I was surfing the net and found this site on the new samsung 17"Lcd.
This might be a future lcd to boast contrast ratio. cool!

http://hardware.earthweb.com/news/article.php/3434791

Yeah, Samsung has a couple panels with a 1000:1 ratio. But they all have a pretty crappy response time.

They claim under 22ms response time, not to bad!

Samsung's site says 25ms, not to good.

25 ms is actually pretty good most monitors are 30 - 50ms. 16ms is about as fast as you can go with the exception of a couple new ones ($$$) that go <10ms. I don't think that anyone has had any problems with 25 or even 30ms. People using the 1600sw from sgi claim that they haven't seen any problems at 40ms.

Yes, I thought 25ms and under was pretty good.
Maybe 25ms is not so good for gamers and even at that...

Hi folks,

Many LCD's are now hitting 12ms, Samsung, BenQ to name a few. The latest on the block hit 8ms BenQ 17" F71G+ and F71E and Viewsonic\Samsung 19" and 17" panels. I can't remember the model numbers... Phillips Elec has one that will be out in March.

The latest technology will be OLED on the market for consumers late 2005 early 2006.

Cheers,
Lee

most people's eyes have a response time of 30ms-35ms so if the lcd is responding faster than your processing your ok.....also when you have a response time under 16ms video looks crappy but games look great

The Samsung 710T has a response time of 12msec with 600:1 contrast ratio and tru 24 bits color reproduction.

My Syncmaster 510n has a 16ms time and is fine Tom's hardware guide says that <40ms is good enough though

I wouldn't put too much faith in Tom's Hardware Guide. Realistically, 25ms is good enough for movies, but you need 16ms or better for games. NEED IT. 12ms monitors will be pricey for a while, but 16ms is actually good enough for games, depending upon the quality of the monitor. But considering you can get a Samsung SyncMaster 515V 16ms for $199 shipped and a $20 rebate, I'd say that's definitely the way to go if you're going to be doing any HL2 or Doom 3 on it. I bet Rome: Total War kicks ass on a huge screen...

I am sure the day will come in the near future when those 1000:1 LCD's will have responsetimes at 16ms. The problem is the relatively low contrast level for 15" LCD's. 500:1 really isn't that great, especially when commercial pj's are routinely doing 2000:1. This really makes a difference in the vibrance of your colors. While the 17" monitors will probably soon be a viable option, there is so much more expense involved with the different lenses, and the significant increase in size required due to 17" screen and increased focal length makes it seem less attractive to me. I wish we were able to find 15" LCD's with these stats, or find useable laptops that would actually have 24 bit color. Unfortunately that will probably never happen.

Manufacturers could make 15" sub-16ms 500:1 and higher monitors, but they don't because there isn't much market for them. People don't really buy 15" LCDs that much anymore. 17" is the new LCD standard. The bread and butter of the market. I'm willing to bet 19" LCDs are not far off 17" LCD sales, but for the time being they're priced just slightly too high for the average person. 15" LCDs are now budget monitors, and not worthy of high end features. 17" and 19" LCDs get the new stuff because they sell the most. Eventually when old tech gets phased out I'm sure better stuff will trickle down to the 15" lines.

response time has a rise m/s and fall m/s. and then u get like 30m/s, so is it like
15 rise m/s and 15 fall m/s?i'm just asking

If you just like to watch movies on your PJ (a good majority of people), 25ms is FINE!

There's also the Dell 1704FV that has 1000:1 contrast ration, only $255 too.

You have to keep in mind that constrast ratio doesn't nessesarily tell you how good the image will look, people hold way too much stock in this. Brain recently tested a DLP projector will 2000:1 contrast ratio compared to a LL projector and said the LL won hands down. So keep in mind specs on paper do not always equal real world performance.

600 bucks for that thing seems a little steep anyway.

600 bucks is way to much yes but earlier someone said something about the rise and fall on the response and he is right. some manufacturers report the fastest either horizontal or vertical as there response time, the key is finding out whether they are doing that or not. 25 ms added is great response time just ask the sgi owners theres are added to = 25. but you can grap some crappy cheap monitor bosting 25ms that may really be 50 but there just reporting the fastest they have either way not adding them.