Experience & Opinion: 240hz displays are blurry

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Ok, wait a minute. For a better understanding, lets say I'm buying either of the Asus 240Hz monitors. They are 240Hz and advertise 1ms GtG. What am I missing? Persistence?

[jorimt]

@BTRY B 529th FA BN, modern TN panels can reach 1ms (and lower) MPRT (Motion Picture Response Time) with strobing, but the reported "1ms GtG" (grey to grey) for every single TN panel is a marketing gimmick; yes, good TN panels can sometimes near that number with good overdrive at the minimums (which is why they dare to claim it), but they aren't close to maintaining it at the average.

We have to remember, while the scanout is constant, GtG transitions (overdrive on or off) operate with a min/max/avg, so all of these numbers (and their averages) are going to vary across brands and panel types.

Bottom-line, "1ms" TN panels are currently a misnomer.

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

@BTRY B 529th FA BN, modern TN panels can reach 1ms (and lower) MPRT (Motion Picture Response Time) with strobing, but the reported "1ms GtG" (grey to grey) for every single TN panel is a marketing gimmick; yes, good TN panels can sometimes near that number with good overdrive at the minimums (which is why they dare to claim it), but they aren't close to maintaining it at the average.

Is the Average for the new 240Hz Asus monitors better than on a firs gen Asus VG248QE? I don't use stroblight made by ToastyX

[jorimt]

That I wouldn't know, I'd have to test each, and I don't review monitors.

Barring max refresh rate, and seeing as they are the same brand, the GtG averages are probably very close between the two (there are only so many high refresh rate TN panels available to manufacturers currently), though overdrive implementation could vary a bit.

[yehaw]

Good that you've resolved your situation to your satisfaction, but don't expect that you can come here and call threads "240hz monitors are not ready for market" and "240hz monitors are blurry" and get away with it without having something compelling to offer. My experience contradicts yours, as does a TFT review you yourself brought up along with a majority of other types of reviews. Your claims don't hold, which was why it was suggested to you to replace your monitor or buy from another company. It seems far more likely you just bought the wrong monitor.

I'm picking up an Acer model Tuesday from BestBuy to see for myself, but I already have have a feeling I will see the same thing. Why?
Because I can see my complaint described exactly to the tee from an owner with the Acer. There are complaints of my exact issue for every model 240hz panel on the internet, as I've linked already. There are corroborating reports from multiple sources that there is a blurring problem with 240hz displays. Whether that's panel lottery, or peoples eyes being sensitive, who knows?

And please stop talking like you've proven I'm wrong and nothing I've stated holds any weight, when it's the complete opposite. Here, let me refresh this for you:

Both yehaw and darzo are right to varying extents, so there's no reason for them to be putting each other down.

There's been almost 10 years for 120Hz monitors to get really good overdrive, and some of them now have nearly perfect linear-looking motion blur during full framerate motion. And some people have gotten used to that. Overdrive for 240Hz monitors are still in its infancy and calibrations for 145fps-240fps frame rates cannot recycle 144Hz overdrive lookup tables (but many probably did it) without making certain kinds of ghosting artifacts reappear.

So while your eyes may not be sensitive to the blur issue I and many other see and complain about, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So please, give it a rest.

And lexlazootin, please post 240hz compared to your BenQ 144hz from ufo test. I'd love to see a side by side comparison! I already know the 240hz will look slightly blurry compared to your XL2420G solely because it's a lower ppi screen, but still would like to compare how the overdrive looks at 144hz.

[Chief Blur Buster]

So while your eyes may not be sensitive to the blur issue I and many other see and complain about, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. So please, give it a rest.

Whoa, no putting words in mouth. First, hold on:

Again -- blur and blur artifacts are not the same thing.
Blur as in the linear/symmetric blurring (persistence) -- and blur artifacts/asymmetries as in additional ghosts/coronas (GtG inaccuracies).
They do stack and superimpose on each other, e.g. blur artifacts degrade the simple blur.

I easily see simple motion blur (overall symmetric/average motion blur). However, subtle motion blur artifacts (e.g. asymmetry: ghosting, coronas) can be extremely subtle and different humans are sensitive or insensitive to it depending on how picky they are.

For example, VA panels can look muddy/ghosty when playing dark dungeon games, while excessively-overdriven panels can show strange ghosting/coronas (e.g. dark images, bright images, discolored images, on one side) that deviates from simple linear motion blur.

And lexlazootin, please post 240hz compared to your BenQ 144hz from ufo test.

Big ask! (unless Lexlazootin has done it before) Usually, that's like asking an amateur runner to do a marathon. It's like asking someone to help you with your homework by asking them to take a college course first (almost!) before being able to help you.

Pursuit photography (the proper way to photograph display motion blur: chasing the camera along the motion) isn't stuff that end users usually do -- it's more reviewer-equipment stuff because you often need to purchase a $100 sliding camera rail and mount your camera on top of it. Although some users have made done with the Sliding Tupperware Technique (basically a camera sitting on top of a container that slides horizontally while chasing the panning motion at http://www.testufo.com/ghosting ...) or even the hand-waved smartphone (but it's very difficult to get the sync track correctly exposed in the photo). It takes lots of practice to do it properly. However, if readers want to try the pursuit camera, I would prefer that posted photographs include the SYNC TRACK (the horizontal ladder) to show honesty in the actual photograph -- because it shows proof of accurate camera tracking. Inaccurate pursuit camera creates more motion blur (additional photographic blurring) that's not WYSIWYG display motion blur, so I need to see the sync track to confirm camera-tracking accuracy. Examples of good and bad sync track photographs (scroll down a bit).

A polite request to yehaw

yehaw, I also need to remind you that not everyone is having your problem. Many Amazon reviews show very happy 240Hz users. 240Hz monitors are not perfect, but they are still great buys in many people's opinion too. Happy users do not post in forums complaining about it. We're entitled to opinions, but there is a boundary of respect that is needed. Imagine a good product somewhere. Even Google Fiber (1 gigabit) forums is full of angry users with problems even if only (1 in 10) or (1 in 100) or (1 in 1000) has big problems). Or say, the forums about your favourite brand of pizza. Or whatever. And your favourite forum for Device X (with 4.5 star rating) will still be full of users complaining about that said device or product or service. As things go, 240Hz monitors tend to be fairly highly rated anyway.
Yet people still complain, like asking people not to buy car brand "X" or avoid that Pizza Place "Y" or whatever. Flaws exist.

yehaw, please be more respectful:
(A) Give substantiated information rather than unsubstantiated repeated discouraging of people away from 240Hz without proper objectivity.
(B) Consider how big of an ask (favours) you are asking of other readers/forum members.
(C) Consider that Blur Busters is much pickier about motion blur than the average website. That said, information needs to be balanced with all considerations.

[darzo]

@darzo, right, but that's before overdrive is applied. Currently, 3.0ms is the average with overdrive applied.

So what's the final result we're talking about? When I asked the Chief about these monitors having lower pixel response times he downplayed the significance, but you're doing the opposite.

[jorimt]

I suppose I'm giving more of an impression of a stance then, whereas the Chief is remaining more neutral, although all I'm stating, like the Chief, is facts, just from a different perspective.

If I take your meaning of "final results" right (correct me if I'm not), a TN monitor with native 3ms GtG will be able to push average GtG transitions as low as 1ms (close to the advertised 0.5ms in the minimums) with proper overdrive, which is simply the overvolting of the native pixel transitions.

Think of GtG overdrive as a CPU overclock in reverse (the lower numbers the better), with the "native pixel transitions" being the base CPU clock speed, and the "overdrive" being the overclock; the lower the native GtG, the lower the overdrive can be pushed, basically.

[darzo]

You were selling those averages for 240hz more than the Chief was. In terms of significance.

[yehaw]

The more I research this topic, the more complaints I find that match perfectly with my complaint. Here is another complaint from a blurbuster forum user about his ASUS 240hz:

Hello,

I just bought the PG258Q (my first monitor 144hz and above) and i really struggle with the blur that creates itself in motion because of the highlighting of the pixels i suppose to be "pixel inversion".

I also see lexlazootin (same user that said a few pages back 240hz are fine and what I've been saying is flawed ) left a reply in the thread about his Acer:

Yep, i have the Acer and G-Sync and i'm pretty sure it's just how the panel works. I don't have a solution but i see it too, especially at lower hz.

That's quite ironic in my eyes, but the topic/discussion is 5-6 months old, so maybe he forgot he said it. I think the dates correlate around the release date of the monitors.

Anyways, this lines up with what I've stated in my thread if you've been reading along. I stated that's it's harder to spot at higher refresh rates, but at lower refresh rates it's much more apparent. But don't take this as 240hz is fine, this issue is still there, just harder to spot. I think the additional refreshes help hide some of it, kind of the same way it reduces motion blur persistence.

I think I'll try some pixel inversion tests on the Acer when I pick one up Tues, I wish I had thought to do it with the Alienware before returning it. Trust me, I want a 240hz panel to be good, even with all the people saying it's a tiny advantage and not worth it. It's just that something is wrong and I know it.

When I can pull up 5-6 people saying they see the same thing as my issue, something is up. Where there is smoke, there is fire. Either there is a panel lottery for this weird blurring issue or it's there on every panel but certain people just can't spot it, who knows which it is? Whether it's related to pixel inversion, overdrive, etc - I have no idea what is directly responsible, but I know for a fact something is off.

Happy new year!
Bonus topic 1 (funky creation time is because it's cached from this)
Bonus topic 2
Bonus topic 3
Bonus topic 4
Bonus topic 5
Bonus topic 6