Blur Busters Forums

brownvim wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2026, 16:35

ULMB2 at 240/360hz is 25%

It's actually worse than 25% when going up to higher refresh rate, which is hillarious since the XG27AQNGV & other Pulsar-capable models have a 1600-1800cd/m² voltage boosted amplitude.
That's DyAc+ levels of strength, which would allow them to target 10% duty at 160–180 cd/m²
This would mean, it would be possible to hit 0,416667 ms (2400 Hz effective motion clarity) or 0,27778 ms (3600 Hz effective motion clarity) pulse on interval
The PG27AQN can do =<10% IIRC, it can even do 2.5% (at unusable brightness values)
The biggest issue of it is the low amplitude (leading to lower brightness) and the KSF part.

MSIfanboy wrote: ↑

05 Jun 2026, 16:42

so what is going on? they just dont want to make it clearer, they dont want to nerf max brightness? its bizarre

* crosstalk with ulmb2 at top and bottom isnt even that bad, its not like dyac+ which was horrid, i didnt find much of any issue with pg248qp and pg27aqn, just the brightness increase is what i wanted, i thought rolling scan was the solution to the crosstalk mismatch

Rolling scan isn't the solution, it's simply a different way to approach strobing. It's the "eye-friendlier" alternative to typical global flash.
Solving crosstalk requires faster-than-refreshtime G2G RT's.
As for why they don't want to make it clearer — it's the case of Nvidia's typical afterthought "design".
The fact ULMB2 & Pulsar are a single toggle, instead of a separate setting with adjustable PW, makes this a believable theory for me
Generally, when discussing backlight strobing implementations, vendors usually choose brightness over effective motion clarity due to their voltage boosting being insufficient.
DyAc, the M27P6S and these Pulsar panels don't have this limitation, which is why I find ULMB2 even more disappointing on these models.
That, the lack of HDMI 2.1 & the price tag are what kills these Pulsar models for me.

Oh well, let's hope the 24" QHD 360Hz BenQ with DyAc3 comes out soon

How much better can we expect the new ULMB2 120hz mode to behave brightness and clarity wise? Its currently just acting like the Pulsar mode in 120hz I think around 25% duty cycle. It likely wont have any crosstalk which is what they lean towards (see below).

What feels like a real breakthrough with Pulsar is the comfort. The strobing is much easier on the eyes than traditional CRT for extended use. It may not have the absolute best motion clarity, but it delivers very usable clarity without the usual fatigue, something we haven’t really seen before in strobing displays. I have mine in pulsar mode all day unless i'm playing console in the 60hz mode.

Liquidshadowfox asked Nvidia about reducing the Pulsar Pulse Width to something like 12.5% and they replied this:

"12.5% pulse width for Pulsar. Unfortunately, a lower pulse width doesn't help with the Rolling Scan 240 and 360 modes, sharpness quickly becomes limited by crosstalk, not pulse width"

As for global strobe on the higher refresh rate modes they said this:

"240 Hz Global Flash. We investigated this but it results in undesirable crosstalk at top and bottom of screen. We find the current Rolling Scan a better visual compromise."

As liquid mentioned earlier, the 25inch mode does cut off the top and bottom of the screen a little so could be a viable option still.

brownvim wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2026, 06:44

As for global strobe on the higher refresh rate modes they said this:

"240 Hz Global Flash. We investigated this but it results in undesirable crosstalk at top and bottom of screen. We find the current Rolling Scan a better visual compromise."

That's a nonsensical answer....
Why did they add ULMB2 to the PG27AQN then? It's a almost identical panel with the same great G2G RT (for a IPS of its refresh rate)
I think the AUO panel in the Pulsar models were even slightly faster.
The crosstalk surely isn't that large or larger than the PG27AQN at the same refresh rate, which had relatively good crosstalk handling.
That's sad. I was hoping that 240–360 Hz ULMB2 with <10% duty cycle would become a thing like it was on the PG27AQN, but without the KSF detriment.
Time to wait for the XQ2566X then

brownvim wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2026, 06:44

How much better can we expect the new ULMB2 120hz mode to behave brightness and clarity wise? Its currently just acting like the Pulsar mode in 120hz I think around 25% duty cycle. It likely wont have any crosstalk which is what they lean towards (see below).

If it's the typical 2,5–25% duty cycle implementation, much sharper
At 10% duty, we'd be looking at 0,8333 ms pulse on (~1200 Hz effective motion clarity) @ ~160-180 cd/m²
At 5% duty, we'd be looking at 0,4166666 ms pulse on (~2400 Hz effective motion clarity) @ 80–90 cd/m²
Which means, on the 2nd setting, UFOs will be:
- Perfectly sharp on 1920 px/s,
- Very slightly blurry on 2880 px/s
- Slightly blurry on 3840 px/s (akin to 240Hz BFI with a 480Hz effective motion clarity on 960 px/s) Example of this behavior can be seen here & here
Note that, for 240 & 360 Hz, we'd be looking at even lower pulse on values which would be closing in to CRT levels of clarity.

brownvim wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2026, 06:44

Liquidshadowfox asked Nvidia about reducing the Pulsar Pulse Width to something like 12.5% and they replied this:
“12.5% pulse width for Pulsar. Unfortunately, a lower pulse width doesn't help with the Rolling Scan 240 and 360 modes, sharpness quickly becomes limited by crosstalk, not pulse width”

I think either no one at Nvidia's current development team touched a CRT or they're simply trying to do less work than they've already done.
Pulsar & ULMB2 on these models is no-where near sharp. It's blurry while having a pulse.
It's very apparent that 60Hz ULMB2 is much sharper than higher refresh rates when using Pulsar or any ULMB2 mode, which should never happen.

I'll take the moment to remind everyone of how clear CRTs are.
That's the benchmark for every impulsed displays.
Only DyAc+/2 models (not all) & the M27P6 (FHD@320Hz mode) can achieve similar levels of clarity at (relatively) usable brightness values.

kyube wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2026, 06:54

If it's the typical 2,5–25% duty cycle implementation, much sharper

I'm looking forward to trying it, it might be my go to mode for single player games on PC (at night /in a dark room).

kyube wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2026, 06:54

Only DyAc+/2 models (not all) & the M27P6 (FHD@320Hz mode) can achieve similar levels of clarity at (relatively) usable brightness values.

They all have their own issues though, there's no perfect monitor. The M27P6 is only £300 in the UK, I was tempted until I saw the crosstalk.

brownvim wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2026, 07:50

They all have their own issues though, there's no perfect monitor.

Yes, but those two are the least compromised baccklight strobing experience.
You actually get proper clarity with good brightness at lower refresh rates, which is the whole point of the impulsed path.

brownvim wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2026, 07:50

The M27P6 is only £300 in the UK, I was tempted until I saw the crosstalk.

I assume you're relying on TFTCentral's data
I don't know how he took this UFO (as in, what test and where it was placed)
I haven't been able to find another reviewer which had a similar looking UFO purusit photograph as his.
Take a look at chimolog's, displayninja's & imartz's review
The 160Hz mode definitely has severe crosstalk. I assume the 120Hz mode is much better in that regard.
The 320Hz mode also has much better crosstalk handling for some odd reason.

kyube wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2026, 07:56

You actually get proper clarity

It's not usable clarity imo when there's visible cross talk. I couldn't play on CRTs if the game had a ghosted image, I guess I'm really sensitive to it.

kyube wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2026, 07:56

Take a look at chimolog's, displayninja's & imartz's review

If all the reviewers pursuit photos looked like Chimlogs 4K mode pursuit photo I would probably buy it to try out. I'm guessing his pic was only the centre of the screen?

I checked TFTCentral and Monitors Unboxed. They all mention visible crosstalk, worse in the 4K mode. I have no interest in gaming at 1080p, I want to go to 4K next.

I'm interested but its not quite there yet for me. If theres any other 4K models with good low refresh rate strobing I would love to try them.

brownvim wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2026, 08:11

If all the reviewers pursuit photos looked like Chimlogs 4K mode pursuit photo I would probably buy it to try out. I'm guessing his pic was only the centre of the screen?
I checked TFTCentral and Monitors Unboxed. They all mention visible crosstalk, worse in the 4K mode. I have no interest in gaming at 1080p, I want to go to 4K next.

That's the problem with these byte-sized reviews... they rely on extreme extrapolation for these topics.
i somewhat dislike trusting claims without proofs, even if it's from long-term reviewers.
We don't have concrete evidence on how each of these reviews have conducted their pursuit photographs.
There's no crosstalk photographs at each setting (4K120, 4K144Hz, 4K160Hz, FHD240Hz, FHD@320Hz) and there's no high-speed pursuit photographs (>=1920px/s) to give the user a perspective on how each combination works in practice.
It's why I think the 4K120Hz mode is likely better than the 4k160Hz mode, since lower refresh rate generally means less crosstalk due to better refresh rate compliance.

brownvim wrote: ↑

06 Jun 2026, 08:11

I'm interested but its not quite there yet for me. If theres any other 4K models with good low refresh rate strobing I would love to try them.

None of the other public review data on 27-32" 4K models I've come across have been worthwhile considering :/
Perhaps the older ASUS ELMB QD-based models, but I doubt they have the brightness capabilities of these MiniLED models.

1 ,3rd the price, and 1440p and has vividpixel, but i guess its just random what features some get, it gets dynamic crosshair too (not that its any good) just annoying

cru values of this xg27aqn vs pg27aqn

...