![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
That was a great monitor back in the day. Mine has been used daily for 7 years and keeps going strong.
Truth. But, regarding the tradeoff between smearing and flickering, everyone is picking their own poison. I would never voluntarily get a backlight-strobing display, unless the frequency was crazy high (e.g. 600Hz). Even back in the CRT days, I was running 19" monitors in 1024x768 just to get 100Hz refresh rate, and from what I read CRT flicker was easier on the eyes than full-screen strobing.
.
As far as I've seen, they are out of stock not out of production for good, and a lot of work is going into making sure they and their overclockable pcb's will be available going forward. The best of the high hz gaming TN's let alone a "B-grade" ips panel at 120hz - 133hz , gaining the greatly increased motion tracking and reduction to near half as much blur should not be sneered at in regard to gaming vs a 60hz with low motion tracking and the worst blur available
the most modern, extremely high resolution texture mapped games , + bumpmapping depth and shaders, make my (60hz ips) lcd screen blur even more obvious and eye wrenching than before since the blur on fast FoV movement washes out that extremely high detail+3d depth my eyes "have a lock on" every time. It strains my eyes and is much more obnoxious to me than more than simpler textured/older games.
Most people seem to agree with this representation of 60hz/120hz *LCD/ CRT blur in games.
So it appears to me that 120hz vs the limitation of LCD pixel response times and retinal retention blur would still not be enough to retain the focus on texture detail (much like fine text scrawled on a surface which gets smudged out) and bump map depth.
Its like you have goggles filled with some liquid-gel and every time you turn quickly, your eyes see all fine detail lost in a blurring. 120hz might replace your goggles with a fluid which has double the viscosity, blurring near half as much.. but its still a lousy prescription compared to clear sight imo.
.
That blur trail length during FoV movement = the entire viewport trailing/blurring that much. To the eye, that is just a huge smeary blur during motion.
It can't be easily captured in a video, because you need a tracking camera (moving camera that tracks motion):
Motion Blur Measurement Kit
(Costs over $10,000).
Computer monitor manufacturers and display manufacturers use such tracking cameras to optimize their displays.
Stationary cameras (still cameras or video cameras that aren't moving to track a moving object).
1. Stationary camera
...Advantage: Measuring pixel persistence
...Disadvantage: Cannot properly measure eye-tracking-based motion blur
2. Moving camera
...Advantage: WYSIWYG (what the eye saw). Measuring eye-tracking based motion blur, including trailing effects.
...Disadvantage: Very difficult, expensive setups
The second image is a 1/60sec shutter, taken on a Samsung 226BW with a 180Hz PWM CCFL backlight. The camera tracked the moving object (which was moving at 960 pixels per second). It even successfully captured the triple-image effect of the 180Hz PWM
For users, the easiest way for everyday users to benchmark: You need to benchmark it using software, such as PixPerAn, or other motion benchmarking software.
It is incredible that people can use an IPS monitor for anything other than static images. There is just so much motion blur that when I scroll a web page I have to let it sit still for 2 full seconds just be able to read the text through the blurry mess.
It is incredible that people can use an IPS monitor for anything other than static images. There is just so much motion blur that when I scroll a web page I have to let it sit still for 2 full seconds just be able to read the text through the blurry mess.
