infusedAI wrote: ↑25 Dec 2020, 19:41
For each increased level, you are getting a darker image.Ιf you have a less bright object, it will projectfout fewer shadows on the edges.
This is a brightness-vs-clarity tradeoff behavior with all strobe backlights — NVIDIA’s “ULMB Pulse Width” as well as BenQ’s “Pulse Width” feature.
The brightness-vs-clarity behavior is not exclusive to ViewSonic, but a law-of-physics issue with strobe backlights where increased darkness results from flashing briefer (since motion blur is directly proportional to pixel visibility per refresh cycle).
infusedAI wrote: ↑25 Dec 2020, 19:41
You know what I DONT WANT TO TRY ANYTHING ELSE because I paid for this advertised monitor:
-240Hz REFRESH RATE
-1MS (GtG) RESPONSE TIME
-PureXP™ MOTION BLUR REDUCTION
Unlike a lot of models that restrict the strobe range (e.g. NVIDIA limits to 144Hz on the 240Hz monitors), PureXP unlocks the strobe range.
The user has a choice between very high quality strobing at 75Hz-144Hz, and less quality strobing at full 240Hz. It was a decision to uncap the strobe rate even though no 240Hz IPS monitor can successfully strobe crosstalk at 240Hz; it’s a problem with all of them. If you want good strobe quality, you generally have to use refresh rate headroom on any model.
According to some reviewers (including a5hun),
we managed to out-tune NVIDIA ULMB at some refresh rates for example — 119-120Hz PureXP on XG270 looks better than 120Hz NVIDIA ULMB on a different IPS 240Hz monitor. And ViewSonic was nice enough to uncap the 144Hz limit, and let you strobe all the way to 240Hz (Even if the quality is much lower for strobing).
We are strong believers in user choice — instead of being limited to only 100Hz,120Hz,144Hz strobe like NVIDIA ULMB on a 240Hz monitor (ULMB never supports strobe at max-Hz), the XG270 lets you strobe all the way to 240Hz, even though the high-quality strobe is at the similar refresh rates ULMB uses.
Nontheless.
There is a conundrum about “refresh rate uncapping” decisions that some manufacturers do. E.g. NVIDIA 144Hz limit versus uncapped 240Hz strobe (despite poorer quality above 144Hz).
Whether users are more dissappointed at the restricted 144Hz limIt of blur reduction, OR if it was uncapped, dissapointed at the lower quality of 240Hz blur reduction. So it’s sometimes a pick-your-poison decision because no 240Hz strobe on any 240Hz IPS panels are fully crosstalk-free on any of them. Currently, framerate-refreshrate matched strobe on any display — not ViewSonic specific — 120fps@120Hz strobe (MPRT <1ms) has less motion blur than perfect 240fps non-strobed OLED (MPRT 4.2ms theoretical), as motion clarity of strobed refresh rate is more determined by how low-persistence the individual frames are, rather than refresh rate (as it is for nonstrobed, where doubling the Hz halves motion blur).
In the future, we’ll publish an article about the decision to cap the strobe Hz (e.g. good 120Hz ULMB) to prevent quality complaints —versus— letting users decide to choose strobe Hz all the way to max (e.g. any strobe Hz in 1Hz increments, including great 120Hz and lesser 240Hz). We decided uncapping the strobe Hz was the better move, even at the risk of user complaints of max-Hz 240Hz strobe.
It seems that your expectations were let down, and I apologize. I suggest that if you are unhappy, you consider bringing the monitor back for a refund from where you got it from. I wish we could have better news for max-Hz strobing. Currently, if you’re hell-bent on max-Hz strobing, then only TN panels can do a better job at 240Hz strobe. Right now, the king of 240Hz strobe is BenQ’s TN DyAc+
I am very sorry that you are disappointed.