Experience & Opinion: 240hz displays are blurry

[yehaw]

How is using overdrive photos from reviews "cherry picking"? The reviews gave the monitors good scores . And the photos I shared from the reviews are very clear and clean.

Also, I don't get your post? Your posting a clean photo of 144hz monitor as proof 240hz isn't blurry? Then upload a really blurry photo of 240hz? Makes no sense. Why not take a photo of your Benq 144hz and Acer 240hz using the alien test and show us a side by side? Also, if you read my original post, I stated over 200fps using 240hz, the issue is a lot harder to notice. I complain of the issue with games that have lower FPS that can't maintain that real high frame rate.

And how are you saying 240hz is fine when there are multiple people seeing what I see? Read the quotes in this thread.

[open]

I want to test this with my monitor more. When I set my refresh to fixed 144hz, I can see that the overdrive is really bad when it is set to normal on my pg258qe. However I want to test it with gsync and 144fps. Is there an easy way to do this? I tried enabling windowed gsync and forcing gsync settings for chrome on nvidia inspector but it did nothing. I'm locked at 240hz with chrome. If I have to I will just write a standalone app using sdl or something but there's got to be a quick easy way to force gsync to sync to chrome.

[darzo]

TL;DR

A very reputable site called TFT reviewed a proper 240hz monitor and praised its lack of blur and ghosting artifacts (highlights here). Yehaw took the baffling liberty of taking an image out of context, misinterpreting it, and humorously adapting it to his theory that 240hz displays are in general flawed. In addition, he cherry-picks threads from around the internet to support his point, including those of people whose monitors have black spots or something (what are the chances that's a representative display rather than just a defective one?) and those that include contradictory information to his claims in response to complaints.

How is using overdrive photos from reviews "cherry picking"? The reviews gave the monitors good scores . And the photos I shared from the reviews are very clear and clean.

So to elaborate. The reputable site that is likely to have done a good job in capturing motion images appropriately rather than a random German kid with a 46 likes and 17 dislikes youtube video compares 3 monitors - a 240hz monitor with bad overdrive (double the irony in the explicit mention of a bad overdrive and the brand of the monitor given what yehaw owns; it's rich), a 1440 144/165hz monitor (the type that yehaw claims has less blur and ghosting than 240hz monitors), and a proper 240hz monitor (the one reviewed and praised). The proper 240hz monitor beats the other two in lack of blur and lack of ghosting with an explicit mention of the significance of its good overdrive, while the poor 240hz monitor is comparatively undone by its poor overdrive resulting in what you can see for yourself. The 144/165hz is just that, a lower refresh rate monitor that lacks the benefit.

I think in another thread the "Chief" mentioned that Asus and Acer's partnership with Nvidia leads to good overdrives. Those are the two leading gaming monitor brands with the highest quality products. Buy one of their monitors instead of the cheapest Alienware you can find, i.e. do not do what yehaw did, and chances are you won't find yourself alleging that all 240hz monitors are blurry and not ready for market, running against the current of non-misrepresented and non-cherry-picked reviews by "critics" and consumers.

TL;DR

240hz monitors are not in general more blurry. They are less blurry.

[yehaw]

a 1440 144/165hz monitor (the type that yehaw claims has less blur and ghosting than 240hz monitors)

If you read what I said, refresh rate for refresh rate and fps for fps, the motion looks more blurry on 240hz compared to my 165hz display. Unless you know of some trick to get 165hz to 240hz, I think you're putting words in my mouth. I never once said 240hz is more blurry than 144hz, in fact, I said above 200fps it looks better! And here is my wording quoted:

And motion on these 240hz monitors just looks blurrier compared to my traditional 144/165hz monitor when matched frame for frame and refresh rate for refresh rate.

And here I am stating the 240hz looks better over 200fps:

The only time the Alienware looked better, is when it's above 200fps!

Anyways, I'm checking out of this thread and this is my final reply, I'm sick of defending myself. I'm treated as I'm lying, as if I have something to gain for pointing out a flaw in a product I tried for two weeks. And the issue I experience has multiple reports around the web from other users that describe my issue to a tee. So we must all have a hidden agenda against 240hz.

I also have no reason to participate in this discussion anymore, as I no longer have the issue, as I returned the monitor.

[darzo]

And motion on these 240hz monitors just looks blurrier compared to my traditional 144/165hz monitor when matched frame for frame and refresh rate for refresh rate. Again, go back to my long post. If you can't see how blurry the alien looks in the 240hz compared to 200hz, then I don't know what to tell you. The overdrive is just really bad on these monitors.

Have you tried the ASUS Factory/Service menu for precision overdrive adjustments? Some (not all) ASUS monitors have them.

Granted, this mainly affects fixed-Hz modes, but it's worth trying. This can produce better looking motion at 144fps @ 144Hz, as well as 200fps @ 200Hz fixed-Hz. However, this will not necessarily help variable-refresh-rate overdrive.

I have an Alienware 240hz, which kind of confirms to me all these panels suffer from the same issu. I see the same thing from the ASUS blurry overdrive on the Alienware. Same lighter ghosting trail at 200hz than 240hz. And same overshoot blur at 60hz. And there are a few threads around the web of people complaining 240hz is blurry.

I've read what you've posted. On account of the like for like point, the images in the TFT review along with the written statements convey that if anything the 240hz Asus is less blurry with less ghosting versus the 1440 144/165hz Asus at 60 and 144. On account of whatever you tried to claim here, as I pointed out in my subsequent post, I have no idea what that was about.

Good that you've resolved your situation to your satisfaction, but don't expect that you can come here and call threads "240hz monitors are not ready for market" and "240hz monitors are blurry" and get away with it without having something compelling to offer. My experience contradicts yours, as does a TFT review you yourself brought up along with a majority of other types of reviews. Your claims don't hold, which was why it was suggested to you to replace your monitor or buy from another company. It seems far more likely you just bought the wrong monitor.

[lexlazootin]

Also, I don't get your post? Your posting a clean photo of 144hz monitor as proof 240hz isn't blurry? Then upload a really blurry photo of 240hz? Makes no sense.

i used my iPhone which uses a lower shutter speed, i was showing you how easy it is to get whatever results you want... If you're getting double images like i was showing it's because they took a bad photo...

I can't believe you don't understand this. Compare the results in my video with the photo... do they match up yehaw?





Did you miss this part of my post? does it match up with the German dudes photo?

[Chief Blur Buster]

Multi-image photos during non-strobed modes (on monitors with no PWM dimming) are always incorrect photographs.

It more translates to eye-fixated scenarios, like the mousearrow animation - stroboscopic stepping effect on sample-and-hold displays is only noticed when not tracking eyes (or camera) on the object.

I deem the "Definitely not blurry, guys" photo to be an inaccurate one. The TFTcentral ones are more accurate, and the Rtings ones even moreso.

That is why I like to show off the photographed sync track.

[jorimt]

Regarding the conversation thus far, I believe we can chalk some of these [yet to be fully confirmed or clarified) issues up to overdrive implementation being targeted to 240Hz on a 240Hz monitor (a reason why 144Hz overdrive on a 144Hz monitor could look slight cleaner [haven't witnessed this myself] than on a 240Hz; they don't expect you to use a lower fixed refresh rate if you paid for a 240Hz display, after all, though, yes, G-SYNC and FreeSync do complicate this), along with the inevitable differences and effectiveness of each company's individual tuning of overdrive, not to mention the accuracy of the given pursuit photograph, which can vary quite heavily, as has already been discussed.

That, and even the GtG response of modern TN panels are cutting it close when paired with the sheer scanout speed of a 240Hz frame at 4.2ms; the best TN panels that feature a 240Hz refresh rate are reported to have a GtG average of 3.0ms at the optimal overdrive setting, which means the GtG rise time can reach or exceed 4.0ms, e.g. dangerously close to exceeding, and thus lagging behind the scanout speed of each frame. I'm actually surprised the best of them are as clear as they are.

Quite simply put, the native GtG transitions of 240Hz panels will have to decrease before clearer overdrive implementations at that refresh rate can be seen, though I believe AUO is already working on this for their forthcoming TN panels.

So could the overdrive implementation on the best of these 240Hz monitors see improvement? Yes.

But could the best of these brands be doing any better overdrive implementation with the 240Hz panels that they currently have available to them? Unlikely.

[darzo]

I thought the news ones releasing in the second half of 2018 (1440 and 1080) are supposed to be 3.0ms average and 0.5ms advertised?

[jorimt]

@darzo, right, but that's before overdrive is applied. Currently, 3.0ms is the average with overdrive applied.