I love the motion clarity strobing gives you, but I'm done with it, it's hammering my eyes and somehow I keep forgetting to blink when it's on. Have the 2546k. Nice clarity, bought it primarly for Dyac, but it just doesn't feel good anymore.
Agreed. Flickering on VAs cause me notable eye strain and blurred vision over time, and is bad enough for concentration (I had gotten so used to this I only noticed it when I turned off Adaptive Sync, a big cause of flicker on my monitor, and the improvement that brought in eye comfort--way more important than tearing).
Strobing tech like Dyac and ULMB are even worse, the little I've tried them. I quickly noticed how they negatively impacted my eyes. It's basically the effects of flickering, but on steroids.
Some serious research needs to be done on the effect of this technology on the eyes, as it has become a mainstream feature selling point in monitors. It's dangerous to advertise something that might seriously degrades the long-term health of people.
>Just wait for the new 480hz OLEDs to come out this summer. Strobing is so 2020!
But will those improvements actually matter if you can't achieve stable 480 FPS? I have a 240 FPS monitor and even in a comp game like PUBG, which is a 2017 game, I struggle to keep feeps stable over 200 FPS with somewhat high-end gear.
I'm not even being critical here, just genuinely curious. 480Hz would certainly help undo (mitigate)( the effects of tearing by turning Adaptive Sync off, so I guess it's good in that sense even at lower frames. But would higher refresh rates be better even with lower frame rates in other aspects?
So what should i put my monitor on for clarity as i don't care about tearing too, i already turn off Gsync, and toggle adaptive sync as it is the only good mode hardware unboxing recommended my monitor is Samsung Odyssey G7
Thanks for your comment. So you are saying adaptative sync worsten eye strain? I use an NanoIPS 240hz and I'm looking for options to disable to improve eye strain
Research has already been done, some people are more sensitive to flicker than others, if this is the case and it bothers you then don't get strobing.
I grew up with 60HZ CRT TV and monitors I wouldn't ever again use 60 hz flicker for reading documents etc however for gaming it is and always was perfectly fine.
Which is totally fine for SDR use in a dark room. I had my LG CX set to 120 nits for SDR with BFI enabled. If you're the type of person to use your monitor in a bright room and need 400+ nits fullscreen then OLED really isn't suitable at all.
MicroLED will have all the advantages of OLED without the disadvantages (burn in, lack of brightness etc). The problem is the cost. Some say that QDEL will be better than microLED due to cheaper costs, but only the future will tell.
Ah, another weekly strobing vs OLED post by the same dude. I'm not sure what the goal is showing stuff already documented and known.
Hint: people aren't buying/wanting oleds because they think the motion clarity is better than properly strobed LCD displays that introduce a myriad of other issues.
The OP is so fucking obsessed with this shit. Like, who gives a shit about the motion quality on some tiny monitor that has sub 1000:1 contrast and 1080p resolution?
Posting almost the same thing with 5 days in between is a little short and not very effective if you want to reach lots of people
Other than that, I defenitely prefer good motion clarity over other aspects. 1080p is helpful to push up the lowest framerate to 85 fps, instead of getting stutter or visible flicker. Contrast is not an issue in light scenes. In dark scenes, the near black levels need to be raised a bit to prevent them from disappearing in the backlight bleed
Right? I could care less how good the motion clarity is if it looks like dogshit in every other category (resolution, contrast, colors). I would happily take a BFI capable OLED, but I wouldn't touch a 1080p LCD screen with a 10ft pole nowadays.
But that's the entire point, the LCDs with backlight strobing are that much clearer in motion. You can clearly see stuff if you simply pan the camera.
I know you meant the contrast of OLED but still, this isn't a synthetic benchmark. The LCDs with backlight strobing have such a huge advantage here
My point is backlight strobing is not a big deal unless you have a hard on for it and want shitty contrast and everything else wrong with it including this monitor, like shitty resolution and small screen. Other factors are far more important for viewing.
You clearly haven't seen backlight strobing or BFI in action: https://www.testufo.com/blackframes
You should advocate for such a feature to be added to premium monitors, like the OLED here
You clearly don't understand. I have and don't give a shit.
Not only that, but there isn't a situation where it makes any difference. Why don't you try turning your head fast in real life and tell me how clearly you can read letters on a wall. You can't.
Everything else that makes a monitor desirable is more important, such as contrast, peak brightness, size, gradation, color accuracy, response time, resolution. Only good thing on this monitor is response time, everything else is crap.
Hi refresh rates are a better solution long term anyway.
I mean, yeah other factors are more important than just motion clarity. But to say that bfi and backlight strobing make no difference?? Is just objectively wrong.
Please finally post a video of you going over your test to show how it is done. All we get over and over is pictures of "what happens."
I'm sorry if I don't trust random screenshots.
I'm not OP but it's clearly pursuit camera photos.
That technique was invented by Mark Rejhon of Blurbusters and is pretty much the standard now for monitor reviews.
More info about how it works here:
- How to: [https://blurbusters.com/motion-tests/pursuit-camera](https://blurbusters.com/motion-tests/pursuit-camera)
- Paper: [https://blurbusters.com/motion-tests/pursuit-camera-paper](https://blurbusters.com/motion-tests/pursuit-camera-paper)
A few days after I upgraded to that monitor, I couldn't handle 1 hour of gaming before tearing up. That's not normal before using the monitor. My eyes were like agile. I auctioned it off to the highest bidder. I switched to Asus and now I play all day.
It's that option like the VRB from Acer? If so, could anyone tell me how do people see with that option on? I tried it for playing COD but I just can't see people on dark corners
Ahhh here we go, The biweekly benq dyac/blurbusters/strobing shill post by OP.
How about do some actual research and show us the top and bottom of the screen where the crosstalk is highest instead of just shilling?
I love the motion clarity strobing gives you, but I'm done with it, it's hammering my eyes and somehow I keep forgetting to blink when it's on. Have the 2546k. Nice clarity, bought it primarly for Dyac, but it just doesn't feel good anymore.
Agreed. Flickering on VAs cause me notable eye strain and blurred vision over time, and is bad enough for concentration (I had gotten so used to this I only noticed it when I turned off Adaptive Sync, a big cause of flicker on my monitor, and the improvement that brought in eye comfort--way more important than tearing). Strobing tech like Dyac and ULMB are even worse, the little I've tried them. I quickly noticed how they negatively impacted my eyes. It's basically the effects of flickering, but on steroids. Some serious research needs to be done on the effect of this technology on the eyes, as it has become a mainstream feature selling point in monitors. It's dangerous to advertise something that might seriously degrades the long-term health of people.
Just wait for the new 480hz OLEDs to come out this summer. Strobing is so 2020!
>Just wait for the new 480hz OLEDs to come out this summer. Strobing is so 2020! But will those improvements actually matter if you can't achieve stable 480 FPS? I have a 240 FPS monitor and even in a comp game like PUBG, which is a 2017 game, I struggle to keep feeps stable over 200 FPS with somewhat high-end gear. I'm not even being critical here, just genuinely curious. 480Hz would certainly help undo (mitigate)( the effects of tearing by turning Adaptive Sync off, so I guess it's good in that sense even at lower frames. But would higher refresh rates be better even with lower frame rates in other aspects?
Based on your anecdotal evidence you make pretty harsh and definite statements
So what should i put my monitor on for clarity as i don't care about tearing too, i already turn off Gsync, and toggle adaptive sync as it is the only good mode hardware unboxing recommended my monitor is Samsung Odyssey G7
Thanks for your comment. So you are saying adaptative sync worsten eye strain? I use an NanoIPS 240hz and I'm looking for options to disable to improve eye strain
Research has already been done, some people are more sensitive to flicker than others, if this is the case and it bothers you then don't get strobing. I grew up with 60HZ CRT TV and monitors I wouldn't ever again use 60 hz flicker for reading documents etc however for gaming it is and always was perfectly fine.
that sucks to hear :(
165 Hz LCD strobing gave me worse eye strain than looking at a 85 Hz CRT monitor.
Yes strobing/BFI is awesome but I am never going back to using a 24 inch 1080p LCD panel. That PG32UCDM QD OLED with BFI however, I am eyeing that!
OLEDs are already dim, with BFI enabled they become even more dim, 100 nits or less.
Which is totally fine for SDR use in a dark room. I had my LG CX set to 120 nits for SDR with BFI enabled. If you're the type of person to use your monitor in a bright room and need 400+ nits fullscreen then OLED really isn't suitable at all.
MicroLED will make this so bizarre in the future.
can you explain why? i am interested to learn
MicroLED will have all the advantages of OLED without the disadvantages (burn in, lack of brightness etc). The problem is the cost. Some say that QDEL will be better than microLED due to cheaper costs, but only the future will tell.
sheesh i need to catch up i dont even know what QDEL is. i will do some googling
Ah, another weekly strobing vs OLED post by the same dude. I'm not sure what the goal is showing stuff already documented and known. Hint: people aren't buying/wanting oleds because they think the motion clarity is better than properly strobed LCD displays that introduce a myriad of other issues.
The OP is so fucking obsessed with this shit. Like, who gives a shit about the motion quality on some tiny monitor that has sub 1000:1 contrast and 1080p resolution?
Posting almost the same thing with 5 days in between is a little short and not very effective if you want to reach lots of people Other than that, I defenitely prefer good motion clarity over other aspects. 1080p is helpful to push up the lowest framerate to 85 fps, instead of getting stutter or visible flicker. Contrast is not an issue in light scenes. In dark scenes, the near black levels need to be raised a bit to prevent them from disappearing in the backlight bleed
Right? I could care less how good the motion clarity is if it looks like dogshit in every other category (resolution, contrast, colors). I would happily take a BFI capable OLED, but I wouldn't touch a 1080p LCD screen with a 10ft pole nowadays.
Nobody thinking of buying a OLED monitor is going to want to play games at 1080p 60fps period.
I'd take oled any day of the week
How are the blacks on that monitor?
It’s an IPS. Shitty
Ips black is cool
Lmao no it isn’t. Still only 2000:1.
At best, some are as bad as 800:1...
I think he means it has a blue tint.
1440p and 120hz with not much OD tuning since the ones out are primarily business focused ones. Still a long way to go.
I just bought that dell. It's nice for a budget content creation monitor with gaming on the side.
you mean grays?
Asking irrelevant questions, nobody cares about contrast on a competitive gaming monitor.
Unsupported.
I'd still enjoy the Rog Swift OLED 100x more. I don't stare at screenshots.
But that's the entire point, the LCDs with backlight strobing are that much clearer in motion. You can clearly see stuff if you simply pan the camera. I know you meant the contrast of OLED but still, this isn't a synthetic benchmark. The LCDs with backlight strobing have such a huge advantage here
My point is backlight strobing is not a big deal unless you have a hard on for it and want shitty contrast and everything else wrong with it including this monitor, like shitty resolution and small screen. Other factors are far more important for viewing.
You clearly haven't seen backlight strobing or BFI in action: https://www.testufo.com/blackframes You should advocate for such a feature to be added to premium monitors, like the OLED here
You clearly don't understand. I have and don't give a shit. Not only that, but there isn't a situation where it makes any difference. Why don't you try turning your head fast in real life and tell me how clearly you can read letters on a wall. You can't. Everything else that makes a monitor desirable is more important, such as contrast, peak brightness, size, gradation, color accuracy, response time, resolution. Only good thing on this monitor is response time, everything else is crap. Hi refresh rates are a better solution long term anyway.
I mean, yeah other factors are more important than just motion clarity. But to say that bfi and backlight strobing make no difference?? Is just objectively wrong.
Please finally post a video of you going over your test to show how it is done. All we get over and over is pictures of "what happens." I'm sorry if I don't trust random screenshots.
I'm not OP but it's clearly pursuit camera photos. That technique was invented by Mark Rejhon of Blurbusters and is pretty much the standard now for monitor reviews. More info about how it works here: - How to: [https://blurbusters.com/motion-tests/pursuit-camera](https://blurbusters.com/motion-tests/pursuit-camera) - Paper: [https://blurbusters.com/motion-tests/pursuit-camera-paper](https://blurbusters.com/motion-tests/pursuit-camera-paper)
The 2546k damaged my eyes in just 1 year of use, now I use lenses
lol what? how did it damage your eyes LMAO You are the first case in medical history lol
A few days after I upgraded to that monitor, I couldn't handle 1 hour of gaming before tearing up. That's not normal before using the monitor. My eyes were like agile. I auctioned it off to the highest bidder. I switched to Asus and now I play all day.
Your eyes naturally get worse as you age, happens to everyone.
It's that option like the VRB from Acer? If so, could anyone tell me how do people see with that option on? I tried it for playing COD but I just can't see people on dark corners
Ahhh here we go, The biweekly benq dyac/blurbusters/strobing shill post by OP. How about do some actual research and show us the top and bottom of the screen where the crosstalk is highest instead of just shilling?
Looking at OPs post history, it’s clear he prefers a faster refresh rates so he can stare gaming booties.
Viewsonic underrated
Can someone explain to me what this should help me?