Blur Busters Forums

jorimt wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2022, 16:47

These OLEDs are effectively 0.1ms GtG equivalent, but the processing latency on the C1 in game mode at 4k is still over 5ms according to RTINGS review:
https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/lg/c1 ... st-results

Again, great for a TV (my CX is about 5ms at 4k as well), but still doesn't match the sub 1ms processing latency of some current-gen LCD gaming monitors.

Highly depends on testing methodology, but isn't 5.6ms still a sub frame latency for 120Hz? I don't think we'll ever be able to get sub 1ms of average full display latency without 1000+hz/fps and other factors fulfilled. Because when we talk about latency only processing is somewhat consistent for all methods (rest is math), its just that some reviewers don't split it up. Correct me if I'm wrong because I get easily confused with latency topic. There are too many factors to consider and it gets real messy in my head.

Discorz wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2022, 18:43

Highly depends on testing methodology, but isn't 5.6ms still a sub frame latency for 120Hz?

You'll have to ask the Chief exactly what he meant by "subframe latency," but yes, 5.6ms is technically "sub frame" latency at 120Hz, if you consider a single frame is 8.3ms at that refresh rate.

The point is, the more instantaneous the scanout process is, the better, and many gaming monitors get lower than current OLED where display processing is directly concerned.

Discorz wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2022, 18:43

Because when we talk about latency only processing is somewhat consistent for all methods (rest is math), its just that some reviewers don't split it up.

TFT Central splits their "lag" readings into processing and GtG, and many of the gaming monitors they have reviewed reach sub 1ms latency when GtG is removed from the equation.

RTINGS may not, but again, the most "GtG" they'd be getting on an OLED is sub or near sub 1ms, so their latency readings are comprised almost entirely of processing delay.

The EP950 has 1.30ms overall lag(0.34 pixel response time element + 0.96 signal processing lag) in best scenario.
Average G2G is 0.67ms(lowest 0.22 and highest 1.40).
Worst case scenario you still have a lot less lag than the 16.67ms of 60hz and the 8.33ms of 120hz.
https://tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/lg_ult ... ep950_oled

I don't know where you guys get this idea that OLED's struggle with sub-frame delivery...maybe LG's TVs sure.
And I don't know about you but I trust tftcentral more than rtings since for one the former measures 0 to 100% as opposed to the typical 10-90 method.
So I doubt Samsung's QD-OLED Monitors will have anywhere near the lag LG's TVs do.

And remember the 32ep950 is not even a gaming monitor(and is also only 60hz as well) since it's designed more for photo editing work and whatnot.

EDIT: On a sidenote, the thread title should be fixed to "Samsung QD OLED".

thatoneguy wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2022, 20:20

I don't know where you guys get this idea that OLED's struggle with sub-frame delivery...maybe LG's TVs sure.

While I can't speak for anyone else, I was referring to recent LG OLED TVs in particular.

Also, I forgot entirely until now that TFT Central reviewed the CX (https://tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/lg_cx_oled), but they measured the processing lag to be over 10ms before LG updated it to be closer to the C1, which is a little over 5ms at 4k in game mode.

thatoneguy wrote: ↑

08 Jan 2022, 20:20

EDIT: On a sidenote, the thread title should be fixed to "Samsung QD OLED".

Easier said than done (I have to edit the title of both the OP and each of our post titles), but now corrected.

TVs often seem to use electronics more concerned with pushing image quality over latency.
So expect figures similar to LG for their TVs but Samsung has a good track with input lag for their LCD TVs at least.

On another note I wonder if the monitors will reach the touted 1500 nit peak brightness/3% window like the TVs.
It always seems to me like Monitors get shafted when it comes to brightness with many HDR monitors only being HDR400.

First post after years of lurking, woo!

Honestly, I'm stoked for this. I know there will be many people who are turned off by it being an Ultrawide, but for me that's a plus.
I'm going to return my G9 Neo and wait for this bad boy. This is what convinced me, can't wait to see additional/retail unit results.

Kibby wrote: ↑

21 Jan 2022, 12:19

First post after years of lurking, woo!

Honestly, I'm stoked for this. I know there will be many people who are turned off by it being an Ultrawide, but for me that's a plus.
I'm going to return my G9 Neo and wait for this bad boy. This is what convinced me, can't wait to see additional/retail unit results.

And now they just need to enable the full peak 1000 nits (reserved for HDR highlights) for non-HDR full-screen so that with BFI, the remaining motion blur from 100% pixel persistence is removed. If they'd allow the full 1000 nits full-screen in ULMB mode with 25% duty cycle (giving same 100% duty cycle full-screen brightness of 250 nits), that would be amazing. Should not increase the QD OLED displays longevity either given average luminance (and thus rate of degradation of the OLED panel) should be the same as without this ULMB mode.

I guess, baby steps though.

DrR1pper wrote: ↑

22 Jan 2022, 20:51

And now they just need to enable the full peak 1000 nits (reserved for HDR highlights) for non-HDR full-screen so that with BFI, the remaining motion blur from 100% pixel persistence is removed. If they'd allow the full 1000 nits full-screen in ULMB mode with 25% duty cycle (giving same 100% duty cycle full-screen brightness of 250 nits), that would be amazing. Should not increase the QD OLED displays longevity either given average luminance (and thus rate of degradation of the OLED panel) should be the same as without this ULMB mode.

I'm sure they would, if practical, but even the latest QD-OLED panel from Samsung can only push around ~150 nits full-field, and that's with a heatsink, I believe. It's a hardware limitation of OLED, currently; too much heat, too much energy, with or without ABL.

Whether they would be able to push 1000 nits full field for short bursts at a time on a consumer-level OLED is another question, but I'm guessing it's a similar story to a sustained full field at those nit levels.

MicroLED may be able to accommodate such a thing, but it's still in its infancy, so there's an indefinite wait where smaller form factor and affordability is concerned.

jorimt wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022, 10:27

I'm sure they would, if practical, but even the latest QD-OLED panel from Samsung can only push around ~150 nits full-field, and that's with a heatsink, I believe. It's a hardware limitation of OLED, currently; too much heat, too much energy, with or without ABL.

Whether they would be able to push 1000 nits full field for short bursts at a time on a consumer-level OLED is another question, but I'm guessing it's a similar story to a sustained full field at those nit levels.

MicroLED may be able to accommodate such a thing, but it's still in its infancy, so there's an indefinite wait where smaller form factor and affordability is concerned.

You're right, it's not 250 nits full-field. My bad. But according to this bit in Linus Tech Tip video, seems the 150 nits full-field was for the latest WOLED and the QD-OLED it's 200 nits but not sure if this is for their Sony TV implementations or upcoming Alienware monitor. (Hoping it will apply for the latter.)

DrR1pper wrote: ↑

23 Jan 2022, 12:50

You're right, it's not 250 nits full-field. My bad. But according to this bit in Linus Tech Tip video, seems the 150 nits full-field was for the latest WOLED and the QD-OLED it's 200 nits but not sure if this is for their Sony TV implementations or upcoming Alienware monitor. (Hoping it will apply for the latter.)

I only saw the video once when it first released, and vaguely recall they said something about the prototype QD-OLED being roughly 25% brighter than WOLED full field, which will obviously vary by the chassis/heatsink, firmware (etc) of the given model.

That said, even if the QD-OLED in question could sustain 200 nits full field, that would still be reduced to 100 nits or under with decent BFI active.

LCD monitor owners who are looking for QD-OLED to answer all the failings of the aforementioned panel type will only find it where contrast ratio, pixel response times (which includes zero BFI crosstalk), and viewing angles are concerned; OLED has issue with image retention, gradients (native color banding performance in particular), peak/sustained brightness, near-black uniformity (vertical banding), and (currently) low-end VRR performance (unavoidable flicker due to gamma shifting) that the majority of equivalent upper tier LCD gaming displays do not.