To steer the tone back to more positive territory...
Chief Blur Buster wrote:
Firstly, some gentle reminders of Blur Busters Forum etiquette...
Notty_PT wrote:I merely talked about the fact that 1440p 240hz is not as efficient as you might think, because increase in resolution means the need for increase in refresh rate aswell due to the motion clarity loss. I will quote Chief about this matter, with technical and experimental evidence:
When quoting evidence, I would suggest being a little more friendly.
One can also use 1366x768 or 1280x720 on a 2560x1440 monitor too. Depending on which GPU you are using, the scaling can be better. The motion blur of 1366x768 240Hz is the same scaled at 1920x1080 or 2560x1440 -- is technically exactly the same.
So there's no downgrade resolution-for-resolution or inch-for-inch -- just a blur downgrade on pixels-blur-per-inch for a given inch-per-second motionspeed. You get more pixels of motion blur for the same physical screen dimension, when you have higher dpi. That's correct, that metric does downgrade. On the other hand, maybe that's not the most important variable for everybody. It's all in the variables, and not everyone will use the same variables you use. It's just one tree in the forest, when we should also acknowledge the forest too.
For people who plain simply prefers the higher resolution if they're stationary 80% of 90% of the time in a game (e.g. slower games like adventure games that forces you to examine objects more closely, or admire scenery) -- then stationary clarity is more important than moving clarity -- 1440p 240Hz still has half the motion blur of today's 1440p 120Hz. Not everybody plays games that demand the motion clarity. Even games like Witcher is a lot slower than CS:GO -- many opportunities to just stay stationary and admire scenery too.
A Solid lad wrote:I don't remember asking for someone to tell me whether or not I should want said product,
you should have kept your useless opinion to yourself, it makes you look like an entitled smartass.
Easy, on Blur Busters Forums, we have a "be nice" policy, even to people we disagree with. Being schooled by someone is not fun, but no eed to trigger any escalations past the forum-rules threshold. Okay?
Now back to regular Blur Busters programming.
There's another ulterior motive of Blur Busters: Keep up the progress in computer monitor engineering. I do not want manufacturers to be discouraged. Monitor manufacturers DO read forums (I privately talk to a few who do), and they DO get discouraged when people say they don't want X. Saying you don't want 1440p 240Hz means it's less likely to happen. If enough people say that, you know what happens. Monitor progress slows down.
I'd rather people do "Personally I'm more interested in 1080p 480Hz than 1440p 240Hz" tone of posts
instead of "You should not want 1440p 240Hz" tone of posts
. Hey, yes, it might be nitpicking, but every little ounce of encouragement to manufacturers helps. And it all adds up quite a lot!
For me, personally, for me, I hate playing my games downscaled, I always play at native resolution, whether on an ultrawide, or 1440p or 1080p monitor.
Also, 1440p 240Hz is the same bandwidth as 1080p 480Hz. So that's progress too. I'm looking forward to that. Some monitors support higher Hz at a lower resolution -- most particularly the Zisworks 4K120 display that can do 480Hz
. Now imagine. Those 1440p 240Hz displays may have a 480Hz low-rez mode at 1366x768 and 1920x1080, for example. Big upgrade in motion clarity without using strobing. Yay!
Although I have well-known disdain for articles that don't understand 480Hz and 1000Hz, as seen by Blur Busters veterans around here, and some of them have been rightfully schooled (in a nice way) by more recent Blur Busters articles. There will be a Holiday 2018 follow-up to my Holiday 2017 special, Blur Busters Law And The Amazing Journey To Future 1000Hz Displays
One user will be happy with 1440p 240Hz but another user may be happy with the 1080p 480Hz options that the bandwidth of 1440p 240Hz makes possible.