Not sour grapes, just diminishing returns. The contrast ratio is awful. 8-bit isn’t full coverage and 10-bit is. The reason it’s practically pointless is that banding from the limitations of 8 bit is hard to come by in low contrast ratio displays.
Yeah LG is really lowering prices in the segment. They are unbeatable there. Quality too, everyone better than the ones using the horrific Asus PG279Q panel.
Hz and HDR are orthogonal. You want both. To eliminate motion blur you want at least 1000Hz (see journey to 1000Hz by Michael Abrash). I'm typing this on 144Hz monitor, and it's definitely not enough.
Don't think you really understand. LCD is inherently a sample-and-hold display technology. This is unlike CRTs or Plasmas of yesteryear, which had markedly better clarity in motion, due to flashing the color between distinct phases of black.
What needs to happen, even more so than increasing Hz, is decreasing pixel persistence and increasing backlight strength. You can already use "lightboost" or "ULMB" or "ELMB" types of settings on monitors, but that hardly matters when people don't want to feel like they're playing on a super dim display that now dropped to 80 ~ 100 nit brightness just by enabling a motion blue reduction setting on their display.
What I'm trying to get at is 1000hz will change hardly anything at all, and that's why the move between 120hz to 144 to 165 to 240 to 360 has largely been meaningless for most people's eyes, since the pixel persistence hasn't changed much at all.
Now if you could do 1000hz, where backlight could strobe at 3000hz or so (1 frame on, 2 frames off), yet still retain an average brightness of ~400nits or so (despite the ~33% duty cycle), you'd effectively have eliminated 66% of the pixel persistence, without sacrificing a usable brightness. And such a display would truly be amazing. But we're still pretty far from that kind of reality, and people might even need to accept thicker monitors to achieve that kind of brightness-after-ULMB setting.
This seems a little misguide, but it’s close. What matters isn’t the existence of strobing. Nature has “perfect motion clarity” and it does not strobe. What matters is the length of the hold time. ULMB decreases this, but so do higher refresh rates. CRT phosphors had decay times into the multiple ms. At 1000 Hz, with a fast switching technology like OLED, the benefit of strobing would be smaller, arguably negligible.
There is nothing wrong with motion blur. We perceive them naturally in the real (analog) world. As JJJ123 explained, sample and hold display has inherent characteristics that renders blur differently than other mediums. And why I think 240 is really not that important over 120-165. Not to mention the ability of modern GPUs to achieve FPS above 120 FPS unless with significant render settings. So while you may achieve 120+ you sacrifice something else. Yes future should get better but future games will also add new things like bigger textures, ray tracing, more triangles. It’s a moving target. And at the end of the day, it’s about immersion. Refresh rate is just one factor. Let’s not compromise everything else for it especially when going from 165 to 240 can be relatively minor.
If you play games by holding your eyes fixed at one point on the monitor, then you might be right that motion blur doesn't matter (for you).
However, for those of us who want to clearly see objects as they move around on the screen, then motion blur sucks. Objects which your eyes are tracking should *not* be blurred, because the relative motion between them and your eye is (nominally) zero. That's the true benefit of HFR displays.
LCD still will always have motion blur. It will never be as the motions on CRTs, even if you slap 1000Hz on one. And even CRTs were not completely without motion blur.
Again, I'm not talking about LCDs. I believe we will see first proper MicroLED monitors at the next CES, or maybe the one after, but not later than that. After that it will probably take a couple of years to see them on the shelves, and a couple more years later it just won't make any sense to produce monitors with any other technology (unless something even better is invented by then).
They're not orthogonal, in part because of DisplayPort 1.2 bandwidth limitations. That's why the FI27Q-P is the real news, since its DisplayPort 1.4 lets you have HDR @ 165 Hz.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
25 Comments
Back to Article
willis936 - Friday, January 31, 2020 - link
Not much less. I bought a similarly specces display 4 years ago for $100 more.mode_13h - Saturday, February 1, 2020 - link
And, of course, it's FreeSync- and GSync HDR- compatible, as well.Oh? What's that? It's not? Too bad for you!
mode_13h - Saturday, February 1, 2020 - link
* Only the FI27Q-P (and AD27QD) is GSync-HDR. The regular FI27Q is not.https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/products/g-sy...
https://www.amd.com/en/products/freesync-monitors
willis936 - Saturday, February 1, 2020 - link
Yikes. Even mine is gsync. HDR on an IPS is practically pointless.mode_13h - Saturday, February 1, 2020 - link
Sour grapes, much?Banding on 8-bit is a real thing. Hell yeah, I'll take 10-bit. Even if it's FRC and not VESA HDR, it's still better than nothing.
willis936 - Sunday, February 2, 2020 - link
Not sour grapes, just diminishing returns. The contrast ratio is awful. 8-bit isn’t full coverage and 10-bit is. The reason it’s practically pointless is that banding from the limitations of 8 bit is hard to come by in low contrast ratio displays.mode_13h - Tuesday, February 4, 2020 - link
1000:1 isn't awful, it's just not comparable to VA or local-dimming IPS.Destoya - Friday, January 31, 2020 - link
That price needs to come down even further from the MSRP to be competitive. Asus has a 165hz IPS for $430 and LG (and others) do 144hz at $375.I guess if you absolutely need RGB in your monitor though...
Alistair - Friday, January 31, 2020 - link
Yeah LG is really lowering prices in the segment. They are unbeatable there. Quality too, everyone better than the ones using the horrific Asus PG279Q panel.Beaver M. - Sunday, February 2, 2020 - link
Thats an AUO panel. They are all like that. No matter in which resellers model they are present.TristanSDX - Friday, January 31, 2020 - link
less than 240 Hz is now slow and obsoletecrimsonson - Friday, January 31, 2020 - link
Depends. Is 240 that useful over 165?I say HDR is more important. I rather play 120 and HDR than 240 and SDR.
p1esk - Friday, January 31, 2020 - link
Hz and HDR are orthogonal. You want both. To eliminate motion blur you want at least 1000Hz (see journey to 1000Hz by Michael Abrash). I'm typing this on 144Hz monitor, and it's definitely not enough.JoeyJoJo123 - Saturday, February 1, 2020 - link
Don't think you really understand. LCD is inherently a sample-and-hold display technology. This is unlike CRTs or Plasmas of yesteryear, which had markedly better clarity in motion, due to flashing the color between distinct phases of black.What needs to happen, even more so than increasing Hz, is decreasing pixel persistence and increasing backlight strength. You can already use "lightboost" or "ULMB" or "ELMB" types of settings on monitors, but that hardly matters when people don't want to feel like they're playing on a super dim display that now dropped to 80 ~ 100 nit brightness just by enabling a motion blue reduction setting on their display.
What I'm trying to get at is 1000hz will change hardly anything at all, and that's why the move between 120hz to 144 to 165 to 240 to 360 has largely been meaningless for most people's eyes, since the pixel persistence hasn't changed much at all.
Now if you could do 1000hz, where backlight could strobe at 3000hz or so (1 frame on, 2 frames off), yet still retain an average brightness of ~400nits or so (despite the ~33% duty cycle), you'd effectively have eliminated 66% of the pixel persistence, without sacrificing a usable brightness. And such a display would truly be amazing. But we're still pretty far from that kind of reality, and people might even need to accept thicker monitors to achieve that kind of brightness-after-ULMB setting.
p1esk - Saturday, February 1, 2020 - link
I'm not talking about existing LCDs. By the time 4k @ 1000Hz becomes feasible (5-10 years from now), all new monitors will be MicroLED based.Beaver M. - Sunday, February 2, 2020 - link
5 to 10 years?You mean like flying cars in 2020?
willis936 - Sunday, February 2, 2020 - link
This seems a little misguide, but it’s close. What matters isn’t the existence of strobing. Nature has “perfect motion clarity” and it does not strobe. What matters is the length of the hold time. ULMB decreases this, but so do higher refresh rates. CRT phosphors had decay times into the multiple ms. At 1000 Hz, with a fast switching technology like OLED, the benefit of strobing would be smaller, arguably negligible.crimsonson - Saturday, February 1, 2020 - link
There is nothing wrong with motion blur. We perceive them naturally in the real (analog) world. As JJJ123 explained, sample and hold display has inherent characteristics that renders blur differently than other mediums. And why I think 240 is really not that important over 120-165.Not to mention the ability of modern GPUs to achieve FPS above 120 FPS unless with significant render settings. So while you may achieve 120+ you sacrifice something else.
Yes future should get better but future games will also add new things like bigger textures, ray tracing, more triangles. It’s a moving target.
And at the end of the day, it’s about immersion. Refresh rate is just one factor. Let’s not compromise everything else for it especially when going from 165 to 240 can be relatively minor.
mode_13h - Saturday, February 1, 2020 - link
If you play games by holding your eyes fixed at one point on the monitor, then you might be right that motion blur doesn't matter (for you).However, for those of us who want to clearly see objects as they move around on the screen, then motion blur sucks. Objects which your eyes are tracking should *not* be blurred, because the relative motion between them and your eye is (nominally) zero. That's the true benefit of HFR displays.
p1esk - Saturday, February 1, 2020 - link
> Objects which your eyes are tracking should *not* be blurredExactly. Reading text while scrolling on a 60Hz monitor after using 144Hz one feels like scratching your eyeballs with sand paper.
I haven't had a chance of trying 240Hz monitor yet, but I expect noticeable improvements, because 144Hz is still way too blurry for me.
Beaver M. - Sunday, February 2, 2020 - link
LCD still will always have motion blur. It will never be as the motions on CRTs, even if you slap 1000Hz on one. And even CRTs were not completely without motion blur.p1esk - Monday, February 3, 2020 - link
Again, I'm not talking about LCDs. I believe we will see first proper MicroLED monitors at the next CES, or maybe the one after, but not later than that. After that it will probably take a couple of years to see them on the shelves, and a couple more years later it just won't make any sense to produce monitors with any other technology (unless something even better is invented by then).mode_13h - Tuesday, February 4, 2020 - link
CRT phosphors had an exponential decay function. So, you could absolutely get motion blur-like artifacts on them.Also, I don't recall seeing refresh rates much above 120 Hz, on CRT monitors. And you'd have to drop the resolution to hit that.
mode_13h - Saturday, February 1, 2020 - link
They're not orthogonal, in part because of DisplayPort 1.2 bandwidth limitations. That's why the FI27Q-P is the real news, since its DisplayPort 1.4 lets you have HDR @ 165 Hz.mode_13h - Saturday, February 1, 2020 - link
> It is noteworthy that GIGABYTE is also offering the Aorus FI27Q-P monitor with a DisplayPort 1.4Exactly. This article is several months late. Now, you should be focusing on the -P variant!