It looks like BenQ created that and provided it to IGN.Discorz wrote: ↑13 Dec 2022, 03:15Does anyone know if this photo is BenQ official or no?
Source: https://me.ign.com/en/pc/203936/feature ... ts-monitor
It's confusing because from description it sounds like IGN made it but it has BenQ logo in top corner and stuff.
It is very cherrypicked.
I imagine they tried to use PureXP Light, to try to make it as bright as DyAc.
BenQ can do brighter, so that puts XG2431 at a disadvantage.
If you need bright 300+ nits strobing and max Hz, then it's hard to beat a -6 suffixed BenQ as they are among the brightest voltage-boosted strobers. That's important to many, but XG2431 shines quite a lot when you use moderate PureXP settings. It says "PureXP+ Custom plus "OD Fixed" -- which is a weird reason to use PureXP Custom because one bonus of PureXP Custom is its 100-level overdrive gain; so I'm not sure what the goals BenQ used.
If so, then that is an intentional unfair gimping of OD on the XG2431 side, because XL2566K has no ability to have an OD Gain adjustment in Strobe Utility (and BenQ hasn't told me if there's an OD Gain DDC command, since I asked them I wanted to upgrade Strobe Utility)
However, that's not the ideal settings to configure XG2431 to, and you can re-tune an XG2431 to even better than what I see on that site, especially at lower Hz, when you need various use cases.
But, for XG2431 I certainly can get better than that with further adjustments.
That pursuit camera image isn't AMA Premium -- the AMA Premium setting has more overshoot. Also, it's unfair to compare AMA Premium to XG2431 because there's heavy overshoot for AMA Premium, when XG2431 has very moderate overdrive settings. This puts XG2431 overdrive-free at a disadvantage to the most overshooty AMA setting. XG2431 made the design decision not to make heavy-overshoot overdrive settings.
Also, this IGN article has no author name, and its comments section is disabled. I wonder why... Sponsored?
Also, BenQ did not credit Blur Busters or TestUFO for the logo; a trademark violation either on BenQ behalf; TestUFO is free for reviewers / writers to use but they must credit Blur Busters / TestUFO!
And if BenQ is using our UFO graphic in advertising, that is a violation of the UFO license; I will reach out to BenQ to see if this is a creation of theirs. It's fine to compete and bash XG2431 if they want -- it's a free market after all -- but uncredited advertising of our logo? Foul.
BenQ should get it done over with and simply sign up for Blur Busters Approved. Their XL2566K would be super easily Blur Busters Approved with only a minor change (OD Gain DDC command for DyAc+)
I've already sent an email to my BenQ contacts to find out the origin of that slide; if it's theirs then I may write an article which doubles as a half-kudos to XL2566K, half-rebuttal, and a half-scolding of uncredited commercial advertising of UFO. It's fine to use it as part of a review but this looks like a corporation-sanctioned image designed for BenQ to do some advertising -- so if this image came from BenQ for the purpose of advertising, this unlicensed use crosses the line of allowed-uses.
If the reviewer created it, it's fair game, even if in ViewSonics' disfavor. But if BenQ sponsored IGN to do this, and provided the image in this uncredited way, it is an unlicensed use. But I need to fish both IGN and BenQ to figure out if BenQ sponsored this article.
They do mention "BlurBuster" but our company DBA name is two capital words of plural, "Blur Busters", so IGN should at least correct the citation. But if it's BenQ paid-sponsored, unlicensed advertising of logo is not a permitted-use of our corporate trademark...
I suspect this might be a sponsored article that, while has a well-intention of BenQ behalf, has a few areas that got "botched".
Because I have BenQ corporate material over the years (provided to me by BenQ) and they typically look like this style -- a purple BenQ logo at a corner. So it is very consistent with corporate material provided by BenQ over the years. It would be unethical for IGN not to say "...This image was provided by BenQ..." There's fair, and there's foul.
Does anyone know how to reach IGN Middle East editors? I need to check provenance, but this kind of smells sponsored.
So, BenQ, maybe, if you're reading this post, why not contact squad [at] blurbusters.com and just simply apply for Blur Busters Approved 2.0? XL2566K should be shoo-in with minor modifications. Wink, wink.
I wonder what settings BenQ used for that image, if they broke-in BOTH panels for several days first (since cold/stored LCDs can have over 25%+ slower GtG even after warming up for 30 minutes). Say, a well used XL2566K with several hours of use then freshly receiving an XG2431 with almost 0 hours of use, would be an unfair comparison.