![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
27" 240hz OLED Monitor!!! (but there's a catch...)
- Thread starter madpistol
- Start date
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,459
Stryker7314
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
- Messages
- 867
I'm in, I don't think the 2k to 4k jump did much for me, I would take the motion clarity any day
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 29,642
That's when you run the old game at 1080p and pixel double it to 4k if it's that old.
This monitor would be perfect if only it were 4k
. So close.... So very close...Not surprised. People should be realistic about their expectations.
Current Samsung QD Oled and LG W-OLED can only reach ~105 PPI. Suitable for 42‘ 4K, 34‘ UWQHD or 27‘ QHD.
Samsung also has other Oled tech used in laptop and mobile that can reach higher PPI , but their process seems to be limited to screen sizes of ~16 inches.
That leaves JOLED which does have 27 inch 4K Oled panels, but they are un-competative as their process yield is not mass market viable.
Also, given the general stagnant economic outlook for 2023 and much higher interest rates every where, the massive flop of 8K display products, Expect manufactures to limit investments to bring higher PPI devices to market.
One of the reasons why 42 4K exists was due to the 80+ 8K market. Unless we see smaller 8K TV’s in future. don’t expect smaller 4K Oleds!
I would expect to see a 50’ UW4K before a 32’ 4K 27’ 4K OLED.
Current Samsung QD Oled and LG W-OLED can only reach ~105 PPI. Suitable for 42‘ 4K, 34‘ UWQHD or 27‘ QHD.
Samsung also has other Oled tech used in laptop and mobile that can reach higher PPI , but their process seems to be limited to screen sizes of ~16 inches.
That leaves JOLED which does have 27 inch 4K Oled panels, but they are un-competative as their process yield is not mass market viable.
Also, given the general stagnant economic outlook for 2023 and much higher interest rates every where, the massive flop of 8K display products, Expect manufactures to limit investments to bring higher PPI devices to market.
One of the reasons why 42 4K exists was due to the 80+ 8K market. Unless we see smaller 8K TV’s in future. don’t expect smaller 4K Oleds!
I would expect to see a 50’ UW4K before a 32’ 4K 27’ 4K OLED.
Sounds about right.
A really good thing for LG would be to just push the 4K 42" models to 240 Hz which would be possible with HDMI 2.1 using DSC 2x compression. If it can do 1440p 240 Hz with the same panel tech then it should not be impossible to do that in 4K too. Fixed curved model at way less money than the LG Flex would also be preferable.
However at this point I am fully expecting more from Samsung. Their panel roadmaps are the only ones that TFT Central has not been able to get so we are just basing things on rumors. I think it would be an interesting twist if their 8K x 2K super ultrawide is using QD-OLED instead of LCD. I don't think that will happen though.
cesarioFL71
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2021
- Messages
- 364
We pc nerds are such a fickle lot! Way back in 2005 when Mathesar started ye ole FW900 thread all you heard was "can't wait until OLED". Well it's here in small form factor for your desk. Yet, still we are not satisfied. If this monitor had released immediately after the shutdown of crt production, it would be hailed as the savior of all from the spectre of IPS glow, TN rainbows and greyish blacks.
Because they can't release the perfect monitor. There is always something missing.
Technology advances. I don't think in 2005 anyone could have predicted where we are now. I felt like for a long time there was almost no advancement in displays and now feel like we are at the cusp of much bigger leaps: better mini-LED HDR, higher refresh rates, smaller OLED options...
Personally I have zero interest in anything that is 1080p and 1440p anymore. Those resolutions belong on laptops, smartphones and portable displays, not big desktop models. 1440p OLED is too little too late.
cesarioFL71
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2021
- Messages
- 364
Agreed, but we are still the most fickle, entitled people I've had the privilege to be a part of!
as a FW900 CRT current user and still prefiering it to play any type of gaming content, either retro or modern gaming, i disagree, this CRT preference has nothing to do with OLED monitors not releasing righ after the final days of CRT prodution that people like me still prefer CRTs for overall gaming.
modern display poor quality motion bluring ruins the inmersion of games to my likes and unfortunately there have been rather poor Technology advances in motion quality on modern displays, sadly this new upcoming OLED monitor dont seems to be the exception of this trend, so far i have not find any information about motion clarity tech on this OLED (BFI or things like that), by the way, BFI is still to flawled on modern monitors, even OLEDs that support it.... you know, badly reducing brightness, introducing other motion artifacts, more intence flicker, only producing decent motion quality results comparabel to CRTs when using rather high refresh rates and hence requiering powerfull systems to achieve such constant high fps compared to a CRT monitor like a FW900 and CRT monitors in general that i see hardly this one as well to be as complete and flexible like something like The FW900, to motivate me finaly let go my CRT monitor to finaly replace them for anything like this.
sadly this OLED seems to be another poor quality motion of the bunch, (well, unless one buy a couple of powerfull and expensive GPUs, SLI-crossfire them to be able to play games at its 240hz -240 constant fps and that way can play them with minimal motion bluring, almost CRT like life motion clarity.
cesarioFL71
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2021
- Messages
- 364
Surely there would be outliers and holdouts such as yourself regardless of what monitor tech came after. My post was addressing the vast majority of people who'd already begun transitioning from " the glass" to panel.
Motion clarity is just as important as HDR/contrast performance to me except the perceived gap between a CRT vs a 240hz OLED in motion clarity is tiny relative to the massive gulf in general picture quality so it's an acceptable trade off for my use case.
It's great to have clear motion but what does it matter when it looks like ass at all times.
If all I played were retro side scrollers like I was trapped in the 80/90's, CRT all the way but as a all rounder for all flavors of games/media/desktop, I'd take the 32" 4K version of this coming all day.
It's great to have clear motion but what does it matter when it looks like ass at all times.
If all I played were retro side scrollers like I was trapped in the 80/90's, CRT all the way but as a all rounder for all flavors of games/media/desktop, I'd take the 32" 4K version of this coming all day.
cesarioFL71
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2021
- Messages
- 364
Hey man...crt does not look like ass!Stryker7314
Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2011
- Messages
- 867
I agree with the motion clarity being absent for 2 decades. But like you said, if you throw enough money at this monitor the hardware will hold 240fps and meet the 240hz, there's also reducing settings that are not visually perceptable to be able to maintain fps which I know is not the most popular option. I look forward to testing motion with these new 240hz oled displays. If nothing else it's a step in the right direction and a fun toy like the rest of this hobby.
Wen release
Last edited:
whateverer
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2016
- Messages
- 1,815
I think the dpi of 1440p at 27 inch is fine
on the plus side, this should lower the 120 hz models to well-below $500
on the plus side, this should lower the 120 hz models to well-below $500
Chief Blur Buster
Owner of BlurBusters
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2017
- Messages
- 430
240 Hz OLEDs have roughly the same motion clarity as a 360 Hz IPS LCD, so you get more clarity per Hz thanks to the virtually instant GtG. Nearly all motion blur is only MPRT, persistence-based (4.2ms persistence).
We still need more refresh rate over the long term, but this is a big step for OLED!
Also, this three-figure price is surprisingly decent for a 240Hz 16:9 OLED debut, considering the costs of these contrast ratios (FALD via MiniLED) in different panel technologies. At this price point, it likely will be a very popular monitor once it comes out in quantities.
We still need more refresh rate over the long term, but this is a big step for OLED!
Also, this three-figure price is surprisingly decent for a 240Hz 16:9 OLED debut, considering the costs of these contrast ratios (FALD via MiniLED) in different panel technologies. At this price point, it likely will be a very popular monitor once it comes out in quantities.
Last edited:
Furious_Styles
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 4,515
Yeah I wonder when you will actually be able to buy one. I'm guessing 1Q '23?
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,459
If it's 4K then they'll just drop the refresh rate back down to around 120Hz and we'll end up waiting years longer to get 32" 4K and 240Hz all in a single package.
WOLED panel can handle 240Hz. They may need DP 2.0 or higher though.
4K 240 Hz is doable over both DP 1.4 and HDMI 2.1 using DSC.
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,459
It can. Doesn't mean they will because monitor makers know exactly what we want and won't give it to us lol.
Chief Blur Buster
Owner of BlurBusters
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2017
- Messages
- 430
This demo impressed me greatly: Frame Rate Independent Mouselook
If UE5 and similar engines adds supports for reprojection technology (normally a VR technology), then 4K 1000fps is actually reachable on today's 4000-series GPUs. I was able to reproject 1440p 30fps to 1440p 280fps in an experiment using only ~10-20% extra of a Razer laptop RTX 2080 CPU. Though the demo has simple polygons, the reprojection step is actually fairly scene-detail independent, so could be done on any detail content.
This technology has the potential to make ultra-high-Hz OLEDs much more useful. I am gigantically excited about the potential, and plan to write articles highlighting the need for adding reprojection to existing frame rate amplification technologies (e.g. DLSS) for 10:1 framerate-increase ratios.
Reprojection needs to be brought out of VR-only use cases, and onto the desktop gaming monitor.
Or 1080p 1000Hz! Some actually want that more than the 240Hz.
But, even better, 4K 1000Hz.
Thanks to fast GtG, motion blur scales linearly, so 4K 1000Hz will have 4x less motion blur than 4K 240Hz.
At 1000Hz, fast motion such as 4000 pixels/sec motion would have only 4 pixels of motion blur.
Last edited:
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,459
How close would a 240Hz BFI OLED would look compared to 1000Hz sample and hold OLED? Although I'm 99% sure this monitor won't have any BFI at all. Shame because 240Hz BFI OLED sounds like the dream for motion clarity with current technology.
Chief Blur Buster
Owner of BlurBusters
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2017
- Messages
- 430
Depends on pulse width. It's all about MPRT.How close would a 240Hz BFI OLED would look compared to 1000Hz sample and hold OLED? Although I'm 99% sure this monitor won't have any BFI at all. Shame because 240Hz BFI OLED sounds like the dream for motion clarity with current technology.
Motion blur is linked to pixel visibility time of a frame.
Assuming framerate=Hz and GtG=0 this is Blur Busters Law:
1ms of pixel visibility time translates to 1 pixel of motion blur per 1000 pixels/sec.
Motion blur of strobed = pulse width in milliseconds
Motion blur of nonstrobed = refreshtime in milliseconds
Strobed: Pulse width defined as squarewave, from leading edge to trailing edge, completely ON to completely OFF with no fade or decay transition.*
Nonstrobed: Refreshtime defined as the instantaneous change of a pixel from one refresh cycle to the next refresh cycle.
*IMPORTANT: Soft fades can be better for lower refresh rates (CRT like), however, I'm keeping math simple for apples-vs-apples blur mathematics of OLEDs which do not have phosphor-fade-simulator transistors at their pixels, and always resemble squarewave GtG regardless of BFI or non-BFI. And as always, the blur math suddenly becomes elementary-school-league whenever framerate=Hz and GtG=0, and becomes easier to explain. That's why OLED motion blur is much easier to easy to explain and compare for BFI and non-BFI.
So strobing at 2 milliseconds per flash will have more motion blur than 1000fps 1000Hz sample hold. (1ms MPRT)
So strobing at 0.5 milliseconds per flash will have less motion blur than 1000fps 1000Hz sample hold. (1ms MPRT)
Also brightness is a problem. Currently (for now, at this time), most LCDs can strobe the same MPRT more brightly than OLED can. In other words the lumens:persistence ratio currently favours LCD (especially if the LCD has massively unlocked pulse widths). So for a given motion blur, current LCD is brighter than the current OLED for the same motion blur persistence (strobe pulse width). However, the extremely colorful quality of OLEDs is sometimes preferred by some people, over motion blur -- so it is a highly preference-based matter.
At low resolutions (e.g. 1080p), it is hard to see except at fast motion speeds, like TestUFO Panning Map at 3000 pixels/sec -- www.testufo.com/map#pps=3000
You can see for yourself on adjustable-persistence strobed LCDs:
- NVIDIA ULMB, via monitor menu "ULMB Pulse Width"
- BenQ DyAc, via Strobe Utility or Factory Menu "Pulse Width"
- PureXP, via PureXP setting.
- Some models have less/more adjustability (e.g. 3 settings, vs a continuum 0%...100% setting).
Adjust the pulse width of your specific strobed LCD to adjust your MPRT above/below the 1ms threshold. At 1ms MPRT, the street labels are not readable at 3000 pixels/sec -- This is because 3 pixels of motion blur obscures the tiny 6-point text. You need to lower MPRT to 0.5ms MPRT to sufficiently sharpen up the text to readability during that panning speed.
The best strobed monitors completely unlock the pulse width, to let you choose your brightness:persistence tradeoff fully (e.g. 40x-100x difference between minimum nits and maximum nits), while also using tricks such as QFT to reduce strobe crosstalk to zero.
Currently, unfortunately (when solely focussing on motion resolution), LCD strobe backlights massively beats the best OLEDs in motion clarity/resolution by more than an order of magnitude (even in brightness-vs-pulsewidth tradeoff ratios too!).
Although I absolutely adore OLEDs and their benefits, OLEDs are not as adjustable-persistence (yet) as LCDs are, and usually only in granular steps (e.g. 4ms MPRT steps) rather than ultrafine steps (0.05ms MPRT steps). I hope this will change eventually, but often there are OLED backplane limitations preventing adjustable rolling-scan pulses.
Higher Resolutions Amplify Persistence (MPRT) Visibility --> aka Sample & Hold Blur
In other words, "Why is 120Hz is easier to tell on a 4K sample-and-hold display than a 1280x720 sample-and-hold display?"
As resolutions get higher, it becomes easier and easier to see lower and lower MPRTs.
This is a thought exercise on what Blur Busters call the Vicious Cycle Effect -- the higher the resolution, the easier to tell MPRT difference apart. You can quickly glance and read one street label especially if the display has enough pixels (e.g. 2560x1440) for the text to stay onscreen long enough for you to read the street name label. That's why higher resolutions amplify refresh rate (and MPRT limitations) -- more pixels to motionblur over a higher resolution for longer period before it disappears off the edge of the screen..
OLED attributes really shines at 4ms full-brightness persistence with HDR
However, the package deal of 240fps 240Hz OLED is astoundingly fantastic, given its linear followance of Blur Busters Law (which becomes more exact the closer GtG=0).
With virtually perfect blacks, great HDR behaviors, and fantastic DCI-P3 gamut colors, the extra motion blur is only a much more mild inconvenience (for some). However, some of us motion clarity purists will continue to endeavour better than 240fps 240Hz (for sample-and-hold), or better than 4ms pulsed OLED (for BFI). Nontheless a 3-figure priced 240Hz OLED is a much welcome entrant to the market and needs to be mass commercialized to help more average users get used to the benefits of brute framerate-based motion blur reduction...
I am guessing, but probably initial implementations of all 240Hz OLEDs by all manufacturers will not have BFI yet, since the manufacturers are all universally focussed on the brute refresh rate and finding ways to reduce OLED latency, which is a higher priority for them first, due to the esports market. However, remember this is perfect-blacks DCI-P3 color gamut with likely HDR behaviors (at least DisplayHDR 400 "Black" or better, which is actually a real thing, unlike the useless watered-down DisplayHDR 400 for HDR-faking LCDs).
BFI-less 4ms persistence at full HDR OLED brightness is still a stunning stepping stone. The full nit leagues.
As the world's purest-behaving sample-and-hold technology available for 2023, such a massive upgrade (over LCD attributes) is kind of a "perhaps I can tolerate XX% less MPRT to get these benefits" decision matter, at least as an interim monitor before a 4K 1000Hz OLED/MicroLED.
Last edited:
It’s a 240hz OLED monitor. Not a chance (starting out).
MistaSparkul
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 3,459
Eventually it will be. Just give it some time.
Chief Blur Buster
Owner of BlurBusters
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2017
- Messages
- 430
Yes, eventually (a few years down the road).
But...
IF (240hz AND oled AND 1440p) THEN it's a excellent debut price for a more affordable desktop OLED monitor, the next cheapest was the Asus ProArt OLED at several thousand dollars.
I still remember my parents paying THIS much (inflation adjusted) for a 27" CRT TV back in the Nintendo / VHS days. And that's a much cheaper debut than the first color LCD monitors, the first color plasma TV, etc.
Quantities is roughly 1/1000th the quantities of OLED televisions manufactured, so they can't just quite yet get the scale of economies of OLED TVs.
It is a tough market for desktop monitors when most average users are buying screens via televisions, laptops and mobiles nowadays.
Last edited:
Holy shit. When the pg32uqx was like $2500 or whatever the hell this is insane. This is the exact dream monitor for me. Not gigantic, not two thousand dollars, man that's exciting. 1k on a gaming monitor is a ton but mannnnnnn that's tempting as fuck!
jbltecnicspro
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 9,522
Please let this have BFI, please let this have BFI, PLEASE!!!
Chief Blur Buster
Owner of BlurBusters
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2017
- Messages
- 430
AFAIK, none of the first 240Hz OLED panels from any manufacturer will yet have BFI yet in first versions. Just to temper expectations. I hope to be proven wrong. But at DisplayWeek 2022 I had asked a few about it at the public booths -- and such features was not initially planned.Please let this have BFI, please let this have BFI, PLEASE!!!
But neither did the first 120 Hz LCD (Samsung 2233rz and Acer VG236H circa 2009)
Nor did the first 240 Hz LCD (AOC AG251FZ circa 2016)
Par for the course, unfortunately, even for LCD.
I imagine it will come eventually afterwards (especially upon disappointment by a few & demand), given the LG TVs have BFI.
That being said, software BFI does perform superlatively on OLEDs (software BFI is as good as hardware BFI when it comes to OLEDs). The way OLED behaves is that full-frame software BFI and full-frame hardware BFI has equivalent quality, since they are both identically OLED GtG-driven. Mind you, I'm tempted to BountySource a realtime Windows virtual display driver that BFI's everything you run perfectly.
However, 240fps 240Hz virtually 0ms GtG is stunning enough (roughly as clear as 500fps 500Hz IPS LCD or 360fps 360Hz TN LCD).
It's portending the start of the era of brute framerate-based motion blur reduction becoming a reality -- strobeless motion blur reduction. And the very slow (gradual) beginning of the obscolence of eye-searing strobing. Get your frame rate amplification engines ready!
Last edited:
jbltecnicspro
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 9,522
I mean in this case there's no reason not to. No cross-talk because the panel is self-emissive, and the clarity would be sharp across the board. Yes there's a brightness reduction but those who are using it are already aware of what they're getting themselves into. It's like telling a CRT fan that "hey, they're not all that bright" and we're like "yeah we know". "Hey they're really heavy." "Uh-huh... and?"