G-Sync First Impressions from TR Forums

[Unknown-One]

Whatever panel with no Gsync, a frame must show up exactly on time or else:
X ms early and there is X ms delay before it is displayed. (2 ms late on 60hz panel = 2ms delay)
X ms late and there is panel's refresh period minus X ms delay. (2ms late on 60hz panel = 14.6ms delay)

This is incorrect. A classic panel operating at a fixed refresh rate without G-Sync (and without V-Sync) will display frames as they arrive, with no delay added. It's also not possible to "miss" a refresh in this scenario.

Even if the monitor is in the middle of a refresh (frame is partially draw on-screen), if a new frame becomes ready, it is swapped-in mid-draw. This is what causes tearing, but it also means absolute minimum latency for a given fixed refresh rate.

So a corrected table would look like this:
X ms early and a tear appears. A portion of the previous and new frame are both drawn to the display.
X ms late and a tear appears. A portion of the previous and new frame are both drawn to the display.

GSync solves both of these, at least for a range. Instead of exactly on time it has a range from panels minimum refresh period to 33.2ms where both issues are fixed. If a frame falls outside this range we have exact same problems again.

Which is exactly what I've been saying.

Now, that said, a 60Hz monitor will fall out-of-range more easily. Any frame delivered faster than ~16ms cannot be serviced and must be buffered first. 120Hz and 144Hz monitors will not run into this problem anywhere near as often because frames faster than ~8ms are a relative rarity if you're shooting for 60 FPS average.

And certainly not to the point to claim that GSync REQUIRES a 120/144hz panel, as was said earlier.

Not once in this thread have I said that G-Sync "REQUIRES" 120 or 144Hz.

I said that G-Sync relies on high refresh rates (such as 120 or 144Hz) "in order to operate optimally." It's pretty simple: If the goal of G-Sync is to refresh the monitor exactly in-sync with the arrival of frames, then a monitor that can be refreshed more readily means this goal can be achieved without compromise for a larger number of frames.

I never said it wouldn't work at 60Hz. I only implied that it was a sub-optimal configuration.

 

[bexamous]

This is incorrect. A classic panel operating at a fixed refresh rate without G-Sync (and without V-Sync) will display frames as they arrive, with no delay added. It's also not possible to "miss" a refresh in this scenario.

Even if the monitor is in the middle of a refresh (frame is partially draw on-screen), if a new frame becomes ready, it is swapped-in mid-draw. This is what causes tearing, but it also means absolute minimum latency for a given fixed refresh rate.

So a corrected table would look like this:
X ms early and a tear appears. A portion of the previous and new frame are both drawn to the display.
X ms late and a tear appears. A portion of the previous and new frame are both drawn to the display.

Obviously I am talking about with VSync on.

Not once in this thread have I said that G-Sync "REQUIRES" 120 or 144Hz.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wonderfield View Post
G-Sync doesn't require a 144 Hz display.

Uh... sure about that?

That is you questioning someone who said it was not required. Do you want to argue the definition of require? Work optimally != require.

 

[ShuttleLuv]

Research on what, exactly? I already know how it works and pointed out exactly what I do not like about LightBoost's implementation.


A feature that makes my monitor flicker and decreases the perceived fluidity of motion by doing its best to disable persistence-of-vision is "gaming centric"? You're effectively forcing your monitor to emulate a stroboscope.
Remember when I compared LightBoost to viewing "a series of stills" as apposed to fluid animation? The strobe causes this.

People shouldn't complain that it bothers their eyes? Nobody should try to come up with something better? Get a clue.

Too bad I can see the flicker, which makes it worthless to me. As far as I'm concerned, Lightboost is more of an annoyance than anything else, and I'd much prefer a proper flicker-free dimming circuit be included in my monitors.

I doubt you even have lightboost. But honestly, to each his own. I note a small flicker here and there, but nothing worse than a CRT at 75-85 hz back in the day imo. I prefer the fluidity of motion for gaming and scrolling myself, it's just how I like it. LCD's have been killing my eyes for years. This thing opened them back up. You cannot debate that, my eyes love this monitor. I no longer have double vision and blurred vision from using this as opposed to older LCD's. If you don't like it, then by all means don't use it.

 

[ShuttleLuv]

Not to mention unknown-one, there has been comparisons for almost a year now showing this next to CRT's and all the different lightboost modes. This is the closest emulation of CRT available. It's not perfect, but then again, nothing is.

 

[Unknown-One]

That is you questioning someone who said it was not required. Do you want to argue the definition of require? Work optimally != require.

He said require, I said "Work optimally." Good job

If you had bothered to read the rest of the post where I questioned "Uh... sure about that?", I also said:

As far as I can tell, a display that maxes out at 60Hz would seriously hamper G-Sync.

Again, this is in THE SAME POST that you're trying to make an example of. I imply right there that a monitor capable of only 60Hz would seriously hamper (NOT prevent) G-Syncs operation. In order for it to be hampered it'd have to work in some capacity.

Or would you like to argue the definition of "hamper"? It's usually synonymous with "impedance" or "encumbrance"

 

[bexamous]

He said require, I said "Work optimally." Good job

You quoted that statement and brought question to it because you agreed with it, great.

In any case, I'll say it one last time, frames arriving too soon are far less important as frames arriving too late. GSync basically handles frames arriving too late equally well whether you use 60hz or 120hz panel. While frames arriving faster are better handled by faster panels, it has much less impact on end result. Aka you gain most of the benefits even with 60hz panels. /me done

 

[IdiotInCharge]

...frames arriving too soon are far less important as frames arriving too late. GSync basically handles frames arriving too late equally well whether you use 60hz or 120hz panel. While frames arriving faster are better handled by faster panels, it has much less impact on end result. Aka you gain most of the benefits even with 60hz panels...

I'd agree with this. G-Sync seems to impact most of it's benefit from 30Hz/33.3ms up, with higher refresh rates (or really, display response times) being more beneficial with decreasing returns. Obviously there's some 'optimum' level, and I'm sure 60Hz/16.7ms isn't it, but it's far from hampering the challenges that G-Sync overcomes, which primarily are the syncing of frames from render to display and the elimination of the input lag penalty that using V-Sync would incur.

Of course, one would hope that future G-Sync displays using non-TN panels with >1ms GTG response times will be rated according to their actual pixel transition rates for their fastest frame 'interval', i.e. IPS monitors that could conceivably hit 100Hz allowing for frame-times as low as 10ms. Given that the implementation of G-Sync actually replaces all of the electronics that drive the LCD panel, this should be relatively easy to accomplish.

 

[Unknown-One]

I doubt you even have lightboost.

Uh, it should be blatantly obvious that I don't have a LightBoost monitor. I've JUST been explaining the fact that I hate how LightBoost looks, so why on earth would I buy a LightBoost monitor?

But honestly, to each his own. I note a small flicker here and there, but nothing worse than a CRT at 75-85 hz back in the day imo.

And I can't stand 85Hz on a CRT either. Why would I want to invite one of the worst qualities of CRT monitors (the flicker) back?

I will note that an 85Hz CRT bothers me less than a LightBoost display, though. I imagine it's because Phosphor fades over time, trailing the scan beam (reducing the horrible strobe effect), where as LED backlights are an instant on-off of the whole image.

I prefer the fluidity of motion for gaming and scrolling myself, it's just how I like it.

Then I don't really see how LightBoost helps you...

Every time I've used it, it looks like a series of still images more than fluid motion. The still images are crystal clear, but they don't resolve into smoothly moving objects. It's highly distracting.

It's akin to driving behind someone with those god-awful LED tail lights (which also use PWM for dimming). Looking quickly to the left or right causes the tail lights to break into a trail of snapshots for as long as my vision is panning.

LCD's have been killing my eyes for years. This thing opened them back up. You cannot debate that, my eyes love this monitor. I no longer have double vision and blurred vision from using this as opposed to older LCD's.

Sounds more like you've been experiencing cheap LCD monitors with low-frequency PWM backlights. Those will kill anyone's eyes in a hurry. You'd be prone to seeing double-image effects on high-contrast scenes.

Lightboost is the same thing, though. It just syncs the strobe with the refresh rate of the display. Still flickers, which a properly designed dimming circuit doesn't.

Not to mention unknown-one, there has been comparisons for almost a year now showing this next to CRT's and all the different lightboost modes. This is the closest emulation of CRT available. It's not perfect, but then again, nothing is.

Who says emulating a CRT's flicker is a good thing? If they get the frequency high enough it SHOULD stop bothering my eyes, but I haven't seen a PWM backlight yet that I'd consider flicker-free. Even in LightBoost monitors.

If you can't detect it, great. Some of us can, though. Picking a quality monitor becomes a serious hassle.

For the record, I'm currently running three Dell U2412M displays. They use a PWM backlight, which I am forced to run at at 95% duty cycle (or higher) in order to not see flickering. The Dell U2412M uses a 430Hz backlight. Same issue is present on LightBoost monitors, and the fix is the same (disable LightBoost and turn the brightness of the display up to increase the duty cycle of the PWM dimming circuit)

 

[IdiotInCharge]

G-Sync at 60Hz courtesy of Anand.

I see no reason to think that G-Sync will be anything other than revolutionary, whether on a hyper-gaming oriented 144Hz panel, or on a color-accurate 60Hz IPS panel.

 

[pontiac4life]

On that youtube video I still see stutter on the G-Sync side though

 

[Unknown-One]

G-Sync at 60Hz courtesy of Anand.

I see no reason to think that G-Sync will be anything other than revolutionary, whether on a hyper-gaming oriented 144Hz panel, or on a color-accurate 60Hz IPS panel.

A few things things:

First: How exactly where they able to limit G-Sync to 60 Hz? Is this a panel that maxes out at 60 Hz? Is there some setting to reduce the maximum refresh rate G-Sync is allowed to use? Why would such a setting even exist?

Second: The camera doesn't appear to have been synced to a multiple of the display refresh rate. Both sides of the comparison video show a rhythmic slow-fast-slow-fast-slow-fast undulation that makes it impossible to eyeball a comparison... basically, both sides look bad.

Third: The description of the video notes it's being run at 50% speed. Is 60Hz the original refresh rate, or are they listing the effective refresh rate (50% of 120 = 60)?

Fourth: If it really has been limited to 60Hzs somehow, and the game was running faster than 60 FPS for the entire duration of the test (which is easily do-able with Bioshock Infinite) then both V-Sync and G-Sync are waiting on the monitor. The resultant smoothness with either tech would be identical. Without a live framerate counter we're a bit in the dark.

On that youtube video I still see stutter on the G-Sync side though

It's hard to tell exactly what's wrong with their recording method without a framerate counter somewhere in the video to check against.

 

[pontiac4life]

I even downloaded the video in the highest quality to avoid buffering stutter and I still see the G-Sync side stuttering, not as bad as V-Sync but still there for sure

 

[IdiotInCharge]

The whole video seems to stutter at points, which is hard to evaluate, but just the shear amount of pausing in the V-Sync side, which looks exactly like what I've been seeing in games since the dawn of gaming, makes G-Sync worth it. It's that big of a leap, even at 60Hz.


(And no, I have no idea how this video was set up; it's pretty old, too- maybe ask Anand?)

 

[bexamous]

Nothing good will come of that youtube video, LOL.

 

[ShuttleLuv]

Uh, it should be blatantly obvious that I don't have a LightBoost monitor. I've JUST been explaining the fact that I hate how LightBoost looks, so why on earth would I buy a LightBoost monitor?


And I can't stand 85Hz on a CRT either. Why would I want to invite one of the worst qualities of CRT monitors (the flicker) back?

I will note that an 85Hz CRT bothers me less than a LightBoost display, though. I imagine it's because Phosphor fades over time, trailing the scan beam (reducing the horrible strobe effect), where as LED backlights are an instant on-off of the whole image.


Then I don't really see how LightBoost helps you...

Every time I've used it, it looks like a series of still images more than fluid motion. The still images are crystal clear, but they don't resolve into smoothly moving objects. It's highly distracting.

It's akin to driving behind someone with those god-awful LED tail lights (which also use PWM for dimming). Looking quickly to the left or right causes the tail lights to break into a trail of snapshots for as long as my vision is panning.


Sounds more like you've been experiencing cheap LCD monitors with low-frequency PWM backlights. Those will kill anyone's eyes in a hurry. You'd be prone to seeing double-image effects on high-contrast scenes.

Lightboost is the same thing, though. It just syncs the strobe with the refresh rate of the display. Still flickers, which a properly designed dimming circuit doesn't.


Who says emulating a CRT's flicker is a good thing? If they get the frequency high enough it SHOULD stop bothering my eyes, but I haven't seen a PWM backlight yet that I'd consider flicker-free. Even in LightBoost monitors.

If you can't detect it, great. Some of us can, though. Picking a quality monitor becomes a serious hassle.

For the record, I'm currently running three Dell U2412M displays. They use a PWM backlight, which I am forced to run at at 95% duty cycle (or higher) in order to not see flickering. The Dell U2412M uses a 430Hz backlight. Same issue is present on LightBoost monitors, and the fix is the same (disable LightBoost and turn the brightness of the display up to increase the duty cycle of the PWM dimming circuit)

You just keep arguing like nvidia has you tied up and forced to use the damn thing. Nobody is forcing you to use it, and like I said, you don't even have it. Thats where I end the discussion. Anyone commenting this much on something they don't have doesn't have a clue.

Doesn't matter anyways, the sequel to lightboost (ULMB) is confirmed and included with gsync upgrade kit. http://www.blurbusters.com/lightboost-sequel-ultra-low-motion-blur-ulmb/#comments Better default colors, calibration, and although still somewhat dimmer, just overall better.

 

[Venomous]

It's akin to driving behind someone with those god-awful LED tail lights (which also use PWM for dimming). Looking quickly to the left or right causes the tail lights to break into a trail of snapshots for as long as my vision is panning.

There something wrong with your eyes for you to be complaining about led tail lights. They are the future and Acura is already selling a car with LED headlights. Go see an eye doctor...

 

[ShuttleLuv]

Who says emulating a CRT's flicker is a good thing? If they get the frequency high enough it SHOULD stop bothering my eyes, but I haven't seen a PWM backlight yet that I'd consider flicker-free. Even in LightBoost monitors.

I didn't say it did flicker much, maybe just a bit compared to 100 and up on CRT's.
85 hz was usually the refresh that was kinda baseline back in the CRT days for eye strain.

 

[Unknown-One]

You just keep arguing like nvidia has you tied up and forced to use the damn thing. Nobody is forcing you to use it

I'm simply responding to your posts. And I never said anyone was forcing me to use it... in fact I just told you a moment ago that I was willfully avoiding monitors with the tech because it's worthless to me in its current incarnation. The complete OPPOSITE of saying that I'm in any way being forced to use it.

and like I said, you don't even have it. Thats where I end the discussion.

I don't have it because I've seen it, I've attempted to use it, I know how it works, and I DO NOT WANT IT. I am about as well-informed as can be, because I had to know what to avoid.

Just because I don't have it doesn't mean I'm ignorant or that the issues I've raised are invalid. You cannot use that as a point for dismissal.

Anyone commenting this much on something they don't have doesn't have a clue.

See above, you couldn't be more wrong. I really don't know how you can even say that when I've point-blank explained exactly what LightBoost does and why it bothers my eyes. When something people are lauding as much as LightBoost failed to impress when I tried it in-person, I raised an eyebrow and did my homework.

It's like you're not even reading the posts in this thread...

There something wrong with your eyes for you to be complaining about led tail lights. They are the future and Acura is already selling a car with LED headlights. Go see an eye doctor...

There's nothing wrong with my eyes. It's a well-known effect caused by strobing. Anyone can see it (some people can see it at higher frequencies than others).

If a light is blinking at 60Hz with a 50% duty cycle, it's on for 8ms every 16ms. This should already be visibly flickering to most humans. If this light were to be quickly panned across your visual field over the course of 1 second, you would NOT see it moving smoothly, you'd see 60 individual instances of it. Persistence of vision can play a role here and make it appear as though you're seeing a trail of objects rather than a smoothly moving object.

What I'm describing is exactly the same thing, seen at higher refresh rates and duty cycles.

Some people have a higher proportion of rod cells in their eyes, making them more sensitive to motion and allowis them to see these effects at higher frequencies. This is actually used in visual acuity testing when selecting fighter pilots.

Edit: Two things that might be worth noting
1. Not all LED tail lights will do this, just ones using PWM dimming of moderate to low frequency / duty cycle. PWM dimming will cause these effects (and PWM dimming is common because it's cheaper to implement). A better dimming circuit can solve the problem for everyone.
2. Dell has upped the PWM dimming circuit from 430 Hz to over 8000 Hz in their latest few monitors. This was after a decent number of users complained about the PWM backlight causing flickering and eyestrain unless ran (or near) at max brightness.

 

[ShuttleLuv]

Yes I've read your posts. You're arguing over lightboost and gsync. Turn to page x, same thing... over and over.

Nothing really to argue about. Lightboost is there in it's first implementation as an unofficial hack, there for those who choose to use it or not use it. An experiment if you will.

Alot of us like it because it throws us back to the CRT days. As I said earlier, not a perfect implementation by any means, but you name one monitor thats out there that drops your monitor to 1.4ms motion blur. It's mainly for gaming. As a productivity monitor, there is certainly better and if flickering is bothersome to you, don't use it. I find it's flicker very feint at 120 hz, and my eyes can distinguish between 120+ fps perfect.

As for Gsync....it is a great technology that cuts down on vert sync tear, but must be kept above 30 hz, preferably between 40-60 and more to fully benefit. Again, a user choice. You can keep your current monitor and keep upgrading videoscards trying to keep your frames up or you can go Gsync, maybe use a lower end videocard, and get the same look and feel as long as you keep your hz between 40-60+. We have alot of options nowadays as enthusiests....shouldn't be this much bickering.

http://www.blurbusters.com/120hz-vs-lightboost-vs-turbo240-vs-crt-by-pcgh/ Check out this video. Even the low quality 720p youtube video, my eyes discern more smoothness and clearness with the lightboost vs the others on that video.

 

[Unknown-One]

Alot of us like it because it throws us back to the CRT days.

Except it's CRT flickering on steroids...

CRT monitors at least had the courtesy to fade over a short period of time. They faded in a gradient trailing the gun, meaning the display was, in many instances, never entirely darkened (also never fully lit either)
LightBoost strobes the panel near-instantly. Entire thing on, entire thing off. It's worse than a CRT as far as perceptibility of flicker goes.

As I said earlier, not a perfect implementation by any means, but you name one monitor thats out there that drops your monitor to 1.4ms motion blur. It's mainly for gaming.

It's not really reducing motion blur, it's simply turning the back-light on once the display has reached requested values (rather than keeping the backlight on at all times and allowing the user to see the transition). The problem is hidden, not eliminated. The screen still smears just as much, the backlight just happens to be off for most of it.

This, once again, creates that "series of stills" effect. The intense strobe means your natural persistence of vision sees a trail of individual frames rather than a smoothly animating image. Well... mine does, anyway. PWM Frequencies on LEDs have to get pretty damn high before I can sign-off on monitors / tail lights / LED Christmas lights.

I couldn't game like that, double-images all over the place due to the strobe. Double-images that would never have been generated if the backlight had simply been left on.

As a productivity monitor, there is certainly better and if flickering is bothersome to you, don't use it. I find it's flicker very feint at 120 hz, and my eyes can distinguish between 120+ fps perfect.

Most backlights operate much, much faster than 120Hz (unless it's a CCFL, which don't need as-high of frequencies because they don't dim immediately like LED's do)

Might want to look into how LightBoost works, yourself. If it were to blink the backlight at 120Hz you'd be going mad.

http://www.blurbusters.com/120hz-vs-lightboost-vs-turbo240-vs-crt-by-pcgh/ Check out this video. Even the low quality 720p youtube video, my eyes discern more smoothness and clearness with the lightboost vs the others on that video.

Seen that video ages ago. The camera was not synced to displays (as evidenced by the rolling effect seen on the CRT) which makes it impossible to get a true representation of what's going on in-person.

Even so, there's a clear difference between the CRT (where trails and ghosting are reduced by fast phosphor fading quickly) and the LightBoost LCD (where the camera is capturing regular double-images and doing its best to interpolate them together).

The plain 120Hz monitor appears to be the best of the bunch. Significantly less smearing than the 60Hz panel, and no double-images. Hopefully no flickering if the dimming circuit is decent. Too bad it's a TN panel and not IPS.

The 240Hz monitor has some strange processing going on as well. Thankfully this can be disabled and it can be used as a 100% pwm-free 120Hz display.

 

[ShuttleLuv]

Except it's CRT flickering on steroids...

CRT monitors at least had the courtesy to fade over a short period of time. They faded in a gradient trailing the gun, meaning the display was, in many instances, never entirely darkened (also never fully lit either)
LightBoost strobes the panel near-instantly. Entire thing on, entire thing off. It's worse than a CRT as far as perceptibility of flicker goes.


It's not really reducing motion blur, it's simply turning the back-light on once the display has reached requested values (rather than keeping the backlight on at all times and allowing the user to see the transition). The problem is hidden, not eliminated. The screen still smears just as much, the backlight just happens to be off for most of it.

This, once again, creates that "series of stills" effect. The intense strobe means your natural persistence of vision sees a trail of individual frames rather than a smoothly animating image. Well... mine does, anyway. PWM Frequencies on LEDs have to get pretty damn high before I can sign-off on monitors / tail lights / LED Christmas lights.

I couldn't game like that, double-images all over the place due to the strobe. Double-images that would never have been generated if the backlight had simply been left on.


Most backlights operate much, much faster than 120Hz (unless it's a CCFL, which don't need as-high of frequencies because they don't dim immediately like LED's do)

Might want to look into how LightBoost works, yourself. If it were to blink the backlight at 120Hz you'd be going mad.


Seen that video ages ago. The camera was not synced to displays (as evidenced by the rolling effect seen on the CRT) which makes it impossible to get a true representation of what's going on in-person.

Even so, there's a clear difference between the CRT (where trails and ghosting are reduced by fast phosphor fading quickly) and the LightBoost LCD (where the camera is capturing regular double-images and doing its best to interpolate them together).

The plain 120Hz monitor appears to be the best of the bunch. Significantly less smearing than the 60Hz panel, and no double-images. Hopefully no flickering if the dimming circuit is decent. Too bad it's a TN panel and not IPS.

The 240Hz monitor has some strange processing going on as well. Thankfully this can be disabled and it can be used as a 100% pwm-free 120Hz display.

I'm gonna keep quoting you because you just won't stop. Something is seriously off in your brain man, you need to get checked out by a doctor. You keep going back and fourth about how you dislike the tech, then quote the tech. We're not debating here how it works....we all know how it works. Strobe on, strobe off. Different tech than CRT, to deliver the same type of output. Just because your eyes don't like it, doesn't make it bad. You're mostly in the minority. The usual complaints about LB are about color and dithering. Whether it's a nitro'ed 4 banger vs a v8 or a LB LCD vs a CRT, different tech can work like the other and vice versa, but output almost the same results. It's of my opinion you dislike the implementation and output of the LB hack, and therefore criticize what you see, when in all actuality, it's an engineering marvel. Look past your cynical way of thinking and critical, over analytical viewpoint, and maybe you'd enjoy it for what it does best : games.

 

[ShuttleLuv]

Except it's CRT flickering on steroids... <<< Your way of defining it, still does not change the results that speak for themselves

CRT monitors at least had the courtesy to fade over a short period of time. They faded in a gradient trailing the gun, meaning the display was, in many instances, never entirely darkened (also never fully lit either)
LightBoost strobes the panel near-instantly. Entire thing on, entire thing off. It's worse than a CRT as far as perceptibility of flicker goes.


It's not really reducing motion blur, it's simply turning the back-light on once the display has reached requested values (rather than keeping the backlight on at all times and allowing the user to see the transition). The problem is hidden, not eliminated. The screen still smears just as much, the backlight just happens to be off for most of it. <<< It is eliminating motion blur, LB 10% is 1.4ms down from a standard 120 hz LCD at 8.3ms

This, once again, creates that "series of stills" effect. The intense strobe means your natural persistence of vision sees a trail of individual frames rather than a smoothly animating image. Well... mine does, anyway. PWM Frequencies on LEDs have to get pretty damn high before I can sign-off on monitors / tail lights / LED Christmas lights. <<< I noticed trail effects on CRT's as well, it's all subjective and based on each persons vision and all kinds of variables

I couldn't game like that, double-images all over the place due to the strobe. Double-images that would never have been generated if the backlight had simply been left on. <<< Thats you, because alot of gamers bought Lightboost for gaming

Most backlights operate much, much faster than 120Hz (unless it's a CCFL, which don't need as-high of frequencies because they don't dim immediately like LED's do) <<< Doesn't matter this different tech, year 2013/2014, has achieved similiar results in different ways

Might want to look into how LightBoost works, yourself. If it were to blink the backlight at 120Hz you'd be going mad. <<< I know and understand full well how it works, have had a Lightboost monitor since the first month it came out. And personally, I trust Mark Rejhon's opinion on the matter much more than yourself thank you, and he states:

"Main Pros:
+ Elimination of motion blur. CRT perfect clarity motion. <<<What we've said
+ Improved competitive advantage by faster human reaction times. <<< A Huge plus
+ Far more fluid than regular 120Hz or 144Hz. <<< Agreed 100%
+ Fast motion is more immersive. <<< Agreed 100%

Main Cons:
- Reduced brightness. <<< This is true
- Degradation of color quality. (Can be calibrated) This is true, not a huge deal
- Minor flicker, if you are flicker sensitive. (like a 120Hz CRT) <<< Slight as I said
- Requires a powerful GPU to get full benefits. You need 120fps@120Hz for full benefits <<<Duh"

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1485507/n...boost-monitors-low-lag-motionflow-impulse-tvs

 

[IdiotInCharge]

Assuming I could deal with the image quality defects of LB displays (they made TN worse), I wonder if I could deal with the flickering. I needed 85Hz to not have eye strain on CRTs, and preferred 120Hz where available. Granted, I preferred 85Hz and higher resolutions more, and sought out displays that could do 1600x1200@85Hz.

But I can't really deal with the image quality defects, despite my gaming habits, and settled on an IPS panel with very little input lag instead, so I won't be buying an LB panel to check that out- and I'm not sure where I could, in person.

 

[ShuttleLuv]

http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates&count=3

Lots of tools to play with there to see just how awesome this tech is for yourself.

 

[wonderfield]

Heh. Another one of Mark Rejhon's misguided disciples.

 

[ShuttleLuv]

Heh. Another one of Mark Rejhon's misguided disciples.

Not at all. but you cannot deny what he's done for the community.

 

[Drakenfeng]

And here I was thinking I was the only one bothered by those god awful LED taillights they've been putting in newer cars. They're SERIOUSLY distracting due to the blur they cause.

Then again I can see flicker up to 85 hz on CRT's as well.

 

[Unknown-One]

I'm gonna keep quoting you because you just won't stop. Something is seriously off in your brain man, you need to get checked out by a doctor.

Nothings wrong with my brain, we have other people in this thread stating that they see exactly the same thing. Look at Drakenfeng's response here:

And here I was thinking I was the only one bothered by those god awful LED taillights they've been putting in newer cars. They're SERIOUSLY distracting due to the blur they cause.

Then again I can see flicker up to 85 hz on CRT's as well.

We're seeing higher frequencies than what's average, simple as that.

You know how sometimes you can hear a TV that's been left on a black screen? Makes that annoying high-pitch sound? And nobody else seems to be able to hear it, but it drives you nuts so you go an turn the TV fully off to stop it? And everyone thinks you're nuts because they can't hear that high?

Same thing, except with vision, not hearing

You keep going back and fourth about how you dislike the tech, then quote the tech. We're not debating here how it works....we all know how it works.

You accused me of not having a clue. I've been making sure to go into excruciating detail ever since.

It's of my opinion you dislike the implementation and output of the LB hack, and therefore criticize what you see, when in all actuality, it's an engineering marvel. Look past your cynical way of thinking and critical, over analytical viewpoint, and maybe you'd enjoy it for what it does best : games.

Are we reading the same thread? Seriously?

I'm not being a cynic. I literally cannot see properly when LightBoost is active. How am I supposed to enjoy games on a LightBoost monitor when everything turns into double, triple, or quadruple-image as soon as I try to look around?

It's not about viewpoint, it LITERALLY doesn't work for me. It's very far removed from my experience with CRT monitors (and I keep a 19" flat-tube CRT around for color-reference). I know what CRT looks like, and LightBoost is far more harsh, far more flickery, and highly prone to stroboscopic artifacts when compared side-by-side (that "series of still images" look I keep pointing out).

A PWM-free LCD is, by comparison, a joy to use. The backlight stays on and motion in games stays nice and fluid.

"Main Pros:
+ Elimination of motion blur. CRT perfect clarity motion. <<<What we've said

Except it's not. The two effects are extremely different, and I've already explained how they're different.

A CRT monitor lights up one dot at a time. The beam scans its way down the screen, making the phosphor glow. Roughly one line of the display is full-brightness at any given time, and all previous lines slowly fade back to black and a gradient trail. The gun jumps back to the top while the bottom 3rd of the monitor is still glowing with the previous refresh's image.

This give you a nice, soft, analog flicker. The CRT naturally pads its own flicker.

The LCD can't emulate that. It blinks the entire screen on and off. The entire screen is fully lit, then the entire screen is fully dark. No soft graduations, no ghost of the previous refresh still glowing to smooth the transition.

I've used a CRT recently (again, I've got one in the closet ready to roll when needed), and it's a joy to use at 100Hz compared to any LightBoost monitor I've sat down in front of.

+ Improved competitive advantage by faster human reaction times. <<< A Huge plus

It doesn't actually get data to the display any faster... you realize that, right? Same frames are being delivered at EXACTLY the same time as with LightBoost off.

The only difference is that the display turns off the backlight during pixel transitions (but exactly the same pixel transitions are being made either way). You're actually seeing data on the screen less-often than when LightBoost is disabled.

+ Far more fluid than regular 120Hz or 144Hz. <<< Agreed 100%

Couldn't disagree more with this assessment of LightBoost. There's no smoothness to the motion. It reminds me of a movie I saw once which was shot entirely by a DSLR in burst-mode. Even though it was played back at the usual 24 FPS, motion was not smooth.

+ Fast motion is more immersive. <<< Agreed 100%

Disagreed 100%. Fast motion leads to multiple after-images rather than things smoothly moving across the display.

 

[ShuttleLuv]

Nothings wrong with my brain, we have other people in this thread stating that they see exactly the same thing. Look at Drakenfeng's response here:

We're seeing higher frequencies than what's average, simple as that.

You know how sometimes you can hear a TV that's been left on a black screen? Makes that annoying high-pitch sound? And nobody else seems to be able to hear it, but it drives you nuts so you go an turn the TV fully off to stop it? And everyone thinks you're nuts because they can't hear that high?

Same thing, except with vision, not hearing


You accused me of not having a clue. I've been making sure to go into excruciating detail ever since.


Are we reading the same thread? Seriously?

I'm not being a cynic. I literally cannot see properly when LightBoost is active. How am I supposed to enjoy games on a LightBoost monitor when everything turns into double, triple, or quadruple-image as soon as I try to look around?

It's not about viewpoint, it LITERALLY doesn't work for me. It's very far removed from my experience with CRT monitors (and I keep a 19" flat-tube CRT around for color-reference). I know what CRT looks like, and LightBoost is far more harsh, far more flickery, and highly prone to stroboscopic artifacts when compared side-by-side (that "series of still images" look I keep pointing out).

A PWM-free LCD is, by comparison, a joy to use. The backlight stays on and motion in games stays nice and fluid.


Except it's not. The two effects are extremely different, and I've already explained how they're different.

A CRT monitor lights up one dot at a time. The beam scans its way down the screen, making the phosphor glow. Roughly one line of the display is full-brightness at any given time, and all previous lines slowly fade back to black and a gradient trail. The gun jumps back to the top while the bottom 3rd of the monitor is still glowing with the previous refresh's image.

This give you a nice, soft, analog flicker. The CRT naturally pads its own flicker.

The LCD can't emulate that. It blinks the entire screen on and off. The entire screen is fully lit, then the entire screen is fully dark. No soft graduations, no ghost of the previous refresh still glowing to smooth the transition.

I've used a CRT recently (again, I've got one in the closet ready to roll when needed), and it's a joy to use at 100Hz compared to any LightBoost monitor I've sat down in front of.


It doesn't actually get data to the display any faster... you realize that, right? Same frames are being delivered at EXACTLY the same time as with LightBoost off.

The only difference is that the display turns off the backlight during pixel transitions (but exactly the same pixel transitions are being made either way). You're actually seeing data on the screen less-often than when LightBoost is disabled.


Couldn't disagree more with this assessment of LightBoost. There's no smoothness to the motion. It reminds me of a movie I saw once which was shot entirely by a DSLR in burst-mode. Even though it was played back at the usual 24 FPS, motion was not smooth.


Disagreed 100%. Fast motion leads to multiple after-images rather than things smoothly moving across the display.

Why talk about something you don't own and won't use? It's like me ranting about how slow a civic is when (a) I don't drive one, (b) I won't drive one, and (c), they're too slow. Yet I own a completely different car. This thread is ridiculous, not even mentioning LB 2.0 is out in the Gsync kits.....done with this thread and you.

 

[Unknown-One]

Why talk about something you don't own and won't use?

Why does my owning a LightBoost monitor have anything to do with anything?

I've used it, I know how it works, I know the implications of using it. I've experienced enough of it and researched it to the point that I've made the conscious decision to avoid anything containing it. Why do I need to own it to talk about why I don't want to own it?

It's like me ranting about how slow a civic is when (a) I don't drive one, (b) I won't drive one, and (c), they're too slow.

You're ranting about how great LightBoost is, I'm counter-pointing.

Yet I own a completely different car. This thread is ridiculous, not even mentioning LB 2.0 is out in the Gsync kits.....done with this thread and you.

More accurate analogy: You're ranting about how much better your car is than everyone else's, and I'm pointing out how your Drive By Wire system is flawed

 

[ShuttleLuv]

No not at all, and I clearly stated all the flaws of Lightboost too as well as what good it does. I am speaking from personal experience here when I say this - You have to use lightboost daily for about two weeks before your eyes fully adjust to it coming from average LCD's. The first time I fired it up, I too noticed the very smooth (almost too smooth) look of it. But as the days went on, everything became more clear and my eyes adapted to it. Nowadays my eyes are fully adjusted, and if I went back to a standard LCD, it'd be the same situation in reverse. It's my opinion that you needed to experience it at least two full weeks then make your determination. But that can't happen....because you don't own one. Doh. I re ran that test page from Mark Rejhon last night and man is this thing butter smooth at 120 hz. No comparision hands down (to my eyes).

 

[Unknown-One]

done with this thread and you.

...

I clearly stated all the flaws of Lightboost too as well as what good it does.

And I disagreed and/or expanded upon your list.

I am speaking from personal experience here when I say this - You have to use lightboost daily for about two weeks before your eyes fully adjust to it coming from average LCD's.

I'm speaking from personal experience here. My eyes will not adjust to it.

I still see the flicker/strobe on most PWM-driven LCD monitors.
I still see the flicker/strobe CCFL office lighting.
I still see the flicker/strobe on most CRT monitors.
I still see the flicker/strobe on LED tail lights.
I still see the flicker/strobe on LED Christmas lights.

Heck, I can still see the "rainbow" artifacting on DLP projectors and DLP rear-projection TV's. I have to avoid those too, because the color wheel doesn't spin fast enough.

Been able to see this stuff for nearly 30 years. Not going to stop just because I stare at the effect for hours on end

The first time I fired it up, I too noticed the very smooth (almost too smooth) look of it.

"I too"? Implying that I've in some way described what I'm seeing as "too smooth"?

What part of "it looks like a series of discreet still images rather than fluid motion" and "double, triple, or quadruple-image artifacts" did you take to mean that it looks "smooth" to me? It looks the opposite of smooth. It's like viewing the world through a camera's burst-mode.

It's my opinion that you needed to experience it at least two full weeks then make your determination. But that can't happen....because you don't own one. Doh.

Think before you try and make self-fulfilling prophecies. Consider the following:

1. Most monitors have PWM-driven backlights. These flicker the backlight off and on rapidly to simulate brightness control.
2. LightBoost does exactly the same thing, except it's synced to the display's refresh rate. Still exactly the same PWM flicker, though. It has a frequency and a duty cycle.
3. I already mentioned my current monitors have a PWM backlight that becomes bothersome below 95% duty cycle (thankfully 100% brightness = no PWM).
4. I've had these monitors for over a year.

I've had many, many hours with my current displays to get used to PWM flicker. I will ALWAYS see it unless the frequency is absurdly high.

Spending weeks in front of PWM backlight synced to a multiple of 120Hz will not change that.

Also consider I can fire up the CRT in my closet, right now, and not have these issues as soon as I set the refresh rate to 100+ Hz. That alone should tell you LightBoost is doing something very different. Relatively "slow" phosphor and analog scanning make for an entirely different kind of effect than a full-screen strobe.

I re ran that test page from Mark Rejhon last night and man is this thing butter smooth at 120 hz. No comparision hands down (to my eyes).

You mean this?http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates&count=3

Yeah, seen that test run on a LightBoost display. The little alien in the UFO snapshots his way across the screen.

No comparison at all to even my "lowly" 60Hz Dell IPS monitors. He smoothly flies across with no weird snapshot effect and no double-images.

Edit: Oddly enough, the "15 FPS" row (when viewed on my 60Hz IPS monitor) is almost exactly what I see when looking at the "60 FPS" row on a 120Hz TN monitor with LightBoost. The effect happens at a faster rate, but it looks damn similar.

 

[ShuttleLuv]

...


And I disagreed and/or expanded upon your list.


I'm speaking from personal experience here. My eyes will not adjust to it.

I still see the flicker/strobe on most PWM-driven LCD monitors.
I still see the flicker/strobe CCFL office lighting.
I still see the flicker/strobe on most CRT monitors.
I still see the flicker/strobe on LED tail lights.
I still see the flicker/strobe on LED Christmas lights.

Heck, I can still see the "rainbow" artifacting on DLP projectors and DLP rear-projection TV's. I have to avoid those too, because the color wheel doesn't spin fast enough.

Been able to see this stuff for nearly 30 years. Not going to stop just because I stare at the effect for hours on end


"I too"? Implying that I've in some way described what I'm seeing as "too smooth"?

What part of "it looks like a series of discreet still images rather than fluid motion" and "double, triple, or quadruple-image artifacts" did you take to mean that it looks "smooth" to me? It looks the opposite of smooth. It's like viewing the world through a camera's burst-mode.


Think before you try and make self-fulfilling prophecies. Consider the following:

1. Most monitors have PWM-driven backlights. These flicker the backlight off and on rapidly to simulate brightness control.
2. LightBoost does exactly the same thing, except it's synced to the display's refresh rate. Still exactly the same PWM flicker, though. It has a frequency and a duty cycle.
3. I already mentioned my current monitors have a PWM backlight that becomes bothersome below 95% duty cycle (thankfully 100% brightness = no PWM).
4. I've had these monitors for over a year.

I've had many, many hours with my current displays to get used to PWM flicker. I will ALWAYS see it unless the frequency is absurdly high.

Spending weeks in front of PWM backlight synced to a multiple of 120Hz will not change that.

Also consider I can fire up the CRT in my closet, right now, and not have these issues as soon as I set the refresh rate to 100+ Hz. That alone should tell you LightBoost is doing something very different. Relatively "slow" phosphor and analog scanning make for an entirely different kind of effect than a full-screen strobe.


You mean this?http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates&count=3

Yeah, seen that test run on a LightBoost display. The little alien in the UFO snapshots his way across the screen.

No comparison at all to even my "lowly" 60Hz Dell IPS monitors. He smoothly flies across with no weird snapshot effect and no double-images.

Edit: Oddly enough, the "15 FPS" row (when viewed on my 60Hz IPS monitor) is almost exactly what I see when looking at the "60 FPS" row on a 120Hz TN monitor with LightBoost. The effect happens at a faster rate, but it looks damn similar.

Same nonsense requoted....over....and over....and over.

Again, to educate you:

1. If lightboost is like a slide show to you, DONT USE IT. Period.

2. If you're not using it, not ever buying one, I see no reason to trash a thread about Gsync with Lightboost hatred. Period. Just being cynical.

3. I am slightly sensitive to pulse width flicker myself, but if I have this monitor set just right under Lightboost, I notice very little

4. The VG248QE has no PWM at 100% brightness either, but it's incredibly bright, almost second coming bright. I actually prefer lightboost to the stock brightness

5. From my experience, that you cannot debate or take away, my eyes adjusted to lightboost. The first test of it, it was very psycedelic if you will. After two or so weeks, Quake Live, Quake 4, and Unreal 2004 were bar none as smooth as a CRT, period. No monitor I have tested has come close (I have had tons of CRT's since the 90's, early LCD's, LCD's mid 00 decade, newer ones like LB now etc .... so many). Nothing I have tested, period, has the smoothness in input and lack of motion blur except this Lightboost monitor. in twitch fps'.

6. Debate yourself man, because this is my final post in this thread. You're basically trolling if you ask me, everyone knows your opinion on the matter and myself. I'm walking away from this one now. It's just a matter of opinion, and we disagree. No problem, that's life.

 

[Unknown-One]

Same nonsense requoted....over....and over....and over.

Nonsense? I'm telling you what I see. No nonsense about it. These cheap PWM circuits running at low frequencies don't cut it for me.

1. If lightboost is like a slide show to you, DONT USE IT. Period.

I've told you multiple times that I DONT USE IT. Not sure why you even made this a point...

2. If you're not using it, not ever buying one, I see no reason to trash a thread about Gsync with Lightboost hatred. Period. Just being cynical.

And I ask again, why do I need to own a Lightboost-capable screen to discuss why I don't want a Lightboost-capable screen?

And I'm not the one who brought up Lightboost in this thread originally. Take issue with the appropriate party on that one.

3. I am slightly sensitive to pulse width flicker myself, but if I have this monitor set just right under Lightboost, I notice very little

Good for you. Point me in the direction of a Lightboost monitor that uses an an 8000+ Hz PWM circuit (like what Dell uses in their latest monitors) and I'll give it a try.

Oh wait, Lightboost doesn't work with frequencies that high because the display would have to be active multiple times per frame (meaning you'd see the motion blur). Oh darn, looks like I can make self-fulfilling prophecies too

4. The VG248QE has no PWM at 100% brightness either, but it's incredibly bright, almost second coming bright. I actually prefer lightboost to the stock brightness

Most PWM-based monitors do not flicker at 100% brightness, but I fail to see how that's relevant when Lightboost doesn't work in this mode.

No PWM flicker = no lightboost.

5. From my experience, that you cannot debate or take away, my eyes adjusted to lightboost.

I never said your eyes didn't, so again, not sure why this is even a point...

All I said was that MY eyes cannot adjust to it. I can't help but see the flicker and god-awful stroboscopic artifacts. They're extremely obvious and I see no reason why I would ever purchase or recommend a monitor that looks so bad. I also raise an eyebrow at anyone who can recommend it and praise it to such a degree when user-perception can be the exact opposite of what's described.

After two or so weeks, Quake Live, Quake 4, and Unreal 2004 were bar none as smooth as a CRT, period.

They're not as smooth as a CRT because Lightboost doesn't work like a CRT. We've been over this

Rolling re-draw doesn't equal full-screen strobe

6. Debate yourself man, because this is my final post in this thread. You're basically trolling if you ask me, everyone knows your opinion on the matter and myself. I'm walking away from this one now. It's just a matter of opinion, and we disagree. No problem, that's life.

I'm not trolling, you're not reading... I'm telling you what I see when I look at a Lightboost monitor, and you're blasting me for it.

 

[ShuttleLuv]

Nonsense? I'm telling you what I see. No nonsense about it. These cheap PWM circuits running at low frequencies don't cut it for me.


I've told you multiple times that I DONT USE IT. Not sure why you even made this a point...


And I ask again, why do I need to own a Lightboost-capable screen to discuss why I don't want a Lightboost-capable screen?

And I'm not the one who brought up Lightboost in this thread originally. Take issue with the appropriate party on that one.


Good for you. Point me in the direction of a Lightboost monitor that uses an an 8000+ Hz PWM circuit (like what Dell uses in their latest monitors) and I'll give it a try.

Oh wait, Lightboost doesn't work with frequencies that high because the display would have to be active multiple times per frame (meaning you'd see the motion blur). Oh darn, looks like I can make self-fulfilling prophecies too


Most PWM-based monitors do not flicker at 100% brightness, but I fail to see how that's relevant when Lightboost doesn't work in this mode.

No PWM flicker = no lightboost.


I never said your eyes didn't, so again, not sure why this is even a point...

All I said was that MY eyes cannot adjust to it. I can't help but see the flicker and god-awful stroboscopic artifacts. They're extremely obvious and I see no reason why I would ever purchase or recommend a monitor that looks so bad. I also raise an eyebrow at anyone who can recommend it and praise it to such a degree when user-perception can be the exact opposite of what's described.


They're not as smooth as a CRT because Lightboost doesn't work like a CRT. We've been over this

Rolling re-draw doesn't equal full-screen strobe


I'm not trolling, you're not reading... I'm telling you what I see when I look at a Lightboost monitor, and you're blasting me for it.

Having fun?

 

[ShuttleLuv]

http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur/testimonials/

These guys sound like me....hmm....who da thunk it.

Debate those guys.

 

[ShuttleLuv]

Ok since you pick at Lightboost tech as an unofficial hack, I'm going to pick at IPS and it's slow response times. They never have caught up have they...

 

[Unknown-One]

Debate yourself man, because this is my final post in this thread.

Having fun?

Watching you make a liar out of yourself is slightly amusing, though beside the point.

Ok since you pick at Lightboost tech as an unofficial hack, I'm going to pick at IPS and it's slow response times. They never have caught up have they...

Pick at it all you want, don't care (it's also 100% irrelevant to this thread, something you seemed to care about a couple posts ago...). There's no better alternative for what I need out of a monitor.

Most of my work-day is spent in Photoshop and After Effects. Color accuracy and contrast ratio are king. TN panels don't come close (and lightboost only makes those aspects of a given display worse). VA panels would be nice, but they all have issues with black crush, so that rules them out for photo-sensitive work.

Best option was a fast IPS. The Dell U2412M is one of the best middle-of-the-road IPS panels that both delivers accurate colors and good contrast while also providing response times that actually beat a lot of 60Hz TN panels. Some color accuracy is sacrificed to achieve those response times, but it's nowhere near as bad as a TN monitor (especially one with Lightboost).

And if I had to pick at TN monitors over one thing above all else, it'd the angle-dependent gamma shift. Makes them worthless for professional use because you simply CAN'T calibrate the display. Move your head slightly, and the gamma goes out of whack. They never have fixed that issue with TN, have they...

 

[ShuttleLuv]

Watching you make a liar out of yourself is slightly amusing, though beside the point.


Pick at it all you want, don't care (it's also 100% irrelevant to this thread, something you seemed to care about a couple posts ago...). There's no better alternative for what I need out of a monitor.

Most of my work-day is spent in Photoshop and After Effects. Color accuracy and contrast ratio are king. TN panels don't come close (and lightboost only makes those aspects of a given display worse). VA panels would be nice, but they all have issues with black crush, so that rules them out for photo-sensitive work.

Best option was a fast IPS. The Dell U2412M is one of the best middle-of-the-road IPS panels that both delivers accurate colors and good contrast while also providing response times that actually beat a lot of 60Hz TN panels. Some color accuracy is sacrificed to achieve those response times, but it's nowhere near as bad as a TN monitor (especially one with Lightboost).

And if I had to pick at TN monitors over one thing above all else, it'd the angle-dependent gamma shift. Makes them worthless for professional use because you simply CAN'T calibrate the display. Move your head slightly, and the gamma goes out of whack. They never have fixed that issue with TN, have they...

I've had IPS as well, no doubt best color and contrast reproduction, but motion times are not as smooth as Lightboost. So sounds like you're mostly a productivity guy, who generally benefits from IPS/VA. Thus, you did research as you said and should've known right off the bat Lightboost was not for productivty, but for gaming. So you honestly walked right into it if you disliked Lightboost.

 

[Unknown-One]

I've had IPS as well, no doubt best color and contrast reproduction, but motion times are not as smooth as Lightboost.

I'd argue the opposite.

As far as I can see, lightboost monitors utterly destroy motion fluidity. I end up seeing a series of stills which doesn't look nearly as smooth as a regular LCD with an always-on backlight.

So sounds like you're mostly a productivity guy, who generally benefits from IPS/VA. Thus, you did research as you said and should've known right off the bat Lightboost was not for productivty, but for gaming.

I game on these monitors too, that's why I got three of them instead of just two (so I could do Eyefinity / Surround).

Like I said though, I don't see the point of Lightboost in games. It gives everything that "series of still images" look, and removes all semblance of fluidity. On top of that, those stills persist and create apparent double, triple, and quadrupel-image stroboscopic artifacts on anything that moves. It's awful for gaming.

So you honestly walked right into it if you disliked Lightboost.

Except your primary use-case for Lightboost doesn't work for me either. I wouldn't even use it as a gaming-only monitor. You couldn't pay me to use it as a gaming-only monitor, it looks that bad while gaming...