Can you select the zone of clarity on the PG27AQN?

[hart]

Watching the review of the PG248QP on monitors unboxed, he says that on this new display he can select where he wants the best motion claroty on the screen


https://youtu.be/UonGoqrAdMA?t=835

And I remember people complaining about the PG27AQN not being able to in the reviews. Do anyone with this display can tell me if you can choose where to have it?

I'm on the verge of picking one (again lol), but if I can't choose it where I want the best motion clarity and I'm forced to have it on the top of the display, I will just wait for another display that can do it like the PG24

any idea?

I could try one about a month ago for some hours but didn't see anything, maybe I'm a moron...

[jorimt]

Do anyone with this display can tell me if you can choose where to have it?

You can set pulse width from 0-100 on the PG27AQN, but that doesn't change where the crosstalk appears vertically, just how long the black frame duration is between each refresh; the lower the pulse width, the darker the image, but the lower the overall achievable MPRT.

[hart]

Do anyone with this display can tell me if you can choose where to have it?

You can set pulse width from 0-100 on the PG27AQN, but that doesn't change where the crosstalk appears vertically, just how long the black frame duration is between each refresh; the lower the pulse width, the darker the image, but the lower the overall achievable MPRT.

thanks, that's dissappointing, specially to see they added that option to the new one but never updated the AQN to have the same features when it's clearly possible to do it.

the asus way of doing things I guess.

[jorimt]

thanks, that's dissappointing, specially to see they added that option to the new one but never updated the AQN to have the same features when it's clearly possible to do it.

What option on the new model are you referring to though? I didn't see mention of it the video where you timestamped it.

[hart]

thanks, that's dissappointing, specially to see they added that option to the new one but never updated the AQN to have the same features when it's clearly possible to do it.

What option on the new model are you referring to though? I didn't see mention of it the video where you timestamped it.

sorry, is 15 seconds before, at 13:55 when he says

The ULMB2 implementation also supports different strobe timing and lengths so you can adjust the position of best clarity and the overall clarity, although honestly the difference between 100 and 10 for clarity is very hard to spot. Using the default strobe timing the middle section was clearest and the bottom was slightly blurrier, although the range to which you get good clarity is generally excellent.

https://youtu.be/UonGoqrAdMA?t=835

[jorimt]

sorry, is 15 seconds before, at 13:55

Ah, I see...

Checking the manual for the PG248QP, it's called "Pulse Offset:"

pulse-offset.png (157.4 KiB) Viewed 3236 times

ULMB 2 Pulse Offset: Could improve the motion blur on different position
of the screen (top, middle or bottom of the screen).

It's possible they could add it to the PG27AQN in a firmware update at some point, but according to the review, it doesn't seem to help much, so probably not a big loss if it isn't.

[Chief Blur Buster]

Yes, Pulse Offset is a fantastic feature improvement to ULMB.

[barkmarkin]

Thank you, I can use it now with my 7900xtx now all I got to do is set a custom resolution of 1280x960 but I can't seem to do it the osd says 2560x1440, even tho I have GPU scaling off in AMD software, I need to find timings for 360hz 1280x960 resolution

[Chief Blur Buster]

Thank you, I can use it now with my 7900xtx now all I got to do is set a custom resolution of 1280x960 but I can't seem to do it the osd says 2560x1440, even tho I have GPU scaling off in AMD software, I need to find timings for 360hz 1280x960 resolution

I suggest using GPU scaling anyway, just to simply save a lot of grief.

The performance difference should ideally be negligible nowadays on the fastest memory-bandwidth GPUs, as scaling operations take only ~0.1ms nowadays at the terabit memory bandwidth leagues. Saves a lot of hair pulling on what has become mostly undocumented/unsupported and increasingly pointless (at least with fastest GPUs) -- unless your GPU is one of those laggy ones, or if you already know your displays' scaling is less laggy than the GPU scaling (it isn't always, it varies from display to display).

The nearly two-decade-old advice to always use monitor scaling only is woefully outdated; but is still recommended if you're keeping older GPU's around AND you're using a lagless-scaler-capable monitor.

For getting 4:3 during 2560x1440, try using 1920x1440 mode. Or using your monitor's 4:3 stretch mode.

And why not render 1920x1440? When playing older engines like Source Engine or Quake Engine on an old GTX 690 GPU of yesteryear, yes, 1280x960 is less laggy than 2560x1440 or 1920x1440, but as long as you have a newer GPU (like your 7900XTX), the lag difference of low-vs-high rez disappears. (Even if your framerate is unchanged). You're still often CPU limited, but your GPU takes the same sub-millisecond to render higher rez vs low rez, and the "scaling lag penalty" is gone with the newer GPUs.

Yes, there's mudane and arcane reasons to keep using native resolutions and monitor scaling... but the reasons are vanishing few & increasingly outdated advice (that's only applicable to older GPUs that had the scaling lag penalty). One example is a monitor really not wanting to do 4:3 and you using graphics drivers not doing 4:3 properly, forcing you to use 4:3 resolutions and GPU scaler, to make it look correct. But you can still make it look correct 4:3 while still using GPU scaling;

It's become harder and harder to force a display to scale legacy resolutions sometimes --

The advice of avoiding GPU scaling (in esports) is really just mostly obsolete in the era of 3XXX+ series NVIDIA and 6XXX+ series AMD, and even a couple generations before that too -- considering some displays have a scaling latency penalty too that sometimes makes it lagger than GPU scaling (assuming you're using the recent GPUs with damburst-firehose memory bandwidth).

At the least, try both ways.