Moving from CRT to Eizo FG2421 [EIZO's strobed monitor]

[Dash]

Firstly I don't want to sway anyone's opinion on my very limited time I've had to experience with this monitor. But I will give my initial impressions because I know a lot of people want user feedback.

The manufacturing date on mine is November, 16th, 2013, so I was happy knowing I got a later production.

I haven't went to TFTCENTRAL yet to get better picture/color settings or anything for that matter so I'll hold those opinions for a more suitable time. In terms of the other problems people have been getting, I haven't had a chance to fully investigate, but the common light bleed, especially on the right hand side, doens't seem apparent at all on black screens. When I play quakelive I notice it a little on each side but it isn't anything distracting at all and you have to look for it.

Here is a pic of a black background so you guys can look at the right hand side. Ignore the fuzzy phone camera quality and messy icons.

http://s75.photobucket.com/user/purefg/ ... 1030477176

What I defintiely have had time experienting with is Turbo240 after letting the monitor have sufficient warm up time to give it an honest try.

After a month of not gaming on anything at all, I was able to go into a game with a pretty open mind using this monitor. At first. I didn't even think Turbo240 mode was on because I wasn't overly impressed. It definitely was though since I specifically checked and have been using FPS1 mode. I made sure everything was set to 120hz and that I was also maxing out at 120hz in game. I went to BlurBusters ufo test site and I could definitely tell there that blur reduction was better with Turbo240 mode on. So what I did was go back to the 2233rz for a bit to play and see how much of a difference it is. I was definitely killing it with the 2233rz, probably because that's what I've been used to. I immediately went back again to the Eizo and I could definitely tell it's smoother on fast turns, etc, but I'm not "wowed" by the blur reduction. Probably because I had to pay such a premium price for this. But keep in mind this is my first blur reduction monitor and I know everyone has different sensitivities.

Another member on HF said he experienced better blur reduction when he switched over to display port rather than using a dvi cable. Problem is I have a Geforce 8800 GTX that doesn't have a display port connection, so I can't try use the display port to see if it is any better.

I should get my viewsonic CRT from downstairs and plug that in to see how comparible it is in blur reduction to the Eizo. I can't really speak on the input lag yet. I was going to initially get the VG248QE, and I really want to now to compare input lag feel. I'm pretty sensitive to input lag like the above poster who returned his Eizo to newegg stating it had a palpable input lag feel compared to his Asus - so it would be interesting to compare both of them. I'm not not sure how much the terrible TN panel washed out colors would bother me. Definitely quality picture/color on the Eizo and I haven't even done any fiddling to improve it yet.

I have a friend who is supposed to send me his Geforce 560ti, and I'd be able to try out the display port instead to see if blur reduction feels any "better" like the other HF member experienced..

[rapt0r]

That is something I have also been thinking about, buying this monitor would also be the catalyst to upgrade my graphics card, currently I have a 570, want a 780ti.
Seeing people say it produces better image quality using DP means I would have to get an adapter to convert DVI to DP for my 570 before I order so I can then see the difference when the monitor arrives and can make a decision whether to keep it or not (or just order the monitor and a 780 at the same time and use the provided DP cable), do I need an adaptive or passive adapter for my 570??

[Chief Blur Buster]

The thing that catches my attention: DVI versus DP.

How many people mentioned that the FG2421 produces a better picture by DisplayPort? The unit I am using doesn't exhibit this behavior, strangely. Just want to make sure that it wasn't a placebo effect caused by inadvertently warming up the monitor while switching from DVI to DisplayPort?

Curious minds want to know.

[Vega]

In Surround, I have two hooked up via DL-DVI and one via DP1.2. They are exactly the same.

[Dash]

chuckinbeast wrote this a while back on HF:

"My very qualitative review of the monitor was that it is, without question, much better than the Asus VG248QE with respect to color, blacks (and therefore contrast), viewing angle, you name it. I returned it for the following reasons: first the input lag difference (and im sure many will argue you can't tell difference) is palpable. I would play alternating rounds of BF4 on the Eizo and the Asus and it was definitely costing me frags."

I hate to be the bearer of any sort of bad sceptical news but I've figured out why I wasn't "wowed" by Turbo240 and Chuckinbeast pretty much summed it up in his above quote. Firstly, this is the best gaming monitor I have ever seen in terms of what has already been discussed (blacks, color, contrast) and that is without me even changing to any suggested color recommendations yet! I particularly noticed in my razer mouse drivers how incredible the glowing green colors were, similar to one of Vegas pics he posted earlier. And it really does look incredible in game. However, I will leave picture quality reviews to the pros in this thread since that isn't my forte.

What I DO have a boat load of experience with is fast twitch games and input lag since 1998. In Turbo240 mode I noticed motion blur was reduced on fast turns, etc. and things looked more CRT like, but I just wasn't hitting well in Quakelive. Moving from the 2233rz up to the Eizo I thought, maybe it was the increase to a 24 inch display that was taking me getting used to. So here is what I did to figure out what the issue was:

First, I went back to the 2233rz and instantly started hitting consistently again and moving much better in game. It just felt very responsive to my mouse movements. Then I went back to the Eizo/240, and motion clarity was better, but I started missing, etc. again. So I tried turning Turbo240 mode off and running with 120hz on its own and sure enough I started hitting/playing a little more like my old 2233rz self. I know Turbo240 adds more input lag (even more so than lightboost, which I have yet to try) so I had to compare with it off.

I also dug up my trusty Viewsonic CRT from the basement and hooked that up. Sure enough, I've been crushing people on for the last several hours and am hitting rediculous shots. If I had to compare the blur reduction of Turbo240 mode with the crt, I'd say its damn near identical, which is great news! But the input lag on the Eizo/240 is absolutely unplayable for me in such a fast game (and I have a fast play style myself) like the quake series. I can just tell on the Eizo with my movements, things feel sluggish and a little "behind". Playing on a 38 ping server feels more like a 60+ ping server although the clarity in motion is there.

I know people have different sensitivities to this, and in many games it won't be an issue I'm sure. But even if I could have the reasonable input lag of the 2233rz matched up with the Eizo perks....I'd be a very happy camper.

I think I'm going to play on the CRT for a few days because of how unreal the motion clarity and non existent input lag feels.

In summary, I can't use this monitor for my particular gaming purposes due to it's input lag. If you are not particularly sensitive to it, or maybe you won't even notice it much at all in the games some of you guys play.....if you get a good panel, you are going to love this thing I'm sure!

[mmmu]

Interesting post Dash, I didn't get the chance to use mine for very long since in the end it had a bit too much quality issues for me to accept (now I understand why my box seemed to be opened beforehand, probably already returned once by someone) - namely the distractingly bad uniformity on some shades (such as green) and quite notable lightbleed; mine looked pretty similar to this user's: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EA4aoJmEXwY --- Surely you guys don't have the lightbleed as noticeable?
I've filed for RMA and will try another panel. Unfortunate, but not the end of the world.

Regarding the input lag... Personally during my short test so far I didn't notice it - but I didn't play anything than Bioshock Infinite. I did play it with Turbo 240 mode on and did not notice the input lag at all. Differences in panels or differences in sensitivity to it? Probably the latter. I will have to try QuakeLive again when I get a new panel somewhere down the road, and see if I notice a difference there (I imagine QL is _the_ game to point out input lag if it's apparent).

Any input about input lag (dat pun) from other blur busters?

[Arbaal]

Got my Eizo Foris last week, after coming from a Dell 2407 WFP the lag and motion blur reduction is really nice.

I didn't felt any added lag in Turbo240 mode yet, but I find this topic kinda hard to "discuss" with some people. Input lag is a problem for sure, but I'm not sure when the threshold is reached. The average male person has a reaction time at around 180-200ms (Source) for visual stimuli. Even if there are some people that have exceptionally well reaction times, I doubt that people could go under a value of 120ms.

I don't have any equipment to verify the numbers, but tft-central.co.uk measured that the added lag of Turbo240 is at 4ms (14 against 18ms). So for a average person, the added lag would be around 2%. I find it hard to believe that people could "feel" this difference in a non-VR setup (I'm an Oculus Rift DK1 owner).

Judging "gaming scores" for lag analysis is highly subjective, since there are many more factors in what defines a good match (Psychology is a big point!). Without a blind test, I find such experiences to be highly subjective.

A better way would be to measure his own reaction times with a tool like the humanbenchmark.com. After some 10 tries each I'm around 20ms faster on my new EIZO then my old Dell 2407 WFP. Since I'm still around 195ms, I would react after 23 frames for a given visual stimuli (at 120 Hz).

BTW: Is there any data of how big the processing lag for the game engine of Q3A/QuakeLive is?

For the question of the DVI/DP "issue": I couldn't find any difference between those two yet. Might be a placebo effect for some.

[Dash]

mmmu, mine doens't have those terrible lightbleed issues, but mine was also manufactured in mid Novemberish, so that may have helped. And when you try out Quakelive when you get your next panel, add me, I'm rareair in the game, and we'll play a few rounds.

Arbaal, while I agree with you that my opinion definitely should be taken as subjective, the input lag in Turbo240 is definitely noticeable - However! - I should have put a disclaimer before I wrote my last post because it's noticible for me in a "highly competitive fast twitch, fast pace FPS" ie. Quake. If I were to play Bioshock Infinite such as yourself, Id want to play in in th Eizo glory, especially considering how beautiful that game is. The Eizo would obviously blow away my 2233rz and old 19 inch CRT viewsonic for enjoying that particular experience. I

That was why I quoted chuckinbeast from HF because he had the monitor before me and even said himself that the "input lag was palpable and costing him frags" especially when going back and forth between the 2. I knew as soon as he wrote that, I should have avoided the risk due to being a Quake Player.

Also, I get your point regarding human reaction times, regardless of any of that, I could almost guarantee you that any highly competitive Quake player (for example, people from esreality) would feel the input lag. chuckinbeast said he even experienced it in BF4, even Vega just mentioned in his response to my identical post on HF that "If you are playing a game like Quake or CS at a decently high skill level like I used to that has absolute snap movements, a CRT like the FW900 is still the way to go. Awesome motion clarity and zero input lag. I don't really play those type of games anymore with my advanced age of 34, so the Eizo's don't bother me ."

But the picky "Quake" guys such as myself are a small, niche community at this point. We are guys that have been playing the series since the 90's and we travel around North American competing in Lan tournaments and are always trying to maximize our configs and such, so we are quite sensitive to a lot. It actually gets embarassing to the point where we completely turn off all graphical eye candy to the point that the game looks like "Atari" like graphics - this is obviously an exageration, but it just goes to show how meticulous our particular community is.

As to your question about data of how big the processing lag for the game engine of Q3A/QuakeLive, I am not sure.

I wish I had some of these Quake guys that lived close by so they could come over and try it out. I still stand by the opinion that if a person doens't feel the input lag on the Eizo, it is an absolute rocking gaming monitor and gorgeous!!

[Chief Blur Buster]

mmmu, mine doens't have those terrible lightbleed issues, but mine was also manufactured in mid Novemberish, so that may have helped. And when you try out Quakelive when you get your next panel, add me, I'm rareair in the game, and we'll play a few rounds.
[...snip...]

Very impressive feedback. Your assessment is pretty useful.

I've been playing Bioshock Infinite on the Eizo FG2421, and it's certainly one of the best monitors to play solo games in strobed mode, since you get the great CRT motion clarity, and good colors/contrast in a flat panel!

But yes, 18ms of latency is pushing the limits for a lot of Quake-type competitive gamers.

Are you planning to keep the monitor?

[Chief Blur Buster]

Got my Eizo Foris last week, after coming from a Dell 2407 WFP the lag and motion blur reduction is really nice.

Thanks for your feedback! Where did you get your EIZO?

At 18ms, the added lag against a zero buffered display such as VG248QE in non-LightBoost mode (~3ms) is relatively large. I am of the camp, that pro competitive gamers can notice latency differences. There's a "muscle memory" effect (aka preconditioned behavior) involved here.

Gamers get used to a specific kind of input lag. For example, doing fast flicks to aim crosshairs quickly on an enemy. If you are competively playing and a fast flick 180 degree is 4000 pixels per second, that's mathematically 4 pixels per millisecond. A 10 millisecond latency difference can mean a 40 pixel aim overshoot or undershoot during a 4000 pixel per second aiming speed (two screen widths per second panning, e.g. fast flick 180 followed by aiming crosshairs on a small target behind you far away). So once a pro gamer get used to a specific gaming setup, they aim based on the preconditioned input lag. When they upgrade, it takes time getting used to the new latency delta. It's easier to get used to smaller latency, than downgrading to a higher latency. I wholly believe competitive gamers when they say they can feel 5ms latency differences -- that's a 20 pixel overshoot/undershoot during 4000 pixel/second aiming.

Judging "gaming scores" for lag analysis is highly subjective, since there are many more factors in what defines a good match (Psychology is a big point!). Without a blind test, I find such experiences to be highly subjective.

Totally agree, but I did a lot of math that has made me fully convinced of the pro gamers' merits of complaining about on 5ms and 10ms differences in input lag, at least in low-latency high-tickrate twitch games such as Quake Live or Counter Strike:GO. It matters a whole lot less in high-latency low-tickrate games such as Battlefield 4 (where button-to-photons latency can exceed 60ms).

A better way would be to measure his own reaction times with a tool like the humanbenchmark.com. After some 10 tries each I'm around 20ms faster on my new EIZO then my old Dell 2407 WFP. Since I'm still around 195ms, I would react after 23 frames for a given visual stimuli (at 120 Hz).

The 2407 WFP has a fair bit of lag. The fastest gaming monitors (ASUS and BENQ 144Hz monitors) which are zerobuffered, and which I measured using my photodiode oscilloscope, has only 3ms of input lag from Direct3D Present() to first light illumination at the top edge of the screen. I'm talking only specifically of that small slice of input lag chain, not the whole mousebutton-to-photons cycle. But it does show that 3ms (VG248QE / XL2411T) versus 19ms (FG2421) can matter a whole world.

However, I do certainly prefer playing on my FG2421 for solo gaming, especially games such as Bioshock Infinite, which is an incredibly colorful game, that really benefits from zero motion blur especially during the grappling hook moments (framerate == refreshrate == stroberate).

BTW: Is there any data of how big the processing lag for the game engine of Q3A/QuakeLive is?

Quake Live is hard for me to measure lag in, but I do have a very ancient copy of Q3A. I should test latency in that game, eventually.