Why are the black levels of IPS displays so bad?

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Just curious. I just received my ViewSonic VP2770, and while it generally offers a stunning picture, everything falls apart when a substantial amount of black content is displayed.

Based on all of the IPS displays I've seen, it seems these panels are totally incapable of producing anything close to black, and what makes it especially worse is this "IPS glow" that will turn everything grayish.

I actually feel that all the benefits of IPS (color reproduction, viewing angles) are made totally moot by their horrendous black levels. The thing that really worries me is how my new ViewSonic is one of the best-reviewed panels out there at the moment.
 
I wouldn't say "totally incapable". That is a PLS panel not IPS. My current Eizo Foris (also PLS) gets 0.15 cd/m2 @ 140nits for around 950:1 contrast ratio static calibrated. Have you profiled the screen with a colorimeter? If it bothers you you should stick with VA based panels. Those are better for the black level contrast sensitive folks. You'll get slower response times and worse angles but right now there is no magic panel that fits all situations. Pick the tech you care most about and buy that style.
I looked over reviews of that panel and it does have a weak-ish calibrated contrast ratio hovering around 700-800:1. It is a little low compared to current IPS/PLS but not out of the ordinary for 1st gen PLS. I have not seen a review that seemed like it was "...one of the best-reviewed panels out there at the moment." Where are you getting that info?
Edit: Nevermind, just saw NCX's thread and gathered sources. I'll look them over when I have some time.
 
Last edited:
The only technology that will get a perfect "black" level is OLED since it doesn't require a backlight at all. Everything else has some sort of backlighting which limits how well black can look.
 
IPS blacks aren't the best, but they're not that bad, especially when you compare to other techs just how unbelievable the colors are.
 
they dont look bad to me, i would say that the upgrade in color reproduction makes up for the mediocre black levels. although the black levels really do not bother me
 
Megalith,
I just got the VP2365 after researching monitors for literally 4 weeks. I debated between IPS and AMVA and am not sure if this was the best option. I wanted excellent image quality more so than 270 degrees of viewing angle. :D

I think the reason for blacks not truly appearing black is because of the back lighting. It does get better if you turn down the brightness to next to nil, but you will still see what appears to be black with this transparent white layer superimposed on top.

-1- Out of curiosity: how is your AG coating? Mine is definitely soft, but not quite as soft as I would like it to be. I am sensitive to this, though.

-2- Also, when you go to http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php, can you see all the black squares in the top row?

Thank you.
 
Unfortunate limitations of the technology.

My primary television is a Panasonic VT50. Expensive, yes, but it does everything I want it to--deep blacks being first and foremost. If I could find the "perfect" display for my PC gaming, I'd spare no expense ... but she doesn't exist. Yet. I'm always torn between the amazing blacks of VA panels and the everything else of IPS/PLS (mild exaggeration). I usually opt for the later because I also require my PC for color sensitive print media, and I can't stand black crush. If it weren't for that, I'd likely be a VA man.

I ended up with the ASUS PB278Q because it's the jack-of-all. It's not amazing at any one thing, but it does everything quite well. The resolution I want with a very minor "semi-matte" AG coat. Best PLS contrast ratio (so far). Bang on colors and gamma. No black crush, no white oversaturation. Decent response and input lag. Yes, the blacks are somewhat weak and there's "glow", but that's the technology trade-off. Plus, it's relatively inexpensive, allowing me to hoard my pennies until OLED becomes a thing.

I always punish myself when I buy a new display by playing through a Dead Space game. By the time I'm done, I have a pretty damn good idea whether or not I can stomach the black levels. I'm a few hours into Dead Space 2 with the ASUS and I'm starting to come around to it, though at first I was disappointed (as always).
 
Last edited:
The thing I find peculiar is just how stagnant improved contrast levels for IPS monitors been over the years. It's not that much different than it was 5 years ago. You'd think there could be a bit more improvement in that department,

I also find it curious why there is such a wide variance between the same exact panels too. A 20-30% difference in contrast between the same exact models seems rather high to me.

On the plus side, there have been some IPS screens with black levels in the S-PVA range, which to me is what I find generally acceptable. Some of the 27" IPS 1080p displays have had reported contrasts of 1200-1400:1, if I recall correctly. But it beats me why they would have good contrasts, while other IPS panels can't do it ... or why smaller panels shouldn't have higher contrasts than larger ones.

The lack of the A-TW polarizer also hurts a bit, as IPS glow doesn't help matters. That's another thing that bugs me, as to why nobody uses it anymore. And before someone replies with green/magenta glow, I don't think it's a real issue ... if so, every Fire HD owner would be complaining about green/magenta glowing tablets.
 
The coatings also make a difference. I'm using a TN with aggressive AG at the moment which has a 1000:1 contrast ratio @140nits and the blacks are not as deep looking as the IPS/PLS I've used with semi-glossy coatings and 850:1 contrast unless I turn off the lights or sit close enough to see the glow.

With the lights on semi-glossy displays have the best perceived black levels followed by glossy/Samsung Ultra Clear panel displays IMO.

Displays with edge-to-edge glass appear to have grayish blacks with the lights on, even on displays with 1300:1 contrast ratios like the Dell S2740L I reviewed. Haven't seen the edge-to-edge glass A-MVA S2440L which has a 2,500:1+ contrast ratio.

If you want good blacks from an IPS/PLS, turn down the brightness and get a glossy or semi-glossy monitor. Most peoples #1 mistake is that they keep the brightness cranked.

The VP2770 should offer 850:1+ static contrast ratio like the other 27" PLS.
 
Last edited:
PC LCD black levels have been an ongoing annoyance for me ever since my FW900 CRT bit the dust.

I have a VA based Samsung 2333T which has pretty good black levels,contrast and shadow details but it falls apart in color accuracy and motion handling when compared to my PX2370 (TN) to the point I don't like gaming on the 2333T.

I think it just boils down to limitations of LCD technology and the backlit nature of it.

Also doesn't help that I have a Pioneer Kuro 5080 plasma hooked up to my PC via HDMI (for the games that are playable with 360 controller). Whenever I use it i'm immediately reminded just how far behind PC LCDs are especially when it comes to motion clarity & black levels.

OLED does look promising but I'm guessing it will be expensive for awhile.
 
I purchased an NEC P232W(which is an IPS panel with W-LED backlight) last week to replace a U2413 I returned to Dell. I find the contrast and black levels to be quite solid for my needs.

After calibration I get a black point of .092 and contrast ratio of 1075:1 at 100 cd/m which is the brightness I do most of my work at.

On a side note, I find the AG coating to be a lot better than the Dell, which supposedly had a much better coating than its predecessor the U2410.
 
Last edited:
There is no use. LCD is just useless when it comes to blacks. TN, VA, IPS, doesn't matter. As far as blacks go, IPS is the worst due to IPS glow. Any darkish gray it would be capable of reproducing at best, gets turned to light gray due to this stupid downside. Having a large 27" screen only makes it worse.

You can choose between fast TN with useless angles, slow VA with gamma angle shift and nice bright picture angles IPS with terrible off center glow (not even off center if it's larger screen), and pisspoor blacks with all of them.
 
uluvbs said:
Megalith,
I just got the VP2365 after researching monitors for literally 4 weeks. I debated between IPS and AMVA and am not sure if this was the best option. I wanted excellent image quality more so than 270 degrees of viewing angle. :D

I think the reason for blacks not truly appearing black is because of the back lighting. It does get better if you turn down the brightness to next to nil, but you will still see what appears to be black with this transparent white layer superimposed on top.

-1- Out of curiosity: how is your AG coating? Mine is definitely soft, but not quite as soft as I would like it to be. I am sensitive to this, though.

-2- Also, when you go to http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php, can you see all the black squares in the top row?

Thank you.
Click to expand...

The AG coating seems to be very light, though I'm basing this more on the opinions of reviewers, as AG has never bothered me. I use a Dell U2311H, which supposedly has the heavy coating that everyone loathes, but I have no issues with it.

On the lagom site, I can make out the black squares, though the difference between the first and second square is practically imperceivable.

I have the brightness on my display turned down to 20 and the black levels are still bad. It's sad how the TN panel I replaced has much better black levels, though it crushed most of the shadow detail.
 
Haha! IPS contrast levels...so bad...

I think I've gone through 3 IPS monitors now in hopes that they'd get better but they never do. I just went back to using a CRT (about to get a Sony FW900) and just simply couldn't be happier. Sure its big and heavy, but I don't carry my monitor with me everywhere I go and I have a large desk, so neither of these drawbacks bother me in the least.

Other than that I love my current CRT. Playing games @ 2048x1536 all while having beautiful deep inky blacks and robust true to life colors all with perfect viewing angles makes this the best monitor I've ever owned. With a FW900 it's only bound to get better.

Sure CRT's are older and what not, but if you can get a good one and don't mind the space it can take up then it's the ONLY choice to go with in my opinion...especially for gaming and movies where black levels are oh so important. Playing games like Tomb Raider and Dead Space 3 on this monitor make me truly appreciate what it's like to have such awesome contrast.

I think those that say that IPS is "fine" either don't know what good picture quality is, don't care, or don't want to admit that IPS sucks ass.
 
NCX said:
With the lights on semi-glossy displays have the best perceived black levels followed by glossy/Samsung Ultra Clear panel displays IMO.
Click to expand...

Yes. I agree. Quite impressive depending on the source. Even sunlight nets great perceived blacks. Almost velvety. I had a U2311H with 890:1 and its aggressive AG did not nearly have the impact the semi-gloss does.
 
JoeUser said:
I think those that say that IPS is "fine" either don't know what good picture quality is, don't care, or don't want to admit that IPS sucks ass.
Click to expand...

This statement is ridiculous. There are tons of professionals using high end IPS panel monitors for work published in print ads and for grading films and television we see every day. Granted, some of these monitors will easily run you $2500. The fact remains, there are plenty of pros who trust and use them every day for work that requires outstanding precision.
 
Bought myself a very nice LG 27EA83 10bit AH IPS panel $1100. Guess what. Got a very nice yellow tint/bleed bottom left corner for trusting IPS technology. WTF!!! sent it back paying for shipping costs as a bonus.

JoeUser's right IPS sux. I must talk with francis about IPS LOL.
 
rtangwai said:
The only technology that will get a perfect "black" level is OLED since it doesn't require a backlight at all. Everything else has some sort of backlighting which limits how well black can look.
Click to expand...

Exactly what he said
 
kundica said:
This statement is ridiculous. There are tons of professionals using high end IPS panel monitors for work published in print ads and for grading films and television we see every day. Granted, some of these monitors will easily run you $2500. The fact remains, there are plenty of pros who trust and use them every day for work that requires outstanding precision.
Click to expand...

I doubt there are many people *HERE* that will pay $2500 for an IPS panel, just like there are VERY few people here who will pay $2500 for a single video card for gaming. Yes, the filthy rich people do exist, and to them, $2500 is nothing but freaking $2500 can buy you an (admittedly cheap) car, for crying out loud, or a FULLY complete system, including a good sound system...

That being said, no LCD panels can match the perfect color reproduction (including blacks) of a CRT. And yes, a decent, well maintained and configured CRT will completely destroy a LCD/IPS/LED in all ways except size and weight. Not until LCD's STOP being backlit and actually have a display that reproduces brightness/darkness per pixel will we have that type of reproduction. We'll see what OLED tech brings to the table....

In LCD's defense, you don't have to worry about geometry or pincushion issues. Reading super sharp text on a decent LCD is VERY refreshing compared to slightly out of focus worn CRTs. But response times (when we can have 60 fps@60hz glass smooth like a CRT is when we know we're there; Lightboost can't do it yet), imperfect color reproduction, backlight bleed/glow and bad blacks will always be an issue on the lower consumer end for the forseeable future. And the first mass market PC compatible OLED displays are NOT going to be cheap....
 
CRTs are far from perfect, but I find their drawbacks much easier ti cope with than LCD's. I would only notice geometry imperfections for the first couple of hours, but I cringe every time I sit in front of an LCD. And I can't help the feeling that my current 27" IPS is a downgrade from the 24" MVA I had. Both higher end. IPS glow is just killing me.
 
kundica said:
This statement is ridiculous. There are tons of professionals using high end IPS panel monitors for work published in print ads and for grading films and television we see every day.
Click to expand...

Yeah no. Real professionals grade using plasmas and projectors. Atleast in our work. We do have some LCD's here and there but they are only for checking scopes. We also still have some CRT's around.
 
Meeho said:
CRTs are far from perfect, but I find their drawbacks much easier ti cope with than LCD's. I would only notice geometry imperfections for the first couple of hours, but I cringe every time I sit in front of an LCD. And I can't help the feeling that my current 27" IPS is a downgrade from the 24" MVA I had. Both higher end. IPS glow is just killing me.
Click to expand...

What higher end MVA was that? Most Eizo/NEC VAs are S-PVA or perhaps C-PVA.

As for CRT vs LCD, most of the comparisons are sort of moot, as the majority of people can't get a good condition CRT anymore. It's like saying how great your 'off the factory floor' Model T ran ... great, but nobody can get them new nowadays.

I do think some people exaggerate their benefits a bit too, or overlook their faults, as has been noted. The main thing I noticed (I had a higher end NEC CRT about a year ago) is the fact that text is pretty awful in general. Even the worst LCDs for text (for argument's sake, let's say S-PVA due to pixel structure), are quite a bit sharper than super high end CRTs. For photography, gaming or watching movies, CRTs would be great. For computer stuff that requires text, they were lousy.
 
Meeho said:
IPS glow is just killing me.
Click to expand...

IPS glow? I'd like to get an idea how everyone is actually determining this and defining. It was always off angle viewing and loss of contrast ratio and black level in the form of a purple hue or whitish hue when viewed. What the ATW polarizer helps lessen. It had nothing to do with backlight bleeding or manufacturing defects. I just can't believe so many people are complaining because they constantly view their display's from above and off angle left or right. Who does that? Maybe I should start a topic/poll. Apologies for crashing this one but it is somewhat on topic. IPS glow should "kill" the person next to you looking over your shoulder or standing over you at an angle not the person directly in front of the display as that would elicit zero "IPS glow".
 
plasma or a few high end zone lit VA LCD tv's are best for movies (black levels and detail-in blacks). Several tradeoffs, but 60hz input alone makes them a poor choice for gaming imo.
.
IPS for highest ppi and color, gorgeous still imagery, desktop and app use. Most are 60hz input. Suffer FoV motion blur badly. Many have higher response times, some have scalers and input lag. 60hz alone makes them a bad choice for gaming imo.
.
lightboost2 TN's at 100hz&100fps+ or 120hz&120fps+ for zero motion blur lcd gaming (with greatly increased motion tracking and smoothness of motion due to many more action "slices" shown per second as well.). - for gaming

Alternately 120hz - 144hz non lightboost TN (or limited supply and highly priced korean "overclockable" 27" 2560x1440 120hz - 133hz IPS.. last I looked OOS and listed at $720!) for only a reduction of blur by around half as much as a 60hz. Still have the increased motion tracking benefit of higher hz - for gaming

crt - (fw900 professional crt) - for zero blur gaming and superior black levels, good color. Suffer geometry issues, sensitive to electric supply imperfections/fluctuations. Suffer fading/blooming, misc. anomalies/abberations with age. Require about a half hour to warm up to full contrast,saturation, and focus. Bulky, require some (considerable) knowledge and even getting under the hood to tweak/calibrate properly, and tweak to maintain. Can be a ticking time bomb in some respects.


I think the lightboost2 1ms backlight monitors you can get for under $300 + a nvidia 680 or better are the way to go for zero blur, 100hz+ motion tracking/smoothness gaming currently. You can get a korean 2560x1440 60hz ips for $350 or less for all things desktop alongside it (ppi, color, real-esate), and keep movie watching with superior black levels and detail-in-blacks to a VA or plasma TV.

There are some dark pc games but the tradeoffs are what they are. Unless you want to mess around with a refurb fw900 crt I don't feel any of the displays worth gaming on, considering the other more considerable tradeoffs, would supply superior black levels / detail-in-blacks.
 
maarek99 said:
Yeah no. Real professionals grade using plasmas and projectors. Atleast in our work. We do have some LCD's here and there but they are only for checking scopes. We also still have some CRT's around.
Click to expand...

Tell that to pretty much every professional photographer working today. Yes, films(especially those destined for theater) are mostly graded on projectors, and plasmas are commonly used as reference monitors. However, both of these come with their drawbacks as it's necessary to recalibrate them quite often, especially plasmas with their drift(CRTs drift too btw). Many post houses, commercial production, etc., use LCD panels like the HP Dreamcolor, Flanders Scientific, or Ikegamis to do their work. Heck, even one of the arguably best grading monitors out there, the Dolby, is LCD/LED. Granted, these aren't all IPS monitors, but they are LCD. Also, people tend to grade video with more than one reference, or at least I'd hope so.

My point isn't to say that LCD, or more specifically IPS, is better than CRT. CRT was a great technology for the time, and still holds its own in many ways(black point), against newer technology. Namelessme really hits it on the head, though, to argue that these comparisons are sort of moot. CRT is a thing of the past. Companies no longer sell them, and good luck getting one replaced/serviced. And yes, there are IPS panels out there that deliver professional results. There's a reason why the professional photography/video world has established sets of standards to adhere to.
 
Namelessme said:
What higher end MVA was that? Most Eizo/NEC VAs are S-PVA or perhaps C-PVA.
Click to expand...

NEC 24wmgx3

I do think some people exaggerate their benefits a bit too, or overlook their faults, as has been noted. The main thing I noticed (I had a higher end NEC CRT about a year ago) is the fact that text is pretty awful in general. Even the worst LCDs for text (for argument's sake, let's say S-PVA due to pixel structure), are quite a bit sharper than super high end CRTs. For photography, gaming or watching movies, CRTs would be great. For computer stuff that requires text, they were lousy.
Click to expand...

Not always. While my CRTs weren't/aren't as sharp, they were much easier to work with, as LCD's PWM causes many problems after longer use. So reading is actually better on CRTs in some cases.

der_bothaus said:
IPS glow? I'd like to get an idea how everyone is actually determining this and defining. It was always off angle viewing and loss of contrast ratio and black level in the form of a purple hue or whitish hue when viewed. What the ATW polarizer helps lessen. It had nothing to do with backlight bleeding or manufacturing defects. I just can't believe so many people are complaining because they constantly view their display's from above and off angle left or right. Who does that? Maybe I should start a topic/poll. Apologies for crashing this one but it is somewhat on topic. IPS glow should "kill" the person next to you looking over your shoulder or standing over you at an angle not the person directly in front of the display as that would elicit zero "IPS glow".
Click to expand...

Yeah, you would think so, and so did I. But it is not the case when you have a large screen like my 27" as it is a problem even when you are dead center and close (not too close, mind you). And I know the difference between IPS glow and backlight bleed. A-TW polarizer was just for that, but they aren't using them anymore for some reason.
 
Meeho said:
A-TW polarizer was just for that, but they aren't using them anymore for some reason.
Click to expand...

Cost. They can be had in display's still if you want to spend $1500.00+. The 24" NEC was the cheapest I have seen with it.
 
Namelessme said:
What higher end MVA was that? Most Eizo/NEC VAs are S-PVA or perhaps C-PVA.

As for CRT vs LCD, most of the comparisons are sort of moot, as the majority of people can't get a good condition CRT anymore. It's like saying how great your 'off the factory floor' Model T ran ... great, but nobody can get them new nowadays.

I do think some people exaggerate their benefits a bit too, or overlook their faults, as has been noted. The main thing I noticed (I had a higher end NEC CRT about a year ago) is the fact that text is pretty awful in general. Even the worst LCDs for text (for argument's sake, let's say S-PVA due to pixel structure), are quite a bit sharper than super high end CRTs. For photography, gaming or watching movies, CRTs would be great. For computer stuff that requires text, they were lousy.
Click to expand...

Text is actually quite good on a well focused CRT set to an appropriate resolution relative to its dot pitch.

Though LCD is superior in that regard.

In any case, I'm afraid the Model T comment is apt. A shame really...
 
IPS benefits and drawbacks are down to it's core wire configuration at the cell level. The benefit of it's multi connected cell is extremely precise shuttering, which gives you what you would call "super accurate color" and yet it also leads to a small amount of light leakage based on the resulting cell shape and size (very tiny here) that lead to slightly higher black levels than you see with TN, which can shutter more completely closed (by a tiny fraction). Put a few million cells together and those microscopic differences begin to influence your display.

*VA was better in this regard, but color was more of a struggle. The marketplace eventually dictated which it preferred, and *VA is not in as many models as it used to be. Even OLED will have design tradeoffs, don't think it is some panacea. OLED's big issue is the burn rate at which the materials degrade. Exposure to the environment worsens the burn rate further. But even fully sealed, the materials degrade, and even more fun, each base color degrades at a different rate. LG's approach is to avoid this by using OLED as just the pinpoint light source (white or a variation) that combined with the right pigmented color filter gives you a picture. Problem is the same base issue, all OLED phosphors have burn rates, including white. So suppose you have pictures that appear as white a lot in just one location of the screen vs another. You can probably guess, that over a few years of use, that can lead to color variation. That's why even LG's method isn't perfect.

Anyway, the reasons IPS "wins" is for superb color accuracy. The price to pay the piper is that the black levels can be "good" but not "superb". And for some people who were used to the reverse, so-so color but excellent black levels, the image can be frustrating. You really have to come to the IPS buying decision knowing what you are getting (yes I have one). One thing that actually helps is a tighter matrix (like the 27" 2560x1440 panels we have now, but even more the 4K panels that will come in the future). That tighter matrix tightens the microscopic spacing making for lower black levels. Are they perfect? Nope. But by the time we get to 4K monitors and super tight spacing, the contrast levels for IPS are going to be good enough that most won't care.
 
Anemone said:
One thing that actually helps is a tighter matrix (like the 27" 2560x1440 panels we have now, but even more the 4K panels that will come in the future). That tighter matrix tightens the microscopic spacing making for lower black levels. Are they perfect? Nope. But by the time we get to 4K monitors and super tight spacing, the contrast levels for IPS are going to be good enough that most won't care.
Click to expand...

Not that I am saying you are wrong, but it is odd how 1440p panels don't really have higher levels of contrast than lower res IPS panels. Unless you just meant it'd be a very minor boost, then panel variability could come into play, so a minor improvement wouldn't really show up in calibrated levels that often.

The highest contrast IPS models reported here have actually been the 27"ers at 1080p, not 1440p. And it beats me as to why that is.
 
Actually if you compare the 1440 to the 1600 you will notice the improvement (27 to 30). And yes I did mean for this to be a pretty minor improvement (from a tighter matrix). I'm expecting the 4K boost will also bump things up another 15-20%, which again will barely push things over 1000:1

It seems funny that the *VA panels were doubling this figure - albeit with all the detractions they bring to table of course.
 
der_bothaus said:
Cost. They can be had in display's still if you want to spend $1500.00+. The 24" NEC was the cheapest I have seen with it.
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's a cost issue anymore. The Kindle Fire HD has an A-TW polarizer now.
 
elvn said:
plasma or a few high end zone lit VA LCD tv's are best for movies (black levels and detail-in blacks). Several tradeoffs, but 60hz input alone makes them a poor choice for gaming imo.
Click to expand...

The nice thing about Plasma is even at 60hz they display motion while maintaining details far better than a PC LCD.

Whenever I play PC games on the plasma @ 60fps it feels a lot like gaming on a CRT.
 
steal said:
I don't know if it's a cost issue anymore. The Kindle Fire HD has an A-TW polarizer now.
Click to expand...

Size issue then? They just always are on really expensive models. If they were cheap why is there so little proliferation? It would be awesome on every IPS. Companies could easily best their competition by using them on lesser priced display's imo.
 
der_bothaus said:
Size issue then? They just always are on really expensive models. If they were cheap why is there so little proliferation? It would be awesome on every IPS. Companies could easily best their competition by using them on lesser priced display's imo.
Click to expand...

I've wondered this too. It could be a size issue, but maybe not.

The same question could be asked as to why aren't the majority of monitors PWM free nowadays? I recall an article where the BenQ president (or CEO, or whatever is is) saying it's basically a trivial expense to make monitors PWM free.

So perhaps it's more a marketing reason. If you say a certain monitor has an A-TW polarizer and great angles with no glow, it infers that every other monitor in their lineup has bad angles and glows. Same with PWM free .... if one has no flicker, does that mean every other monitor they sell has flicker?

I'd like to see a company just buckle down and make the majority of their IPS lineup both PWM free and use the A-TW polarizer. It may add a bit of expense, but it would certainly be a way to differentiate themselves from the million other companies selling the same exact panels that they are. And I have a feeling it's not quite as expensive to add as we may think it is.
 
mathesar said:
The nice thing about Plasma is even at 60hz they display motion while maintaining details far better than a PC LCD.

Whenever I play PC games on the plasma @ 60fps it feels a lot like gaming on a CRT.
Click to expand...

Plasma strobes the backlight 10x per hz or uses FFD, however you want to describe it - its strobing a 60hz input.
Some people recently discovered that you can enable lightboost2 backlight strobing on lightboost2 1ms backlight 3D TN monitors, in 2D mode. At 100hz&100fps+ or 120hz&120+fps (LB2 currently enabled only using a nvidia card), this results in zero blur like a crt.

60hz on LCD is a very blurry mess "outside of the lines" on the entire viewport during FoV movement. Washing out all high object detail, all texture detail, depth via bump-mapping, other shaders, etc.. and of course any lettering/text.

120hz and higher are around "half as much blur" as 60hz lcd, blur I compare to a soften-blur more within the lines of onscreen objects, but it still blurs out all object and texture detail, shaders, lettering/text. The higher hz also has the advantage of much more accurate and smooth feeling/looking motion tracking at very high fps "filling" each hz (not to be confused with blur reduction). Many more recent action slices shown per second, many more *unique* "dots per dotted line length" per se.

100hz&100fps+ or 120hz&120+fps Lightboost2 1ms backlight strobing sync'd in 2D mode has zero motion blur , still maintains the advantage of much more accurate and smooth feeling/looking motion tracking at very high fps, "filling" each hz with more recent action data slices.
This is the main lightboost2 thread:.
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1734114

Plasma is better than 60hz lcd blur, and of course plasma has great black levels -- but there is much better motion available now for pc gaming. Plasma being limited to 60hz input of motion tracking and smoothness alone makes it an inferior choice for modern pc gaming imo. Anything compared to zero blur is a poor prescription for eyesight/FoV-moving viewports in my opinion too. Plasma's screen sizes and ppi, among other possible concerns/tradeoffs, also make them a poor choice.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top