Can I edit to fix vertical inversion? Alienware AW2518HF

[stoogie]

Can I edit to fix vertical scan lines?
see them each 2nd row when moving around slowly in games any background, moreso teal color i guess.

its vertical interlacing of some sort as this link says:
https://forums.geforce.com/default/topi ... /?offset=3

doesnt happen with other monitors

[Chief Blur Buster]

Yes, this is an "inversion artifact"

The amount of this varies from monitor to monitor and this cannot be fixed with drivers --

[stoogie]

Thanks for replying, so basically if the amount is too much on this specific one the only thing I can do is replace it?

i see u made a post about this:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3629

How much is too much? I've never had this on any TN before except a pg278q, if its noticeable while gaming and offputting is that enough to warrant a return? Why do they make it so strong when burn in is even less likely on TN and at such high hz (240) you shouldnt really need it, never happened on 60hz ones before it.....

[stoogie]

looks somewhat worse than these images from old galaxy s4, hard to focus on it moving so bit blurry and doesnt pick up the difference on lighter colors as well
https://imgur.com/a/2PHlHtr

if u was interested in how bad it is

[Chief Blur Buster]

AFAIK, that's not the worst I've seen.

Whether it's normal for your specific panel, I cannot say -- but -- this falls within "its normal" for several TN panels. I know people tried to exchange 4 or 5 times to no success (no improvement) and units on other sides of the globe having the same inversion visibility.

Occasionally, we come across a specimen where it's so blatantly bad (about 10x worse than your pictures) and it's definitely RMA material. But those are aberrations.

If this is a supremely annoying artifact -- you could also obtain a 1440p 165Hz IPS monitor too -- those don't have visible inversion artifacts.

[1000WATT]

If this is a supremely annoying artifact -- you could also obtain a 1440p 165Hz IPS monitor too -- those don't have visible inversion artifacts.

Chief What is the correct name for these artifacts?

phpBB [video]

[Chief Blur Buster]

Chief What is the correct name for these artifacts? https://youtu.be/fVz7t3-Di58

Between the camera blurry video, the continual camera autofocussing, and the camera auto-ISO behaviour of the camera used, there are literally over 10x more camera artifacts than display artifacts. There are also some different artifacts I see, that I am unsure if camera artifact or display artifact. The best way is to use manual lock (lock focus, lock exposure, lock autofocus) to reduce camera aritfacts to maximize clarity of display artifact.

Therefore, for the tree-in-forest situation -- and also because of my deafness -- you need to specifically write at least a few sentences description (here or there) plus the YouTube exact second (e.g. "3:21") describe which artifact you wish me to identify -- so I can laser my eyes onto the specific display artifact -- for me to try and identify it for you.

Also, describe what you have inside the paint window to the right.

Thank you and appreciated!

[1000WATT]

Chief What is the correct name for these artifacts? https://youtu.be/fVz7t3-Di58

Between the camera blurry video, the continual camera autofocussing, and the camera auto-ISO behaviour of the camera used, there are literally over 10x more camera artifacts than display artifacts. There are also some different artifacts I see, that I am unsure if camera artifact or display artifact. The best way is to use manual lock (lock focus, lock exposure, lock autofocus) to reduce camera aritfacts to maximize clarity of display artifact.

Unfortunately my SLR camera will be absent all summer. Yes, I understand a lot of artifacts on the video because of the camera.

Therefore, for the tree-in-forest situation -- and also because of my deafness

is it a idiom?

-- you need to specifically write at least a few sentences description (here or there) plus the YouTube exact second (e.g. "3:21")
describe which artifact you wish me to identify -- so I can laser my eyes onto the specific display artifact -- for me to try and identify it for you.

changing colors from gray to purple and green on a static image 1, why did the lines appear on the desktop between the images?

Also, describe what you have inside the paint window to the right.

wallpaper https://drive.google.com/open?id=1UQmDS ... qzysopYiAj
img 1 https://drive.google.com/open?id=12fYtg ... yk_SzbyE5V
img 2 https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lH2GX ... B7MSBT-TIA

photo 1 https://drive.google.com/open?id=1rpiKr ... JR7qntjH2e
zoom photo 1 https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lmhZG ... m_zf2Btgtl
I am more interested in changing the integrity of the color of the desktop fill between 1-2 images.

obs record. Even after compressing the video with YouTube, I see green and purple colors. https://youtu.be/27l9cvZhz2A

[Chief Blur Buster]

I get it!

OK, I identified your artifact.

Firstly, glossary
LCD inversion = the normal LCD voltage-balancing feature of alternating positive/negative voltages in adjacent pixels
LCD inversion artifact = visible artifacts generated from LCD inversion.
Don't confuse inversion with its artifacts.



Inversion is required to prevent burn-in on LCD panels. But inversion artifacts (fine lines, checkerboard textures, etc) can become visible in solid colors of moving images on some screens, like this:


(common inversion artifact afflicting some gaming monitors).

Inversion is done both spatially (swap voltages for adjacent pixels) and temporally (swap voltages on next refresh).

Displaying a window containing an inversion-defeating pattern (sometimes http://www.testufo.com/flicker windowed, will also generate this too) -- will generate interference along the whole pixel row. It does not affect all monitors, but will affect some.

LCD inversion algorithms balance the voltage of an LCD panel but if you display the worst Lagom inversion pattern in a windowed browser -- it will begin to interfere with the screen to the left and right of the browser window. This is unfortunately a feature of many LCDs.

Smarter inversion algorithms will detect this fault condition and automatically switch to a different inversion pattern that is totally different from any pattern displayed on the screen that "attempts" to defeat LCD voltage balancing algorithms (ala inversion) -- whether be software BFI, or specially engineered checkerboard-pixel patterns.

Artifacts can spread away from the inversion-defeating area, such as the whole pixel row -- in your situation. Most panels refresh a full pixel row simultaneously at a time during their scanout (see high speed videos of LCD scanout), and if the voltage is even a millivolt out of whack, that creates the wrong shade of color...

Noe,

Many monitor manufacturers has adaptive inversion -- basically multiple different inversion-patterns into their firmware and will switch the pixel refresh voltage polarity pattern away from whatever is on the screen that is creating a detected voltage unbalance. If your monitor is that smart, the inversion test patterns don't show problems because the monitor's automatically switched to a different voltage polarity pattern away from whatever is being displayed on the screen (that might defeat it).

My ViewSonic XG2530 seems to do this automatically. It's a very good inversion-artifact-resistant 240Hz monitor, albiet it has about a millisecond (or so) more lag than the XG2402. Though it does appear to be prone to a minor image retention effect with software BFI.


From this paper

Some 240Hz gaming monitors use (b)-pair by default but some will automatically switch to (a)-pair if a screenshot that defeats (b)-pair is displayed, like on your screen.

However, your screen is not currently using adaptive inversion. So any window that displays a pixel pattern that matches the LCD inversion pattern, causes a voltage unbalance condition -- displaying artifacts like those.

Inversion exists for a good reason but good inversion is invisible. Inversion artifacts are harder with fast pixel response LCDs. Slow-pixel response LCDs is like balancing on two feet, but fast-pixel response LCDs is like balancing on a stationary bike without pedalling. Fast-pixel response gets unbalanced really fast, so it's harder to engineer inversion-free fast-pixel-response. That's why many 144Hz and 240Hz panels, especially by cheap manufacturers, are very prone to checkerboard-texture effects that annoy some of us users.

Spending more money (e.g. 1440Hz IPS 165Hz) helps to an extent, as does technological refinements (some 240Hz panels are more inversion-resistant than others). Sometimes monitors will be resistant to spatial inversion defeating (e.g. displaying Lagom patterns) but not resistant to temporal inversion defeating (e.g. displaying software BFI or TestUFO flicker), or vice versa. Good specimens are resistant to both.

Now the next question is the "Why?" -- Why do we get so many artifacts on some panels? The race to the bottom (e.g. $250 monitors instead of $1000 monitors) of the last 25 years, has created some shortcuts in inversion quality on some panels. I remember the days when 16-bit and 32-bit computers often cost no less than $3000, and many good-dot-pitch VGA monitors cost no less than $1000 in the 1980s... (that's almost $2000 for a high end CRT 15" or 17" monitor, inflation-adjusted because $100 in year 1990 is worth $200 in 2019). We're trying to innovate on monitors for a lot less than back in those days -- and monitors are much-smaller-quantity consumer goods than televisions and iPads, so monitor engineering in recent years have been highly budget-constrained by not being able to price them higher anymore. So you see some shortcuts in monitor engineering like non-adaptive inversion.

It was (on average) a lot worse 5 years ago on many panels. I still remember the VG278HE (the first 144Hz edition of VG278H), was a very particularly inversion-artifact-prone monitor. I still have nightmares full of inversion artifacts, ha.

Sure, you can spend more like $700 for a gaming monitor that currently has zero inversion artifacts -- like the IPS 1440p 165Hz GSYNC monitors. Those IPS panels are pretty resistant to inversion artifacts. If you're an inversion-artifact-hater, those are my picks. The 4K 144Hz GSYNC HDR monitors are also immune too. Now, there are some gems like the ViewSonic XG2530 ($350) has great colors for a TN and is one of the more inversion-artifact-immune 240Hz TN panels on the market.

Nonetheless...

More reading about the arts of LCD inversion algorithms.
- Forum Thread
- TestUFO Inversion Test
- Lagom Inversion
- Techmind Inversion

Now you know!

[1000WATT]

Thank you Chief. I managed to read your post before editing and it seemed more personalized.
In many of your posts. I like the way you talk about the possible causes of stuttering on the screens. Sometimes it seems to me you will write the instruction “the influence factor of electromagnetic radiation of celestial bodies” and how to deal with it to avoid stuttering.

I understand the general principles of LCD inversion.I tested the week for xg258q. And I did not notice any artifacts. the adaptive inversion algorithm handled just fine.

Sure, you can spend more like $700 for a gaming monitor that currently has zero inversion artifacts -- like the IPS 1440p 165Hz GSYNC monitors. Those IPS panels are pretty resistant to inversion artifacts.

Photos of the previous message were taken from 1440p 165hz ips pg279q. And here I have cognitive dissonance.
but I do not understand "monitor that currently has zero inversion artifacts".