Forum Rules wrote: 1. Rule #1: Be Nice. This is published forum rule #1. Even To Newbies & People You Disagree With!
2. Please report rule violations If you see a post that violates forum rules, then report the post.
3. ALWAYS respect indie testers here. See how indies are bootstrapping Blur Busters research!
Forum Rules wrote: 1. Rule #1: Be Nice. This is published forum rule #1. Even To Newbies & People You Disagree With!
2. Please report rule violations If you see a post that violates forum rules, then report the post.
3. ALWAYS respect indie testers here. See how indies are bootstrapping Blur Busters research!
This should have been done as soon as lightboost and g-sync have entered the market imo. I bet that it could have fixex a lot of problems that happened during last few years with various panels and monitor models. And it will be even more important now, where monitors will be combining all these new things in the near future.Chief Blur Buster wrote:We agree monitors must be firmware upgradeable by users.
Blanket statements like this should not be said unless you have the numbers to back it up. As someone who has personally dealt with 1000s of product returns i can ensure you just because you think it has a higher failure rate doesn't necessarily make it true. If you look at the landscape of high refreshrate monitors you can notice that a large amount of them use AUO panels. Just that alone will cause the number of AUO failures to be a lot higher then other panel suppliers. If you sell 10x the products, you're likely to get 10x the products back.mello wrote:these panels are made by... "AUO Optronics" so talking from experience, panel lottery here we go again
Very much so, I was able to update my Zisworks 240hz to allow ""ULMB"" like strobing with fully unlocked timings and refresh rateHigh end Samsung monitors are user firmware upgradeable.
that was a good day.
Chill out, it is a common knowledge and i just repeated it. No harm done.lexlazootin wrote:Blanket statements like this should not be said unless you have the numbers to back it up.mello wrote:these panels are made by... "AUO Optronics" so talking from experience, panel lottery here we go again
And here you are perfectly right, it doesn't make it true. But user complaints are out there, all over the place, and current AUO reputation is there for a reason.lexlazootin wrote: As someone who has personally dealt with 1000s of product returns i can ensure you just because you think it has a higher failure rate doesn't necessarily make it true.
True, but ignorance term is a funny one here. Why ? Because there are a lot of people that just put up with an inferior quality and product, they just accept it for what it is, they never complain and they just try to get used to certain flaws. For them is it not the end of the world, as long as quality is "acceptable" (different meaning per user) and can be tolerated in the long run. These never end up in any statistics so ignorance comment is a double edged sword in this case.lexlazootin wrote: Combination of ignorance and confirmation bias can make anything appear worse then it really is.
Not sure if failure rate is the issue. I believe the BLB and IPS glow issues of the 165Hz IPS panels from AUO did the damage there. Reputation is easy to damage and hard to restore, especially when you target a younger audience (<40 yo), and for most of them $800 is a LOT of money, and they expect a "perfect product" for that price.lexlazootin wrote:Blanket statements like this should not be said unless you have the numbers to back it up. As someone who has personally dealt with 1000s of product returns i can ensure you just because you think it has a higher failure rate doesn't necessarily make it true.
Proof by assertion. Just repeating something over and over again doesn't make it true. Thinking that spreading lies with no evidence to back it up is "No harm done." then there is really is no help for you.mello wrote:Chill out, it is a common knowledge and i just repeated it. No harm done.
What is confirmation bias?mello wrote:And here you are perfectly right, it doesn't make it true. But user complaints are out there, all over the place, and current AUO reputation is there for a reason.
I've yet to hear of this reputation does that mean that it doesn't exist? No, that's why it's very important to have numbers to back it up. If this true for AUO, it's true for any panel manufacture. idk what your point is.mello wrote:True, but ignorance term is a funny one here. Why ? Because there are a lot of people that just put up with an inferior quality and product, they just accept it for what it is, they never complain and they just try to get used to certain flaws. For them is it not the end of the world, as long as quality is "acceptable" (different meaning per user) and can be tolerated in the long run. These never end up in any statistics so ignorance comment is a double edged sword in this case.
Should be even higher, I'm not entirely were 98hz came from but my guess is that they were calculating 10bits per channel. if they are using the DP 1.3 standard that means they have 25.9Gbit/sopen wrote:If these monitors can do 4k at 98hz then the displayport standard used for them should be able to do 1080p at 392hz right?
