Experience & Opinion: 240hz displays are blurry

[yehaw]

Forgot to upload these, but if anyone's interested in looking, here are the two displays when I did some comparisons on testufo. The setup was done using duplicate display option in Windows, which locked the 240hz at 240hz and the 165hz at 165hz (confirmed via OSD "current resolution" info on both displays that shows current resoliton + refresh rate). The testufo locked to 165fps, so we have 240hz at 165fps and 165hz at 165fps:

Alienware 240hz

AOC 165hz (Downscaled 1440p to 1080p also to match the resolution of the 240hz. The AOC would look 5X sharper if I left at native resolution and didn't show downscaling interpolation. 123.41 PPI on the AOC vs 89.91 PPI on the 240hz panels also adds to how blurry things look on 240hz panel, so I made my AOC blurry on purpouse to have a somewhat fair comparison to the 1080p @ 24.5".) Native 1440p comparison below:

Here is both side by side, AOC @ 165hz/1440p , Alienware at 240hz/1080p (no downscaling on AOC)

Here is both side by side, AOC @ 165hz/1080p (downscaling on the AOC)


It's very clear to see the 240hz has some odd blurring as I've been arguing the entire thread with people saying I'm delusional. The best spot to look is the white dots in the red ship. On the 240hz you can see they all blur together, whereas the 165hz display they are more separated and pronounced. Look at the little black lines in the red ship are missing on 240hz because they're blurred badly. Look at how the legs are more pronounced on the AOC, on the 240hz smeared and light. Evyerything on the 240hz looks smeared in comparison, even when compared to when the native 1440p is downscaled 1080p.

I don't need any advanced testing on other displays to spot the flaw, when the flaw strains my eyes. All I had to do was look at the Acer for 1 minute and I feel the same strain, and I see the same blurring. I can confirm I've seen the issue on both the Alienware and the Acer, so the thought of having a faulty panel can be eliminated. Unless, I saw 2 faulty panels? I would have really bad luck.

So now you can argue with the proof I've posted above. At the end of the day, they're all the same panel and I think they're all flawed, personally. Call me delusional all you want, I now have proof with the photos above, and there are multiple complaints around the web that share the same details I've been describing word for word,including the Acer. There are complaints about this issue on BenQ, Asus, Acer, Alienware, etc. Anyone can go to the original post and click the links and read them all.

I just think the issue is very subtle and blends in with motion blur and a lot of people don't notice.

[lexlazootin]

https://www.blurbusters.com/motion-test ... it-camera/
https://testufo.com/ghosting

Use the Sync track. Without it your results are useless.

"The testufo locked to 165fps, so we have 240hz at 165fps and 165hz at 165fps:"

What? just set them to 165hz, why would you do that?! But even that would be silly, you're saying 240hz is bad, just leave the 240hz at 240 and the 165hz at 165. You would just be causing stutters on the 240hz.

"Downscaled 1440p to 1080p also to match the resolution of the 240hz."

Don't do that either, just leave it at 1440p unscaled. idk why you would think that would make a difference. Doing any scaling would create a unfair advantage.

[yehaw]

The photos are fine and far from "useless". It's pretty funny you try to discredit the photos right away . There are literally hundreds of similar photos shared by reputable users on this forum that look indetical without snyc marks to my photos. You also have posts that don't show sync track marks in your photos, but want to say mine are useless all of a sudden?. Don't be hypocritical.

Also, here we have a professional review of 165hz (different brand, same panel inside). Lets take their 165hz alien photo and compare with my 1440p/165hz alien photo? And here we go! I would say that looks damn good when compared to a professional monitor review website and near identical, minus the difference in brightness/contrast/lighting/cameras, etc (mine looks slightly bigger because I use 125% global zoom in Chrome). So, if my photos are useless, we must have a well respected professional review site also with useless photos with your logic.

If anything, your photos are useless. Nearly every photo you've shared looks like it's strobed and somehow bypasses blur persistance like ULMB, Lightboost, etc. To the point the Admin assumed your photos were strobed, when they in fact weren't. They somehow have 0 blur and bypass the rules of logic behind blur persistance. Just look at the photos you shared of 144hz vs 240hz, it's unrealistic compared to what you see in the real world. My photos line up better with tons of reviews opposed to yours which all look strobed. It's almost looks like you record a video, put it in slowmo, then snap your pictures? Who knows what you're doing to get 0 motion, but it's unrealistic.

And for anyone reading, I'll bring this up about lex, which he conviently skipped over when brought up in discussion about 240hz (this comment he left is 6months old, so he might of forget he made it). This is a reply he left in a thread about a 240hz panel, I'll include the original post also so you can see what he was replying to, yet he is here arguing with me 240hz has no problems, my arguments are flawed, I'm delusional, and my photo proof is useless:

Hello, I just bought the PG258Q (my first monitor 144hz and above) and i really struggle with the blur that creates itself in motion because of the highlighting of the pixels i suppose to be "pixel inversion".

Yep, i have the Acer and G-Sync and i'm pretty sure it's just how the panel works. I don't have a solution but i see it too, especially at lower hz.

source

And now back to my photos and your question why 240hz and not just put both 165hz. I setup at 240hz because at lower hertz, the problem is even worse (which you ironically agree with me above in your 6 month old post!) and a lot of people will say "but nobody uses 144hz on 240hz monitor", etc. The same way people defend the real bad input lag of 240hz panel when set to 60hz, it's worse than current gen 144hz panels, but people defend and say "nobody uses 60hz on 240hz", etc (which by the way is a dumb defense, a lot of people play consoles and that is 60hz.).

So this way, test is at 240hz so no complaints. 240hz is what people will be using. Eearlier when I complained about blur issue being worse at lower refresh, people said "Who buys 240hz to use 144hz?". So there you go, set to 240hz and problem still evident. It's funny you're even complaining about a test at 240hz @ 165fps vs 165hz vs 165fps. G-Sync isn't on for Chrome, so the 240hz has the advantage of still refreshing at 240hz despite the fps being capped at 165. The 240hz has the advantage in the test and still looks blurrier.

And lasty 1440p vs 1080 does matter. If you don't understand PPI, a lower PPI will look blurrier compared to a higher PPI. When you match a 1440p at 23.8" (123 ppi) vs 1080p at 24.5" (89 ppi) , you're going to have nearly a 35ppi (pixels per inch) swing. That is huge in terms of how sharp or crisp the image will look. So I downscaled to be fair and make my 1440p lower ppi to somewhat match 1080p (but not fair to the 1440p because downscaling introduces interpolation, but no big deal I include 1440p image that shows huge boost in sharpness and clarity over 1080p 240hz panel). Also, if you read the post and comprehended it, you will also see I included a 1440p result compared to the 1080 240hz. Hope you enjoy.

And I'm done with this thread for good know. I've provided all the evidence I can that there is an issue with 240hz. Anyone can see for themselves all the proof I've provided and review themselves. Hope the 240hz owners enjoy their displays, but they're not for me. Maybe in another year or two I will look at them again and hopefully see some improvement to warrant the ridiculous $500 price tag.

[Chief Blur Buster]

Many photos do show the artifacts users see (e.g. inversion artifacts) but I stress to maximize the accuracy of the photography, users who post photos should ideally specify (1) Whether the photo is a fixed camera or (2) Whether the photo is pursuiting (following motion). Things often look very different while stationary versus moving.

On pursuit camera photography of display motion blur:
For photos of moving objects to observe motion blur I need to remind everyone that photos posted by end users can't be reliably compared unless it includes a full Sync Track (fully aligned tickmarks) or Pursuit Grid (fully aligned tickmarks). Doing so requires a long camera exposure that's several refresh cycles long (overlapping multiple refresh cycles) while simultaneously having accurate tracking along motion axis. The human eye integration timescale (how the eye blends blur/artifacts together) is in the order of approximately ~1/30sec (give or take, camera exposures of 1/15sec to 1/60sec tend to be common). so that's why long camera exposures is more needed to accurately capture what is seen by most eyes (aka multiple refresh cycles stacked). Otherwise, the photos are invalid for comparative purposes especially as camera blur gets superimposed on top of motion blur. Also, not everyone sees the same thing exactly the same way (vision differences).

Here is both side by side, AOC @ 165hz/1440p , Alienware at 240hz/1080p (no downscaling on AOC)

Here is both side by side, AOC @ 165hz/1080p (downscaling on the AOC)

First photo:
-- Vertical blur looks correctly stable
-- Horizontal blur is unknown because no sync track/grid was photographed (needed for verification of tracking accuracy)

Second photo:
-- Vertical blur has lots of camera blur
-- Horizontal blur is unknown because no sync track/grid was photographed (needed for verification of tracking accuracy)

To get to the levels of motion blur matching what was seen, without additional camera blur from inaccurate tracking, I need the photographed sync track/grid in the photo to confirm camera tracking accuracy.

I just think the issue is very subtle and blends in with motion blur and a lot of people don't notice.

Yes, correct: Ghosting and inversion issues (blur asymmetries like coronas/ghosting/etc, and inversion artifacts such as checkerboard patterning) superimpose on top of the display motion blur. Not everyone is sensitive to it and it doesn't matter to them as much as to the next person.

But for the photos you posted, camera blur is added on top, above-and-beyond, so posting photos makes it even more difficult if you cannot guarantee perfect horizontal & vertical tracking accuracy.

[yehaw]

Many photos do show the artifacts users see (e.g. inversion artifacts) but I stress to maximize the accuracy of the photography, users who post photos should ideally specify (1) Whether the photo is a fixed camera or (2) Whether the photo is pursuiting (following motion). Things often look very different while stationary versus moving.

Sorry, photos were taken via pursuit method. Camera wasn't fast enough to accuarately capture fixed.

[Chief Blur Buster]

Ideally, when users want to do pursuit photos, please turn on the Pursuit Grid and make sure that the tickmarks lines up in the photo.

It's extremely hard without using a rail (or sliding object -- like a camera mounted on top of a sliding tupperware container) to keep the camera stable during pursuit. If the tickmarks do not line up, it means tracking was not accurate and there's additional camera blur added on top of the existing blur/artifacts. Making comparisons harder.

Reviewers use it and then crop off the sync track, but users aren't always aware of this.

[darzo]

The TFT review, featuring presumably properly done photos, shows and explicitly states the opposite of what yehaw is claiming. What's ridiculous isn't the price of 240hz monitors but attributing camera pan blur in a youtube video to them. There might be a point to continuing to humor this guy but let's get some basics straight lest people passing by get the wrong impression. Next to nothing in this thread, aside from yehaw's conviction, makes a strong argument.

[lexlazootin]

You also have posts that don't show sync track marks in your photos, but want to say mine are useless all of a sudden?. Don't be hypocritical.

They were taken with ULMB on, i tell people in the post. this is 100% acceptable if you tell people that you're doing that. because that's pretty much how it would look in IRL.

You also have posts that don't show sync track marks in your photos, but want to say mine are useless all of a sudden?

THAT was my point. they are fucking useless. anyone can take a photo of their screen and screw it up. You were the one posted shots from a youtube channel going "Look how bad the ACER is" Idk how i can say it any more clearly.

If anything, your photos are useless. Nearly every photo you've shared looks like it's strobed and somehow bypasses blur persistance like ULMB

put it in slowmo, then snap your pictures? Who knows what you're doing to get 0 motion, but it's unrealistic.

It's called shutter speed, i explained that. That's why i had to find a DSLR because my iphone takes long shutter photos.

And for anyone reading, I'll bring this up about lex, which he conviently skipped over when brought up in discussion about 240hz (this comment he left is 6months old, so he might of forget he made it). This is a reply he left in a thread about a 240hz panel, I'll include the original post also so you can see what he was replying to, yet he is here arguing with me 240hz has no problems, my arguments are flawed, I'm delusional, and my photo proof is useless:

We were talking about pixel inversion not blur. I was not replying to OP i was replying to a comment.

I made this comment earlier in this thread "I heard you talking about pixel inversion and darzo is right, it's not what you think it is. It doesn't do anything for blur." and it still applys. It is NOT blur, it's NOT what you think it is. You are taking 2 different problems and thinking they are the same thing. PLEASE stop reading into pixel inversion, you are seriously misunderstanding it.

people defend the real bad input lag of 240hz panel when set to 60hz, it's worse than current gen 144hz panels, but people defend and say "nobody uses 60hz on 240hz"

I don't even want to know where you get your information from...

240hz @ 165fps vs 165hz vs 165fps. G-Sync isn't on for Chrome, so the 240hz has the advantage of still refreshing at 240hz despite the fps being capped at 165. The 240hz has the advantage in the test and still looks blurrier.

I don't understand why you're testing that, it doesn't make any sense. you keep saying 240hz is blurry, so test 240hz and not 240hz running 165fps Running 165hz at 240 would be jittery. if you REALLY wanted to you could test as 240hz running 120fps, that would be a perfect division and be fair.

And lasty 1440p vs 1080 does matter. If you don't understand PPI, a lower PPI will look blurrier compared to a higher PPI. When you match a 1440p at 23.8" (123 ppi) vs 1080p at 24.5" (89 ppi) , you're going to have nearly a 35ppi (pixels per inch) swing. That is huge in terms of how sharp or crisp the image will look.

Please don't scale anything... you can't do the tests with scaling, it doesn't work like that.

[Notty_PT]

So many guys triggered by the fact that he and many guys (including me) think this first gen of 240hz panels is rubbish. Wait for it to mature. From input lag, to overshoot, pixel response time, uniformity etc etc. Rubbish panels. Now damage control how you want.

[darzo]

My friend I did notice this and other problems with these 240hz monitors. But I was completly bashed and attacked on most forums because of it so I gave up. You can see some of it on this link, be sure to grab some popcorn, look at my arguments against those guys that can´t accept they paid 500€ for a product that isn´t that great: http://www.overclock.net/t/1608085/asus ... t_26514185

To be fair, you said some pretty dumb things in that thread, at least from what I read on the last page.