New BenQ LCD's

http://www.benq.com/display/lcd_fp767-12.html

FP767-12 12ms Response Rate

Also, these two haven't been released yet:
The image quality may be a bit bad, I'm scanning it from a magazine I have.




23", 16ms Response Rate

to bad that 23" one is going to be 1920x1200 and not 1600x1200, lots of games don't run that resolusion so you'll get the lower picture quality from it trying to fit 1600x1200 on it's screen.

they dont seem to look so good ....

huh?? they look incredible! aside from the widescreen format, which may screw up my games...
anyone know what default behavior for widescreen monitors is in a situation like this? is it a video card option?
druther have black bars on either side than a stretched image

Glad I haven't bought an LCD yet.

why the ##%@ is it still Dsub, get a frickin DVI sometime you fools.

http://shop.store.yahoo.com/digitally-unique/i117150.html
Bam, only $530.

only, lol

It's decent for an LCD. As in the price, but amazing specs. Does it mean that it has no DVI?

That one doesnt, I got the top of the line coming, 16 ms with DVI, and its a BenQ

But is there really a difference? Can your eyes physically notice the difference between 16ms and 12ms?

They say your eyes can not notice it that much, but its got to have some effect on the overall performance of the lcd.

or it could just be a marketing gimmick to justify a premium price.

I've heard members scream at me for pages of posts because the Benq I wanted didn't have DVI. They ranted and raved about how much better DVI was.


Well, that's a little bit of an exaggeration, not pages, but a bunch of people did go on about how much better DVI is.

I don't think there's any difference

NovaShine said:

But is there really a difference? Can your eyes physically notice the difference between 16ms and 12ms?

Click to expand...

16ms = 63 FPS
12ms = 83 FPS

Supposedly the human eye can't perceive anything beyond around 30-35FPS, so I don't think you'll notice.

I thought I read somewhere that we only catch like 20 ms ... yeah, Im going to stick with that

yup found this in the stickies

"Response Time
Response Time refers to the screen's input signal reaction speeds, and the time required for the screen to turn from completely white to completely black and vice versa. Technically, this is referred to as the sum of (Rise Time (tr) + Fall Time (tf)). Response time is measured in milliseconds (ms, 1 second = 1000 milliseconds). In general, our eyes can take 24 successive still images per second as an active image. Movies for example display 24 images per second, and television displays 30 images per second.

Generally, lowest response is best. Response times on larger LCD's tend to grow higher. Try to stick around 24ms. On Larger LCD's (19"+) this will be somewhat difficult BenQ LCD's offer 17ms response times for 17" or smaller LCD's. The rest of their numbers are average. If gaming is your thing than these would most likely suit you best as the rest of their specs are about average but the ultra low response will offer smoother play.
"

Even the game FPS analogy is a little misleading. 12ms is the Best the panel can achieve, but may rise as high as 25ms in real world, and you can definately tell the difference by then. Also, its response time, not refresh time. THe problem with higher responses is ghostin on monitors b/c pixels dont change faster than you eye can see, especially on different colors, so this panel is better than the 16ms ones, although some people see blurring more readily than others, so its up to your personal preference.