Experience & Opinion: 240hz displays are blurry

[darzo]

Pixel inversion is something quite different from what you were claiming. I've noticed vertical lines in the past as well in certain conditions (moving horizontally in front of a wall) but I wouldn't categorize that as blur and at this point I either not notice them or they aren't there. For crying out loud, calm yourself until you try the Acer and then try to seize anything you can find. And start reading the stuff you link. Multiple of those links inform you that pixel inversion is relatively common in lower refresh rate monitors as well.

[yehaw]

Pixel inversion is something quite different from what you were claiming.

Here is what I said in my first post:

I don't know if it's the pixel overdrive, the coating, or what - but it's terrible when you see it side by side.

For crying out loud, calm yourself until you try the Acer and then try to seize anything you can find. And start reading the stuff you link.

I'm just adding information for others to review if they'd like to research themselves and form their own opinion, but also helping support the claims I've made that I see some odd blurring that isn't present on my AOC 165hz panel. And stating I need to calm myself doesn't make any sense. You're constantly trying to instigate arguments, so I think it's the best move for me to use the forum ignore feature to avoid further arguments.

And yes, pixel inversion can be normal, but not to the point where people claim it causes things to become blurrier. My AOC 165hz fails the inversion test, but it doesn't give me this weird added blur that interlaces with the motion blur, and it doesn't give me eye strain/headaches after playing games. I have posted multiple reports of others sharing the same sentiment, that even 240hz at times looks blurrier than 144hz due to this weird added inversion blur, so it's not only me.

[darzo]

Just tried my Asus pg278qr at 144hz in Overwatch. You are so wrong to attempt to claim that 144hz monitors are less blurry than 240hz monitors. The blur at 144hz is constant in comparison to playing at 240hz. To be honest I just need to smack myself and avoid spending $3.5k on 4k 144hz and a Titan when I primarily play an fps game. The refresh rate difference is significant even though the picture is sharper at 2560x1440 with substantially higher settings to boot (although it took getting the same size screen for me). You are dead wrong about motion blur.

I won't bother commenting on your repeated reference to complaints "like yours" existing again. Others have done that in this thread as well, very recently. Try the Acer and let's hear it.

[yehaw]

You are so wrong to attempt to claim that 144hz monitors are less blurry than 240hz monitors. The blur at 144hz is constant in comparison to playing at 240hz.

I've already stated this 3 times now, once in the original post, and now this is the second time being directly at you in conversation, but I'll do it again in more detail, so hopefully you can get a grasp for the statements this time.

240hz ≠ 240hz @ 240fps

When you're at 240hz+240fps, yes it's cleaner due to the additional refreshes, I've told you directly twice now, but don't take this as saying there is no inversion blur. It's still there, just harder to notice as I've mentioned like 20x now. Now, when you run at 240hz, your fps can obviously drop depending on the game. When you drop frames to <200fps range, you lose some of the benefit of the clearer image/smoothness of 240hz because you don't have all the frames to max out the full potential of the entire 240hz.

So when you frames drop to say something like 165fps on a 240hz display, you will have a very similar experience to a 165hz display @ 165ps in regards to visual smoothness. The 240hz will still have a tiny advantage in some areas like input lag, but the differences are negligible. So someone plays some demanding single player games and lets say they get 120fps on 240hz display, they're going to have nearly the same experience as a 120fps @ 165hz display. Now imagine their 240hz panel has really bad inversion blur and their 165hz display doesn't. So you'll have that same experience, but with the added inversion blur that the 240hz panel introduces, which in result makes the 240hz display look worse than the 165hz display.

And that's how you get multiple reports of people saying their 144hz displays look smoother/better than 240hz. There are only a handful of games that can use the full benefit of 240hz. I think I maybe have 2-3 games where I can break 200fps and they're all multiplayer games. I also have about 100+ games I like to crank up all the graphics to the max and get around 60-150 fps. That also doesn't even account for how many games are hard locked to frame rates of 30, 60, 120, etc. There's also the YouTube and video playback. All that stuff runs at low fps, like 30/60 fps (I could even see the inversion blur just watching sports highlights on YouTube when the camera panned back and forth real fast when a ball is thrown.).

The 240hz display is still worth it for me for only those 3 games, but I am not going to sacrifice the experience of 100+ games to experience better responsiveness and smoothness in my multiplayer games. And even then, the inversion blur is still present at 240fps, just harder to spot, as I've mentioned over and over at this point. If I didn't see the blur issue, I would keep it in a heartbeat, even with everyone stating how bad 240hz is because they suffer from higher input lag at 60hz compared to current-gen 144hz.

Now, with all that said, what I want to know from someone more knowledgeable, is pixel inversion something that is variable? Can pixel inversion vary from panel to panel and from brand to brand? Is it something like backlight bleed that widely varies from panel to panel? Or is it something that's going to be about the same on every panel? If it's the same, it's safe to say all these 240hz panels suffer from the issue and some people just don't notice it.

[open]

I just want eveyone to know that I come here to learn and everyones input is welcome. If someone is observing something and it is relevant to them then it must come from some observations that are accurate. I think the majority of people here are like me weather they decide to speak up or not. Being clear in our observations and ways of explaining them are our best tools for this purpose. The blur busters website had developed a really good foundation of tests and information that we can use to communicate and experiment and learn more. The fact that this place has become a major public source of how we define and organize knowledge on display technology both to each other and here and to professionals in the industry all stems from it having well defined accurate and well organized information. We need to understand that we are all observing real things and we are just trying to understand and organize what we observe. Saying we are observing different things is really just saying that we need to understand why we are observing different things. I personally love my 240hz but I think it would be a shame to deny any information about 240hz displays that someone is observing and bringing here. Sometimes the mind actually becomes less able to express accurately what is going on when in an argument and we need to decide what is most important. I say its more important to be accurate and clear.

[darzo]

So you were seeing pixel inversion in those motion tests you've been analyzing for us? Thought it was the bad 240hz overdrive and the connoisseur double image present in just a particular way that you've repeatedly told us you see in provided motion test images (which lack pixel inversion, by the way). Pixel inversion is not something you'd describe as blur. It's pretty distinct and patterned so if someone as supposedly perceptive as you comes across it you'd naturally differentiate it. Stop fishing for anything you can latch on and expounding what you've been incorrectly claiming as the changes in your theory reflect, just get the Acer and tell us whether you're still getting headaches or motion seems terrible. As for lower refresh rates, I've told you I've had a fine experience as well but you primarily buy such a monitor for those games where you can play at the refresh rate. Of course you don't want a disruptive experience but yours is likely due to the particular monitor rather than the overdrive and pixel inversion nonsense. Which is where the Acer comes in.

Did a little test in Overwatch. As I've said before, it might be important that you keep the refresh rate at 240hz or auto both out of game and in-game. When I use 144hz in Overwatch things do get rather bad, just as they are exaggerated when you use 60hz on a 144hz monitor. When I use the quality settings to force the fps down to 120 and keep the refresh rate at 240hz, however, it's better. Didn't see any pixel inversion but things were blurrier in motion which I'd chalk to fps on a good overdrive monitor without the telling double image you'd see when using the extreme overdrive setting or other artifacts around objects. What I think happens when it's the fps is that not only game objects in motion but the backgrounds look blurry too, which is what I was experiencing yesterday on the pg278qr as well. Recall having no blur problems of note when playing Destiny 2 at 120 fps and pixel inversion is not something I've noticed in a long time. But of course that doesn't suffice for you and you'll still believe that 240hz monitors are generally flawed, so let's stop going in circles and wait for your impression of another monitor.

[yehaw]

So you were seeing pixel inversion in those motion tests you've been analyzing for us? Thought it was the bad 240hz overdrive and the connoisseur double image present in just a particular

I just had to read the first few sentences to throw you on ignore for real this time and will ignore the rest of your paragraph. It's clear your don't want to comprehend what I'm telling you and it's more of a contest of who's right/wrong for you. Just go over the last 3 replies I've made to you and it's all me making corrections to what you keep saying I said, but in fact wrong. I'm not here to argue for or against anymore, I'm here to share my experience and findings.

With that said, I'm done discussing the issue with you specifically. If anyone wants to have a proper discussion of the issue or has questions, just leave me a reply. As for anyone else new to the topic, I've edited the original post to include links of the overdrive flaws breakdown, other sources of complaints, and the pixel inversion discussion.

I've also tried to edit out all of "don't buy 240hz" type of comments I originally made (if I missed any, link me and I'll edit immediately), as they don't belong in the discussion. I shouldn't be dissuading people from buying something, but instead giving them information to make their own informed decision. And I feel like I've provided a lot of valuable information, despite being a bit misguided at times, as I was learning as I discovered more and more complaints on the topic. I admitted from the start I didn't know what the issue was exactly, but I think I've tracked it down to a few things, but I think the main culprit is the pixel inversion.

[lexlazootin]

I found a dslr...

[Chief Blur Buster]

I found a dslr...

Strobed mode, I presume? Those are sometimes easier to capture with static photography, but pursuiting still improves WYSIWYG accuracy of display motion blur photography.

If you want to attempt pursuit photography - you ideally need to expose 4 tickmarks (but if at least 3 exposed, they can still be usable). Set the camera exposure length to 4 refresh cycles. e.g. 1/30sec for 120Hz. Or 1/36sec for 144Hz (if no 1/36sec setting, use closest setting such as 1/40sec). Compare your photo to the ones in pursuit camera instructions.

If they are imperfect, create a new separate "practice pursuit photography of my 240Hz monitor" thread if they are not perfect (e.g. disjointed tickmarks etc). It can be fun to practice, however especially if you like photography and want to practice anyway. It certainly takes time, because you're moving a camera with a slow shutter, while attempting to track the camera on the moving object (as the photographic equivalent of eye-tracking).

[yehaw]

Strobed mode, I presume?

It looks like either ULMB is on, or he turned down the pixel speed on the test. Although I will admit, the 144hz ulmb on the alienware 240hz panel I had was very nice, but I never liked ULMB too much (too much strain on my eyes and I don't like flicker). I appreciate the effort, but I wanted to see the 240hz set at 144hz compared to the BenQ at 144hz, then compared side by side. If it's too much trouble, don't worry about it. Nice quality pic though.

And Chief, please answer this if you have time:

Now, with all that said, what I want to know from someone more knowledgeable, is pixel inversion something that is variable? Can pixel inversion vary from panel to panel and from brand to brand? Is it something like backlight bleed that widely varies from panel to panel? Or is it something that's going to be about the same on every panel? If it's the same, it's safe to say all these 240hz panels suffer from the issue and some people just don't notice it.

Also, I'm buying the Acer 240hz after 6est time tonight and will confirm or deny if I see the same issues. I hope I'm wrong, as I'd really like to keep a 240hz panel, but remain a bit skeptical.