Return-Path: <owner-cvnet@lawton.ewind.com>
X-Original-To: u7f01aa@mail.lrz-muenchen.de
Delivered-To: u7f01aa@mail.lrz-muenchen.de
Received: from lxmhs13.lrz-muenchen.de (mailha13.lrz-muenchen.de [129.187.254.31])
	by mailin.lrz-muenchen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53B9E6A8FD
	for <u7f01aa@mail.lrz-muenchen.de>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:21:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from mailrelay2.lrz-muenchen.de (mailrelay2.lrz-muenchen.de [129.187.254.102])
	by lxmhs13.lrz-muenchen.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B8FC80A231
	for <Hans.Strasburger@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:21:50 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from scan4.mail.lrz.de (scan4.mail.lrz.de [10.156.6.38]) by mailrelay2.lrz-muenchen.de with ESMTP for Hans.Strasburger@lrz.uni-muenchen.de; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:21:41 +0200
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at lrz.de in 38
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.086
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.086 tagged_above=-999 required=5
	tests=[BAYES_05=-0.5, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, LRZ_FROM_PHRASE=0.001,
	LRZ_HAS_SENDER=0.001, LRZ_MSGID_AN_AN_FQDN=0.001,
	LRZ_MSGID_DATE_HM_AN=0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01]
	autolearn=disabled
Received: from mailrelay2.lrz-muenchen.de ([10.156.6.1])
	by scan4.mail.lrz.de (scan4.mail.lrz.de [10.156.6.24]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id UkrZW7oPjErd for <Hans.Strasburger@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>;
	Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:21:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from postrelay2.lrz.de ([10.156.6.209] [10.156.6.209]) by mailrelay2.lrz-muenchen.de with ESMTP for Hans.Strasburger@lrz.uni-muenchen.de; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:21:40 +0200
Received: from lawton.ewind.com (lawton.ewind.com [68.166.223.203])
	(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(Client did not present a certificate)
	by postrelay2.lrz.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB48C2400085
	for <Hans.Strasburger@lrz.uni-muenchen.de>; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 18:21:37 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from lawton.ewind.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by lawton.ewind.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p8QFK7xo011640;
	Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:20:07 -0700
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by lawton.ewind.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id p8QFK7PI011639;
	Mon, 26 Sep 2011 08:20:07 -0700
Message-Id: <201109261520.p8QFK7PI011639@lawton.ewind.com>
X-Authentication-Warning: lawton.ewind.com: majordomo set sender to owner-cvnet@lawton.ewind.com using -f
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 11:55:27 +0100
Subject: Re: CVNet - An LCD monitor for research in vision
From: "Ian M Andolina" <i.andolina@ucl.ac.uk>
To: "CVNet" <cvnet@mail.ewind.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.18
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-UCL-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the UCL Helpdesk, helpdesk@ucl.ac.uk for more information
X-UCL-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-UCL-MailScanner-From: i.andolina@ucl.ac.uk
Sender: owner-cvnet@lawton.ewind.com
Precedence: bulk

<quote who="vincent ferrera">
> I found that the onset of the stimulus was delayed no less than 11 ms,
> and no more than 14 ms relative to the vertical sync signal.  In my
> experience, this is more reliable than most CRTs which have up to 15
> msec delay between vsync and stim onset, depending on where the stimulus
> is on the screen.

Surely the problem here is the variance (which is compounded when changing
amongst different grey levels). CRTs obviously have scanning artifacts,
but there is no variance (it is a fixed lag difference vertically). My
measurements using a photodiode and a TTL sent just after VBL (and
estimating the time to stimulus on using scanline position) using Psych
toolbox is that there is submilliscond latency and no variability on a CRT
(apart from the vertical position lag). Looking at the 2D grey-grey
transition time variances for most LCDs suggest they are will have
problems over and above the latency lag. The 120Hz Samsung is a somewhat
different beast, and Danko used a blanking trick (simulating a CRT!) to
optimise the temporal characteristics.

The other major issue is that 120Hz displays are twisted nematic displays,
which if I understand correctly are always 6-bit per pixel resolution, and
therefore unsuitable for the more demanding contrast level type stimuli.

There are 120Hz 10-bit LCD panels, I assume Viewpixx (which has a built-in
bit-depth extender) use one:

http://www.vpixx.com/products/visual-stimulus-displays/viewpixx.html

And Barco reference monitors are another (which also has a scanning
backlight to mimic CRTs):

http://www.barco.com/en/product/2146

Ian Andolina, UCL Dept. of Visual Neuroscience, London

-------------------------------------------------------------------
To get information on using CVNet, send a note to: majordomo@mail.ewind.com
In the body of the message, enter: info cvnet


