Asus XG258 Questionable Overdrive

Everything about displays and monitors. 120Hz, 144Hz, 240Hz, 4K, 1440p, input lag, display shopping, monitor purchase decisions, compare, versus, debate, and more. Questions? Just ask!
Paft
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 Jun 2019, 14:03

Re: Asus XG258 Questionable Overdrive

Post by Paft » 05 Jun 2019, 16:47

MatrixQW wrote:I don't understand Notty. He doesn't accept VG258QR overdrive but accepts XG258Q overdrive.

Are you activating blue light filter?
On my monitor it switches to racing profile when I turn it 'on'.
Yes. That might be it. Pretty stupid. I cannot change the brightness in racing mode...what's the point of a blue light filter if it switches from 'user' with brightness '0' for late night use, to a brighter mode 'racing' with brightness '35'.. I'll continune using the one in Win 10 or F.lux. :roll:

Notty_PT
Posts: 481
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 02:50

Re: Asus XG258 Questionable Overdrive

Post by Notty_PT » 05 Jun 2019, 17:12

MatrixQW wrote:
Notty_PT wrote:I never ruled out it could be my sample, but imagine we go and reccomend this model to someone, and it has a similar model to mine?
Sure, but there are also people here saying that XG258Q overdrive is not acceptable while you say it's ok.
None of the guys here that said XG258Q was unaceptable have the VG258QR. Maybe when they see a VG258QR sample like the one I had they will tell you it is shocking :D

Plus there is another factor wich is the coating. XG258Q has a lighter coating wich improves transitions further, as matte screens all produce smearing/grainy/powdery effects.

The problem here is not liking or disliking a certain model, neither someone like you being happy with VG25 and me and others dont. The problem starts when yoi say something like "I dont know how notty can accept xg25 but not vg25". I mean, did you ever use XG258Q? How can you say you dont understand someone's opinion on a monitor if you never tried one of those monitors? You can say you love your VG no problems, but dont come on here saying how is possible a certain user like model X but doesnt like model Y.

You know me on this forum for some time now, what makes you think that I would hate on the VG25 so much if it was fine? Dont you think I would be using it? Why would I keep the XG25 instead? They are even same brand, wich Im not a fan of, Asus. My viewsonic xg2402 that I loved for years will now go because the new LG 24GL600F is even better for me and I had no problems to put my beloved masterpiece xg2402 on sale.

I use what I like, Asus VG25 was one of, if not the worst high refresh monitor I ever used. You are happy with yours, fine! There are ppl happy with strobing at 120hz with high input lag, etc and I could never use that. Time to move on bro.

karavanasam
Posts: 185
Joined: 16 Mar 2019, 14:41

Re: Asus XG258 Questionable Overdrive

Post by karavanasam » 06 Jun 2019, 01:41

Yes guys lets relax. ;) Everyone have different tastes and selections.Life is short.A lot of games are there.And there is never enough time to play all of them.Lets enjoy playing those games with our high refresh monitors. :D

MatrixQW
Posts: 168
Joined: 07 Jan 2019, 10:01

Re: Asus XG258 Questionable Overdrive

Post by MatrixQW » 06 Jun 2019, 03:42

Notty_PT wrote:How can you say you dont understand someone's opinion on a monitor if you never tried one of those monitors?
People are saying the overdrive is bad, that there is ghosting in games and web scrolling isn't great. Since these were issues you reported with VG258QR and seems that the XG2402 overdrive is perfect, I don't know how you tolerate it. I'm just surprised.
There is no problem. You took it in a wrong way.

Paft
Posts: 17
Joined: 03 Jun 2019, 14:03

Re: Asus XG258 Questionable Overdrive

Post by Paft » 06 Jun 2019, 17:39

I have the Asus Display Widget installed. I don't know it that's to blame but it just switched to 'Racing' on its own. And no, I didn't turn on the blue light filter..

MatrixQW
Posts: 168
Joined: 07 Jan 2019, 10:01

Re: Asus XG258 Questionable Overdrive

Post by MatrixQW » 07 Jun 2019, 07:18

Paft wrote:I cannot change the brightness in racing mode...what's the point of a blue light filter if it switches from 'user' with brightness '0' for late night use, to a brighter mode 'racing' with brightness '35'.. I'll continune using the one in Win 10
I now use Windows feature 'Night Mode' also since I'm using fps mode.

Q83Ia7ta
Posts: 719
Joined: 18 Dec 2013, 09:29

Re: Asus XG258 Questionable Overdrive

Post by Q83Ia7ta » 07 Jun 2019, 08:36

MatrixQW wrote:I don't understand Notty. He doesn't accept VG258QR overdrive but accepts XG258Q overdrive.

Are you activating blue light filter?
On my monitor it switches to racing profile when I turn it 'on'.
There is also so called panel lottery when each sample differs from another one.

Notty_PT
Posts: 481
Joined: 09 Aug 2017, 02:50

Re: Asus XG258 Questionable Overdrive

Post by Notty_PT » 07 Jun 2019, 10:06

Q83Ia7ta wrote:
MatrixQW wrote:I don't understand Notty. He doesn't accept VG258QR overdrive but accepts XG258Q overdrive.

Are you activating blue light filter?
On my monitor it switches to racing profile when I turn it 'on'.
There is also so called panel lottery when each sample differs from another one.
Exactly! Altho that usually doesn´t happen with overdrive, BUT, it clearly happened with this model. Because trust me, if Matrix or karavanasam had the same overdrive problems as I had with my VG258QR I am 100% sure they would never keep the monitor, no way they could use that. This is why I firmly believe they have good samples and I had a really bad one. But that´s also why I will try another VG258QR soon, as soon as the price drops or a good oportunity comes, because it is 309€ now, and that´s completly nuts for a 1080p 165hz panel.

User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
Posts: 6502
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44

Re: Asus XG258 Questionable Overdrive

Post by Chief Blur Buster » 07 Jun 2019, 14:40

MatrixQW wrote:I don't understand Notty. He doesn't accept VG258QR overdrive but accepts XG258Q overdrive.
It's often surprising even to myself -- how sensitive my readers are! I'm perfectly fine with lots of artifacts but picky with others.

But it's understandable, and I am capable of understanding -- that's our famously educational Blur Busters popular science to explain to my readers why.

I know people who are particularly sensitive to overdrive differences between monitors. The image, created with help by Jorim, is one of my favourite images for demonstrating ghosting differences of overdrive settings (now in the Pixel Response FAQ). Captured via pursuiting camera to accurately capture motion blur:

Image

Now take a closer look at "Normal" setting which many people claim is "perfect" for them. Look closer. It's still not perfect.

Image

Most are okay with this slight asymmetry. Heck, I'm even okay (as founder of Blur Busters). It's not blatant. But it's not perfect.

Look at the left and right trailing edges -- they're not perfectly symmetrical! Even "Normal" does not have perfect symmetry between the leading/trailing edges. Look at the slight blue tinge at left and the slight green tinge at right edge of the UFO dome. This is a great example of 1ms-human-visibility; since 1ms translates to 1 pixel per 1000 pixels/second. So those discolored pixels from imperfect 1ms, is still human visible. The newer 0.5ms displays helps reduce this even further if you're *that* picky about ghosting.

Now, the problem is that manufacturer claims often appears fluffed -- but they're not fake claims, but are trunctated via an based on a imperfect measurement standard established as a technological compromise. GtG response time is based on an VESA 10%-to-90% cutoff standard, so the ghosting from below-10% and above-90% is still human-visible -- like the faint ghost to the right of the yellow dome.

Nontheless, 1ms imperfections is human visible in this photo! Green tinge versus blue tinge on left/right edge....

TestUFO motionspeed is intentionally standardized at 960 pixel per second for ease of pixel response analysis -- 960 being the closest motionspeed number to 1000 pixels/second that is divisible by common refresh rates 60, 120, 240. It makes it easy to judge the pixel response of a pursuit camera picture -- even for 1ms "Normal", you can see about maybe 4 or 5 pixelwidths of ghosting to the left of the yellow dome, most of it below the 10% threshold. You see about 1-2 obvious pixelwidths of discolored blurring (ghosting) and 3-to-4 faint pixelwidths of disclored blurring (ghosting). That 1ms GtG to 90% is still like at least 5ms GtG to 100%.

Nontheless, that out of the way, the bottom line is that 0.5ms GtG (not 0.5ms MPRT) claimed monitors will generally have even fainter ghosting than this. Some people are extremely sensitive to this.

Oh, and it gets more complex with variable refresh rate that does not have good overdrive. Sometimes you get bad ghosting only at certain frame rate ranges; it might be like "Extreme" at some frame rates and fading closer to "Normal" when framerates increase. The high priced NVIDIA G-SYNC module is designed exactly to try to avoid ghosting asymmetry during varying frame rates; as part of the price of the G-SYNC premium. That said, some FreeSync monitors are good, and pixel response sufficiently fast enough that it doesn't need overdrive help to remotely reach at least "Normal" quality. Disabling overdrive completely is often not an option, because even "Normal" (light overdrive) for many is so vastly superior to having no overdrive at all. But not everyone like even the slight discolorations at the arrows... ouch.

Also, the curve shapes are not the same. You can have very good 10%-to-90% GtG that completes the last 10% quickly or the last 10% slowly. Basically 1ms(10->90%) with 5ms(100%) or 50ms(100%) -- the shape of the curve matters a lot.

Image

Even what happens below 10% or above 90% (still human visible) might be slower or quicker in different models of exactly the same GtG 10%->90% -- a single number doesn't tell you the shape of the curve. And the curveshapes are sometimes totally different for totally different pixel-color pairs -- VA pixels have very interesting curve shape differences for dark colors than for bright colors. Ouch. No wonder a single number can be blamed as manufacturer fluff when it's merely trying to be an average that misses a lot of nuances.

It's not surprising that many people claim the manufacturer is lying about response time (that's often a bit over the line.... I'd say "I wish the industry would come up with better measuring standards instead"...). Pixel response is sometimes a big unmeasured problem, that is often left to others to measure, and no single site can ever go the comprehensive depth it so deserves -- since it ends up becoming a lot of "TL;DR" stuff of complexity. So the industry likes to use simpler single numbers when marketing.

Your vision is not the same as the next person. You might need eye glasses. You might not. You might see better in the dark than the other person. Or you might be color blind. (Or simply less sensitive to colors). The bottom line is that everyone sees slightly differently than the next individual. This goes for many kinds of display artifacts -- some see them blatantly well, others don't.

The ghosting may apparently be 10x more visible to the next person than the other. Even how it looks in a pursuit camera photograph -- may stand out more to another person than others. I've politely pointed arrows at the asymmetry -- it's subtle to some eyes but more visible to other eyes.

This relates to other kinds of sensitivities (temporal, spatial, colorspace, etc). Just like some are sensitive to tearing. Or sensitive to stutters. Or sensitive to bad viewing angles. Or sensitive to motion blur. Or sensitive to lag. Different people have different priorities in a monitor.

TL;DR: Pixel response, ghosting, coronas, GtG, MPRT, etc -- creates a huge Pandora Box of display topics that invites plenty of vigorous online debate, sometimes as vigorous as the historical "Human can't see 30fps vs 60fps" debates of yesteryear.
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

Falkentyne
Posts: 2545
Joined: 26 Mar 2014, 07:23

Re: Asus XG258 Questionable Overdrive

Post by Falkentyne » 07 Jun 2019, 17:14

Chief Blur Buster wrote:
MatrixQW wrote:I don't understand Notty. He doesn't accept VG258QR overdrive but accepts XG258Q overdrive.
It's often surprising even to myself -- how sensitive my readers are! I'm perfectly fine with lots of artifacts but picky with others.

But it's understandable, and I am capable of understanding -- that's our famously educational Blur Busters popular science to explain to my readers why.

I know people who are particularly sensitive to overdrive differences between monitors. The image, created with help by Jorim, is one of my favourite images for demonstrating ghosting differences of overdrive settings (now in the Pixel Response FAQ). Captured via pursuiting camera to accurately capture motion blur:

Image

Now take a closer look at "Normal" setting which many people claim is "perfect" for them. Look closer. It's still not perfect.

Image

Most are okay with this slight asymmetry. Heck, I'm even okay (as founder of Blur Busters). It's not blatant. But it's not perfect.

Look at the left and right trailing edges -- they're not perfectly symmetrical! Even "Normal" does not have perfect symmetry between the leading/trailing edges. Look at the slight blue tinge at left and the slight green tinge at right edge of the UFO dome. This is a great example of 1ms-human-visibility; since 1ms translates to 1 pixel per 1000 pixels/second. So those discolored pixels from imperfect 1ms, is still human visible. The newer 0.5ms displays helps reduce this even further if you're *that* picky about ghosting.

Now, the problem is that manufacturer claims often appears fluffed -- but they're not fake claims, but are trunctated via an based on a imperfect measurement standard established as a technological compromise. GtG response time is based on an VESA 10%-to-90% cutoff standard, so the ghosting from below-10% and above-90% is still human-visible -- like the faint ghost to the right of the yellow dome.

Nontheless, 1ms imperfections is human visible in this photo! Green tinge versus blue tinge on left/right edge....

TestUFO motionspeed is intentionally standardized at 960 pixel per second for ease of pixel response analysis -- 960 being the closest motionspeed number to 1000 pixels/second that is divisible by common refresh rates 60, 120, 240. It makes it easy to judge the pixel response of a pursuit camera picture -- even for 1ms "Normal", you can see about maybe 4 or 5 pixelwidths of ghosting to the left of the yellow dome, most of it below the 10% threshold. You see about 1-2 obvious pixelwidths of discolored blurring (ghosting) and 3-to-4 faint pixelwidths of disclored blurring (ghosting). That 1ms GtG to 90% is still like at least 5ms GtG to 100%.

Nontheless, that out of the way, the bottom line is that 0.5ms GtG (not 0.5ms MPRT) claimed monitors will generally have even fainter ghosting than this. Some people are extremely sensitive to this.

Oh, and it gets more complex with variable refresh rate that does not have good overdrive. Sometimes you get bad ghosting only at certain frame rate ranges; it might be like "Extreme" at some frame rates and fading closer to "Normal" when framerates increase. The high priced NVIDIA G-SYNC module is designed exactly to try to avoid ghosting asymmetry during varying frame rates; as part of the price of the G-SYNC premium. That said, some FreeSync monitors are good, and pixel response sufficiently fast enough that it doesn't need overdrive help to remotely reach at least "Normal" quality. Disabling overdrive completely is often not an option, because even "Normal" (light overdrive) for many is so vastly superior to having no overdrive at all. But not everyone like even the slight discolorations at the arrows... ouch.

Also, the curve shapes are not the same. You can have very good 10%-to-90% GtG that completes the last 10% quickly or the last 10% slowly. Basically 1ms(10->90%) with 5ms(100%) or 50ms(100%) -- the shape of the curve matters a lot.

Image

Even what happens below 10% or above 90% (still human visible) might be slower or quicker in different models of exactly the same GtG 10%->90% -- a single number doesn't tell you the shape of the curve. And the curveshapes are sometimes totally different for totally different pixel-color pairs -- VA pixels have very interesting curve shape differences for dark colors than for bright colors. Ouch. No wonder a single number can be blamed as manufacturer fluff when it's merely trying to be an average that misses a lot of nuances.

It's not surprising that many people claim the manufacturer is lying about response time (that's often a bit over the line.... I'd say "I wish the industry would come up with better measuring standards instead"...). Pixel response is sometimes a big unmeasured problem, that is often left to others to measure, and no single site can ever go the comprehensive depth it so deserves -- since it ends up becoming a lot of "TL;DR" stuff of complexity. So the industry likes to use simpler single numbers when marketing.

Your vision is not the same as the next person. You might need eye glasses. You might not. You might see better in the dark than the other person. Or you might be color blind. (Or simply less sensitive to colors). The bottom line is that everyone sees slightly differently than the next individual. This goes for many kinds of display artifacts -- some see them blatantly well, others don't.

The ghosting may apparently be 10x more visible to the next person than the other. Even how it looks in a pursuit camera photograph -- may stand out more to another person than others. I've politely pointed arrows at the asymmetry -- it's subtle to some eyes but more visible to other eyes.

This relates to other kinds of sensitivities (temporal, spatial, colorspace, etc). Just like some are sensitive to tearing. Or sensitive to stutters. Or sensitive to bad viewing angles. Or sensitive to motion blur. Or sensitive to lag. Different people have different priorities in a monitor.

TL;DR: Pixel response, ghosting, coronas, GtG, MPRT, etc -- creates a huge Pandora Box of display topics that invites plenty of vigorous online debate, sometimes as vigorous as the historical "Human can't see 30fps vs 60fps" debates of yesteryear.
One of the best posts I've seen from the great Chief. Thank you!

Post Reply