Since the topic of response times came up in the previous posts, here's a portion of the article I read in the newspaper about this matter.
Unless youre an Olympic athlete, milliseconds should hardly make a difference in your life. Why, then, are LCD computer monitors & LCS tvs boasting a millisecond-response feature in ther sometimes confusing-enough laundry list of specifications? "Its the spec du jour" said Chris Connery, a VP at DisplaySearch, a research firm.
Technological improvements in recent years have reduced response times to the point at which performance gaps between the products would be hard to notice, experts say. The industry norm dropped from 25ms 3 yrs ago to about 8ms for LCD computer monitors and 16ms for LCD tvs by the end of last year. In fact, a 16ms response time translates roughly to 60fps - the rate of fluid, full-motion video - and thus theoretically eliminates obvious blurring. But some manufacturers & experts contend a difference, and slight blurring, can still be perceived between 8ms & 16ms. Below 8ms, any difference in quality would be more difficult to see, with the expeption of gamers dealing with intense motion.
But knowing that movies or videogames mostly involve switches between gray states, Connery said many manufacturers have started to instead tout gray-to-gray response times, w/c can sometimes be faster than black-to-white response times. But consumers arent necessarily being misled, Connery said, since gray-to-gray states are more representative of what people are truly watching anyway. The two scales of measurement - and the lack of any hard and fast standard for consistency in the marketing materials - add to the confusion, however.
The expert recommendation? Note that other key features - contrast ratio, resolution, brightness & cable inputs - are generally more important to the quality and price of an LCD screen than millisecond response times. But to see if there's any noticeable differences, or bothersome blurring, consumers should judge with their own eyes.
