LCD 75 or 120MPH?

[Welch]

Hey guys, been looking around and apparently its a highly asked question on the internet regarding LCD's and their Refresh rate. I understand what an LCD's refresh rate does for it in contrast to the traditional use on a CRT.

OK..... so, your eyes being able to see 72 frames a second means to make motion look 100% fluid to your eyes you will need 72 FPS, and a monitor with a refresh to match it. I don't see 72Hz anymore and 75 is close enough, not bad to have a bit more headroom for people like me who are nit-picky.

Does anyone know of a monitor in the 22" - 24" flavor, with a good picture, quality, price and what not capable of 75hz at its native resolution.... Bare in mind I know I can lower the res and run at 75hz but I hate to do that. This is for games and what not where when you are able to get over 60fps with your video-card, to use those higher FPS i'll need a monitor that can display it.

Thanks if anyone has a good monitor they can suggest

[Meadows]

OK..... so, your eyes being able to see 72 frames a second means to make motion look 100% fluid to your eyes you will need 72 FPS

No. Give me a fast enough game and I only need a second to point out the difference between 72 Hz and 100 or more.

But that's a topic for another day. 75 Hz is certainly infinitely better than the crappy standard 60 Hz, so just try finding one with bearable latency and good viewing angles (whichever's your priority, I guess latency for games and wide viewing angles for movies), and you're good to go.

[wabbit]

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824001332

Try this Samsung. Should be able to handle 75Hz, every higher end Samsung monitor is. It has a PVA panel and a nice price. 8ms fast enough for any game in my experience.

[Welch]

There had been a study of how many frames a second your eye can see.... 72 was the "Magical" number, although they did say that some people may be able to see a few more, but not much higher. If you are running your games VSynced and your refresh is at 75hz, you should not be able to see any difference if you were able to have a monitor at 100hz with a FPS of 100. This is all assuming that the rest of your hardware manages to display things correctly and not drop out a few frames to compensate for the hardware shortcomings. If you were running non-vsync and hitting 100 fps on 60hz lcd, thats why you would notice the difference, may not even been a good one. But yeah, that is another topic . Sorry, i made sure to know about that stuff a long time ago when I was still using CRTs and LCD were coming into play.

So.... that 23 Samsung seems to not have great reviews for gaming. 8ms seems a bit back in the times as far as ghosting(assuming its reported properly by samsung.. i do see it saying GtG, who knows) It does seem that most people say that the display looks beautiful, and being a PVA monitor im sure that the colors look great. Where did you see that it would be able to run 75hz or more at its native resolution? I don't see it in the tech specs of the monitor..?

So i'm having to make another decision too... I currently use a 17" 1440x900 16:10 ratio monitor. I have used in the past a 16:9 and never figured what the true benefit of one vs the other is. I would imagine a 16:9 would be better for viewing movies as the 1920x1080 is that of HD, allowing you to not stretch or have black borders when watching movies.

This panel would be strictly gaming, so ghosting is to be avoided and 75hz or more is just a must as well.

Note: I am about quality, so when suggesting a display I'd prefer to avoid brands like HP and what not. Oddly enough I'd usually say I hate Dell, but the one thing I do like that they make are their top end larger displays... so Dell is actually fine.

The odd thing is, im used to 17"... 19" 22" 24"... not quite ordered properly but I though that 22" and 24" were a standard. Any downside to them now that every manufacturer seems to be making these odd display sizes.... 23.5, 21.5, and a few even more weird ones. Any advantage to these displays or downfalls.

[Flying Fox]

Note: I am about quality, so when suggesting a display I'd prefer to avoid brands like HP and what not. Oddly enough I'd usually say I hate Dell, but the one thing I do like that they make are their top end larger displays... so Dell is actually fine.

Why all of a sudden the haters come out? This is ridiculous. The best 24" IPS monitor around $600 is currently either the HP LP2475W or the Dell Ultrasharp U2410. So based on company hate you are going to be missing good stuff. As I mentioned this is similar to fanboyism, only it is the hate not the love.

[UberGerbil]

You know the whole "how fast a refresh rate can you see?" argument has been hashed to death here and elsewhere a million times, and depending on whether you're talking about passive viewing or interactive action and depending on how you define "see" you can make a case for a wide range of numbers. Unless you're bringing actually new data from peer-reviewed experiments, you're not really going to be adding anything or convincing anybody. Not that that is going to halt the debate if you want to have it again (we certainly go round and round on other things here) but just, you know, FYI.

Why all of a sudden the haters come out? This is ridiculous. The best 24" IPS monitor around $600 is currently either the HP LP2475W or the Dell Ultrasharp U2410. So based on company hate you are going to be missing good stuff. As I mentioned this is similar to fanboyism, only it is the hate not the love.

The opposite of love isn't hate, it's indifference. So fanboys are fanboys, regardless of whether they're espousing irrational loyalty or irrational loathing. Loverz and haterz: two sides of the same crazed coin.

[Welch]

I wouldn't label myself a fanboy at all... you take your experiences with brands and base your future decision off of them. I have had 2 HP monitors in the past 1 being CRT the other being an LCD and they were bother utter crap. I have also had my girlfriends HP LCD die on her a little over a year of using it and shortly after the power supply to her HP computer as well. On the flip-side I have also own a Viewsonic 21" CRT that I thought was an amazing clean picture, an NEC 15" that I absolutely loved and an Acer 22" that looked good for what I paid and would be inclined to purchase another if one of their displays fit the bill.

Sure Fox, if you are referring to their 600.00 IPS monitors im sure they are fine, its their 600.00 monitor and I'd expect nothing less. As for their general market displays, 150-300.00 range, they don't show me any promise. Comparing the quality of a 600.00 display to a 300.00 is like comparing a Ford Focus to a Ford Mustang GTR. Sure they both have the same stamp on the metal saying ford, but would I really trust the focus, hell no its a piece of junk, I DO however love the Mustang GTR. You could argue that each product will get you from point A to point B, and this would be true with the two vehicles being new. However each product serves a certain purpose and price range, and one is a higher quality and will last much longer (and is meant to). I do not have 600.00 to spend on an IPS monitor, so it is a moot point.

As for Fanboyism, that suggests that I am "Blindly" loyal to a company regardless of what has been proven about its products. Your always going to have products that are known to be crappy by anyone with half a brain... but that little sticker that bares the symbol of their favorite company is what will sway a fanboy to buying it. I good sir am a conscious shopper who lives by the "Fool me once, shame on you... fool me twice shame on me" and i'm sure as hell not going to give a company a third chance to screw something up.

[Wintermane]

Its simple.. go to a geek friends house and look at a better monitor and see if you actualy give a damn. If so and you have money then why the bleep not?

Do NOT go to a computer store to look at monitors they do various tricks to make them look better then they realy are.

[Welch]

Its simple.. go to a geek friends house and look at a better monitor and see if you actualy give a damn. If so and you have money then why the bleep not?

Do NOT go to a computer store to look at monitors they do various tricks to make them look better then they realy are.

I don't have a clue what your talking about or how its relevant to the question. I am a geek.. I have owned a few nice displays in the past and I have seen a few of my other geek friends displays, including a wide range of brands and sizes and they all LOOK good until you get into a game. They all share a common problem, no support for 75hz at their native resolution. My buddy has 19" 4:3 Hyundai, great for its time, got amazing reviews, he's got a 22" Hanns-G... it displays things, that's about it very dimm. He has an Acer 22" that I sold him when I got rid of my desktop and bought a laptop, good budget display for its time. As much as I love to be able to look at a display in person, I live in a place where the word "Option" itself is limited . I have no problem purchasing a monitor because even the cost of shipping one here is cheaper than going to a local shop and getting something you don't want. I saw last night a mid range Samsung 22" for 340.00 local.

So... the question stands, is there an LCD out there with the option to do 75hz at its native res of 1920x1080 - 1920x1200 x 1680x1050? 20-24" display?

[derFunkenstein]

I'm pretty sure that'd require dual-link DVI. I was under the impression that 1920x1200@60Hz was about the max bandwidth that single-link DVI had to offer. Not that dual-link DVI is rare in video cards, just probably another reason it'd be more expensive.

[Welch]

Alright Funk, I did a little bit of reading into Dual Link DVI and apparently anything larger than 1680x1050 @ 60hz is too much for a Single link DVI cable. Assuming I had a display that was rated for 75hz at its native, I'd also need a dual link DVI. I mean you'd hope that if you bought an LCD with the ability to do 75hz that they would give you a cable to accompany it.

Still... any displays out there worthy mentioning?

[Wintermane]

Welch what im saying is its entirely likely you will spend alot of money getting both the card and monitor needed for this hook it all together and it will look just as bad as everything else you have seen. Worse yet you could find out 75 hz lcds make you motion sick when playing games. You might find out you need to jump to 85 hz or 100 hz to avoid motion sickness.

But seeing as you live in alaska your kinds hosed on that end. Good luck.

[Welch]

Hmm, I've never heard up turning the refresh up and getting sick from it. I do know that having a monitor at 60 (on a crt for different reasons) would make you sick as it acts like a strobe light.

I found a monitor that looks to have the features I'd like... But I believe its a touch screen, not too much info on newegg (I don't care for touchscreens, i'd never use it)

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824009205 - $359.00

Has the ability to do 75hz, large enough display 23", all of the pivoting and height adjustments, 1920x1080 (making it a bit nicer for movie watching being native to HD format, no worries of stretching and what not. Low response time 2ms GtG and its got HDMI (as well as DVI and a D-Sub for the hell of it )

Now that's a bit pricey and i'd bet that its due to the "Touch Active" that i'm assuming is a touch screen.. perhaps it means you touch the monitor to turn it on... don't know at this point and didn't have the time to research it. If this was closer to 300.00 i'd be willing to pay the 80.00 or 50.00 difference between the 220.00 display i was looking at before.

BTW ahah, what do you mean "Your Kinds Hosed On That End" your "Kinda?" or did I miss something.

The other display I was looking at, for its price is this one.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824236065 - $219.00

Without the touch screen bit this brings it to the price I would expect. Although its not an 8bit panel it does do 75hz, again 1920x1080 DVI,D-Sub,HDMI... low response 2ms GtG.

Guess I've got to read a bunch more into them, see any shortcomings?

[crazybus]

Alright Funk, I did a little bit of reading into Dual Link DVI and apparently anything larger than 1680x1050 @ 60hz is too much for a Single link DVI cable. Assuming I had a display that was rated for 75hz at its native, I'd also need a dual link DVI. I mean you'd hope that if you bought an LCD with the ability to do 75hz that they would give you a cable to accompany it.

Single-link DVI is enough for 1920x1200 @ 60Hz, or even the slightly higher resolution 2048x1152 @ 60Hz screens you see available. It could also run 1680x1050 @ 75Hz.

The other question is whether or not a monitor that accepts a higher frequency input signal actually displays the extra frames or not. A little informal testing leads me to believe that my own monitor just culls frames above 60Hz. Regardless, if I were looking for a LCD that does more than 60Hz, I'd be looking at a 120Hz model.

[Wintermane]

sorry typomaster I be;/ Ment kinda.

Yes different refresh rates can cause sickness 72 generaly doesnt and 85 generaly doesnt but 75 can because of how it interacts with 60 causing a strobe effect or something.

With luck a 75 can also handle 72 if you run into the problem.

And again remember to use 2 dvi links you will need a new graphics card that can handle 2 dvi to one monitor as apposed to having 2 dvi ports for 2 different lcd monitors.

And no I have no clue how to tell the difference.

Heck the only reason I know any of this is my friends on fallout 3 and sacred 2 forums ran into these problems;/

[Welch]

From my understand you don't have to run 2 separate DVI links from the video card to two separate DVI inputs on the monitor, you simply need to have a Monitor that supports Dual Link DVI, the Dual link DVI cable (3 rows of 8 pins and the single - in the connector and a video card capable of putting out that refresh *not a problem at all these days). I remember to running into the issue of not being able to go to 75hz with CRTs because the video card was limited.

Crazy, that is the second time I have heard about the monitor "Truncating" the refresh so to speak. Any way of figuring out whether your monitor is doing this... perhaps a tech spec on the monitor or the manual? Also... any reason for it doing this.

I did get recommended a 120hz monitor by Bhtooefr, check it out... Looks very nice... again I haven't read REALLY deep into it, but thats about the cap for my price range. I'd like to pick up on a screen that I can use until OLED (If it) comes out mainstream and is competitive with LCD.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824116402 - 299.99

120hz, so for those who say that you can notice over 75... heres the solution , I'd love to put it to the test.

[andebad]

just showed up on newegg today check this out:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824009206

[swaaye]

On the refresh rate topic,

I still have a 19" CRT at home for a PC that I use primarily for older games and it will do about 100Hz at 1280x960 (or so). In my opinion, while it is nice to see ~100Hz vsync-ed, it's just not that big of a deal. I would never spend a big premium for it. 60 Hz is only a problem for LCDs when it comes to games. 75 Hz would be nice. But I would definitely buy a bigger screen over one with higher refresh.

Playing PC games on a plasma TV is my preference these days as not only is it big but it also has very tangible color/contrast advantages over LCDs. Getting caught up on refresh rates seems like splitting hairs when you ignore the other major caveats of LCD tech.

[Welch]

CRTs have more of an issue when ran at 60hz, not LCDs. You wouldn't pay a premium price for an LCD (say 300 maybe 350.00) vs buying a full sized Plasma TV for gaming instead? I don't mean to make you mad but I must seriously ask... Do you even play any games? MMO/RTS aside (yes that means World of Warcraft too) no game will look nearly as sharp on a plasma or any TV as it will on an LCD for the simple fact that your stretching a resolution like 1920x1080 over a 40 or so inch screen area.... not good. I do own a 42" LCD TV and the idea of hooking it up for games has only been interesting for the novelty aspect of it, not practical every day use. Again I have played games on an LCD capable of 75hz (at a res other than the screens native res) and the difference is very noticeable. If the new thing is 120hz then great, im down for overkill. You can go into any department store that carries the normal 60hz LCD TV's and the ones that carry the 120hz... see them side by side and you will see the difference instantly. I can stand in the store and look at over 20 displays and spot out the few that are 120hz. For things like movies that are capping near 30 (or whatever they run at.. 24..) they are effected in a negative way because you can see the flaws in the motion as they are now over dramatized by the newer technology, not an issue for games that (with the right system and video card) can run 70, 80, 100 FPS. You wont get horizontal tearing anymore and you'll be able to keep V-sync off.

[Airmantharp]

Refresh rate on LCD's is similar to a frame-rate cap for the panel itself; LCD's don't flicker. But you're right, if the LCD can accept a higher frequency, it has the potential to display a higher frame-rate. Those 120Hz monitors look interesting in that respect- of course besides that feature they're just highly overpriced TN's.

For the TV's, not a single one of them accepts a signal over 60Hz- regardless of what they say. So while they may output 120/240/480/600Hz, this is just based on creating new frames to put between the original frames. This effect also requires buffering and therefore induces input lag, so it's also not quite so helpful for games.

[nerdrage]

The other question is whether or not a monitor that accepts a higher frequency input signal actually displays the extra frames or not. A little informal testing leads me to believe that my own monitor just culls frames above 60Hz. Regardless, if I were looking for a LCD that does more than 60Hz, I'd be looking at a 120Hz model.

That was my understanding as well. Everything above 60Hz is re-sampled in the monitor back down to 60Hz. The 120Hz monitors may be different in this regard, but I wouldn't be surprised if they just accept the 120Hz input, re-sample it and send 60Hz output to the panel.

[Flying Fox]

I don't mean to make you mad but I must seriously ask... Do you even play any games? MMO/RTS aside (yes that means World of Warcraft too) no game will look nearly as sharp on a plasma or any TV as it will on an LCD for the simple fact that your stretching a resolution like 1920x1080 over a 40 or so inch screen area.... not good. I do own a 42" LCD TV and the idea of hooking it up for games has only been interesting for the novelty aspect of it, not practical every day use.

Of course it is not going to look as sharp if you are 2-3 feet away from it, but we are talking about a 40"+ TV, which is not meant to be viewed at pixel sniffing distance.

[Welch]

Of course not, I would never sit 2-3 feet from the TV. 6-8 feet up to 10 for a 42". 22" and 24" are about as big as I want to get for a single monitor.

Yeah, im a bit concerned about whether the 120hz displays will actually display the frames or use some form of smoke and mirrors. Does anyone know of a good way to actually determined if a display truly is 120hz or if it compensates for some frames?

Sounds similar to TN-6Bit with advanced dithering to hit the 16.7million color mark.

[swaaye]

I don't mean to make you mad but I must seriously ask... Do you even play any games? MMO/RTS aside (yes that means World of Warcraft too) no game will look nearly as sharp on a plasma or any TV as it will on an LCD for the simple fact that your stretching a resolution like 1920x1080 over a 40 or so inch screen area.... not good.

I bought a 50" plasma last spring. It was a leftover from the previous year. It's not even 1080p so I game on it at 1360x768. And of course the instant xtreme PC gamer kneejerk reaction is "omg that's so low rez!!". I had that reaction myself at first too. Well, lets just say it's not really much of an issue at all and that games look better on it than any output device I've ever used previously, including CRTs and my 24" Dell 2405FPW.

Like said above, you have to understand that when you sit 6 feet back or so as you do with a TV, your ability to see the pixels disappears for the most part. Plasmas even have a strange noise in their image that is ugly up close but completely gone at 4 ft or so. The end result is an awesome picture. I absolutely love the image. The contrast and colors take my breath away sometimes. The black level alone is astonishing, beating CRTs and blowing away LCDs completely.

I have tried out a few 1080p sets. And I can run mine at 1080i and it is usable for RTS games. But believe it or not the result is an image that is too dense at the TV distance. It's uncomfortable and is a strange thing indeed (I never would've imagined it). It is beneficial however for RTS games and with games that use a super complex UI like MMOs do.

What have I played on it? I don't play MMOs but play everything else. Played Crysis, Fallout 3, STALKER SoC, Deus Ex, Supreme Commander, Half Life, Half Life 2, Dark Messiah, X-Com UFO Defense (hehe), Guild Wars, Silent Hunter 4, UT3, UT2004, UT99, Quake, Quake 3, KOTOR2, Mass Effect, GTA4, Mirror's Edge, a few Hitman games. Off the top of my head. I like to try games out on it just for kicks, but have beaten a few of them completely on it.

Of course this is way off topic lol. But you asked/accused!

[DrDillyBar]

My Secondary monitor: Dell 1505FP, supports 10x7@75Hz. This is what I run it at.
Sorry it's not 20+", but it's an example.

[Welch]

No problem Swaaye, so you do play FPS on a Plasma, which is the one thing I wouldn't want to play on a TV, but to each their own. Yes I do like plasma's rich color, my parents have a 50" Samsung at their house, and when I visit I love to throw a BD on. Sadly enough that same set he has also has built in speaks and sub.... the sound is AMAZING for built in speakers and sounds better than most little surround sound hookups I've heard. Then again the issue with screens that large, and the resolution in your case especially, is that to get a head-shot or be very accurate is much harder as you have few pixels on the screen. Your cursor is going to approximate to the nearest one. Which isn't an issue if your close up on someone in the game. I remember when 22" screens were getting big, people were saying how horrible they would be for FPS because of it.. i guess that's not the case anymore *shrug* but there has to be a happy medium. And if I'm willing to shell out the cash for a TV why not shell it out for a really really nice monitor that I can take with me to LANs I do appreciate your outlook on it though, I'm glad to know that I could play my games on my TV (42" 1920x1080p) and not feel totally awkward.

Good to know Dilly... so LCD's being 75hz isnt totally uncommon, found a few more of them, even rarer for them to be 120hz though. SO I guess the topic should change....

75hz vs 120hz..... is the premium for the 120hz really worth it, and will it be noticeable. Along with that question... how to figure out if these monitors actually display their full advertised refresh.

[swaaye]

Then again the issue with screens that large, and the resolution in your case especially, is that to get a head-shot or be very accurate is much harder as you have few pixels on the screen. Your cursor is going to approximate to the nearest one. Which isn't an issue if your close up on someone in the game. I remember when 22" screens were getting big, people were saying how horrible they would be for FPS because of it.. i guess that's not the case anymore *shrug* but there has to be a happy medium.

Hmm. I hear what you're saying but I'm not sure if I've experienced that aiming issue. I mostly play first person games, most of them shooters of some sort. I beat STALKER entirely on that TV and that's a rather intense twitch shooter. I might not be picky enough somehow though. Maybe I don't run and gun enough.

My bro has a 22" LCD. The 1680x1050 res is not that great on there but he's fine with it. I definitely sounded kinda low density on the spec sheet but in practice it's not really much of an issue. What is tragic these days is the 16:9 "revolution" in desktop monitors. That really does suck.....

75hz vs 120hz..... is the premium for the 120hz really worth it, and will it be noticeable. Along with that question... how to figure out if these monitors actually display their full advertised refresh.

I have been curious about this too. I know that a lot of the TVs do internal interpolation that does look nice on the eyes but obviously isn't ideal. Actually a downside to increasing the framerate like that with film material is that it will make the film look more like video and that is (subjectively) bad for the cinematic look. I bet it's nice for sports viewing though.

However, considering that the LCD monitors claiming 120Hz seem to need dual link DVI, I'm thinking that they are the real deal. At least on some level...

[Welch]

Possibly... but even with a Dual link they may just being ACTUALLY transferring data higher than 60hz at 1920x1080 (which is supposedly right at the cap of a single link)... so perhaps they really only do something like 85-90 and the rest is interpolation, I think this deserves some REAL looking into by TR, especially if we as consumers are going to be bombarded with desktop monitors like these, some of which may be based purely on gimmicks. Then again I always thought that TN-6 bit hitting 16.7 million by using dithering was very deceitful.

[UberGerbil]

75hz vs 120hz..... is the premium for the 120hz really worth it, and will it be noticeable. Along with that question... how to figure out if these monitors actually display their full advertised refresh.

I have been curious about this too. I know that a lot of the TVs do internal interpolation that does look nice on the eyes but obviously isn't ideal. Actually a downside to doubling the framerate like that with film material is that it will make the film look more like video and that is (subjectively) bad for the cinematic look. I bet it's nice for sports viewing though.

I don't understand this. I'm not saying there's nothing to it, especially since it's a subjective thing, but I don't really get it. Film is 24 fps; video is 30. The visible differences between the two are in the color gamut / saturation and the grain much more than the framerate. This is especially true when you're viewing both on a 60p display, because in the case of film you get every odd frame displayed 3 times and every even frame displayed twice (or vice versa -- aka 3:2 pulldown, or telecine); whereas (interlaced) video just gets each frame displayed twice (or once, for progressive). I have a hard time understanding how that makes video seem worse. (Yeah, if you're the kind of person who can discern high frame-rates, I guess you might notice -- but you're exactly the person who wants high frame rates for your games, so why is that bad for movies?) And of course with 120Hz you get each film frame displayed 5 times and each video frame displayed 4 times (or twice, in the case of progressive) -- which is what makes 120Hz desirable, that it's a multiple of both 24 and 30/60.

It's true many sets don't just repeat the same frame but (optionally) generate an interpolated frame based on the previous and next frame, but the quality of the interpolation algorithm may not improve the overall experience (afterall there really isn't more information, just the illusion of smoother motion) so It's unclear if this really will help with fast-moving subjects like sports -- video games are adding motion blur because it improves the subjective experience, so it seems odd for live video to be trying to go the other way. What we really need for those kinds of subjects is a bump up in framerate in the cameras, but that isn't happening for general broadcast/recording anytime soon. And you definitely don't want that kind of interpolation enabled if you are using it for gaming, because it requires the display to wait for the next frame before displaying the current one, so it's going to introduce additional lag (which is why it's generally billed as a movie-related feature, or made available in movie "modes").

Interestingly, some of the new "240Hz" models aren't doing additional interpolation; they just flash the backlight twice as fast to give the effect of a faster refresh (the mfrs sometimes call this "240Hz effect if you look carefully).

However, considering that the LCD monitors claiming 120Hz seem to need dual link DVI, I'm thinking that they are the real deal. At least on some level...

I don't know either way, but I would think that if the monitors (as opposed to the TVs) really accepted and displayed 120Hz input, they would be marketing that feature a lot more than they have.

Possibly... but even with a Dual link they may just being ACTUALLY transferring data higher than 60hz at 1920x1080 (which is supposedly right at the cap of a single link)... so perhaps they really only do something like 85-90 and the rest is interpolation, I think this deserves some REAL looking into by TR, especially if we as consumers are going to be bombarded with desktop monitors like these, some of which may be based purely on gimmicks. Then again I always thought that TN-6 bit hitting 16.7 million by using dithering was very deceitful.

Well, I don't know that it's TR's job to investigate everything (when was their last monitor review?) but we'll have to keep an eye out for reviews of these models (can you list them?) wherever those reviews might turn up.

(Completely off-topic: hey, look -- Welch's postcount plus my postcount = 10K exactly!)

[Meadows]

Film is 24 fps; video is 30. The visible differences between the two are in the color gamut / saturation and the grain much more than the framerate.

Speaking of grain, can anyone tell me what causes it exactly?
It was only a few years ago when I realised that this thing called visual snow is not natural - until that point, I had thought cameras and eyes have this thing in common about making noise or such.