Blur Busters Forums

For modern LCDs that has a GtG of ~1ms (to >90% completion) my experience is visually perceived motion blur (persistence) is reliably a function of refresh rate -- so you'll have 1/240sec persistence. 240fps@240Hz will have half the motion blur of 120fps@120Hz. Basically, 4.1ms of motion blur. That's only twice as much motion blur as LightBoost default (~2ms) -- but with zero strobing!

The GtG speed (1ms) is still far faster than the refresh rate, so size of motion blur of optimal framerate situations (1/240sec blur trail, ~4.1ms) should still linearly scale with the refresh period (1/240sec refresh, ~4.1ms).

I predict that for any 240Hz LCDs (modern 1ms TN with well-tuned response time acceleration) viewing http://www.testufo.com/#test=photo&phot ... 0&height=0 -- you should begin to easily read street name labels on the Moving Map at 480 pixels/second (non-strobed). On regular 120Hz displays, that's at 240 pixels/second (non-strobed).

Chief Blur Buster wrote:For modern LCDs that has a GtG of ~1ms (to >90% completion) my experience is visually perceived motion blur (persistence) is reliably a function of refresh rate -- so you'll have 1/240sec persistence. 240fps@240Hz will have half the motion blur of 120fps@120Hz. Basically, 4.1ms of motion blur. That's only twice as much motion blur as LightBoost default (~2ms) -- but with zero strobing!

The GtG speed (1ms) is still far faster than the refresh rate, so size of motion blur of optimal framerate situations (1/240sec blur trail, ~4.1ms) should still linearly scale with the refresh period (1/240sec refresh, ~4.1ms).

I predict that for any 240Hz LCDs (modern 1ms TN with well-tuned response time acceleration) viewing http://www.testufo.com/#test=photo&phot ... 0&height=0 -- you should begin to easily read street name labels on the Moving Map at 480 pixels/second (non-strobed). On regular 120Hz displays, that's at 240 pixels/second (non-strobed).

I've tested Dell S2417DG S2417DG (165Hz) and got results: 3.9ms or 4.2ms. I've changed only Pixels Per Frame value. What's wrong with my results? Overdrive influence? Also http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic ... prt#p22768

Q83Ia7ta wrote:Please try test by the description at top http://testufo.com/#test=mprt and tell us persistence.

Chief Blur Buster wrote:240fps@240Hz will have half the motion blur of 120fps@120Hz. Basically, 4.1ms of motion blur. That's only twice as much motion blur as LightBoost default (~2ms) -- but with zero strobing!

Mate.... 4.1ms is measurably spot on.

Testing results:

240hz white background - 9 ppf - 5.1ms - 196 mmcr
240hz black background - 15 ppf - 3.1ms - 327 mmcr
average - 4.1ms - 261.5 mmcr

It started to hurt my eyes because it was moving so damn fast...


If its interesting to anybody the results stepping it down to 144hz and 120hz:

144hz white background - 10 ppf - 7.6ms - 131 mmcr
144hz black background - 14 ppf - 5.5ms - 183 mmcr
average - 6.55ms - 157 mmcr

120hz white background - 10 ppf - 9.2ms - 109 mmcr
120hz black background - 13 ppf - 7.1ms - 142 mmcr
average - 8.15ms - 125.5 mmcr

Chief Blur Buster wrote:For modern LCDs that has a GtG of ~1ms (to >90% completion) my experience is visually perceived motion blur (persistence) is reliably a function of refresh rate -- so you'll have 1/240sec persistence. 240fps@240Hz will have half the motion blur of 120fps@120Hz. Basically, 4.1ms of motion blur. That's only twice as much motion blur as LightBoost default (~2ms) -- but with zero strobing!

The GtG speed (1ms) is still far faster than the refresh rate, so size of motion blur of optimal framerate situations (1/240sec blur trail, ~4.1ms) should still linearly scale with the refresh period (1/240sec refresh, ~4.1ms).

I predict that for any 240Hz LCDs (modern 1ms TN with well-tuned response time acceleration) viewing http://www.testufo.com/#test=photo&phot ... 0&height=0 -- you should begin to easily read street name labels on the Moving Map at 480 pixels/second (non-strobed). On regular 120Hz displays, that's at 240 pixels/second (non-strobed).

Any chance of you doing a review of this and the new XL2735? By the way, I use the strobelight app to achieve strobing on a ASUS VG278HE 27". How much input lag and latency am I getting? I use it with 10% brightness.

Thanks in advance.

My god, i just tried to do the same test on my screen and you're right, it sucks. I think someone needs to figure out a new way of doing it because i'm flinging my head with the alien just to keep track

240hz white background - 9 ppf - 5.1ms - 196 mmcr
240hz black background - 15 ppf - 3.1ms - 327 mmcr
average - 4.1ms - 261.5 mmcr

Mangemongen it should be 1 frame like every other monitor.

lexlazootin wrote: Mangemongen it should be 1 frame like every other monitor.

But I recall people saying there being added input lag when using this method. No?

Denonic wrote: Full review to come with a comparison to the XL2420G and XL2735 (Dynamic Accuracy) model.

Any idea when this will happen?

Mangemongen wrote:

lexlazootin wrote: Mangemongen it should be 1 frame like every other monitor.

But I recall people saying there being added input lag when using this method. No?

"like every other [lightboost] monitor" he meant i guess.

Finished doing the tests i wanted. Zowie takes the monitors back tomorrow. Write up will be live by the end of the week, hopefully sooner if time permits.

Denonic wrote:Finished doing the tests i wanted. Zowie takes the monitors back tomorrow. Write up will be live by the end of the week, hopefully sooner if time permits.

Great, thanks

What is your subjective feeling on the 240Hz thing? Is the difference hugely noticable vs 120/144Hz? Is there any "wow" factor like when jumping from 60Hz to 120/144Hz?