ViewSonic XG2431 Discussion Thread [Blur Busters Approved XG2431 - 24" 240Hz IPS with Best Strobing]

[Chief Blur Buster]

Does 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 looks like BenQ created that and provided it to IGN.
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.

[u2cyute]

It's an out-of-bounds exception error -- thank you for reporting this.

This is caused by DDC values being out of range.

TEMPORARY FIX OPTIONS
(A) To fix this, run Entech SoftMCCS and reset the extended DDC values back to 0, before reloading ViewSonic Strobe Utility;
-or-
(B) Another workaround is to temporarily edit ViewSonicStrobeUtility.ini and set maximum value to 255. Once done, launch, slide all values to 0, exit, and restore the old copy of ViewSonicStrobeUtility.ini. It will then function normally again.

This is already fixed in the next version of Strobe Utility. Out-of-range DDC values sometimes occur after a monitor firmware upgrade or a factory reset -- this creates the conditions to crash ViewSonic Strobe Utility.

Hi, I'm currently having this problem and wanted to know what you're referring to for the max value in the ini file. I tried setting StrobeLenMax, StrobePhaseMax, and OverdriveGainMax to 255 but that didn't work. Entech SoftMCCS is not currently available for download so I can't try method A.

[Chief Blur Buster]

Hi, I'm currently having this problem and wanted to know what you're referring to for the max value in the ini file. I tried setting StrobeLenMax, StrobePhaseMax, and OverdriveGainMax to 255 but that didn't work. Entech SoftMCCS is not currently available for download so I can't try method A.

Factory reset the monitor (Use "Memory Recall").

At least some of the values in the firmware is currently random values out of range.

The error message you are getting seems to indicate an incorrect edit of the INI file, there should only be numbers after the equal sign, and never any text after the equal sign, no quotation marks, no text, just 255 after the =
(A) Can you paste your INI file and I will advise on the correct edit;
(B) Or just erase it / reinstall Strobe Utility / and do the Memory Recall method instead?

[u2cyute]

I did method B of uninstalling strobe utility and doing a memory recall which worked. Thanks!

[Jadzira]

What cable you recommend to use for Viewsonic XG2431 - HDMI or DisplayPort? Is there any difference?

[Chief Blur Buster]

Does 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 looks like BenQ created that and provided it to IGN.
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.

Confirmed. BenQ internal image.

My squealing in a few channels just got IGN ME to delete the unsanctioned/unlicensed uncredited BenQ advertising.

To websites:

- If you're a reviewer and use TestUFO, it's fair game. 100%. TestUFO is 100% free for use by all testers/reviewers/indie youtubers etc. as long as there's no conflict of interest. Don't need to ask me for permission. TestUFO is self-crediting because people call it "Here's the TestUFO test..." but the fact is TestUFO uses our corporate logo and we defend the trademark of the UFO zealously. Writers and researchers can cite Blur Busters and TestUFO and Mark Rejhon and link to them, we are in over 25+ papers, www.blurbusters.com/area51

- If a manufacturer is sponsoring you and using my logo in your advertising or a sponsored website, or providing an free-advertisement slide to a reviewer (to use unethetically), you have to contact me to pay your Blur Busters Approved license or other authorized use of our UFO trademark. There can be a conflict of interest with unpaid advertising against manufacturers who actually licensed the Blur Busters Approved. Maufacturers can't use UFO advertising without contacting me for permission (there are free contexts and paid licensed contexts, but requires permission to use our trademark). An example of a free context for manufacturer, is a peer-reviewed manufacturer research paper such as Temporally Dense Raytracing (I'm cited on Page 2 of this NVIDIA paper).

It's no different than the FreeSync logo and the G-SYNC logo. A manufacturer can't use those logos on their monitor without the permission of AMD and NVIDIA after they validate your monitor. (AMD certifies FreeSync, NVIDIA certifies G-SYNC, We certify strobing)

So a trademark-defense win.

I defend the end user, the forum members who post TestUFO tests, the indies, the reviewers, the testers. It's free for independent testing. For manufacturers, they have to do business with Blur Busters. BenQ, if you're reading this -- please see https://services.blurbusters.com

Blur Busters is famous among indies as our free tests that brought expensive lab equipment ($30,000 motion blur measurement equipment) into affordability for bloggers, reviewers and youtubers. But if manufacturers wants to piggyback on advertising our tests to compete against paying manufacturer clients, they have to license our logo such as joining the Blur Busters Approved programme.

Hey, Blur Busters was a hobby that turned into a business, and I strongly defend the indies and hobbyists.

Fair is fair!

[Chief Blur Buster]

I did method B of uninstalling strobe utility and doing a memory recall which worked. Thanks!

This happens very rarely, but it is usually caused by a corruption of values stored in the monitor. For example an invalid setting value is stored in the monitor's memory, and Strobe Utility barfs on that. The next version of ViewSonic Strobe Utility automatically recovers better from this by catching the exception and resetting to sane values if insane values are detected (like a pulse width value of 255 when the number should have been 1-40, it is not possible to have a pulse width that's 2.55 refresh cycles long!)

What cable you recommend to use for Viewsonic XG2431 - HDMI or DisplayPort? Is there any difference?

Both works equally well with PureXP, with minor differences (factory EDIDs vary a bit).

QFT works on both inputs, with minor differences (like exact VT ranges possible due to different methods of Plug-and-Play EDIDs for DP vs HDMI) but in general, the ToastyX Vertical Total Calculator works equally well on both in a maximally-compatible manner for the common use cases.

[JohnBentley]

A further update on my original issue of XG2431 OSD not working. I now have three XG2431 for a triple monitor setup. All bought from the Australian retailer Scorptech. All of them have OSD buttons that are fine and work well enough.

So that entails, at least, the Australian market is not saturated with dud units.

The buttons are not super ergonomic, as all of you with working buttons I think would attest. However, they are easy enough to use.

The more important thing is that these buttons are located underneath rather than around the back and to the side. That means this is one of the few displays that will work in a triple monitor setup.

And now to join you all down the rabbit hole that is learning about, and setting, various options for optimum viewing.

[Webby22]

.

What’s the easiest way to hack, or mod, or add active active shutter glasses and a way to sync them to this display to play 3D Blu-rays? Anyway to do it with just a standalone 3D Blu-ray player? or would playing through a PC always be necessary?

I have this display, the XG2431.
I still have my old 3D Blu-ray Disc collection but no current display to watch them.
I still have a 3D capable standalone Blu-ray Player.
My PC doesn’t currently have a DVD/Blu-ray drive, but I could always buy a drive if necessary.

I’m also not exactly sure what a “DLP-Link emulator” is exactly.

I have this display and didn’t even think this could be a possibility until I saw this post I’m quoting below in the XG270 thread.

Can I expect no ghosting 3D stereo image with quadro graphic card / stereo 3 pin extension connector/active IR shutter glass and this viewsonic XG270?

Personally I'd consider the ViewSonic XG2431 for even better zero-crosstalk results (using 120Hz with the VT2250 trick).

Make sure the 3D glasses are correct polarization (vertical polarization versus horizontal polarization). IPS is polarized 90 degrees differently from TN screens, so shutter glasses for TN screens won't necessarily work unless you rotate your monitor by 90 degrees to portrait.

Hello,
I had chance to test ViewSonic XG2431 with active IR shutter glasses(XPAN 105-IR-X1 / for general 3D TV).
The test environment are like followings:
- Prepared side by side green/blue image @120Hz(sView)
- Quadro RTX 5000 with VESA stereo 3 pin extension connector
- Set PureXP as "Ultra" in ViewSonic XG2431

Observation
- No blur image on each left/right lens of IR shutter glass
- No polarized issue, it was same as TN screens

Question
Do you know why no polarized issue on ViewSonic XG2431?

This is because XG2431 polarization direction is 90-degrees different from most TN screens. That makes it compatible with different shutter glasses, like repurposed DLP shutter glasses.

- Shutter glasses uses LCD shutters which don't work well with wrong-polarized light.
- DLP emits unpolarized light (compatible with all shutter glasses)
- TN emits polarized light (compatible only with certain shutter glasses)
- IPS emits polarized light 90 degrees different from TN (compatible with DIFFERENT shutter glasses)

So shutter glasses must be compatible with the LCD's polarization.

You can also rotate a screen between portrait/landscape to fix polarization compatibility issues, since TN and IPS are polarized differently. IPS polarization is apparently more compatible with DLP-glasses polarization, because LCD inside shutter glasses don't work well with wrong-polarized light.

You found one of the best kept secrets: Today XG2431 is one of the best tiny 24" 3DTV-compatibles ever released -- near perfect zero crosstalk with the 120Hz VT2250 trick in ToastyX -- then re-calibrated with ViewSonic Strobe Utility to hide the room-temperature-sensitive part of crosstalk (temperature of summer/winter can worsen 3D glasses crosstalk).

I found that XG2431 PureXP is compatible with most DLP-Link glasses, with a "DLP-Link emulator" that has a shutter phase adjustment. And then using 3rd party 3D players that uses sequential-frame.

Voila. Perfect 3D from XG2431 that is superior to most 3DTVs and even better than NVIDIA 3D Vision!

It's very hard to setup, but I've been thinking of creating an open-source adjustable Arduino DLP-Link emulator box. That can turn most strobed LCDs into 3DTVs. It requires adjustable shutter phase, to compensate for refresh-delay difference between LCD and DLP, but other than that, it works perfect to use DLP-Link glasses with many strobed LCDs.

I imagine it'd work great with VorpX (enables 3D in video games), to turn XG2431 into a 3D Vision clone, usable with any generic DLP-Link glasses with compatible polarization.

Actually, I'll post an open source prize pot for this.

Bounty prize offer: $200 USD paid to first forum member who can package a working open source VorpX + DLP-Link solution for ViewSonic XG270 or XG2431

Requirements:
- DLP-Link glasses (cheap at $10 each)
- DLP-Link emulator (simple arduino box, I recommend Teensy 4.0 since it supports 0.125 microsecond USB 8000Hz for accurate sync)
- ViewSonic XG2431 monitor
- Viewsonic Strobe Utility

This probably won't need any changes to VorpX, however, if any is required (to sync between the DLP-Link emulator arduino over a USB cable), that code also needs to be contributed as open source to the VorpX team as a possible VorpX plug-in.

Bonus: Adjustable shutter-open-length per eye, and adjustable shutter-open-phase (relative to VSYNC signalling over USB cable to DLP-Link emulator box from Windows D3DKMTGetScanline() to monitor VBlank events). That should make it compatible with almost all strobed monitors, assuming compatible polarization.

[xenphor]

Is crosstalk free strobing easier to achieve on an OLED since they have instantaneous pixel response? I'm tempted to buy an XG2431 since I've become more sensitive to persistence blur, especially at 60hz (which comprises the majority of games). However, since I already have an Alienware AW2521H, I would like to make my next monitor an OLED to make use of newer tech like HDR and such.

What would a Blur Busters approved OLED monitor be like? Would it be less hassle to achieve a cross talk free image? Would it make it easier to have VRR+BFI working without artifacts? Would having HDR help to alleviate any brightness issues? Or does OLED not make much of a difference for strobing tech? How does the strobing on the XG2431 compare to the strobing on LG OLEDs?

I'm mainly concerned with 60hz performance in legacy titles and emulators. I'm also curious about arcade games that refresh lower than 60hz (54hz, 57hz, etc..) and if strobing is possible for those.