Thoughts on new 9000 Series LCD from Wells Gardner?

[macrho]

Any thoughts on the new LCDs from Wells Gardner?

http://www.wgec.com/products/details.asp?iCat=1&iSubCat=5

[Blanka]

Specs are very uninformative. With LCD's we want to know:
- gamut, normal (sRGB) or wide (adobeRGB/NTSC)
- input lag
- viewing angles
- resolution
- panel type. Only the 19 inch screens say they are TN. No information about the 26 and the 32 inch.

Guess you still better off going for a computer monitor like the HP LP 2065 or a LG W2600HP.

[solid12345]

Just curious what makes these LCD industrial monitors so great over a consumer-grade LCD, I mean for the 26 inch I could go get a nice Sony TV for that.

[Epyx]

Im just curious how they handle the CGA 15khz modes...I mean pixels are a set size on an LCD so what does "Accepts 15khz" actually do?  Is it just reverse scaling the image? So a 320x240 is full screen but really blocky? Ive been curious about this for a while since WG started advertising these.

[Blanka]

I mean for the 26 inch I could go get a nice Sony TV for that.

Nope, impossible. TV's under 32 inch are a different league than 32 inch and bigger. Under 32 it's 99% TN panels, from 32 inch up TV's become made of SPVA or SIPS panels.
Under 32 inch, there is a bunch of computer screens that are having the bigger TV image quality.
WG just sells TN crap. I guess they decase normal monitors and charge extra hours for decasing and testing.
And for the CGA resolution, I think you're better off doing upscaling on your videocard. But hey, it is nice to have a no-brainer solution to connect to old-fashioned arcade logic boards. Big problem is that they do not deliver real 4:3 though, common with CGA resolutions, and later widescreen cabs had VGA anyway. Just pick up the HP for LCD-ing classic cabs on MAME.

[isucamper]

Im just curious how they handle the CGA 15khz modes...I mean pixels are a set size on an LCD so what does "Accepts 15khz" actually do?  Is it just reverse scaling the image? So a 320x240 is full screen but really blocky? Ive been curious about this for a while since WG started advertising these.

I was wondering this too but I'm sure they just scale it to the display's native resolution the same way an HDTV scales 480p from a standard def DVD player to 1080p. 

[kalars123]

I contacted happ's about the WG LCD and they informed that it does scale to native resolution and refresh rate, the guy i talked to said that "older" boards will work and that some games look just as good on it as they do on a CRT but others still look like complete crap, he wouldn't give me any example's but it's not everyday that someone trying to convince you to buy something say's it crap LOL.

I've thought about buying one to test it out, mostly because I would still be able to hook my PCB's to it through the jamma harness no problem, the cost realy isn't a factor for me, but if my real boards look like crap on it, then i'm not sure i willing to part with the money when i get just get a markvision CRT for more or less the same price.

"EDIT"

HOLY DEAD THREAD BATMAN sorry for bringing upon the zombie apocalypse

[Ken Layton]

That original link is now bad. This one is current:

http://www.wellsgardner.com/products/details.asp?iCat=1&iSubCat=5

Boy are these things overpriced!

[mrracer]

Any suggestions on a good monitor that will work with the ArcadeVGA 3000 video card? You seem to mention they are expensive could you offer a viable replacement monitor that you would recommend?

[kalars123]

Any suggestions on a good monitor that will work with the ArcadeVGA 3000 video card? You seem to mention they are expensive could you offer a viable replacement monitor that you would recommend?

http://www.twistedquarter.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=200_201&products_id=127  "markvision 25"

http://www.twistedquarter.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=200_201&products_id=325 "markvision 27/29"

those are 2 of about 5 choices that you have now aday's for a real arcade CRT

[mrracer]

How does that compare to the  WGF3299-SHLS42H 9000 Series, 32" LCD W/LG Panel

http://www.wellsgardner.com/products/details.asp?iCat=1&iSubCat=5

What's the difference? How long do these CRT monitors last, I had a WG D9200 and it didn't last too long, I took the arcade cab out of storage just to find out the monitor is showing a green screen.

So was wondering on the difference in quality and longevity between the LCD above and a CRT monitor, I don't want to have to keep reinvesting in these monitors if they keep going out so quickly and easily?

Any comments or suggestions are welcomed!? 

[kalars123]

well in another 5ish year's you probably won't have to worry about it anymore as CRT's probably won't be available anymore, then you'll have to use a TV set and when all the old tube sets are gone in mmm 10ish years all there will be is lcd/oled and whatever new display tech they come out with.

Display wise I have no idea, it doesn't seem like anyone has taken the plunge and bought one yet to give it a go, I may have to be the first one since I have the kind of  cash to throw at my cab.

As for how long a CRT lasts it's pretty relative on the build quality, a arcade CRT is uses the same basic tech that old time TV's used they can last anywhere from 6 month's on a realy crappy one, to 40 years on a really good one.  Hell my grandad still has one of those old ass TV's in a box from the early 70's that still works just fine, can't pick up any stations here in the US anymore but works like a charm with the NES hooked up through stone age VHF. And the arcade CRT I use is a WG7k series 25" that is still stock from 1992, and is still going strong 20 years later.
"edit'
also the model you referenced "WGF3299-SHLS42H 9000 Series, 32" LCD W/LG Panel" is no longer produced and has been replaced by the "WGF3299-SIAS03J" just so ya know

[Jack Burton]

I'm gonna go out on a limb, but I figure in 20 years it still won't be that difficult to come across a CRT.  Hundreds of millions of them were made over the last 50 years, and even if 99% are destroyed/recycled that still leaves several million in the wild. 

Now, that's counting every type of CRT ever made.  Which includes small tv's and computer monitors.  If you're looking for a big CRT it's going to be a harder search.  Probably about as hard as getting a nice vintage arcade monitor is right now. 

I think the future of CRT's in this hobby will depend quite a bit on RGB>Composite/S-video adapters.  When one of these converters is applied right they can look very, very good. 

[torino]

well in another 5ish year's you probably won't have to worry about it anymore as CRT's probably won't be available anymore, then you'll have to use a TV set and when all the old tube sets are gone in mmm 10ish years all there will be is lcd/oled and whatever new display tech they come out with.

CRT are not massively manufactured anymore, but it's long time before they actually disappear, if ever. I think CRT will survive complete demise, just like vinyl music records managed to survive CDs, to some degree. The key point is to be "irreplaceable", even if for some small niche market. You can change the future, by not giving up to LCDs and by keep demanding CRTs you could help them survive.

Anyway, since people are getting rid of their CRTs, isn't this actually the best time to get yourself one? They are everywhere, and they are cheap. I found several on the street, bought few for less than $5, some were in my garage collecting dust, and some I was given by friends who wanted to get rid of them. -- Why in the world would you pay for expensive LCD just to get inferior, inadequate and non-authentic display when you can easily find cheap TV or PC CRT monitor and get far better results with much less money?

[Gray_Area]

I love CRTs. However. With the recent shader support in MAME, and where I'm betting it's going, the only thing that would stop me from going LCD is the lack of true blacks. If that isn't fixed at the consumer/affordable level in five years, there'll be much worse things to ponder.

[Calamity]

Well, I didn't know where to post this so maybe it's a bit offtopic. We've been discussing in the previous days about LCD's supposed unability to refresh their panels at any custom rate:

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=111988.0

I used to mantain that LCDs are fixed-frequency screens that could only refresh at exact 60 Hz so if fed with any different refresh rate signals that would necessarily produce video artifacts (tearing, etc.). That was actually my biggest argument against LCDs.

After doing some tests with different LCDs I have around, I've concluded that some LCDs can refresh their panels at any random rate. Many others can't.

It's important to notice that I'm not talking about screens that admit any input frequency which they convert after that to fixed 60 Hz by any sort of interpolation algorithm. I mean LCD panels that are actually refreshed at 57.55 or whatever the input frequency is, so you get pure 1 frame -> 1 frame result with no artifacts.

The key for this is not the panel type, but the hardware that processes the signal. It seems that ANY LCD panel could be refreshed at any rate, but just a few models actually allow to deal with a custom signal.

I'm thinking this WG could be one of the lucky models and that might explain why it's somewhat overpriced. So I'm highly interested in getting some report from it if someone here finally gets one.

So far, I've been able to test three different LCD screens, with these results:

- Sony Vaio VGN-C1Z/B: my laptop screen. This is the only one I've seen that actually refreshes its panel at any imaginable rate. I've succesfully tested frequencies from 40-61Hz
- Philips PixelPlus 42" LCD: No luck, as soon as we move from 60 Hz the tv blocks the signal (blue screen). Probably it also admits 50Hz but I didn't test
- Dell U3011: Unfortunately, no luck either with this priced monitor. It actually admits the signal but it seems to convert it to 60 Hz, so if you move from 60 Hz you start seeing artifacts (stuttering when you vsync).

I'm using a combination of Powerstrip and a program of mine to perform the tests.

I think it is important to rectify my arguments on LCDs, at least I regret having been so categoric, and while many of them probably are fixed-frequency models there must be definitely some out there that aren't and it would be great to identify them. Unfortunately there's so little information on this, most specifications are confusing and only refer to the 24p capabilities.

[kalars123]

Well Calamity you'll get to know soon I'm ordering one this coming Friday "provided I get my monthly bonus check from work", I'll be sure to post a very detailed review and anything crazy you want me to do with it just let me know.

"edit"

I know refresh rates play a big role in accurately reproducing an image but what about resolution, say UMK3 "being my favorite" was originally 399x253 at @54.5Hz, even if you got your monitor to refresh at 54.5 if it can't display 399x253 isn't it pointless?

[Calamity]

Well Calamity you'll get to know soon I'm ordering one this coming Friday "provided I get my monthly bonus check from work", I'll be sure to post a very detailed review and anything crazy you want me to do with it just let me know.

"edit"

I know refresh rates play a big role in accurately reproducing an image but what about resolution, say UMK3 "being my favorite" was originally 399x253 at @54.5Hz, even if you got your monitor to refresh at 54.5 if it can't display 399x253 isn't it pointless?

Great, let us know when you get it.

LCD's resolution is fixed indeed, so everything will need to be scaled to its native resolution, 1280x1024 or whatever it is. If you use Mame, you'd probably want to run everything at your LCD's native resolution and let Mame/d3d do all the scaling job. On the other hand if you plug your MK boards then the monitor will be the one to perform the scaling, so the result will depend on its quality.

[kalars123]

well i mean on your point about getting an LCD to do other refreshes besides a single fixed 60hz rate, i fiddled with it abit this morning and my asus will do anything from 25hz interlaced "looks horrid" to 85hz non interlaced, i could even get mame to output umk3 at 399x253@54.5hz and my monitor did it, but it up-scaled the image to 800x600 which made it a 399x253 square in the middle, with Ddraw it looked god awful was all pixelated and stuff, with d3d it didn't look as bad but was still pretty bad.

My point being even if you can drive your monitor at the correct refresh, without the correct resolution, what is the point? Say the D9000 lcd will do the correct refresh but upscales the image to 640x480 then the game still won't play properly, or is the resolution a stand alone property and won't effect the game play?

[Calamity]

well i mean on your point about getting an LCD to do other refreshes besides a single fixed 60hz rate, i fiddled with it abit this morning and my asus will do anything from 25hz interlaced "looks horrid" to 85hz non interlaced, i could even get mame to output umk3 at 399x253@54.5hz and my monitor did it, but it up-scaled the image to 800x600 which made it a 399x253 square in the middle, with Ddraw it looked god awful was all pixelated and stuff, with d3d it didn't look as bad but was still pretty bad.

Try using -noswitchres so it will use your desktop resolution (use LCD's native) and avoid mode switching. Also use -video d3d as it works better for this at least with the cards I've tested so far.

My point being even if you can drive your monitor at the correct refresh, without the correct resolution, what is the point? Say the D9000 lcd will do the correct refresh but upscales the image to 640x480 then the game still won't play properly, or is the resolution a stand alone property and won't effect the game play?

In fact by using a LCD you are already renouncing to using games native resolutions as everything is going to be resampled to fit its fixed dot matrix, so there's no point in switching resolutions... but if at least you were able to use any custom refresh rate, that is what actually affects gameplay, then it wouldn't be so bad after all, as I'm assuming we can get the best scaling possible so the resolution part is not such a problem and with time LCDs will have even higher resolutions.

Edit: I've found two more LCDs around that truly admit any refresh: Dell E196FP and HP Pavilion f50s.

[torino]

Well, I didn't know where to post this so maybe it's a bit offtopic. We've been discussing in the previous days about LCD's supposed unability to refresh their panels at any custom rate:

http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=111988.0

I used to mantain that LCDs are fixed-frequency screens that could only refresh at exact 60 Hz so if fed with any different refresh rate signals that would necessarily produce video artifacts (tearing, etc.). That was actually my biggest argument against LCDs.

After doing some tests with different LCDs I have around, I've concluded that some LCDs can refresh their panels at any random rate. Many others can't.

It's important to notice that I'm not talking about screens that admit any input frequency which they convert after that to fixed 60 Hz by any sort of interpolation algorithm. I mean LCD panels that are actually refreshed at 57.55 or whatever the input frequency is, so you get pure 1 frame -> 1 frame result with no artifacts.

I was looking all over the internet for couple of months to confirm that, and I could not, instead I found evidence to show the opposite. Wikipedia for example states quite plainly in several articles how LCDs have fixed refresh rate, which I quoted in our previous discussion. Anyway, I really see no reason why it would not be possible, but the information on this topic is vague at best, so please let me be sceptical of your findings and let me question your tests. -- What kind of tests did you perform, can you give us download link for that software?

 

The key for this is not the panel type, but the hardware that processes the signal. It seems that ANY LCD panel could be refreshed at any rate, but just a few models actually allow to deal with a custom signal.

Interesting. Can you point to some info about it?

[Calamity]

Anyway, I really see no reason why it would not be possible, but the information on this topic is vague at best, so please let me be sceptical of your findings and let me question your tests. -- What kind of tests did you perform, can you give us download link for that software?

Yeah I'm sceptical too even after having seen it with my own eyes, because I still need to discard that the video card used doesn't affect the results. So will keep doing tests in the next days.

I've attached a modified experimental version of Arcade_OSD that uses Powerstrip to program the video card instead of registry modelines. So it can be used with any card supported by Powerstrip. Just download and install Powerstrip, restart and run it but do not touch any of its default options, just leave it there and use Arcade_OSD to remote control it (it will use Powerstrip api to directly access your video card). Then select a video mode from Arcade_OSD to edit it at full screen, you'd better use your current desktop mode as sometimes only works that way. Then enter Vertical Geometry and add some lines to the front and back porches, that's the quickest way to alter the default vertical refresh. Once you have a custom refresh, say 58,55 Hz or something like that, press enter or P1 to accept it. If you have picture, now you have to make sure the selected refresh is actually being used. Press "5" for that, that will measure your vertical refresh. During the test you'll see a scrolling pattern: if scrolling is smooth you'll know your LCD is being refreshed at the proper rate.

[torino]

Yeah I'm sceptical too even after having seen it with my own eyes, because I still need to discard that the video card used doesn't affect the results. So will keep doing tests in the next days.

I've attached a modified experimental version of Arcade_OSD that uses Powerstrip to program the video card instead of registry modelines.

I don't think that's very good pattern, and it's hard to look at.

See this program: http://www.kuratorn.se/011/software/JudderTest11.zip


Do you have CRT with OSD so you can verify refresh rate reported by software is indeed what graphics adapter is sending out? It's quite possible for software to initialize (request) one refresh rate and video card still decide to go on by its own refresh rate without telling you anything about it. Also, in some theory, if monitor has EDID Windows could decide to override your request to video adapter and constrain it to monitor capabilities, so you would not see any tearing or choppiness, but neither your video card would actually be sending out the signal your requested.


This is how I would test it:

1.) boot computer with CRT plugged in that can show refresh rates on OSD

2.) set some resolution with some odd refresh rate, like 57.349 or 54.941

3.) look at CRT OSD and verify refresh rate matches what monitor says

4.) run judder test pattern and observe smoothness on the CRT

5.) now, without quiting the program, unplug CRT and plug in LCD, observe...

[jimmy2x2x]

.

[Calamity]

I don't think that's very good pattern, and it's hard to look at.

See this program: http://www.kuratorn.se/011/software/JudderTest11.zip

That's a nice program, the problem I'm seeing (I might be wrong) is that it doesn't measure your videocard's real refresh rate, as Arcade_OSD does.

Do you have CRT with OSD so you can verify refresh rate reported by software is indeed what graphics adapter is sending out? It's quite possible for software to initialize (request) one refresh rate and video card still decide to go on by its own refresh rate without telling you anything about it. Also, in some theory, if monitor has EDID Windows could decide to override your request to video adapter and constrain it to monitor capabilities, so you would not see any tearing or choppiness, but neither your video card would actually be sending out the signal your requested.

Sure, but bear in mind I'm actually *measuring* the real refresh rate with Arcade_OSD, it's not a value reported by software but something I compute by syncing to the hardware's vsync signal and using cpu's clock as a reference, during several seconds in order to get a value with three decimal figures of precision.

So, if Windows was cheating with the refresh values we'd know as the measured vfreq value would tell us.

On the other hand, yes, I've got a retired 17" CRT which I'm planning to use for some testing during my holiday, however don't trust so much on the values prompted by a monitor's OSD as a reference, they can't be very accurate as the only way to get good precision value is to measure the refresh during several seconds.

So, unless I'm missing something, if we try a custom refresh of, say 57.349, and these two conditions are met:

- Measured vfreq is 57.349 (or close)
- Scrolling pattern is smooth

... then we have to conclude our LCD is actually refreshing its panel at 57.349 Hz

Finally, you can argue that even if I'm actually sending a custom refresh rate to the monitor, it's internally converting that signal to some fixed 60Hz one. This could be done by 2 means:

- Interpolation: that would explain why a custom refresh rate still allows smooth scrolling, but would necessarily involve blurring artifacts, which I'm not seeing here in the group of LCD monitors I've confirmed that accept custom refresh rates, so I discard this one.

- Constant fps by means of frame skipping/repeating: that might explain the choppiness I'm seeing in the rest of monitors I've tested.

[Blanka]

LCD panels themselves stay pretty good over time, but the backlight might not survive that long. As long as there are backlight replacements, you're OK.

[torino]

That's a nice program, the problem I'm seeing (I might be wrong) is that it doesn't measure your videocard's real refresh rate, as Arcade_OSD does.

The program pulls those values from PowerStrip, so yes they are not measured, but still it does something similar only the number it reports is not the frame rate itself, but rather "Lost Frames", which you can see at the bottom of the screen during the test. This number, I believe, is a difference between PowerStrip vfreq and the real-time measurement like you do.

Sure, but bear in mind I'm actually *measuring* the real refresh rate with Arcade_OSD, it's not a value reported by software but something I compute by syncing to the hardware's vsync signal and using cpu's clock as a reference, during several seconds in order to get a value with three decimal figures of precision.

So, if Windows was cheating with the refresh values we'd know as the measured vfreq value would tell us.

Yes, I suppose. I think there are still ways to get wrong number depending on hardware settings and API, or even particular video driver, but I agree that should in principle produce good measurement. I'd still rather trust what OSD says, or oscilloscope, as it measures actual analog signal going out of video DAC and what goes into the monitor.

On the other hand, yes, I've got a retired 17" CRT which I'm planning to use for some testing during my holiday, however don't trust so much on the values prompted by a monitor's OSD as a reference, they can't be very accurate as the only way to get good precision value is to measure the refresh during several seconds.

CRTs must have very precise way to control and measure timing, each single second, if that was not the case the picture would fly all over the place, so I think those numbers should be accurate, as accurate as oscilloscope, I would say. I rather trust CRT OSD than software, and with you it's the opposite, so why not have both measurements and we at least know they should not be far off.

So, unless I'm missing something, if we try a custom refresh of, say 57.349, and these two conditions are met:

- Measured vfreq is 57.349 (or close)
- Scrolling pattern is smooth

... then we have to conclude our LCD is actually refreshing its panel at 57.349 Hz

Yes. I only suggest different pattern (vertical bars), make it scroll horizontally and more slowly, and do the vfreq measurement with CRT OSD as well.

Finally, you can argue that even if I'm actually sending a custom refresh rate to the monitor, it's internally converting that signal to some fixed 60Hz one. This could be done by 2 means:

- Interpolation: that would explain why a custom refresh rate still allows smooth scrolling, but would necessarily involve blurring artifacts, which I'm not seeing here in the group of LCD monitors I've confirmed that accept custom refresh rates, so I discard this one.

- Constant fps by means of frame skipping/repeating: that might explain the choppiness I'm seeing in the rest of monitors I've tested.

There is no way to smooth that kind of mismatch in real-time, and maybe not at all. If there is absolutely no choppiness and tearing, like there is none on CRT, then the damn LCD is refreshing at exactly the same rate as the frames are being sent out of the video adapter. The thing is, some people simply can't see it, even on this YouTube video of Moon Patrol:

[lilshawn]

god lord not the moon partol video again 

okay... wells gardner made these panels to be COMPATIBLE not TRUE.

they are made to WORK... since CRT's are buh bye, operators need SOMETHING to replace them with. operators are just looking for something that can display the game image so they can get the game back on route and making money. they don't give a !@#$ if the pixels don't line up or if there is screen tear or the image has 1/8th of an inch cut off. they are made to just work.

[kalars123]

if you read my review though, the lovely thing about this panel is it will more than just work, it truly is a replacement for a CRT if you have the cash to burn on it, correct resolution's although stretched to 16:9 i don't really even notice the stretching personally I'm not sure of what magic this thing uses but it is some black magic that's for sure.
And it refreshes at the correct rate, again some seriously black magic.

pics aren't the best go go cell phone camera

[torino]

god lord not the moon partol video again 

I don't understand why would you mind, let alone be upset about it.

You forgot to mention what's your objection about, what's the problem?


The visual numbness I'm talking about seem to be quite real medical curiosity, say like color blindness. And just as if you're were arguing with color blind person what's red and what's green, where having actual picture of those colors can only help establish some common reference, so is the purpose of this video to help us find agreement, or at least better understand the disagreement. Ok?

[torino]

And it refreshes at the correct rate, again some seriously black magic.

Maybe it's not magic, but just a trick your eyes play on you. You are the person who said that YouTube video looks mostly "smooth", while it's actually the most ridiculous display of frame rate choppiness, juddered and hiccups. Plus, it's hard to believe your statement when you are the only person in the world to claim it. Can you point any manual or technical document somewhere on the interent that can confirm supposed variable refresh rates of your, or any other LCD in the world? Some factory specification, data sheet, blue print, something, anything, anything at all?

[lilshawn]

god lord not the moon partol video again 

I don't understand why would you mind, let alone be upset about it.

You forgot to mention what's your objection about, what's the problem?

i guess you stopped reading this thread http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=112032.0

uhm, guise... you do know you are watching a YOUTUBE video where (likely) an MPEG video was converted to FLV using an encoder right?!?!? of course it's going to look choppy it's a CRAPPY video!

i wouldn't say that. your forgetting the video is a second generation recode. depending on the origin of the video, the quality of the encoders (yes x2), hell even the speed of the computer that's trying to play MAME AND record video at the same time. 

and all this at 240p *sigh*

I wouldn't doubt the issues with stuttering and dropped frames you are "seeing" in this video are a result of a combination of all these things. you can't process information this much without having some loss. FLV off youtube is probably the worst quality video you can get. it's probably right next to RF directly into a TV.

the only way you would be able to see anything that's directly related to frequency VS display speed would be to have a stream of bitmap screen captures of EVERY frame being output by MAME and having a corresponding frame captured from the monitor. which is going to be impossible due to the way the LCD refreshes the screen image.

i say: if you like to play, play. if you want 100% accuracy, buy the real thing.

[kalars123]

And it refreshes at the correct rate, again some seriously black magic.

Maybe it's not magic, but just a trick your eyes play on you. You are the person who said that YouTube video looks mostly "smooth", while it's actually the most ridiculous display of frame rate choppiness, juddered and hiccups. Plus, it's hard to believe your statement when you are the only person in the world to claim it. Can you point any manual or technical document somewhere on the interent that can confirm supposed variable refresh rates of your, or any other LCD in the world? Some factory specification, data sheet, blue print, something, anything, anything at all?

no i don't think i really need to considering I have the product right here in front of me, if you want your more than welcome to drive to Texas and come over, i don't understand why you think it's completely impossible for an LCD to refresh at any OTHER rate than 60hz, you've said you completely believe the OSD of a CRT that it's reporting the correct refresh rate but the OSD of an LCD is lying? Sorta hypocritical isn't it

"edit"
here's your proof than an LCD is capable of doing other refreshes than just 60hz
http://www.yslcd.com.tw/docs/product/T260XW02%20V.C.pdf
page 16, section 7 subsection 7.1
clearly stats that it is capable of refresh from 47hz to 63hz Vertical. now that may or may not be the spec sheet for the panel in the D9000 LCD but the panel in the D9000 is a AU panel, and that spec sheet clearly states that AU is capable and does produce panel's with variable vertical refreshes
"2nd edit"
To further Calamity's and my arguement here is a quote from Agreed on the AVS forums which explains this much better than i ever could.
Well, there have been some straightforward facts presented.

Fact 1: LCDs don't have refresh rates in the same sense that other technologies do, they have response times. The liquid crystals change state, they're limited by response time, not refresh rate.

So, fact 2: If the video processing technology feeding the LCD tells them to change state every 1/24ths of a second (okay, 1/23.97th, whatever), they're happy to do so. This is exactly what goes on in 120hz TVs doing a 5:5 pulldown anyway, from the LCD panel's perspective. Just because the video processor deals with it in terms of "okay do 5 repeats of this frame, now 5 of this frame, now 5 of this frame" and so on until it has served up 120 frames in a second doesn't mean the LCD is serving up 5 repeats then 5 repeats then 5 repeats - it just stays the same for all 5 of those frames that it is given, for a total of 24 actual state changes in a second.

Finally fact 3: The panel itself does not impose a technological limitation that would prevent 24p content from being shown at 24hz. The only question is what the actual supporting hardware and software in the TV itself can feed the screen. Here it would be helpful to know some more about the specific engineering problems faced in serving lower framerate content. For example, A-series Samsung TVs had a visual banding problem when displaying 24p content. It got fixed in a firmware update. Who knows what was going on there?

So it isn't that people are "talking out of their asses" about all this. There are clear facts, and there are questions. I'd like to have some of the questions answered, that would be great.

you can read the full thread here
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1218547

"3rd edit"
http://www.yslcd.com.tw/docs/product/T260XW01%20V.8.pdf another model
page 12 section 3 subsection 3.3

http://www.yslcd.com.tw/docs/product/T260XW03%20V.3.pdf and yet another model
page 12 section 3 subsection 3.3

and since we don't want anyone saying I'm playing favorites with AoU here's a Samsung model picket at random
http://www.yslcd.com.tw/docs/product/LTA230W1-L07.pdf
page 10 section 3 subsection 3.1
you said you could never find any proof that an LCD could refresh at any other rate that 60hz and yet in less than 30mins of searching i found 4 manufacture spec sheets one picked completely randomly that prove otherwise. So quite spouting off your wikinonsence it's not the panel's that are incapable of different refresh rates, it the monitor manufactures that restrict said refresh rates if 98% of consumes will never use any other refresh rate than 60hz why spend the extra money on the circuitry to feed that signal to the panel, when they can make a few monitor's that will feed the signal to the panel and charge a hefty premium for it ALA D9000 lcd

[torino]

no i don't think i really need to considering I have the product right here in front of me, if you want your more than welcome to drive to Texas and come over, i don't understand why you think it's completely impossible for an LCD to refresh at any OTHER rate than 60hz,

Yes, thank you for your generous review. It's just unfortunate consequence of human subjectivity I must sort your personal findings under question mark, but what I am really saying is that if the feature actually existed (today) someone else would must have said somewhere something about it.

EDIT: I see you posted some interesting references in the meantime, that's fantastic, thank you, but give me some time to go through that and just ignore the parts of this message you have already addressed. Although, I could tell you just the same I spoke previously to Wells Gardner via e-mail about this. I asked them four times that one and the same question. Three times they pointed me to INPUT refresh rates, to which I replied that I want to know about the OUTPUT and actual display refresh rates, then after third time I did not get any replay from them any more. 

you've said you completely believe the OSD of a CRT that it's reporting the correct refresh rate but the OSD of an LCD is lying? Sorta hypocritical isn't it

CRTs are analog devices, controlled by varying voltages in video signal. The last component to have video information before the signal leaves computer is DAC (digital to analog converter). That's the signal CRTs work directly with. On the other hand LCDs are digital devices. The first component to welcome video signal in an LCD is ADC (analog to digital converter), which converts continuous quantity to a discrete time digital representation. This is why I would rather trust CRT than LCD OSD or PC software, and this also may explain why there is no any information about refresh rate after decimal point on your display. Yours is actually the first LCD I know that shows refresh rates on OSD, but I am afraid that is only description of input signal and not what is actually going on with the display itself, although I'd prefer to be proven wrong, so let me now see what additional evidence you got there...

[kalars123]

what kind of LCD's are you using? my Asus reports Vrefresh and Hsync rate, hell even my crappy Viewsonic reports Vrefresh, I just for life of me can't understand why, you won't accept that LCD {PANELS} are capable of variable refreshes, neither I nor Calamity are saying that your or anyone's {MONITOR} is capable of it, only that the {PANEL'S} are and depending on manufacture needs they design circuitry to feed only certain ranges of refresh rates to the panel either being 59.9hz-65hz or 43hz-75hz, even the retail sales documentation for Asus monitor said that it was capable from 55hz-85hz. I can understand why there are few if any detailed documentation on the matter manufactures make things that people need, and people only need 60hz, if 99/100 people only need 60hz then 99/100 monitors will support only a small range of refresh rates on either side of 60hz, but that doesn't mean that the panels them selves can't display other refresh rates only that manufactures are building monitors that will sell, could you imagine the confusion "in the US atleast" if manufactures built thier monitors to display the whole range of the panel's capability's and then gave that information out as a selling point? people would be confused to all hell.  We just want something that will work, we don't care what the technical specs of it are we just want to hook up our PS3's and Xbox 360's and have it work. And the people that do care about the technical specs will pay that HUGE premium for a monitor that will do it all.


But I digress I'm done arguing with you, even after giving you the proof you asked for your still won't accept it. So my recommendation to you is to drop the $650 on a WG9000 LCD and see for yourself.

[torino]

"edit"
here's your proof than an LCD is capable of doing other refreshes than just 60hz
http://www.yslcd.com.tw/docs/product/T260XW02 V.C.pdf
page 16, section 7 subsection 7.1
clearly stats that it is capable of refresh from 47hz to 63hz Vertical. now that may or may not be the spec sheet for the panel in the D9000 LCD but the panel in the D9000 is a AU panel, and that spec sheet clearly states that AU is capable and does produce panel's with variable vertical refreshes

That's about *input*, title says: "Timing characteristics of LCD module input signals".

"2nd edit"
To further Calamity's and my arguement here is a quote from Agreed on the AVS forums which explains this much better than i ever could.

Calamity could have been under temporary illusion,
I think we are yet to hear his final conclusion,
but it seems fair to agree, that he can be a referee.

Fact 1: LCDs don't have refresh rates in the same sense that other technologies do...

Of course they do, there is no other way to depict motion, except for vector monitors and holograms. LCDs could possibly update only those pixels that changed since last frame, and by doing so completely skew the meaning of "frames per second", but when the camera pans and when the screen scrolls then often all the pixels change every frame, thus it all really must come down to same old thing - "frame by frame", amount of which in one second is known as 'frame rate' and is exactly what defines the very concept of "animation" itself, either live television broadcast, cartoon or movie, on CRT, LCD or via Projector, digital or analog signal, recorded on VHS or DVD, it's always the same, it's the only way.

 

So, fact 2: If the video processing technology feeding the LCD tells them to change state every 1/24ths of a second (okay, 1/23.97th, whatever), they're happy to do so. This is exactly what goes on in 120hz TVs doing a 5:5 pulldown anyway, from the LCD panel's perspective. Just because the video processor deals with it in terms of "okay do 5 repeats of this frame, now 5 of this frame, now 5 of this frame" and so on until it has served up 120 frames in a second doesn't mean the LCD is serving up 5 repeats then 5 repeats then 5 repeats - it just stays the same for all 5 of those frames that it is given, for a total of 24 actual state changes in a second.

You are confusing frame rate conversion with syncing. If the display can refresh at exact rate as video feed then there are no any repeated or skipped frames, no any fractions either, it's 1:1. Also, it is something completely different to convert frame rates when they are whole multiples, but if they are not, like in our case, then there will be choppiness and/or tearing.

Finally fact 3: The panel itself does not impose a technological limitation that would prevent 24p content from being shown at 24hz. The only question is what the actual supporting hardware and software in the TV itself can feed the screen.

It's not important where is the limitation, and you are haste to conclude that's not the display itself. Of course liquid crystals have some operational range, but that's "safe range", or maximum capability under best and worse case scenario, still none of that says anything about how the final assembly and complete products actually work.

"3rd edit"
http://www.yslcd.com.tw/docs/product/T260XW01 V.8.pdf another model
page 12 section 3 subsection 3.3

That's about *input* again, title says: "3-3 Input Timing Specifications".

http://www.yslcd.com.tw/docs/product/T260XW03 V.3.pdf and yet another model
page 12 section 3 subsection 3.3

That's about *input* again, it says: "This is the signal timing required at the input..."

and since we don't want anyone saying I'm playing favorites with AoU here's a Samsung model picket at random
http://www.yslcd.com.tw/docs/product/LTA230W1-L07.pdf
page 10 section 3 subsection 3.1

That's about *input* ("connector") again, it says: "The connector for display data & timing signal..."

you said you could never find any proof that an LCD could refresh at any other rate that 60hz and yet in less than 30mins of searching i found 4 manufacture spec sheets one picked completely randomly that prove otherwise.

No, I did not say that, and no you did not find any evidence any LCD can sync to some range of variable refresh rates. All you did is confirm what we already knew, which is that LCDs are made to replace CRTs and therefore are compatible with the same INPUT signal, but that has nothing to do with how many frames they can actually OUTPUT on their displays.

So quite spouting off your wikinonsence it's not the panel's that are incapable of different refresh rates, it the monitor manufactures that restrict said refresh rates if 98% of consumes will never use any other refresh rate than 60hz why spend the extra money on the circuitry to feed that signal to the panel, when they can make a few monitor's that will feed the signal to the panel and charge a hefty premium for it ALA D9000 lcd

I repeat, all the "evidence" you presented is only about INPUT signal, not OUTPUT refresh rate of the screen itself. -- You know, at the beginning LCDs were doing only 15fps, some 20, then 30, and it's only rather recently they got them up to 60 and eventually above 120fps, but the whole time they could sure take this same variable INPUT, the same as CRT could. And somehow people didn't notice anything even then, but this blindness is not of medical origin, it is a manifestation of what is called "planned obsolescence" - the desire on the part of a consumer.. to own something.. a little newer.. a little sooner.. than it's necessary. **The Light Bulb Conspiracy: http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/light-bulb-conspiracy

Oompa Loompa, do-ba-dee-doo,
I’ve got a perfect puzzle for you.

Oompa Loompa, do-ba-dee-dee,
If you are wise you’ll listen to me!

[kalars123]

like i said I'm done arguing with you, there's no need for Calamity to any sort of referee as there is nothing to referee.  You believe what you will I have the product in front of me and no matter what I say or show you will convince you otherwise it's like trying to explain the difference between red and blue to a blind man, no matter what they just won't get it because they can't see it for themselves, like I said buy a WG LCD hook it up and see for yourself.
I won't respond to this thread any longer unless someone poses a question about the WG 9000 LCD.

"edit"
and really the Oompa Loompa song?
are we in 3rd grade?

[torino]

i guess you stopped reading this thread http://forum.arcadecontrols.com/index.php?topic=112032.0

I replied to your comment the first time around. Yes, it's very CRAPPY video, full of choppiness, judder and hiccups...which is exactly why it's a good example of those visual problems. That's the whole point. Now, see what's above my reply in that thread, kalars123 described it as: - "you can tell where the game runs smooth, then jumps a few frames to catch up". He sees only occasional big glitches, he does not seem to notice there is constant judder too, that original difference between Moon Patrol's 57 and 60/30fps of the output/recording.

Would you say that video runs "smooth" anywhere?

[torino]

like i said I'm done arguing with you, there's no need for Calamity to any sort of referee as there is nothing to referee.  You believe what you will I have the product in front of me and no matter what I say or show you will convince you otherwise it's like trying to explain the difference between red and blue to a blind man, no matter what they just won't get it because they can't see it for themselves, like I said buy a WG LCD hook it up and see for yourself.
I won't respond to this thread any longer unless someone poses a question about the WG 9000 LCD.

I'd rather you did not take it personally. Usually people call it "discussion" and "debate", sure it's still "arguing", but there is nothing wrong about it. Arguing is very important scientific tool people use to find out the truth, together. It's not you against me, it's two of us on the same side, driving around in a van and solving mysteries.

Anyway, as you wish, ignore if you like, but let me say there is no convincing or explanation necessary, I am only asking to see some document that can actually confirm your assumptions, and all you found is specifications about INPUT signal. -- You know, we never even got to the point to discuss the possibility your LCD support several predefined refresh rates, I think that's far more likely, although still not the same as syncing to some range of arbitrary (variable) refresh rates.

[Calamity]

Calamity could have been under temporary illusion,

 
I must admit you have your moments.

I'm a CRT lover, I won't probably switch to a LCD screen for retro-gaming in my life.

That said, one of my main arguments against LCDs (I still have others) was its supposedly fixed refresh rate. Partly inspired by the debate started in this forum I figured out the experiment I explained above. To my surprise, 4 out of 7 LCDs that I've tested so far can actually refresh their panels at any custom refresh rates. 3 of the lucky ones are pre-2005 HP/Dell models. The forth one is in my Sony laptop. More modern LCDs I've tested (these include a 42" Philips TV and a four figures priced 30" Dell monitor) completely miss this capability. So one would say this feature has been dropped on the way during recent years.

So sportmanship must prevail over pride and I have to admit that *some* LCDs do refresh at custom rates. I honestly think these are great news for the hobby, and would be happy if eventually a sort of list of suitable monitors emerged out this debate.

This also implies that some other LCDs *can't* refresh at custom rates, and therefore will suffer from all sort of ugly motion artifacts when fed with custom refresh rates (arcade games).

As there isn't much information available, the only way to draw conclusions is to test each single monitor. In order to get reliable results, you need:

- The objective part: A reliable input refresh source: I proposed a modded Arcade_OSD + Powerstrip (PS would be enough but Arcade_OSD allows you to double check the actual refresh obtained).

- The subjective part: A reliable judder detector: one's eye

You have exposed your objections on both of these premises of my experiment. Basically, your arguments are:

- You dislike the scrolling pattern I use,

- You have doubts on the actual refresh rate of the source even if I'm telling you tham I'm actually measuring it by means of an external clock, and what I'm measuring is the rate of the hardware's sync signal, not some sort of software emulated crap, and

- You have doubts on my eye's sensitivity to judder, and are condescending enough as to consider I may have been under temporary illusion. I can't blame you for this and won't ask you an act of faith, and it would be worthless to try to persuade you of how trained I am on detecting video artifacts.