Captain Ned wrote:Might I point you in the direction of Forum Rule #10. You haven't traduced it yet, but grammar nits are best left alone. There's a substantial non-native English population here, so roll with the flow and stifle your inner Sheldon.
Bensam123 wrote:Yeeeep.Only reason that became a big deal is because of the family guy episode making fun of it... Same with other grammar Nazing online (such as their/there/they're). People give other people crap about it and then they feel the need to give others crap about it because they were given crap about it.
Bensam123 wrote:I wonder about this. I've never used 120hz LCD, but I recall faintly -- I was very young -- using 120hz 1024x768 on my brother's huge Syncmaster monitor back in the day, but those memories are quite faint and I find myself now, quite addicted to the wonderful, vibrant colors of my IPS displays, very curious if I would appreciate more the colors of an IPS panel or the fluidity of a 120hz/144hz display. I don't really have the GPU to run most games at 120hz anyway, so I haven't bothered to buy one and find out, but I think after my GPU upgrade I will look long and hard at 120hz.Having used my new monitor, 120hz or 144hz is a huge improvement over 60hz though. I wont be able to go back now. Even if IPS has the colors, it can't compete with this as far as smoothness goes.
auxy wrote:mdrejhon wrote:(2) Black period between samples. Irregardless of how it's done
Sorry, this is just a mega super pet peeve of mine: "irregardless" is not a word. Use "regardless" or "irrespective".
Wonderful post otherwise.
Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose.
Bensam123 wrote:Given the nature of LCD technology, I believe this still amounts to a trick rather then technology.
Bensam123 wrote:It may be a very long time before we reach a point where we have fluid technology so to speak or infinite refresh rates (anything exponentially faster)
Bensam123 wrote:but I would argue that the crystals morphing from one state to another is part of the viewing experience and if they were fast enough you wouldn't need to cover them up. They would give a fluid like experience that naturally and smoothly transitions from one state to another.
Bensam123 wrote:Using something like LB sets a artificial baseline for what is fast enough, that hopefully manufacturers wont become dependent on. As I mentioned with the theater FPS snippet, that isn't necessarily a good thing.
Bensam123 wrote:Given the nature of LCD technology, I believe this still amounts to a trick rather then technology.
Bensam123 wrote:It may be a very long time before we reach a point where we have fluid technology so to speak or infinite refresh rates (anything exponentially faster), but I would argue that the crystals morphing from one state to another is part of the viewing experience and if they were fast enough you wouldn't need to cover them up. They would give a fluid like experience that naturally and smoothly transitions from one state to another. Using something like LB sets a artificial baseline for what is fast enough, that hopefully manufacturers wont become dependent on. As I mentioned with the theater FPS snippet, that isn't necessarily a good thing.
Bensam123 wrote:Having used my new monitor, 120hz or 144hz is a huge improvement over 60hz though. I wont be able to go back now. Even if IPS has the colors, it can't compete with this as far as smoothness goes.
auxy wrote:Whoops. Guilty as chargedSorry, this is just a mega super pet peeve of mine: "irregardless" is not a word. Use "regardless" or "irrespective".
auxy wrote:Thanks!Wonderful post otherwise.
Chrispy_ wrote:It bear worth stating that this is the motion blur comparson scale, that not all "120 Hz" LCD's are equal:I would love to have 120Hz as well, but having upgraded from a 120Hz screen, I wouldn't dream of giving up the 2560x1440 resolution or rich colours for the extra smoothness.
mdrejhon wrote:On modern LCD's, pixel persistence is a tiny factor in motion blur. (2ms is less than 15% of a 1/60sec refresh -- 16.7ms) Most motion blur on modern LCD's come from the sample-and-hold effect (long samples -- frame being displayed continuously) which can be bypassed by turning off the backlight between pixel refreshes.
just brew it! wrote:Actually, pixel persistence motion blur is a separate cause of motion blur than eye-tracking-based motion blur. It's documented in several research papers.mdrejhon wrote:On modern LCD's, pixel persistence is a tiny factor in motion blur. (2ms is less than 15% of a 1/60sec refresh -- 16.7ms) Most motion blur on modern LCD's come from the sample-and-hold effect (long samples -- frame being displayed continuously) which can be bypassed by turning off the backlight between pixel refreshes.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that the only factor in blur these days is the mixing of the current and previous frame which occurs when the pixels are actually transitioning?
jihadjoe wrote:I direct your attention to:
Meadows wrote:It's a matter of perspective. You are right, but it's just semantics at this stage. The phrase "motion blur" is the terminology used in science papers and academic papers -- and also includes human-vision-induced motion blur -- and is totally 100% the widely used terminology. Therefore, I continue to use the term.Motion blur is not applicable to computer displays. At all.
It is an effect that actual moving objects leave on a recording device. (Whether the object or the recording device is the one that's moving is irrelevant.) Pixels don't move, they flash and persist, and if the persistence is too lengthy, that becomes a special kind of ghosting. Motion blur, as a term, is applicable to the human eye/vision and digital and analogue cameras, but not displays.
Meadows wrote:Let's call it what each (science team|community|country|culture|whatever) wishes.mdrejhon wrote:totally 100% the widely used terminology.
Being the majority does not equal being right.
mdrejhon wrote:Also, to a display engineer, ghosting is a different artifact than eye-tracking-based motion blur.
Meadows wrote:Not in all cases, for sure, but in the case of language, it absolutely does. Language facilitates communication, and if everyone isn't using the same rules -- i.e. the same language -- then they aren't communicating as effectively as they could. Thus, in the case of language, majority rules.Being the majority does not equal being right.
mdrejhon wrote:You may have different terminology for each of these, but there are very distinct and different-looking blur-trail effects.
Meadows wrote:Exactly. Eye-tracking is motion.Motion blur, by nomenclature, is "blur caused by motion".
Meadows wrote:Pursuit cameras tracking objects on ANY display, including LCD's, simulating a rotating eyeball.mdrejhon wrote:Exactly. Eye-tracking is motion.
Proven scientifically by commercially available pursuit cameras.
Psst, we're talking about LCDs, esteemed gentleman.
mdrejhon wrote:Pursuit cameras tracking objects on ANY display, including LCD's.
Meadows wrote:They do. It is scientifically confirmed in papers written in the last ten years, including the "Correlation between perceived motion blur and MPRT measurement" paper and others (Google Correlation between perceived motion blur and MPRT measurement for many other papers, many peer-reviewed)mdrejhon wrote:Pursuit cameras tracking objects on ANY display, including LCD's.
Unless they can show that the leading and trailing edges of the displayed movement are of the same delay (I doubt it)
Meadows wrote:Okay, "perception of motion blur". Perhaps this term is more acceptable, and that's what many papers use too, because "perception" is key (also covers artificial blur).it remains an artificial approximation of motion blur and thus unworthy of the sacred term.
mdrejhon wrote:But what if I really *like* the look of the GPU motion blur effects? In particular the DX11 motion blur effect used in Blacklight: Retribution -- and the fixed-rate-motion-blur in Dark Souls -- look awesome. ¦3cmay need to turning off GPU "motion blur" effects
auxy wrote:GPU motion blur effects is beneficial and artistic in many cases. I'm not disputing that.mdrejhon wrote:But what if I really *like* the look of the GPU motion blur effects? In particular the DX11 motion blur effect used in Blacklight: Retribution -- and the fixed-rate-motion-blur in Dark Souls -- look awesome. ¦3cmay need to turning off GPU "motion blur" effects
mdrejhon wrote:Huh. Well, maybe.However, for competitive online FPS gaming, it's an interference.
auxy wrote:Unlike these silly settings, turning off GPU motion blur can make things look better especially if you don't want to hide the 7x-to-11x improvement motion clarity in LightBoost LCD displays. It's like high-definition motion, when motion is much clearer than a common 60Hz LCD -- it is like getting the equivalent of getting 10 times the resolution to your eyes during fast-moving images.mdrejhon wrote:I remember, when I was little, my 10-years-elder brother showing me how people played Q3A competitively - r_picmip to insane levels, or even r_vertexlight turned on, and stuff like that. Forced player models to be the same model for every player on a team...However, for competitive online FPS gaming, it's an interference.
Matt wrote:(email to me; permission granted to post online)
I got really excited when I saw your update about two of the Samsung 3d monitors being capable of better motion performance without the need for a Geforce card. I just successfully tested my S23a700D and it worked so this one can be added to the list as well. I was able to get up to a tempo of 25 or so on the pixperan readability test and still make out the individual letters.
The only problem is that the screen dims, and I get an added 20-30ms of input lag that makes mouse movements feel a bit “soupy”. I play Quakeworld online (usually at 600 fps to reduce tearing-no vsync) and actually found even with the added input lag, I was able to track other players much easier and pull of twitch shot kills that I normally wouldn’t because of the blur I normally get when spinning 180 degrees quickly. It would be incredible if someone could somehow hack the firmware of these monitors to remove the input lag, with some brightness/color tweaking I’d leave this mode on all the time.
Thanks for you continued research, look forward to this becoming a feature of lcd’s in the future. It really removes that last barrier to crt-like performance.
(Editor's note -- input lag is a problem only with Samsung strobe backlights. The ASUS/BENQ LightBoost is much better for input lag, especially the BENQ one)
Cat wrote:(from QuakeLive)
Try it out and see for yourself. Believe me, the difference with Lightboost and without it are friggin nuts. It's been a long time since I was last called an aimbotter in CA (I blame being slightly famous), but it happened just today. I'm hitting accuracies I used to hit back in 2010-2011 after playing 1 weekend with this thing, and that's after 2 years of inactivity.
Skyviper wrote:(from HardForum)
So I finally got the VG248QE hooked up last night and was able to play around with it for a couple hours. The other monitor that I have is a HP ZR30W which is a 30" 2560x1600 IPS monitor so I will be comparing the VG248QE to that a lot in this review.
Right off the bat, I noticed the color quality seems to be a lot worse than the ZR30W. Everything looks to be washed out, dull and not to mention the monitor suffers from poor viewing angles. On the ZR30W, there is next to no color shifting when I move my head around unlike the VG248QE, but that's a common problem with all TN monitors. I tried calibrating the monitor a little bit using some of the values posted online, but it still doesn't compare to the HP.
Moving on, the first thing I tried was 144 Hz gaming. I loaded up Borderlands 2 just to see how it is and I can definitely say it felt smoother. There is no screen tearing at all on the ASUS, unlike how it is on the HP if i don't turn on Vsync. Although the game felt smoother at 144 Hz and there was less blurring, I found that having to play on a lower res (1920x1080 vs 2560x1600) and poorer color reproduction made the overall gaming experience WORSE. Granted this isn't a competitive, online FPS game so I might have benefited more from having a faster refresh rate, but I would have probably stuck with playing this game on the 30" IPS monitor rather than a 24" TN.
At this point I felt like I may have wasted $300 bucks on a monitor that is full of compromises. The next thing I tried of course was using the Lightboost hack. This was the main reason why I bought the monitor in the first place since there are plenty of other 120 Hz monitors that I could have gotten that I'm sure had better color reproduction.
So I downloaded the hacked INF file and followed Mark's instructions. After turning on Lightboost, I noticed the monitor became a little bit brighter so I loaded up PixPerAn just to verify everything is working. The first thing I noticed was that I can actually read "I need more socks" at full speed! This was cool since I've never been able to read it going so fast before on any LCD monitor.
I then proceeded to load up Borderlands 2 again not having much expectations. The first thing that happened was I noticed the FPS drop down to around 1-2 fps, but then I remembered to hold down "Ctrl-T" for a few seconds to turn off the 3D effect which fixed the FPS problem. So I loaded up a game and the first thing that came to my mind was...
SWEET MOTHER OF GOD!
Am I seeing this correctly? The last time I gamed on a CRT monitor was back in 2006 before I got my first LCD and this ASUS monitor is EXACTLY like how I remembered gaming on a CRT monitor. I was absolutely shocked and amazed at how clear everything was when moving around. After seeing Lightboost in action, I would have gladly paid twice the amount for something that can reproduce the feeling I got when playing on a CRT. Now I really can't see myself going back to my 30" 2560x1600 IPS monitor when gaming. Everything looks so much clearer on the ASUS with Lightboost turned on.
If you do any kind of gaming, you should definitely get this monitor. For everything else however, an IPS monitor would probably be better.
Thankfully I am lucky enough to have both