Blur Busters Forums

Who you gonna call? The Blur Busters! For Everything Better Than 60Hz™ Skip to content

Closest potential 1440p 240hz monitor release dates?

Breaking news in the gaming monitor industry! Press releases, new monitors, rumors. IPS, OLED, 144Hz, G-SYNC, Ultrawides, etc. Submit news you see on the Net!

Re: Closest potential 1440p 240hz monitor release dates?

Postby A Solid lad » 02 Dec 2018, 18:38

Notty_PT wrote:do you really want 1440p 240hz? 1080p 240hz offers better motion clarity than 1440p 240hz, because the trail is gonna be smaller. The higher the resolution the more hz you need to have comparable motion clarity. So me personally I would always prefer 1080p 240hz for moving images. Resolutions are a bit overrated if you ask me. They offer an objectively superior experience on static or slow images. Maybe a game played with a controller like RPG Witcher or Skyrim? But then again the 240hz are not as needed there.

And there is your answer.

If I could ask for a dream monitor with achievable tech nowadays, it would be 1080p 240hz on 23 inches, instead of 25, glossy or semi-glossy panel. For 1440p or 4k I would rather use 120hz even and a controller chilled from the couch/bed.

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.
Youtube channel: youtube.com/TheSolidlad
Steam profile with PC Specs: steamcommunity.com/id/TheSolidlad
Monitors I've used/use: IBM p275, Benq XL2411Z, Alienware AW2518Hf, Alienware AW2518H, Acer XF270HA, LG 27GK750F-B, Benq XL2740, ACER XB271HU, ACER XG270HUa, Benq XL2720Z
User avatar
A Solid lad
 
Posts: 200
Joined: 17 Feb 2018, 08:07
Location: Slovakia

Re: Closest potential 1440p 240hz monitor release dates?

Postby Notty_PT » 03 Dec 2018, 07:30

A Solid lad wrote:
Notty_PT wrote:do you really want 1440p 240hz? 1080p 240hz offers better motion clarity than 1440p 240hz, because the trail is gonna be smaller. The higher the resolution the more hz you need to have comparable motion clarity. So me personally I would always prefer 1080p 240hz for moving images. Resolutions are a bit overrated if you ask me. They offer an objectively superior experience on static or slow images. Maybe a game played with a controller like RPG Witcher or Skyrim? But then again the 240hz are not as needed there.

And there is your answer.

If I could ask for a dream monitor with achievable tech nowadays, it would be 1080p 240hz on 23 inches, instead of 25, glossy or semi-glossy panel. For 1440p or 4k I would rather use 120hz even and a controller chilled from the couch/bed.

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.


Listen buddie, this forum is not your regular reddit or TpU thing for that kind of posts. 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:

For one-screen-width-per-second horizontal panning motion, measured in the length of TestUFO blur trailing size behind moving UFO objects:
--> 1024x768 60fps motion -- motionblurs 1024/60ths screenwidth (motion blur trail length of 17 pixels -- roughly 17x blurrier than stationary graphics), 17:1 degradation in image sharpness between motion-vs-stationary
--> 3840x2160 120fps motion -- motionblurs 3840/120ths screenwidth (motion blur trail length of 32 pixels -- roughly 32x blurrier than stationary graphics), 32:1 degradation in image sharpness between motion-vs-stationary.

So you see, higher resolution amplifies sample-and-hold motion blur visibility. Naturally de-blurring (stroblessly, since real life doesn't strobe/flicker) retina graphics in fast motion will require extremely high frame rates at refresh rates. The more Retina a display becomes, the lower the persistence you need to completely eliminate display motion blur. And the only way to do strobeless low persistence is ultra-high-fps at ultra-high-Hz.


"No one asked about my opinion", true, but this is a forum and we are suppose to hit the "reply" button when we want, even if the user didn´t ask our opinion. Is how it works, no need to be salty.
Notty_PT
 
Posts: 99
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 02:50

Re: Closest potential 1440p 240hz monitor release dates?

Postby Ranran » 04 Dec 2018, 13:37

Notty_PT wrote:
A Solid lad wrote:
Notty_PT wrote:do you really want 1440p 240hz? 1080p 240hz...

Listen buddie, this forum is not your regular reddit or TpU thing for that kind of posts. 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:

For one-screen-width-per-second horizontal panning motion, measured in the length of TestUFO blur trailing size behind moving UFO objects:
--> 1024x768 60fps motion -- motionblurs 1024/60ths screenwidth (motion blur trail length of 17 pixels -- roughly 17x blurrier than stationary graphics), 17:1 degradation in image sharpness between motion-vs-stationary
--> 3840x2160 120fps motion -- motionblurs 3840/120ths screenwidth (motion blur trail length of 32 pixels -- roughly 32x blurrier than stationary graphics), 32:1 degradation in image sharpness between motion-vs-stationary.

So you see, higher resolution amplifies sample-and-hold motion blur visibility. Naturally de-blurring (stroblessly, since real life doesn't strobe/flicker) retina graphics in fast motion will require extremely high frame rates at refresh rates. The more Retina a display becomes, the lower the persistence you need to completely eliminate display motion blur. And the only way to do strobeless low persistence is ultra-high-fps at ultra-high-Hz.




To be fair assuming the same screen dimensions or similar ones the pixels on the 2560 x1440 are going to individually be smaller than 1920x1080. This means that going by of the screen blurred in a sample and hold display, thr amount of blur doesn't necessarily change all that much despite more pixels on the QHD display being blurred vs FHD because of the difference in pixel size.

Evaluating this from a user experience standpoint (which I believe is the goal of blurbusters), that blur increase by one metric might not cause a substantial difference in user experience. Of course this is usage case dependant.
User avatar
Ranran
 
Posts: 1
Joined: 06 May 2018, 17:08

Re: Closest potential 1440p 240hz monitor release dates?

Postby Chief Blur Buster » 05 Dec 2018, 01:45

Some of us want 240hz but don't want to downgrade to 1080p and don't want a 2nd monitor. Plenty of use cases for 1440p 240Hz. We might be more picky about static-image resolution, while having the bonus benefits of 240Hz.

Whether talking about motion blur limitations, resolution limitations, or whatever -- I certainly can respect the usefulness of 1440p 240Hz.

Sure, for a given motionspeed, you will still get exactly the same 1/240sec motion blur, but at least stationary images will be much sharper, and you have a 1440p Windows desktop without needing to get a separate 1440p monitor and 240Hz monitor. :D

So, let's respect each other's preferences on monitor attributes. No monitor is a jack-of-all-trades in every department.
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter

       To support Blur Busters:
       • Official List of Best Gaming Monitors
       • List of G-SYNC Monitors
       • List of FreeSync Monitors
       • List of Ultrawide Monitors
User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5464
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44

Re: Closest potential 1440p 240hz monitor release dates?

Postby Notty_PT » 05 Dec 2018, 10:58

Chief Blur Buster wrote:Some of us want 240hz but don't want to downgrade to 1080p and don't want a 2nd monitor. Plenty of use cases for 1440p 240Hz. We might be more picky about static-image resolution, while having the bonus benefits of 240Hz.

Whether talking about motion blur limitations, resolution limitations, or whatever -- I certainly can respect the usefulness of 1440p 240Hz.

Sure, for a given motionspeed, you will still get exactly the same 1/240sec motion blur, but at least stationary images will be much sharper, and you have a 1440p Windows desktop without needing to get a separate 1440p monitor and 240Hz monitor. :D

So, let's respect each other's preferences on monitor attributes. No monitor is a jack-of-all-trades in every department.


Right, I can accept that. But imo 240hz 1440p is not that great and you would end up paying way more for a product with worse motion clarity.

Of course having 1 monitor that can do multiple stuff is better but that´s almost impossible. Generally 240hz is useful for gaming, fast paced games. A 1440p 240hz monitor also good for productivity would be TN panel? Then it would be immediatly bad for a lot of productivity works, and also worse at gaming compared to 1080p 240hz. But I can understand your point.

Ranran wrote:To be fair assuming the same screen dimensions or similar ones the pixels on the 2560 x1440 are going to individually be smaller than 1920x1080. This means that going by of the screen blurred in a sample and hold display, thr amount of blur doesn't necessarily change all that much despite more pixels on the QHD display being blurred vs FHD because of the difference in pixel size.

Evaluating this from a user experience standpoint (which I believe is the goal of blurbusters), that blur increase by one metric might not cause a substantial difference in user experience. Of course this is usage case dependant.


Listen, even on 1080p 240hz I like to use 1366x768 resolution because the motion clarity is immediatly better at that resolution. Now imagine 1440p 240hz. You are right about each one being different, but talking about myself I can clearly distinguish the differences. But I´m very sensitive to these things and this is what lead me to this forum. One of the few forums on the internet where I found ppl like me that can notice even differences from 100hz to 120hz or 5ms in input lag. Since a kid I noticed I had some differente perception from my friends. I would use my CRT at 85hz 1024x768 and they would use 60hz 1280x1024 for more resolution. And I always told them 85hz was better, but they could barely notice a difference.

Same thing now, a lot of people screams at me on forums that 144hz is more than enough and 240hz is useless and not that different, while I can´t even use 144hz anymore after using 240hz. I can spot everything and I would never use 1440p 240hz. But again, I´m sorry if I was rude, I just wanted to give info, that´s all. We are all different and I agree with that, just wasn´t expecting a blur busters forum user to be excited about 1440p 240hz because here we usually pursue the best possible motion clarity :) I do at least

The best gaming experience I ever had in my life was 1366x768 @ 240hz. And I tried 4k 60hz, 1440p 144hz, 1080p 144hz/240hz, etc. Motion clarity and smoothness is everything to me! And I will thank Chief Blur Buster forever for creating this website. It shown many guys like me that we are not alone in perceiving stuff. Before I discovered this website I even thought that I had some "kind of problem", when people would insist that no one needs more than 100fps or high refresh rates or extremely low input lag/blurs. I felt like a freak. Chief shown the web that there are myths that need to be gone. More hz = objectively better. And only when we surprass the 1000hz mark we can talk about diminishing returns :)
Notty_PT
 
Posts: 99
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 02:50

Re: Closest potential 1440p 240hz monitor release dates?

Postby Chief Blur Buster » 05 Dec 2018, 14:30

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.
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter

       To support Blur Busters:
       • Official List of Best Gaming Monitors
       • List of G-SYNC Monitors
       • List of FreeSync Monitors
       • List of Ultrawide Monitors
User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5464
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44

Re: Closest potential 1440p 240hz monitor release dates?

Postby A Solid lad » 07 Dec 2018, 20:07

I merely talked about

Nope, you didn't.
If you would have, I'd have no problems with that.
No, you were trying to force your opinion down my throat...as if I have too little knowledge to decide what I want on my own.
...I didn't even ask for people to tell me "whether 1440p 240hz is worth it" in the first place!

So there is your explanation for my frustration.

I also really like how this is a different forum/community... that's why I don't tolerate people bringing the "I know better than you...you're stupid" attitude here.
Hope everyone understands.
Last edited by A Solid lad on 11 Dec 2018, 20:55, edited 1 time in total.
Youtube channel: youtube.com/TheSolidlad
Steam profile with PC Specs: steamcommunity.com/id/TheSolidlad
Monitors I've used/use: IBM p275, Benq XL2411Z, Alienware AW2518Hf, Alienware AW2518H, Acer XF270HA, LG 27GK750F-B, Benq XL2740, ACER XB271HU, ACER XG270HUa, Benq XL2720Z
User avatar
A Solid lad
 
Posts: 200
Joined: 17 Feb 2018, 08:07
Location: Slovakia

Re: Closest potential 1440p 240hz monitor release dates?

Postby Vega » 08 Dec 2018, 04:56

For one-screen-width-per-second horizontal panning motion, measured in the length of TestUFO blur trailing size behind moving UFO objects:
--> 1024x768 60fps motion -- motionblurs 1024/60ths screenwidth (motion blur trail length of 17 pixels -- roughly 17x blurrier than stationary graphics), 17:1 degradation in image sharpness between motion-vs-stationary
--> 3840x2160 120fps motion -- motionblurs 3840/120ths screenwidth (motion blur trail length of 32 pixels -- roughly 32x blurrier than stationary graphics), 32:1 degradation in image sharpness between motion-vs-stationary.

So you see, higher resolution amplifies sample-and-hold motion blur visibility. Naturally de-blurring (stroblessly, since real life doesn't strobe/flicker) retina graphics in fast motion will require extremely high frame rates at refresh rates. The more Retina a display becomes, the lower the persistence you need to completely eliminate display motion blur. And the only way to do strobeless low persistence is ultra-high-fps at ultra-high-Hz.


Hmm, I'm not sure that is how it works in real life testing.

If you have a display with the same characteristics:

1. Size
2. Pixel transition speed

And the only difference being PPI/resolution, that simply means the moving object will be clearer/sharper to begin with and the trail/ghosting will simply be made up of more pixels. I think a big part of the equation is that the higher resolution image will be much clearer/sharper to begin with, so you aren't even starting on a level playing field.

Easy example:

27" 1080P monitor at 120 Hz versus a 27" 4K monitor at 120 Hz with identical panel design and pixels speeds. You are saying the 4K panel will have much more motion blur? That one may need more explaining. Say over a given distance in perfect horizontal movement, the 4K panel will have to switch four times as many pixels (two horizontal) as the 1080P screen. In that horizontal movement, two trailing edge pixels worth of distance are turning off for every one 1080p pixel. Not sure how that automatically leads to much worse motion blur, especially since the 4K image was 4x clearer to begin with.

Also tested this on my 43" 4K 120 Mango between 4K/120 and 1080P/120. I saw no MPRT benefit of going to 1080P. Or are we saying this only applies to native resolution displays of the same size? ie: 27" 4K vs 27" 1080p.

The 1080p image looks terrible compared to the 4K image static, before you even get into movement.

I think 240 Hz 1440p 0.5 ms TN monitors will be a boon for gaming. But they will put harsh matte AR film on the panels like they always do, thus ruining them.
Vega
 
Posts: 163
Joined: 18 Dec 2013, 21:33

Re: Closest potential 1440p 240hz monitor release dates?

Postby Notty_PT » 08 Dec 2018, 09:58

Vega wrote:
For one-screen-width-per-second horizontal panning motion, measured in the length of TestUFO blur trailing size behind moving UFO objects:
--> 1024x768 60fps motion -- motionblurs 1024/60ths screenwidth (motion blur trail length of 17 pixels -- roughly 17x blurrier than stationary graphics), 17:1 degradation in image sharpness between motion-vs-stationary
--> 3840x2160 120fps motion -- motionblurs 3840/120ths screenwidth (motion blur trail length of 32 pixels -- roughly 32x blurrier than stationary graphics), 32:1 degradation in image sharpness between motion-vs-stationary.

So you see, higher resolution amplifies sample-and-hold motion blur visibility. Naturally de-blurring (stroblessly, since real life doesn't strobe/flicker) retina graphics in fast motion will require extremely high frame rates at refresh rates. The more Retina a display becomes, the lower the persistence you need to completely eliminate display motion blur. And the only way to do strobeless low persistence is ultra-high-fps at ultra-high-Hz.


Hmm, I'm not sure that is how it works in real life testing.

If you have a display with the same characteristics:

1. Size
2. Pixel transition speed

And the only difference being PPI/resolution, that simply means the moving object will be clearer/sharper to begin with and the trail/ghosting will simply be made up of more pixels. I think a big part of the equation is that the higher resolution image will be much clearer/sharper to begin with, so you aren't even starting on a level playing field.

Easy example:

27" 1080P monitor at 120 Hz versus a 27" 4K monitor at 120 Hz with identical panel design and pixels speeds. You are saying the 4K panel will have much more motion blur? That one may need more explaining. Say over a given distance in perfect horizontal movement, the 4K panel will have to switch four times as many pixels (two horizontal) as the 1080P screen. In that horizontal movement, two trailing edge pixels worth of distance are turning off for every one 1080p pixel. Not sure how that automatically leads to much worse motion blur, especially since the 4K image was 4x clearer to begin with.

Also tested this on my 43" 4K 120 Mango between 4K/120 and 1080P/120. I saw no MPRT benefit of going to 1080P. Or are we saying this only applies to native resolution displays of the same size? ie: 27" 4K vs 27" 1080p.

The 1080p image looks terrible compared to the 4K image static, before you even get into movement.

I think 240 Hz 1440p 0.5 ms TN monitors will be a boon for gaming. But they will put harsh matte AR film on the panels like they always do, thus ruining them.


This wasn´t my experiment mate. Chief did it and said it, and I agree with him because I use 1366x768 on my 240hz monitor as I noticed the motion blur is completly gone at that resolution. Like we said, on static images or slow movement, higher resolution will always be superior, but if you need to move a lot, higher resolution is worse! Because more pixels will blur. I had already notice this before reading what Chief said about it. I never understood why I prefered to use 1366x768 and never liked 1080p. I felt something was missing (smoothness wise). Then I found this article and I understood what was happening.

I mainly play games that need fast movement. Football games, FPS, 3rd person adventure with loads of shooting and looking around (tomb raider, etc). So it suits me.

240hz is the best gaming experience I ever had, because to me the smoothness and lack of motion blur is better than everything else. Resolution, textures, etc, it doesn´t matter. Give me "real life" smoothness on a game and I´m happy.
Notty_PT
 
Posts: 99
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 02:50

Re: Closest potential 1440p 240hz monitor release dates?

Postby Chief Blur Buster » 09 Dec 2018, 14:33

Well, the right display mode for the right game.

I can certainly see use cases for really preferring only high resolutions, and really prefering only low resolutions. So respect both sides.

Now back on topic about 1440p 240Hz, I think let's stay on topic on release dates please, as I AM interested in that too -- this thread isn't the "The nuances of why 1366x768 can sometimes be better than 2560x1440". Nor it is the "How big will the benefits of 1440p 240Hz be?" thread. So create a new thread.

CES 2019 FTW! (I'm going)
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter

       To support Blur Busters:
       • Official List of Best Gaming Monitors
       • List of G-SYNC Monitors
       • List of FreeSync Monitors
       • List of Ultrawide Monitors
User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5464
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44

PreviousNext

Return to CES 2019 -- News / Rumors / Conventions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests