[Malenko]

you guys need to truncate your posts.

If I ever need a headache, I know what post to read.

Gene, why not just tell him your set up and let him test the results?

[genesim]

Malenko because as I stated it is not that simple.   There is nothing to truncate.   Though some things are repeated for effect, for the most part what I have said what needs to be there.   But of course people that don't read don't get it.   So stay ignorant.   Pretty sad actually because I was so close to getting through a hard head...perhaps that is the problem.   

At the very very very least it would be acknowledging that I did read his link and that just wouldn't do.

The "headache" is perhaps the fact that some people obviously do not understand the facts and have the inability to do so.   Hence the name calling and empty replies.

p.s.  Malenko if you read I actually did tell him my set up.   He doesn't read so he stays ignorant...and he tells me he has to repeat?

[isucamper]

WOW!  Talk about back peddling!   I've asked you a few times to tell me what brand and model your magical blurless LCD is, and you always ignore my request.  Either, you're completely talking out your rear and you don't even own this LCD you're talking about, or your scared to have the truth pointed out to you!!!

I wasn't thinking you actually lived anywhere near me (do you actually live in Iowa?).  If on the off chance you did, I could assure you that in person you would be treated with the utmost respect.  I'd bring a plate of cookies with me.  Heck, we probably have a lot in common. 

Anyway, if you're going to let this end here, I'm going to assume that you've just been giving me the run around and that you don't actually own the LCD you've been talking about or have any clue whatsoever of what you've been saying (this fact is pretty obvious at this point anyway).  You are clearly confused on various terms and technologies, so it wouldn't suprise me at all.  It's not that big of a deal, Gene.  Just tell me the brand and model and I'll verify your claims.  Perhaps we could get a third party to independantly test the TV as well.  Otherwise, you've got no grounds to talk about any of this stuff. 

As I've stated previously (though you seem to want to think that I do all these tests with an Atari 2600 hooked up over coaxial RF), it'd be at test with the Xbox 360 or PS3 at 1080P.  No funny upscaling... something simple for the TV to handle.  It's a test I've done about 15 times.

Malenko:  Completely agree about the truncating thing.  I tried to brute force this debate, hitting every point in my replies, but there was no bounding this thing.  That's why I'm trying to change gears.   

[isucamper]

And when did you ever tell me your setup???!!!  All you said is you had a 120hz TV with 4ms response time!!!!  I know of no such TV (all models that come to mind have 2ms response time) so you have to tell me the brand and model!!!!  All companies measure response time differently, so these specs do not help me at all.  I need specific details.

[isucamper]

Woah... wait a sec.  Something just crossed my mind.  This whole time, I've been assuming that your age matches the average demographic for this forum.  If your a 12 year old kid living with your parents, I recind my offer to "come over to your house." 

Last thing I need is to end up on Dateline.

[genesim]

WOW!  Talk about back peddling!   I've asked you a few times to tell me what brand and model your magical blurless LCD is, and you always ignore my request.  

Uh...I will give you a hint.    READ THE POST and it will become crystal clear what model I have.  

As for the connection well Einstein how many different ways are there to connect digital?

As for you saying I am consfused..how would you know?  You don't even read my posts.  

I won't repeat myself.  

As for me forfeiting, no I answered your post in detail and you seem to be to attention deficit to read.

Here is my impression of you WAH WAH WAH I didn't tell you the model of my HDTV(But I did)...WAH WAH WAH you didn't read my link (but I did)...WAH WAH WAH you use emoticons (so I stopped)...WAH WAH WAH you have won't answer me (but yet you refuse to even read my answers to you) WAH WAH WAH I want to come to your house???(sorry bud no I am not inviting you to my area ya dip and furthermore if you bothered to read you would also see why)...WAH WAH WAH.

Thats all you do.   I have not given you the runaround.   I am not the little baby who asks for a debate then refuses to read the posts.  

And for the record are you going to start adding lying to your arsenol?

All you said is you had a 120hz TV with 4ms response time!!!!

Never once said this.   I have a 4ms 60hz monitor and a 6ms 120hz monitor.   Never stated otherwise.   Of course if you had the ability to comprehend a long post like I did yours you would have known both of these things.

By the way looking at your last response I see that I have you judged completely wrong.    My hunch was correct, this is truly a waste of time.   Now I really don't care if you get it or not. 

[isucamper]

Ok.  We're done here then.  It was a simple request.  You could have proven yourself but now you've proven the exact opposite. 

[isucamper]

Sorry Gene.  I just added you to my ignore list.  I don't like taking that route, but you really are batshit crazy, and you've wasted enough of my time.

[genesim]

Why because I don't take kindly to your crap comments?   Call me what you like, if you are going to act like you do I will gladly be on your ignore list.

Little advice though, if you ever would like to grow up, do not shun one that you could have learned from.    Knowledge comes from having an open mind.   Unlike you I was willing to listen and I did every request you asked.    The problem is that I cannot make the horse drink.

By the way my record stands and noone will ever break it.   11!!   

It was a simple request.

I don't want to read through your last few posts.

And then you say you get mad because you repeat yourself???   Yet you ask me to do this??

Class A idiot.   

Even my lowest enemies wouldn't post such a moronic thing.   I won't jump through your hoops.

[Ummon]

<inhales deeply and exhales> Well. All's well that ends well.

....except, well, I will respond briefly to genie's last to me: skip the second sentence, and re-address the first one. 'Neon vs watercolors'. Which is more sparkly?

[genesim]

I did adress that...read my post. <sigh> <sigh>  <cry>

[Kevin Mullins]

I just picked up the coolest gumball machine.     

[Ginsu Victim]

Did you buy Dean's gumball machine?

[Kevin Mullins]

"Harry the Happy Dragon"   

[SailorSat]

And now everybody just wait 20 Years and neither CRTs nor LCDs will be used anymore...

Somewhat back to topic...

I still hate any marketing nerd talking bout 120Hz on LCDs
There is nothing like vertical refresh on a f*ckin LCD.

Now why does a LCD blur more than a CRT?
Simply said, because a CRT has 3 Cells (considering the "best" resolution) where a LCD usualy has only one.

First Frame - Pure Red -> Red Cells glowing, others doing nothing at all.
Second Frame - Pure Green -> Red Cells going down (not instantly!), Green Cells firing up pretty much instant, Blue Cells doing nothing.
Third Frame - Pure Blue -> Red cells stoped glowing, Green Cells going down, Blue Cells firing up.

Another Example will be a simple Black Frame / White Frame loop.

I never tried to time my CRTs cells, but most of them will start to "blur" to gray at about 100Hz to 120Hz.
Ever worked with Stereo3D and Shutterglasses? We're talking about ghosting!


As for a LCD/TFT...
Most of them have usualy ONE cell per Pixel which simply can't go "up" or "down" like the ones on a CRT.
They need to change in various ways leading to (guess what) a slight delay to get to the desired color.

Sure, the newer panels have pretty good timings, however that delay is still there.
Some "fancy" image processing like a deinterlacer or maybe a "motion smooth" filter and bam... That's where your blur comes from.

BUT...
To be honest. If you want to see the blur, then you'll see it.
But thats pretty much the same as Full-HD vs. HD-Ready.
Does it make a difference? Sure if you want to see a documentation about some mountains, it looks pretty cool with all those details on Full-HD.
But.. If you watch a Formula 1 Race, does anybody really care if he/she/it can read that f*ckin commercial banners? I don't think so.

The same goes for that LCD blur.
IF your playing a fast paced shooter, I don't think you really have time to check if a wall texture is "dead sharp" as you turn around.

Actually my (some years old) laptops LCD even has kind of interlace lines but you won't notice them while playing, though you will see them if you search for them.


Last but now least...
W T F ?! Wall of Text just blew my head off...

[genesim]

Those are very nice theoreticals, but as I stated with my numbers above the facts don't support it.

Unless of course like I stated 1001 times if you don't think the film standard of 72 frames per second is not good enough(which is in the neighborhood of 13ms to display).

Which of course is beyond any video game before the 90's and most monitors we are talking about from today.

Though anyone that doesn't want to act like a child and actually discuss the facts, I am all ears.

[Hoopz]

You are the most socially inept person that I've ever encountered.  It started well before you made fun of someone's children that have health issues but that should have been the sign that you needed to be banned from the website for longer than a weekend.  I though Ummon was the biggest troll on these boards but you outrank everyone. 

[Ginsu Victim]

genesim didn't have to prove he's an idiot, but by arguing with SailorSat on this subject, he has cemented the fact.

[genesim]

Hoopz you are way out of line..as usual.

I NEVER MADE FUN OF ANYONE'S KIDS..NEVER!! YOU LOW LIFE SACK OF CRAP!


If Saint wants to ban me for any of this then he can go ahead.   I did nothing wrong and this is the usual attempt to try to go after me.

GOOD!  For so many that put me on ignore they seem to keep responding.   Kind of stupid don't you think?

I am sure me being banned will happen soon because the MOB has spoken.  Can't stand the FACTS so they resort to the only little childish they know.   I laugh everytime.

[genesim]

[quot]I'm at work so I'm going to make this short:

This is a hobby for me. It comes after my work, family, and personal life. I like to think this site is my way of giving something back to the Internet for everything I get out of it. You asked why I hadn't stepped in earlier to settle what is essentially a bunch of personal squabbles. It's because this hobby is not first, second, or even third priority in my life. If something here is enough of a problem that it interferes with my work or home life then it needs to be dealt with quickly and be done with. Note I'm writing this from work now.

I tend to leave these situations alone and expect people to work things out like adults. If I have to step in it usually means someone probably needs to be banned permanently. Note that weekend ban I put on you wasn't a ban like that - it was because I was going out of town and didn't want things exploding in my absence.

I don't allow personal feelings to dictate my permanent bans. You may see that there have been a few people who have been critical of or even downright nasty to me and how I run things that haven't been banned. I really do try to use the posted rules as my guidelines. You don't have to like me to be a member here - you just have to not cause me more problems than having you here is worth.

If one of my users is having problems with many of my users, the most logical conclusion is the problem is with the one user. It doesn't really matter if you agree with it or not or if you think it's fair or not, the easiest solution is to remove the one user. I don't want to do that but it is my next step if this one doesn't help.

Going forward I want you to not get into arguments with other users. No sarcasm, pot shots, name calling, insulting intelligence, etc. If you think they're taking personal potshots at you blow it off. It'll take a while before people forget about this and start treating you like anyone else. You probably should avoid the monitor threads but if you think you can participate in them and not get into it with anyone feel free.

This forum is basically an extension of my home. You're welcome here as a guest in my home if you're willing to abide by the few rules I've set for the forum and the way I choose to enforce them. I think we have a pretty good community here, and frankly I was interested in your input in the LCD/CRT threads until they got nasty. I don't know that I agreed with you but I was interested in the discussion.

If you can't abide by the above then BYOAC isn't the place for you. There are other communities out there that may suit you better. If you can abide by the above then you're more than welcome to stay here. The choice, ultimately, is up to you.

--- saint[/quote]

I hope I get banned because anyone with a brain can see how unfair this is.   To the idiots F U 2!  There is no future being a member here!

[genesim]

I'm at work so I'm going to make this short:

This is a hobby for me. It comes after my work, family, and personal life. I like to think this site is my way of giving something back to the Internet for everything I get out of it. You asked why I hadn't stepped in earlier to settle what is essentially a bunch of personal squabbles. It's because this hobby is not first, second, or even third priority in my life. If something here is enough of a problem that it interferes with my work or home life then it needs to be dealt with quickly and be done with. Note I'm writing this from work now.

I tend to leave these situations alone and expect people to work things out like adults. If I have to step in it usually means someone probably needs to be banned permanently. Note that weekend ban I put on you wasn't a ban like that - it was because I was going out of town and didn't want things exploding in my absence.

I don't allow personal feelings to dictate my permanent bans. You may see that there have been a few people who have been critical of or even downright nasty to me and how I run things that haven't been banned. I really do try to use the posted rules as my guidelines. You don't have to like me to be a member here - you just have to not cause me more problems than having you here is worth.

If one of my users is having problems with many of my users, the most logical conclusion is the problem is with the one user. It doesn't really matter if you agree with it or not or if you think it's fair or not, the easiest solution is to remove the one user. I don't want to do that but it is my next step if this one doesn't help.

Going forward I want you to not get into arguments with other users. No sarcasm, pot shots, name calling, insulting intelligence, etc. If you think they're taking personal potshots at you blow it off. It'll take a while before people forget about this and start treating you like anyone else. You probably should avoid the monitor threads but if you think you can participate in them and not get into it with anyone feel free.

This forum is basically an extension of my home. You're welcome here as a guest in my home if you're willing to abide by the few rules I've set for the forum and the way I choose to enforce them. I think we have a pretty good community here, and frankly I was interested in your input in the LCD/CRT threads until they got nasty. I don't know that I agreed with you but I was interested in the discussion.

If you can't abide by the above then BYOAC isn't the place for you. There are other communities out there that may suit you better. If you can abide by the above then you're more than welcome to stay here. The choice, ultimately, is up to you.

--- saint

I hope I get banned because anyone with a brain can see how unfair this is.   To the idiots F U 2!  There is no future being a member here!

p.s.  Posted twice since I can't edit for God knows why!

[Ginsu Victim]

Stay tuned for MELTDOWN 2009: ACCOUNT SUICIDE!

[saint]

I'm at work so I'm going to make this short:

This is a hobby for me. It comes after my work, family, and personal life. I like to think this site is my way of giving something back to the Internet for everything I get out of it. You asked why I hadn't stepped in earlier to settle what is essentially a bunch of personal squabbles. It's because this hobby is not first, second, or even third priority in my life. If something here is enough of a problem that it interferes with my work or home life then it needs to be dealt with quickly and be done with. Note I'm writing this from work now.

I tend to leave these situations alone and expect people to work things out like adults. If I have to step in it usually means someone probably needs to be banned permanently. Note that weekend ban I put on you wasn't a ban like that - it was because I was going out of town and didn't want things exploding in my absence.

I don't allow personal feelings to dictate my permanent bans. You may see that there have been a few people who have been critical of or even downright nasty to me and how I run things that haven't been banned. I really do try to use the posted rules as my guidelines. You don't have to like me to be a member here - you just have to not cause me more problems than having you here is worth.

If one of my users is having problems with many of my users, the most logical conclusion is the problem is with the one user. It doesn't really matter if you agree with it or not or if you think it's fair or not, the easiest solution is to remove the one user. I don't want to do that but it is my next step if this one doesn't help.

Going forward I want you to not get into arguments with other users. No sarcasm, pot shots, name calling, insulting intelligence, etc. If you think they're taking personal potshots at you blow it off. It'll take a while before people forget about this and start treating you like anyone else. You probably should avoid the monitor threads but if you think you can participate in them and not get into it with anyone feel free.

This forum is basically an extension of my home. You're welcome here as a guest in my home if you're willing to abide by the few rules I've set for the forum and the way I choose to enforce them. I think we have a pretty good community here, and frankly I was interested in your input in the LCD/CRT threads until they got nasty. I don't know that I agreed with you but I was interested in the discussion.

If you can't abide by the above then BYOAC isn't the place for you. There are other communities out there that may suit you better. If you can abide by the above then you're more than welcome to stay here. The choice, ultimately, is up to you.

--- saint

I hope I get banned because anyone with a brain can see how unfair this is.   To the idiots F U 2!  There is no future being a member here!

p.s.  Posted twice since I can't edit for God knows why!

First time I've been in this thread. Not sure how I'm expected to moderate if I'm not asked to do so and haven't seen it myself, but  .  Leaving this thread for posterity. Per Gene's request (http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=92771.msg978597#msg978597) his account is now banned.

--- saint

[Ginsu Victim]

He kept asking to be banned, so why leave his wishes unfulfilled?

One troll down....

[Todd H]

In regards to the original topic...

There's not an LCD out there that doesn't blur. It's just a drawback of the technology. And I'm saying this as someone that owns a pretty expensive Sony 52" XBR4 LCD television. I have a Samsung 26.5" LCD in my cabinet as well so I have no problem gaming on an LCD.

In the end, it just depends on what fits your needs. For me it was an LCD (which I would happily replace with a 25" DIGITAL multisync if anyone made one). For others a good CGA monitor is the way to go. Either way, no matter what you choose it's all about the games. So enjoy. Life's too short. 

[mr.Curmudgeon]

There's not an LCD out there that doesn't blur.

My LCD doesn't blur.