Personal computing discussed
Moderators: renee, Dposcorp, SpotTheCat
ChronoReverse wrote:Actually, every LCD TV that advertised "240Hz" a couple of years ago was actually doing that: pulsing the backlight at double (or even quadruple) the actual refresh rate in an effort to fool the viewer into thinking there was more going on than there was (and since the 120Hz frames were really just interpolated from the actual 60Hz data, they were piling fakery atop exaggeration). I don't see 240Hz advertised much anymore so I don't think it was a winning pitch.Benq did something similar to this with their monitors a few years back (it was something about inserting a blank between frames to improve the perception). Or at least they were talking about it. Not everyone liked the effect IIRC.
Meadows wrote:How much will this reduce the lifespan of the screen (the backlight at least)?
UberGerbil wrote:I don't see 240Hz advertised much anymore so I don't think it was a winning pitch.
Bensam123 wrote:Maybe I missed it, but I've never seen motion blur on a CRT. The only thing that could be in regard to is the low refresh rate... but there are CRTs that went upwards of 100hz, sometimes into 120 (although those were towards the end of CRTs hay day and on expensive models). Most would do 75 or 85 at their recommended resolution.
UberGerbil wrote:Some corrections.ChronoReverse wrote:Actually, every LCD TV that advertised "240Hz" a couple of years ago was actually doing that: pulsing the backlight at double (or even quadruple) the actual refresh rate in an effort to fool the viewer into thinking there was more going on than there was (and since the 120Hz frames were really just interpolated from the actual 60Hz data, they were piling fakery atop exaggeration). I don't see 240Hz advertised much anymore so I don't think it was a winning pitch.Benq did something similar to this with their monitors a few years back (it was something about inserting a blank between frames to improve the perception). Or at least they were talking about it. Not everyone liked the effect IIRC.
ChronoReverse wrote:This is very true, BENQ had this AMA-Z in year 2006. It flickered like mad and reduced motion blur by only about 30% or so.Benq did something similar to this with their monitors a few years back (it was something about inserting a blank between frames to improve the perception). Or at least they were talking about it. Not everyone liked the effect IIRC.
Vega wrote:Gaming on this monitor is a pleasure as far as motion clarity is concerned. As a FW900 aficionado, this monitor with the right settings can have just as clear of motion. While the FW900 does have superior image quality, you also have a smaller image (22.5" versus 24"). Using NVIDIA driver 313.96, enabling Lightboost has been a fairly painless experience (although as some others have found out there is a bug in which under certain circumstances your computer will start pausing and behaving extremely sluggishly when adjusting 3D settings). Interestingly enough, the monitor seems to like to stay "stuck" in LB mode, even after adjusting settings in the control panel. This is actually a boon for those of us that bought this monitor for 24/7 LB mode like myself.
Baxter299 wrote:way to go vega enjoyed your review and pics ..thanks for taking the time .got my VG248QE last friday .replacing my fw900 witch is finally taking a rest in my closet .
Romir wrote:Thanks for the timely review Vega.
I went ahead and opened mine and WOW, it really does feel like my FW900. I haven't tried a game yet but it's down right eerie seeing 2d text move without going blurry.
Transsive wrote:Then yesterday I, for some reason, disabled the 3d and noticed there was no ghosting to be spotted at all in titan quest. It's like playing on my old CRT.
original post
Inu wrote:I can confirm this works on BENQ XL2420TX
EDIT: And OMG i can play scout so much better now in TF2, this is borderline cheating.
original post
Terrorhead wrote:
Bensam123 wrote:Good question... I'm not entirely sure what causes the strobing effect either. I assume it's Nvidias 3D technology and it's built into that, but it has something to do with the monitor too. This particular trick only seems to work at 120hz, which is in sync with the backlight.
jihadjoe wrote:On a side note, anyone who says there's no discernable improvement above 60Hz obviously didn't live through the CRT era. Back then, every computer screen was proof that the eye does see way above 60Hz.
jihadjoe wrote:Yes, a very specially motion-optimized PWM. But it is surprisingly complicated, because the monitor electronics must work hard to erase pixel persistence before the next refresh.AFAIK the strobing effect is caused by the PWM circuitry used to modulate the brightness of the backlight. The further the monitor is from 100% brightness, the more pronounced the strobing.
Nvidia's technology just syncs the backlight strobe to vsync.
morphine wrote:It is a feature only found in 3D monitors, originally designed to make images brighter during 3D gaming operation. However, it has a side effect of eliminating motion blur. You can also use 100Hz too, as LightBoost is also supported during 100Hz operation. Currently, it is not supported at below 100Hz.Okay, stupid question: this only ever works in 120Hz monitors, right?
Bensam123 wrote:It's important to note that this is still a perception trick and it's not 'actually' eliminating all motion blur. We're still quite a ways off from a display that can make a image flow like water, which would be downright awesome.
Bensam123 wrote:I would disagree, but I'm sure you know that. A perception trick isn't the same as hardware actually capable of producing fluid motion in such a manner.
just brew it! wrote:We're basically trading off blur for flicker; with fast enough frame rates the flicker will not be perceptible. Sounds like we're nearly there.
just brew it! wrote:Bensam123 wrote:I would disagree, but I'm sure you know that. A perception trick isn't the same as hardware actually capable of producing fluid motion in such a manner.
So you're not going to be happy until we have GPUs and displays capable of infinite frame rate? Not gonna happen.
Bensam123 wrote:I'm not saying LB is a bad thing... it's just not the same as a legitimate display technology that provides fluid motion at all times.
GrimDanfango wrote:It seems to me it would have been so much more conducive if all the last 2 decades of LCD research had been put into OLED instead, a technology that works by applying a charge to a medium, which emits light in response - couldn't be simpler or more natural. Instead the industry took 10 years trying to drag itself back to a point it had already reached with CRTs, and to this day has never quite got there.
Parallax wrote:just brew it! wrote:We're basically trading off blur for flicker; with fast enough frame rates the flicker will not be perceptible. Sounds like we're nearly there.
Please be careful with how much flicker you introduce though. Perceptible flicker frequency varies greatly from person-to-person, and often reaches several hundred Hz. Imperceptible flicker (i.e. faster than perceptible flicker) can continue to have neurological effects even into the multiple kHz range.
Bensam123 wrote:Flicker is no more a perception trick than CRT impulses or SED impulses. It's the same modulation of photons to the human eye, at the end of the day. No difference.It's important to note that this is still a perception trick
GrimDanfango wrote:I have bad news... OLED is no good for motion blur if it's sample-and-hold version (e.g. PS Vita). Notice how motion blur PS Vita isn't any better than a good 2ms TN LCD? (The colors ARE much better; but we're strictly talking about motion blur here).I'm holding out (still) for OLED monitors to come to maturity (/sensible prices). It looked like the new era was about to dawn 6-5-4-3-2 years ago, and it slips back every time, but they're finally becoming commonplace in smartphones, and there's finally some genuine 55" commercial products on the market.
just brew it! wrote:Correct, sir. Flicker is a tradeoff versus motion blur.Parallax wrote:just brew it! wrote:We're basically trading off blur for flicker; with fast enough frame rates the flicker will not be perceptible. Sounds like we're nearly there.
Please be careful with how much flicker you introduce though. Perceptible flicker frequency varies greatly from person-to-person, and often reaches several hundred Hz. Imperceptible flicker (i.e. faster than perceptible flicker) can continue to have neurological effects even into the multiple kHz range.
Which is why I said "we're nearly there" instead of "we're there".
mdrejhon wrote:(2) Black period between samples. Irregardless of how it's done