What's the ghosting like on the 15"?

[Vasant56]

I was just wondering what the ghosting is like on the 15". I've never gamed on an LCD before, so I was just wondering what it's like? Is it noticable?

[Kenn]

From a former hardcore gamer who could easily tell 100fps from 120fps, for gaming the ghosting issue is completely overblown compared to the 60Hz refresh rate of the LCD.

I don't watch movies on the laptop though, maybe one of the AV guys can weigh in on that.

[Flightvector]

No CRT could do 100Hz so you can't see the difference here specifically, but this difference in fps probably hints to something else. Due to lower system load, which will almost always be reflected in frames per second, fluidity of the graphics rendering engine will be better, allowing a greater rate of sampling, but you could not literally see any difference in 120 to 100 fps alone.

Vasant56, what games do you play? I will tell you that any daylight game will not give you issues; I have seen LCDs where even a flight sim was unuseable, and this put me off from considering a notebook. But the Flexview is great for movies and fine for games with bright environments.

A fast game like UT where maps are often dark will definitely give you noticeable ghosting, but if this bothered you, you would probably only be satisfied with a 12-15 ms LCD, or not even consider gaming on a laptop anyway. The CPU gets very hot and the performance is definitely not to the point that ghosting is any high priority issue; having to run at low res and detail bothers me a lot more. But it is playable for those who understand and value frame rate, you can end up getting used to it. But again, like me, observant and pickier gamers would not choose to primarily game with a T series. I rarely run any games on it, I have a desktop/CRT system for that.

[monty cantsin]

No CRT could do 100Hz

??? I'm sitting right in front of such a tube now, writing this!

[esquire]

Well I play deus ex on max settings... there is some blurring during high action to be sure...but I wouldn't say it detracts significantly from game play. I also have morrowind loaded up and it looks fantastic. IMO the main benefit of the flexview is the improved contrast/colour definition over a normal lcd. If you do any photoshopping or other graphic design you will want a flexview to be sure.

[Kenn]

No CRT could do 100Hz

lol. This totally made my day.

Don't get me wrong, I'm incredibly happy that at least the rest of your post errs on the side of greater perceptibility. Dealing with the people who say "the human eye can only see 30fps" or "humans can only see 16 million colors" really chaps my hide

[Flightvector]

Man, this is what haste and late night gets me into . I should not have stated anything so blatantly unfactual since it is completely illogical that a limit at 100Hz would exist for any reason, my own desktop monitor (NEC FE791SB-BK) can do this at 1152x870. This is one of those things I read later, wondering how I wrote it, it is unfathomable. Actually, I should have said that the good number of mainstream CRTs could not do this, and I only refer to a good gaming resolution like 1280 or 1600 since 100Hz is easily done at lower resolutions (someone bothered by ghosting probably couldn't stand games at 1024x768).

I didn't mean this to be emphasized at all, but the blatant difference Kenn referred to (he did say he could "easily tell") for most people, is likely due to a larger, underlying, factor that fps only reflects. In other words, it probably isn't variance in fps alone you are seeing, otherwise you couldn't easily tell. (But I realize that I shouldn't assume the scale you judge on, so I give you the benefit of the doubt).

And if you don't mind Kenn, I want to point out that I didn't convey that the human eye could not see 100Hz; I share your cynical attitude of people who like to "digitize" our senses. I was talking about how you could not see 100Hz on a CRT if it only displayed 85Hz.

[Kenn]

Man, this is what haste and late night gets me into . I should not have stated anything so blatantly unfactual since it is completely illogical that a limit at 100Hz would exist for any reason, my own desktop monitor (NEC FE791SB-BK) can do this at 1152x870. This is one of those things I read later, wondering how I wrote it, it is unfathomable. Actually, I should have said that the good number of mainstream CRTs could not do this, and I only refer to a good gaming resolution like 1280 or 1600 since 100Hz is easily done at lower resolutions (someone bothered by ghosting probably couldn't stand games at 1024x768).

I didn't mean this to be emphasized at all, but the blatant difference Kenn referred to (he did say he could "easily tell") for most people, is likely due to a larger, underlying, factor that fps only reflects. In other words, it probably isn't variance in fps alone you are seeing, otherwise you couldn't easily tell. (But I realize that I shouldn't assume the scale you judge on, so I give you the benefit of the doubt).

And if you don't mind Kenn, I want to point out that I didn't convey that the human eye could not see 100Hz; I share your cynical attitude of people who like to "digitize" our senses. I was talking about how you could not see 100Hz on a CRT if it only displayed 85Hz.

Hey Flight,

No harm done, and your last post seems right on. To clarify, the "old-school" gamers preferred higher FPS to higher resolution, mainly because you couldn't have both, like you can today.

And back then I could actually walk into a room, and tell you exactly what refresh rate every monitor was running on, as long as some elements on-screen were brighter than 50% gray. Refresh and FPS (and you're correct to link the two, notwithstanding vertical sync, etc.) make the biggest difference in high-performance gaming, but you're right in that the benefit competitive FPS/refresh rates are mostly canceled out by high levels of ghosting.

And this is an aside, but if you're used to it, there is also a big difference between seeing 60fps on a 60Hz screen and 60fps on a 100-120Hz screen!

Kenn

[Flightvector]

I actually just thought of this while posting elsewhere, what you say about the difference in 60fps with a 60Hz refresh vs. on a 100Hz refresh. Since the scan on a monitor is progressive, there definitely is more instantaneous picture information from the graphics output than the monitor can effectively display, hardly a perfect frame switch, so I can see what you mean. I'll have to consider and specify things a bit more closely next time. Leave gaping holes and assumptions and you look like you can't get fact and opinion straight, quite humbling if anything.

[Kenn]

I actually just thought of this while posting elsewhere, what you say about the difference in 60fps with a 60Hz refresh vs. on a 100Hz refresh. Since the scan on a monitor is progressive, there definitely is more instantaneous picture information from the graphics output than the monitor can effectively display, hardly a perfect frame switch, so I can see what you mean. I'll have to consider and specify things a bit more closely next time. Leave gaping holes and assumptions and you look like you can't get fact and opinion straight, quite humbling if anything.

Right on. But also consider this: If a screen is refreshing at 1x a second, you'd have a pulse of light followed by a falloff before the next refresh hits. What that means is that, at 60Hz, you have a corresponding decrease in luminosity (the amount of light given off is of lower intensity) as well as the traditional annoying "low-refresh flicker" as the light falloff period is longer.

LCDs of course don't suffer from this as the backlight is more or less constantly on, but then we do have to deal with the lack of information that only 60 updates a second provides, as well as what you mentioned about the switching speed of each pixel's response time.

Kenn

[Vasant56]

Does anyone have any info on DVD's? I'm going to be watching a lot of dvd's on it.

Will it be worth it to switch down to the 14" for gaming and dvd reasons?