On current LCDs, the pixel reaction time is undoubtedly not the most significant component of the “responsiveness jigsaw,” but it is one of many. We strongly advise reading our dedicated article on the subject to learn more about the elements influencing a monitor’s responsiveness and how they interact. Following are some key conclusions to draw from this article on this feature of a screen: The extent to which this happens on a sample and hold monitor (i.e., your ordinary LCD) depends heavily on the screen’s refresh rate and frame rate of the content. Our eyes move as we track motion on display. Most of the apparent blur we observe on a sample and hold monitor is caused by this eye movement rather than pixel responsiveness (i.e., your typical LCD). Refer to the “Pursuit photography method” part of our post on responsiveness for a fantastic example. The speed of a pixel’s response varies based on the shades used in the transition; therefore, specified response times might be pretty deceptive (i.e., the grey levels involved). If a monitor advertises a response time of 1-2 milliseconds, that will typically apply to some of the monitor’s swiftest transitions (i.e., best case). These rapid transitions generally are made possible by solid pixel overdrive or grey to grey acceleration, even on a responsive TN panel. It causes “overshoot” and the occurrence of “inverse ghosting,” which are ugly motion abnormalities that some users dislike. Your eye movement hides pixel responses on a 60Hz sample and holds the monitor (your average LCD) faster than 8ms. A “mask of a blur” effectively conceals them. As a result, you wouldn’t notice a difference between an 8ms pixel transition and one that happens at 1ms, 2ms, or even 0.001ms. With these ideas in mind, it becomes abundantly evident that choosing a monitor with a stated “1ms” or “2ms” response time won’t always be better for you than choosing a model that could be slower on paper. Considering the range of response times and the fact that you can only use a 60Hz refresh rate, where the demand for rapid pixel responses is non-existent. As previously indicated, it’s also feasible that an overshooting monitor hurts rather than aids the visual smoothness. Depending on how pixel overdrive is implemented and how much flexibility the user is given, it may or may not be feasible to select a more moderate amount of acceleration devoid of such eyesores without effectively turning off the overdrive. BenQ’s ‘AMA’ implementation on certain of their ‘RL’ and ‘XL’ series monitors is an example of this, where the ‘High’ setting (lowest level of pixel overdrive without deactivating it) might result in a degree of overshoot that some users will find unpleasant.