Blur Busters Forums

yehaw wrote:

darzo wrote:So objectively less motion blur is making him see the general flaws of overdrive i.e. ghosting artifacts more distinctly, which he is mistaking for blur? Look at his post. Those images are of a dramatically different size but the TFT review he links to ironically has a better comparison between monitors. The 240hz Asus has less artifacts and blur than the 1440 144/165hz Asus at 60hz and at 144hz, which is of the same type as the AOC monitor he claims is much better than his 240hz monitor in this respect. Although even the TFT images are not quite the same size. It's also clear there that AOC indeed lacks some quality.

I don't buy him being more sensitive to something rendering what we would see as fine headache inducing. There doesn't seem to be anything worse about 240hz monitors with respect to motion, be it blur or ghosting, let alone to such a degree.

What happen? Post a photo of 60hz for us, show us these 240hz panels don't have any blur issues! I'll put $500 that says you have double image.

I could care less about 60hz. I have a monster system

I think he states as much. His problem lies with substantially lower fps. Although I have to wonder just how monster your system is as even high quality components can have a tough time pushing 240 fps beyond minimum settings, especially depending on the game. Do you SLI?

darzo wrote:*facepalm*

I have an Acer 240hz as well as an Asus 1440 165hz. The 240hz is smoother without any sort of extra blur or artifacts (granted I use gsync, if not I run into remarkable choppiness and blur) and is what I use for competitive fps. You have a similar pair of monitors except they are both worse than mine. The TFT test images above show that the tested Asus 240hz monitor is less blurry with less trail/artifacts at 60hz and 144hz than both the AOC 240hz monitor, which is the brand of your 1440 monitor, and the Asus 1440 144hz monitor, which is similar to your AOC 1440 monitor. You are not following basic logic. Among recent-year non CRT monitors there are no perfectly clear motion images at 60 or 144hz. Not at 240hz either, but 240hz monitors tend to produce somewhat clearer images even at lower fps. ULMB then comes into it, but although it will give you a clearer test image at 144hz in my experience and that of another customer on Amazon practically in games the motion at 240hz without ULMB is smoother than 144hz with ULMB.

Your pair of monitors prove little more than the 240hz one is even worse than the AOC 1440 you have. That's why the "Chief" has recommended that you replace it and has contradicted your claim with respect to the quality of 240hz monitors in general. Give it a break. Replace or get yourself a proper brand 240hz monitor.

Ok, faceplam more then. Cut to the chase, post a picture of 60hz on alien test and show your 240hz has no issues! Third time requested, third time you change subject. You keep spouting you don't have issues, why not prove it? I will guarantee your monitor has the issue just like the rest, you just can't notice it. At 60hz, it's impossible not to notice. The lower the refresh rate, the worse you see the double.

(granted I use gsync, if not I run into remarkable choppiness and blur)

I also hate to break it to you, G-Sync does not do anything to blur. The fact you say you see the blur, then say G-Sync fixes it is ridiculous. All G-Sync does is sync your framerate to your refresh rate to get rid of tearing while also reducing input lag. It's essentially a hardware version of V-Sync with low latency and the ability to dynamically sync the frame rate with refresh rate.

Also, the fact that you say the 240hz 60hz looks better than a standard 144hz 60 in the photo is ridiculous and also shows you have no idea what you're talking about. You can't even see the double image in front of the overdrive picture. The double image blur I've been complaining about the entire thread? If you can't even spot it in a still image, there's no way in hell you personally would be able to spot it a higher refresh rates, especially with how harder it is to notice at 200+ fps. Let me help you since you're having trouble:



See that pink line? There shouldn't be anything in front of it. What you're seeing is a doubled image of the Alien. That is bad, very bad.

And frankly, your whole attitude of of my displays are junk, my display brand is overpriced, I need to buy a better brand, etc - it's all really childish. You remind me of a little kid defending his XBOX 360 because his friend said the PS3 is better. It's a shame this happens when you criticize a products flaws and people dismiss them because they have money invested into a product they don't want to regret. Defend at all costs, even when you have no idea what you're talking about.

Gsync should change the scanout speed and I would think that the overdrive would match the 240hz settings. I'm not 100% on that but I think it would because it has no way of knowing (other than guessing) how soon the next frame would come and the point of 240hz scanout is to be ready for the next frame as soon as possible. So if the overdrive matched a lower refresh setting then it would add more motion blur to ~240 fps content.

I looked at my monitor (ASUS PG258Q) and I could see a slight amount of light around white objects on black backgrounds. Mainly on the right side of them. This could be my eyes' lenses and such adding it or it oculd be some kind of light bleed. I doubt I would have ever noticed it if I didn't look for it. Tonight I will test some 60hz and see what I can see.

Just to be clear what exactly do I need to do to reproduce the blurring? I'm going to try putting my monitor on the 60hz setting with the normal overdrive selected and load up the blurbusters alien test. Then I will look for blurring and double images. Or should I leave my monitor on 240hz and just use the blurbusters motion blur alien test itself to reproduce 60 fps content?

Easy, easy. No putting down each other. We've been there, the monitor or gadget or dishwasher one had to return 3 times in a row, out of frustration, until we were (maybe) happy. While your friend or neighbour got their unit that worked so beautifully right out of bat. Wouldn't one be steaming, honkin' mad!, eh?

So...

Happy Holidays

Let's be nice to each other over the Holidays!

All monitors have significant blur at 60hz on these tests. All of them. As suggested in the TFT test given the comparison to a 144hz 1440 monitor, good 240hz monitors can have a little/somewhat less blur and/or artifacts at lower refresh rates than 144hz monitors in addition to having substantially less blur at 240hz. I don't know how horribly dense you have to be to continue to not understand a review you yourself linked to. Unlike you I'm not a kid. Your lack of comprehension ultimately doesn't concern me and the exchange will run its course.

Chief Blur Buster wrote:We've been there, the monitor or gadget or dishwasher one had to return 3 times in a row, out of frustration, until we were (maybe) happy. While your friend or neighbour got their unit that worked so beautifully right out of bat. Wouldn't one be steaming, honkin' mad!, eh?

Except this guy got a cheap possibly defective dishwasher that has him convinced all dishwashers make your dishes dirty and he's much more willing to proclaim all dishwashers make your dishes dirty than to get himself another dishwasher that actually works. I don't even have an analogy for his mind-boggling persistent misunderstanding of the alien motion tests. He even drew a little pink line on the Asus test image to help us understand. How do I convey to this guy that the monitor next to it is similar to his AOC that he claims has less blur and/or artifacts?

As for what happens when I don't use gsync and uncap my fps, I have no explanation. All I know is that it's bad, doesn't look like tearing exclusively, and something I did not encounter on other monitors.



This image cannot be too complex for someone to misinterpret. The last monitor is a good 240hz monitor, the middle monitor is a 144hz 1440 monitor from a reputable company. Now which one has less blur/artifacts? If this guy still doesn't get it, just wow.

yehaw wrote:The fact you say you see the blur, then say G-Sync fixes it is ridiculous.

Hang on, there's a *smidgen* of subtlety. Allow me to explain:

Although G-SYNC doesn't *really* fix motion blur, it does make display motion blur more consistent.

This is because erratic stutters (high framerates, above flicker fusion threshold) produces a bigger motion blur than perfectly synchronized stutter. Stutters at 207fps@240Hz (non-G-SYUNC) are often so fast/rapid that it blends (blurs) -- enlarging the existing display motion blur.

207fps@240Hz means some pixels stay on screen for 1/120sec and some pixels stay on screen for 1/240sec. That means you're rapidly getting 1/120sec persistence (frame pixels that stay onscreen for 1/120sec) and 1/240sec persistence (frame pixels that stay onscreen for 1/240sec) intermittently blending into each other. Having transients of 1/120sec persistence creates more perceived blurring effects than just 1/240sec or 1/207sec. Now with G-SYNC, 207fps means a 207Hz, and 1/207sec persistence. That's better than the above scenario.

If *this* is what you see, then *yes* G-SYNC does marginally reduce motion blur. But only closer downwards to Blur Busters Law where motion blur is equal to a refresh cycle's worth of persistence, during non-strobed modes.

darzo wrote:All monitors have significant blur at 60hz on these tests. All of them.

Correct. This will happen with 1000Hz monitors playing 60fps content.

There's no way to have less blur for 60fps or 60Hz without strobing/impulsing. Not possible.

Even if GtG becomes zero, MPRT is still always 16.7ms. You can't have less than 16.7ms MPRT on a 60Hz sample-and-hold display.

Blur Buster's Law (explained in this article) means that the guaranteed minimum motion blur of 60Hz sample-and-hold is 16.7ms persistence -- translating to 16.7 pixels of motion blur during 1000 pixels/sec motion.

Even 60fps at 1000Hz will still look similar to 60Hz on a good TN 60Hz LCD.

The blur may be more consistent/mathematically linear with 0ms GtG but there'll still be nearly exactly the same amount of fuzz).

Also, persistence is proportional to frame rate (if frame rate is below refresh rate) on sample-and-hold displays, so 30fps has twice the persistence of 60fps.

To reduce 60Hz motion blur, you need things like:
-- CRT (impulsing)
-- Plasma (impulsing)
-- 60Hz strobing (impulsing)
-- Interpolation (add extra frames)
etc.

If you hate flicker/strobing, there's no choice: Go to a higher frame rate and refresh rate. One solution is ULMB with VSYNC ON which looks supersmooth (like G-SYNC) if your GPU keeps a perfect triple match (framerate = refreshrate = stroberate). But VSYNC ON adds lag, which can be partially fixed by Low Lag VSYNC ON HOWTO, albiet still more lag than non-strobed or VSYNC OFF.

At the moment triple match during ULMB (framerate = refreshrate = stroberate) is the the closest to "blurfree+stutterfree" nirvana we can get today -- if you can tolerate strobing and a slight amount of lag.

Pick your poison.
-- Need blurfree 60Hz and can tolerate painful flicker? Use 60Hz strobing (e.g. the "60Hz ULMB" hack)
-- Need 60Hz without flicker, and live with motion blur? Use 60Hz non-strobed.
-- Want low lag, and don't mind tearing/blur? VSYNC OFF non-strobed.
-- Want no stutters at fluctuating frame rates? G-SYNC.
-- Want blurfree but can tolerate stutters? ULMB with uncapped VSYNC OFF.
-- Want blurfree+stutterfree, but can tolerate strobing? ULMB + VSYNC ON + powerful GPU that doesn't framedrop.
Etc.

The only way to solve all pick-poison scenarios simultaneously is ultra-high frame rates at ultra-high Hz. Blurless sample-and-hold and ultra-high framerates. Flickerfree, strobefree, blurfree, stutterfree.

For now, my favourite blurfree+stutterfree compromise is good strobed modes: Getting a super-powerful GPU and picking an ultrabright strobed monitors (300 nits). For some of my single-player games where lag doesn't matter, I enjoy 100Hz ULMB VSYNC ON + some lag-reducing tricks. For some newer games, 100Hz is easier to achieve the triple lock (framerate == refreshrate == stroberate) for stutterfree blurfree nirvana, and doesn't flicker too much unlike 60Hz ULMB hack. The higher the refresh rate, the harder it is for frame rate to keep up -- 100fps@100Hz ULMB looks MUCH smoother than 115fps@144Hz ULMB.

With ULMB Pulse Width (PW) adjustments, it is also possible to have 100fps@100Hz ULMB (during PW<75%) to have less motion blur than 144fps@144Hz ULMB (during PW100%), because Blur Busters Law is dictated by strobe flash length which is changeable via the "ULMB Pulse Width" setting menu item. Good info at HOWTO: Properly Using ULMB Beautifully or Competitively. That said, I usually keep Pulse Width closer to 100% during daytime and Pulse Width much lower during night (essentially, instead of lowering Brightness, I use ULMB Pulse Width instead, to lower brightness -- to gain bonus motion clarity during brightness reductions). That said, just make sure you get blindingly bright ULMB to avoid the "dim strobing and poor colors" of most older LightBoost monitors.

Now, obviously, uncapped VSYNC OFF at full 240Hz is superior for CS:GO.... but obviously if I'm enjoying the sceneary single-player, I accept the slight lag and adjust the settings to achieve blurfree+stutterfree nirvana instead.

darzo wrote:I think he states as much. His problem lies with substantially lower fps. Although I have to wonder just how monster your system is as even high quality components can have a tough time pushing 240 fps beyond minimum settings, especially depending on the game. Do you SLI?

Tomb Raider, Witcher 3, and PUBG all have over 100 FPS constant, with no dips below that. PUBG maxes at 144, and that is because the GAME is 144 FPS locked by the programmers for the time being.

Over 300FPS easy in CSGO

100 fps is not 240 fps...