CRT screens best?

[c3]

The 200ms gain in reaction time with no blur by far outweighs the 20ms loss in input lag. The BenQ XL211T costs less than 200 dollars.

With my Asus VG278HE at 120Hz and Lightboost (the Lightboost registry hack doesn't currently support 144Hz) playing at 1080p I am pretty much brutalizing my competition. Even with its 2-5ms input lag, which is worse than the 1ms of my old 120Hz monitor the difference with Lightboost is so huge the input lag literally becomes a non-issue. The only thing that matters now that I don't experience any motion blur is my true reaction time.

The reason I got the Asus rather than the BenQ is simple: bigger targets>1-4ms less input lag.

200ms gain in reaction time by using a 'lightboost hack?'

Gotta be honest, sounds like baloney... to think one could achieve an additional 200ms in reaction time by using a lightboost setting to eliminate motion blur seems a bit optimistic. Mind you, 200ms is around the average time it takes a human to respond to changing colors... where does this 'additional 200ms' gain in reaction time come from? Not talking smack, just curious.

I haven't heard of this 'tweak' so I looked a little bit into it and the vibe I'm getting is that because your motion blur will be eliminated, your reaction time improves with the improved visibility of your opponents... Although, I suspect this does increase your input lag slightly by adding an additional process.

[Lorfa]

200mz gain in reaction time by using a 'lightboost hack?'

Gotta be honest, sounds like baloney...

It is.

I mean I get it that he likes the effect, but this figure he gave has nothing to do with reality.

[c3]

It is.

I mean I get it that he likes the effect, but this figure he gave has nothing to do with reality.

Cmon Lorfa, be open to the possibility that this tweak can improve your very brain function to ludicrous speed, and go w/ it!

[Cat]

Cmon Lorfa, be open to the possibility that this tweak can improve your very brain function to ludicrous speed, and go w/ it!

Actually I meant that the motion blur with regular monitors hampers your reaction speed since you don't notice your enemies as quickly. A 5th of a second gain when moving fast isn't terribly unreasonable when you take that into account, since with strobed backlights you can see things clearly even when moving your mouse around really fast.

And even if 200ms is a high-end, so is Lorfa's 20ms input lag. Can't think of any LCDs apart from LCD-TV screens with that much. Read my sentence as "Lightboost helps you 10 times as much as lower input lag" and you'll see what I was trying to get across.

And no, Lightboost doesn't affect input lag one bit. By that logic all CRTs would have high input lag.

[o0MrCheesy0o]

You can't go wrong with a CRT - they're dirt cheap (even free sometimes!) and you'll get a nice image at 120Hz.

[Lorfa]

Actually I meant that the motion blur with regular monitors hampers your reaction speed since you don't notice your enemies as quickly. A 5th of a second gain when moving fast isn't terribly unreasonable when you take that into account, since with strobed backlights you can see things clearly even when moving your mouse around really fast.

Usually the blur (ghosting) was caused by response time. A display with a 5 ms response time should be able to change the pixels 200 times/sec, and therefore have no artifacts for QL's 125 fps (8 ms / frame). In practice something probably mucks this up to make it more difficult for it to actually avoid the artifacts, hence the benefit from lightboost.

Really though, even in the case of the ghosting, it wouldn't effect the overall input lag (and therefore reaction time) since the latest image is displayed with the most brightness/clarity.

And even if 200ms is a high-end, so is Lorfa's 20ms input lag. Can't think of any LCDs apart from LCD-TV screens with that much.

You are mistaken. 20 ms input lag is common, _especially_ for dated or non-high end LCD displays!

To give one example: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u2913wm.htm

Read my sentence as "Lightboost helps you 10 times as much as lower input lag" and you'll see what I was trying to get across.

Lower input lag is relative. I'll take a ghosting display with 1 ms input lag, over a non-ghosting lightboost type one with 60 ms input lag any day.

And no, Lightboost doesn't affect input lag one bit.

It's a distinct possibility that this is true. Since it's just a matter of turning the backlight on and off quickly it should not require any extra processing. However if it does, an increase in latency is a concern, although it could certainly be negligible.

By that logic all CRTs would have high input lag.

This is incorrect. They are completely different technologies.

Anyways, I hear the message loud and clear that lightboost is awesome, and I believe you. I do give plenty of weight to your opinion on this and if I was in the market for a display right now I would try to get one that supported lightboost. It's just that some of the things you're saying about it are outrageous.

[Lorfa]

Cmon Lorfa, be open to the possibility that this tweak can improve your very brain function to ludicrous speed, and go w/ it!

I know! Since my reaction time can often dip under 200 ms, it should make me have a negative reaction time, such that I can see a tiny bit into the future!

[Cat]

Usually the blur (ghosting) was caused by response time. A display with a 5 ms response time should be able to change the pixels 200 times/sec, and therefore have no artifacts for QL's 125 fps (8 ms / frame). In practice something probably mucks this up to make it more difficult for it to actually avoid the artifacts, hence the benefit from lightboost.

Really though, even in the case of the ghosting, it wouldn't effect the overall input lag (and therefore reaction time) since the latest image is displayed with the most brightness/clarity.

You still don't understand what it does.

Here's a video showing it clearly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD5gjAs1A2s

I know! Since my reaction time can often dip under 200 ms, it should make me have a negative reaction time, such that I can see a tiny bit into the future!

And yeah, well done not addressing the actual argument. Allow me to make it clear enough for you to require no reading comprehension whatsoever to decipher it.

Actually I meant that the motion blur with regular monitors hampers your reaction speed since you don't notice your enemies as quickly. A 5th of a second gain when moving fast isn't terribly unreasonable when you take that into account, since with strobed backlights you can see things clearly even when moving your mouse around really fast.

If that seemed condescending it's because your post was condescending. I'm not claiming you react quicker while sitting still and waiting for a stationary image to change (though it may have come across that way in the first page, but from the second page on I thought I explained myself clearly enough). And yeah, the resulting increase in reaction speed when you're able to actually see everything clearly while moving around quickly is pretty amazing.


I'll concede the existence of really crappy LCD monitors, but not a single 3DVision monitor exists with such horrible input lag that I know of. At least none I've ever heard anyone recommend people to buy. They're pretty much all 1-2ms.

Anyways, I hear the message loud and clear that lightboost is awesome, and I believe you. I do give plenty of weight to your opinion on this and if I was in the market for a display right now I would try to get one that supported lightboost. It's just that some of the things you're saying about it are outrageous.

And I maintain that my arguments aren't as horribly outrageous as you might think if you interpret them the way I meant you to.

[Lorfa]

You still don't understand what it does.

Here's a video showing it clearly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD5gjAs1A2s

I've actually seen that video before.

Per that video:

"Pixel persistence is hidden by strobing"
"Good for zero motion blur (CRT style)"

Exactly what I was talking about. The goal is to prevent artifacts.

And yeah, well done not addressing the actual argument. Allow me to make it clear enough for you to require no reading comprehension whatsoever to decipher it.

I was responding to c3's post.

And yeah, the resulting increase in reaction speed when you're able to actually see everything clearly while moving around quickly is pretty amazing.

Say an object moves from point A to point C on screen in a straight line. It passes through a point B on the way to point C which is between A and C.

So you're saying that with the ghosting, it was so bad that you would mistake the object's after image at points A and B for the actual object when it was at point C?

This is the only way I can think of that it would affect reaction time.

If you look at this vid:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ys2zuetdm-M

Here the trailing takes a really long time to die off, and the result is a very pretty albeit screen cluttering effect. A lot of this effect would make it difficult to predict the motion of objects.

This is an issue of clarity as opposed to reaction time. When things are clearer do you react faster? Maybe, but the link is tenuous. Perhaps hand-eye coordination is superior with superior clarity.

[c3]

I know! Since my reaction time can often dip under 200 ms, it should make me have a negative reaction time, such that I can see a tiny bit into the future!

Well clearly, that's because you're clairvoyant