



They are 2 ways to measure the response time: Black-to-White (B-to-W) or Gray-to-Gray (G-to-G). Gray-to-Gray is what is mentioned and used on consumer grade monitor, and Black-to-White is what it mentions on professional grade monitors, as well as Gray-to-Gray.



Black-to-White is looking at a pixel passing from perfect black to perfect white, and measure how fast it does the switch. As the 2 colors are extreme end, the result is always very high time in milliseconds, like 10 or 16ms, which sound bad (hence why they don't mention it), but actually very good.



Gray-to-Gray is measure by taking 2 grays colors and see how fast the monitor switch. The problem with this, is that the 2 gray color changes between manufacture to manufacture and even monitor to monitor. It can also be the same gray color, which explain the impossible 1ms response time monitors.



Also something to know, is the more vertical lines of pixels you have on the screen, the slower the response time. Why? Because the monitor draws 1 line at the time from the top to bottom. As the response time is when a pixel changes from 1 color to another, the time for the monitor to draw the rest of the screen is taking into account (unless the manufacture decides to exclude that time, to reach lower numbers)



The drawing of top to bottom of an LCD monitor, is something we can see in action:

That is why in fast motion games, you have this that can happen:



Split in 2!

(unless you force the graphic card to limit the image output to the monitor refresh rate.. so 60fps for a 60Hz, so that the monitor has time to draw every frame and avoid the picture above. This system is called VSync, see game option to turn it on or off).



So, higher the Hz, the faster the monitor takes in drawing each line. However, the time the pixel turns to show the right color is the response time. As the monitor takes more time to draw every line vertically, the response time measurement is also affected.



Now, let me show you why gray-to-gray response time is meaningless.

We have here the Dell U2410 measured by TFTCentral. The Dell U2410 has a 6ms response time G-to-G, and uses a technology that is slower than a "gamer class" monitor, it's 1920x1200 resolution (so 1200 vertical lines).





Very good. Now, let's look at a 1ms response time monitor. As it is 1ms, we expect that this one is 6 times faster, right?! In addition, this monitor uses a super fast "gamer-class" monitor technology called TN (explained bellow): The ViewSonic VX2739wm, 27inch, 1920x1080. While the screen is bigger, it does not mater as the resolution is close to the same. This is 1080 vertical lines... so it has LESS vertical lines then the U2410 which has 1200. So, we expect even greater results.... WOW, compared to the above it must not show any ghosting what's so ever. Should be great!





Oh! ... what a disappointment. With everything on it's side to be ultra fast, it failed to beat the U2410. It's a bit slower than the U2410.



So don't get fooled with the numbers. Check reviews!

​ Response time is a measurement done by the monitor manufacture, which involve switching a pixel from one color to another, and measure the time it takes to do this task. The faster it is at doing this task, the faster the LCD monitor is at drawing, and the less you will see ghosting effect. Lower the response time value, the better. However, this technique has no standard method of measuring.They are 2 ways to measure the response time: Black-to-White (B-to-W) or Gray-to-Gray (G-to-G). Gray-to-Gray is what is mentioned and used on consumer grade monitor, and Black-to-White is what it mentions on professional grade monitors, as well as Gray-to-Gray.is looking at a pixel passing from perfect black to perfect white, and measure how fast it does the switch. As the 2 colors are extreme end, the result is always very high time in milliseconds, like 10 or 16ms, which sound bad (hence why they don't mention it), but actually very good.is measure by taking 2 grays colors and see how fast the monitor switch. The problem with this, is that the 2 gray color changes between manufacture to manufacture and even monitor to monitor. It can also be the same gray color, which explain the impossible 1ms response time monitors.Also something to know, is the more vertical lines of pixels you have on the screen, the slower the response time. Why? Because the monitor draws 1 line at the time from the top to bottom. As the response time is when a pixel changes from 1 color to another, the time for the monitor to draw the rest of the screen is taking into account (unless the manufacture decides to exclude that time, to reach lower numbers)The drawing of top to bottom of an LCD monitor, is something we can see in action:That is why in fast motion games, you have this that can happen:Split in 2!(unless you force the graphic card to limit the image output to the monitor refresh rate.. so 60fps for a 60Hz, so that the monitor has time to draw every frame and avoid the picture above. This system is called VSync, see game option to turn it on or off).So, higher the Hz, the faster the monitor takes in drawing each line. However, the time the pixel turns to show the right color is the response time. As the monitor takes more time to draw every line vertically, the response time measurement is also affected.Now, let me show you why gray-to-gray response time is meaningless.We have here the Dell U2410 measured by TFTCentral. The Dell U2410 has a 6ms response time G-to-G, and uses a technology that is slower than a "gamer class" monitor, it's 1920x1200 resolution (so 1200 vertical lines).Very good. Now, let's look at a 1ms response time monitor. As it is 1ms, we expect that this one is 6 times faster, right?! In addition, this monitor uses a super fast "gamer-class" monitor technology called TN (explained bellow): The ViewSonic VX2739wm, 27inch, 1920x1080. While the screen is bigger, it does not mater as the resolution is close to the same. This is 1080 vertical lines... so it has LESS vertical lines then the U2410 which has 1200. So, we expect even greater results.... WOW, compared to the above it must not show any ghosting what's so ever. Should be great!Oh!... what a disappointment. With everything on it's side to be ultra fast, it failed to beat the U2410. It's a bit slower than the U2410.So don't get fooled with the numbers.

Before we start, to better understand what the specification means of a monitor, we will go over that, so that you have a better understanding on what you are buying.

This is the "fake" contrast ratio measurement, if you will. Let me explain:



Due to the back light, most panels except select MVA panels and some PVA panels (all explain later what they are, but in short, they have the ability to block the back light better than any other technologies on black), the monitor is limited to about 1000:1 contrast ratio. To boost that value, the monitor can play with the brightness of the back light based on the picture displayed to increase that ratio. So on a dark scene, the back light diminishes to minimum to make is easier to see the hard to see details, and on white and bright image, boosts the back light to maximize, to provide a more "realistic" feel (kinda like the sun, acting on the environment) and make explosion in movies "pop" more.

By default, dynamic contrast ratio is disabled on computer monitors (TV it's enabled), else every time you open a folder window or web browser, you become blinded by the back light.



As it requires to go inside menus few bother enabling it before watching a movie or playing a game, so it ends up few uses it. So, a 1000000000000: 1 contrast ratio feature can be ignored.



Plus, this feature affects the whole screen, and not regions, so a street light at night will not pop as you think, it will be dimmed, as the rest of the screen.



Some mid-high range last generation CRT (the monitor with the big tube on the back) where able to do this feature accurately. They usually had a button on the monitor to enable it. NEC called it Super Bright Mode. It make the cathode cannon boost in intensity when drawing the pixels that were brighter... so in a game.. a sun.. looked like a SUN, and rest of the image was not affected. only that specific spot was bright. It was awesome! Sadly this is gone due to LCD technology limitation. In the case you don't know how a CRT works, it's basically the cathode cannon on the back of the tube output light to draw each pixel, row by row, and the phosphor on the glass are where you see the picture, in the tube, allows to keep the retain the light for some time. Hence, why old CRT's, and cheap ones are flickering fest as the phosphor either aged to a point that it didn't retain light, or is so cheap quality that it does not retain light for a long time.

​





What is LED Monitors?

It's marketing B.S. All it means is that the back light is using a set of LED's instead that illuminate the LCD panel. Its' not each pixel is an LED, to my knowledge there isn't anything this small on the LED market... at least nothing affordable to put a huge quantity of them to fill a monitor. LCD's don't emit light, and needs a source of light on the back for us to see the light filtration done by the LCD panel, which allows us to see an image. They are 4 technologies: White-LED (W-LED), RGB-LED, CFL, and newly added GB-LED.



This is an LED Display in reality:



It a bit hard to play games with it



Perfect (or close to it) white LED's don't exists, they are usually light blue color.

Of course, higher end the monitor, the better the white LED's are.. some also add a white phosphor layer to adjust the white, but usually it's not very good compared to the other technologies.



Bellow, I'll explain the up and downs for the different back light technologies.

​ It's all about LED displays, these days. What's all the rave? W00t! Well no... no w00t's, sorry. It's actually a down side. But, it's also a up side. It depends on the situation. But before I start on this.What is LED Monitors?It's marketing B.S. All it means is that the back light is using a set of LED's instead that illuminate the LCD panel. Its' not each pixel is an LED, to my knowledge there isn't anything this small on the LED market... at least nothing affordable to put a huge quantity of them to fill a monitor. LCD's don't emit light, and needs a source of light on the back for us to see the light filtration done by the LCD panel, which allows us to see an image. They are 4 technologies: White-LED (W-LED), RGB-LED, CFL, and newly added GB-LED.This is an LED Display in reality:It a bit hard to play games with itPerfect (or close to it) white LED's don't exists, they are usually light blue color.Of course, higher end the monitor, the better the white LED's are.. some also add a white phosphor layer to adjust the white, but usually it's not very good compared to the other technologies.Bellow, I'll explain the up and downs for the different back light technologies.

Glossy film is used by many manufacture to try to compensate down side of a budget class monitors. Matte films used on panel distorted light, so text is less sharp by a few small percentage, and colors appear more washed out. So, manufactures needs to compensate this.. which they can.. but that cost more to implement by getting better films, and better back light light spreading technologies. So, to reduce the monitor cost, they used glossy film, as it does not distorted light, blacks looks better, and colors a bit more "vivid". So, it's a trick to reduce cost, and at the same time, gets a little bonus. But at what cost to you? Sure it's cheaper or your wallet, but how about using the monitor? This is your main interaction with your computer. If you can't see properly, or fighting to see the monitor or boosting the brightness of the screen to compensate and have your eyes hurt... it's not worth it, at least to me.

​