IPS is overrated!

[Mark Rejhon]

I did some extensive testing playing Unreal Tournament 2004 instagib with godlike bots on a special map I made that gave very consistent gameplay where I got around 300 frames per second. I would play several games at each setting with a 10 minute time limit then compare how many kills I had on each.
I originally did the tests to see which resolution and refresh were ideal for playing with on my CRT. I had a 2 0" ViewSonic CRT that was pretty high end capable of 2048x1536 and very high refresh rates at lower resolutions. I found that the ideal resolution and refresh rate was something like 1024x768@220hz.
In 2005 I bought the world's first ever 2 ms response time LCD which did 1280x1024@75hz. I did my UT2004 instagib test comparing my LCD versus my CRT. At 220hz the CRT was better, but when I set the CRT to the same refresh rate and resolution as the LCD I did better on the LCD by about 2%. I figured this was because the larger screen size.

To sum it up I tested myself and I found no difference in reaction time between CRT and an LCD with no input lag and no light boost.

You may wish to re-test, even with a borrowed or friend's display (make sure you use a GTX 680 or similar; to get 120fps@120Hz).

Some notes:
- It is very gameplay dependant. Some individual styles of gameplay do not benefit nearly as much from zero motion blur.
- It's more noticeable for far-away enemies that are small, rather than close-up shooting. i.e. Benefit is far more noticeable with wide-open arenas (e.g. outdoor style arenas, like those found in TF2, or the big black-sky maps in Quake Live) rather than closed-in dungeons. Such maps force you to sniper far-away enemies, which are tiny on the screen, and more subject to motion blur when turning and moving. (Hint: Improvements to this type of gameplay becomes more noticeable with a gaming mouse, than a cheap mouse, if mouse smoothing is disabled, because of less mouse-related jerkiness)
- Although you can't run 220Hz on LightBoost, you do get 120Hz+strobing (like a 120Hz CRT). You can turn off VSYNC with a LightBoost backlight, and run >200fps, gaining the same advantage as extreme framerates on CRT. Regardless of display technology, even though not all frames are fully displayed, the frames that are actually displayed are more freshly-generated, and thus still gives an input lag advantage (at least in certain games) while giving you the same zero visible motion blur that CRT can provide.

Even a LightBoost monitor (2ms strobes) has 85% less motion blur than a non-LightBoost 60Hz monitor at 60Hz (2ms/16.7ms). With 1ms strobes, you have 94% less motion blur (1ms/16.7ms) than a 60Hz non-strobed LCD. You may want to re-test, when you are able to borrow a LightBoost monitor (preferably one of the 1ms-rated monitors, like BENQ XL2411T already available, or ASUS VG248QE). Note that even if there is 2ms pixel persistence, there is still 16.7ms of sample-and-hold, leading to retinal blurring during eye tracking, which is now the leading cause of motion blur on modern LCD's - more than 85% of motion blur you see on today's 2ms 60Hz LCD's is NOT caused by pixel persistence, because 2ms is less than 15% of a 16.7ms (1/60sec) refresh. Even at 120Hz, 2ms is still less than 25% of an 8.33ms (1/120sec) refresh. Strobing successfully eliminates the other cause of motion blur.

Not everyone likes LightBoost, or find it worth it, but clearly, some people do.

 

[sharknice]

You may wish to re-test, even with a borrowed or friend's display (make sure you use a GTX 680 or similar; to get 120fps@120Hz).

Some notes:
- It is very gameplay dependant. Some individual styles of gameplay do not benefit nearly as much from zero motion blur.
- It's more noticeable for far-away enemies that are small, rather than close-up shooting. i.e. Benefit is far more noticeable with wide-open arenas (e.g. outdoor style arenas, like those found in TF2, or the big black-sky maps in Quake Live) rather than closed-in dungeons. Such maps force you to sniper far-away enemies, which are tiny on the screen, and more subject to motion blur when turning and moving. (Hint: Improvements to this type of gameplay becomes more noticeable with a gaming mouse, than a cheap mouse, if mouse smoothing is disabled, because of less mouse-related jerkiness)
- Although you can't run 220Hz on LightBoost, you do get 120Hz+strobing (like a 120Hz CRT). You can turn off VSYNC with a LightBoost backlight, and run >200fps, gaining the same advantage as extreme framerates on CRT. Regardless of display technology, even though not all frames are fully displayed, the frames that are actually displayed are more freshly-generated, and thus still gives an input lag advantage (at least in certain games) while giving you the same zero visible motion blur that CRT can provide.

Even a LightBoost monitor (2ms strobes) has 85% less motion blur than a non-LightBoost 60Hz monitor at 60Hz (2ms/16.7ms). With 1ms strobes, you have 94% less motion blur (1ms/16.7ms) than a 60Hz non-strobed LCD. You may want to re-test, when you are able to borrow a LightBoost monitor (preferably one of the 1ms-rated monitors, like BENQ XL2411T already available, or ASUS VG248QE). Note that even if there is 2ms pixel persistence, there is still 16.7ms of sample-and-hold, leading to retinal blurring during eye tracking, which is now the leading cause of motion blur on modern LCD's - more than 85% of motion blur you see on today's 2ms 60Hz LCD's is NOT caused by pixel persistence, because 2ms is less than 15% of a 16.7ms (1/60sec) refresh. Even at 120Hz, 2ms is still less than 25% of an 8.33ms (1/120sec) refresh. Strobing successfully eliminates the other cause of motion blur.

Not everyone likes LightBoost, or find it worth it, but clearly, some people do.

The conditions you say light boost helps with weren't in my test at all. It had more of a close/mid range encounter type gameplay. Perhaps I will try it out. I have a 120hz 2 ms LCD.

 

[XoR]

But they have poor ANSI contrast ratio. ANSI is far more important than dynamic range

ANSI is more important for:
- web browsing
- image editing

halos around white elements don't look very good and are very bad for image editing.

Dynamic range is more important for:
- games
- movies

you don't need ink blacks in daylight scene and also larger halo around bright objects scene is not suspicious. So on CRT you get ok performance for games and movies and while not perfect it's the best you can get from computer monitor anyway...

I have very good A-TW enabled monitor to compare with CRT and I see what looks good and where. While web looks way better on LCD the movies and games are much nicer on CRT (ofc viewed at night without light in room)

 

[dr.stevil]

OP, I somewhat agree.

There is no arguing that an IPS looks better than 'most' TN panels, but all in all, unless I'm watching a movie (especially with dark scenes) or doing something that requires precise color accuracy, I generally like TN better if not for the refresh rates and response times alone. However, If I want deep blacks and colors that pop, I'll take my plasma sets over any LCD any day of the week.

I still own an IPS because I do moonlighting (graphic design work)... so having an accurate display is necessary... but for day to day stuff, using a TN or IPS really doesn't matter much to me.

 

[Nielo TM]

ANSI is more important for:
- web browsing
- image editing

halos around white elements don't look very good and are very bad for image editing.

Dynamic range is more important for:
- games
- movies

Not necessarily true. Displays with very limited ANSI CR (e.g. CRT TVs) will preform well in low light (low APL) scenes but it will struggle when displaying scenes with mixture of both bright and dark elements.

Back when I was using CRT, I often had to increase the brightness significantly when gaming. In movies, I often experienced black crush. It was something I had to put up with.

CRT monitors at low brightness can maintain a good level of ANSI CR but it's much lower than VA LCD and post 2008 plasma.

you don't need ink blacks in daylight scene and also larger halo around bright objects scene is not suspicious. So on CRT you get ok performance for games and movies and while not perfect it's the best you can get from computer monitor anyway...

Unless you're willing to use a plasma solely for gaming and movies.

 

[Nielo TM]

OP, I somewhat agree.

There is no arguing that an IPS looks better than 'most' TN panels, but all in all, unless I'm watching a movie (especially with dark scenes) or doing something that requires precise color accuracy, I generally like TN better if not for the refresh rates and response times alone. However, If I want deep blacks and colors that pop, I'll take my plasma sets over any LCD any day of the week.

I still own an IPS because I do moonlighting (graphic design work)... so having an accurate display is necessary... but for day to day stuff, using a TN or IPS really doesn't matter much to me.

Pixel refresh it not a problem unless you're referring to 120Hz panels.

 

[Quartz-1]

I realize this is purely an uneducated gamer's opinion,

And there you have it. You're a gamer. You're not using applications which show off the benefits of IPS, like the full 8 bit colour depth.

 

[Nielo TM]

IPS isn't all about color depth.

 

[dr.stevil]

Pixel refresh it not a problem unless you're referring to 120Hz panels.

Absolutely (I don't care for 60hz). Don't get me wrong, if I could get a high quality IPS display running 120hz, I'd ditch my TN's in a second... but until that happens, the minor disadvantages of TN outweighs the disadvantages of IPS for general use.

 

[Nielo TM]

Absolutely (I don't care for 60hz). Don't get me wrong, if I could get a high quality IPS display running 120hz, I'd ditch my TN's in a second... but until that happens, the minor disadvantages of TN outweighs the disadvantages of IPS for general use.

Yeah that's going to be a challenge. Hopefully LG will get the pixels to respond within 8ms.

PS: "SONY: making Apple look rational since 2011" - Spot on LOL

 

[SirMaster]

I thought those Korean Catleap monitors were 8-bit IPS panels and some are capable of 120Hz with the overclocked chips.

 

[Nielo TM]

Today's 6-bit IPS can match most 8-bit IPS (even during motion). My ViewSonic VX2770SMH-LED for an example has a 6-bit panel and its (virtually) band free. As for driving those Korean panels @ 120Hz, the pixels won't respond in time which may cause visible trailing but I'm not sure if people would notice

 

[cerbul]

You do understand that some ppl will read here and if they cba to read the entire thread or test it in person, then they will assume that TN is nothing but an alternative to the IPS. If IPS glow can compensate for EVERYTHING else that a TN panel can't do, then ye...

 

[Morkai]

I thought those Korean Catleap monitors were 8-bit IPS panels and some are capable of 120Hz with the overclocked chips.

They use the same panels as any other manufacturer has access to.
They are listed as 6ms gray-to-gray ips, which means the slower pixeltransitions are >8ms, which in turn means that if you push them to 120hz, they spend pretty much the entire refresh-cycle transitioning = tons of blur in fast motion.

I bought one, it reached 90hz and it was completely useless in fast games, so i gave it away after one day.
They also have no overdrive (or simply really bad overdrive). Imo these monitors are much worse for gaming than the samsung/dell/whatever else ips that have good overdrive (especially if you can increase the refresh a bit with custom resolutions).

 

[Ultranifty]

Once you game at 1600p there is no going back to 1080p, sorry. Specially when there are 1440p panels capable 72-120hz, without scalers and without input lag.

No need to apologize. You're wrong though and I need to correct you because you act like you know it all. I gamed on 2560x1600 30" IPS for years, went to 5760x1080 on three 27" 120hz TN panels and it's a more exciting experience. Yeah, I gave up on a little bit of clarity but gained an immersion factor that can't be beat. BF3 at 5760x1080 at over 100fps....is godly and these panels allow that smoothness, see more frames than a 60hz can display, etc.

I know of no affordable 120hz panel above 1080. I'm sure there are some, but not for the $550 a piece I paid for these 27" 120hz panels.

Everything is a tradeoff, but you can stop acting like what you think is God, and what everyone else thinks is incorrect. You're incorrect. End of class

On an unrelated note, lol, I don't get you guys that complain about viewing angles. Maybe it's just me, but I don't game while looking at the monitor at a 70 degree angle. I could be just behind the times, and maybe the new hip way to game is to have 6 people sitting around 1 monitor, or gaming while looking at the screen nearly sideways.......yea.....what a worthy thing to complain about.

 

[Ultranifty]

Can't believe people are still debating IPS vs TN in 2012.

PS: If anyone think TN are superior to IPS or IPS is overrated, they are seriously deluded or have no appreciation for image quality.

There's no 120hz IPS. Had IPS, it had a better picture, sure, but going 120hz from 60hz is a bigger and better experience. You have been enlightened.

 

[elvn]

Personally I'd use a 2560x1440 ips for all desktop stuff (gorgeous color and ppi), and a blur-free 1080p lightboost2 TN for gaming (motion/action). Maybe a few years down the road ips response time speed up a lot and there will be some 1ms backlight strobing version to eliminate blur similarly. The reason people are arguing is that there are still major tradeoffs, and recently with lightboost2 - essentially blur free crt-like clarity vs lcd motion blur makes a huge tradeoff. Blur vs no blur.

From the reports I've read, the 120hz 1m lightboost2 strobing backlight version would be clear like the crt image, but with perhaps a single un-blurred afterimage ghost at times. The original content (scene/objects/textures) is reportedly unsmeared very like a crt. The blur representations are much worse when they affect a whole scene full of complex objects and very high detail textures and depth via bump mapping being blurred, rather than a single simple cell shaded car.

.
There are some korean ips capable of 120hz and a little over even, but 120hz TN are about "half as much blur" as a 60hz, and 120hz~+ ips due to poorer response times are a little less than "half as much blur". 120hz at very high fps always provides smoother motion tracking (and feels smoother) separate from blur considerations however.
.
ASUS/BENQ LightBoost owners!! Zero motion blur setting!

 

[Torr Samaho]

regarding blur, i have a samsung s27a750d @ 120 hz, it has bright, nice colors for a TN, but i wish it was faster. for example, the "need more socks" text in pixperan's car chase test starts blurring already at speed 5 of 16 (which an ancient CRT can do flawlessly). it takes the car whole 2 seconds to cross the screen at speed 16, pretty slow compared to quick turns in shooters. i played for about 4 hours yesterday and felt like puking afterwards. perhaps i'm more than average sensitive to blur, and playing with a high sens only makes it worse. however, this is from a 120 hz monitor.

so, short of getting a CRT (with extra desk space and energy cost) there's only the hope that a benq or asus @ lightboost will eliminate blur. i'm curious how the korean display i'm getting soon will do. but whatever, in terms of motion clarity i am disappoint.

 

[xoleras]

There's no 120hz IPS. Had IPS, it had a better picture, sure, but going 120hz from 60hz is a bigger and better experience. You have been enlightened.

What an arrogant, ridiculous and ignorant statement. 120hz vs IPS is completely subjective, and to me the higher resolution is more immersive than the higher refresh rate. I also don't like the TN color shifting and terrible color accuracy - although apparently some people such as yourself don't mind. Feel free to pick your preference though - personally i'm sick of the shit 1080p resolution after 5 years.

Perhaps you and fociz should listen to the advice you mentioned 2 posts ago:

Everything is a tradeoff, but you can stop acting like what you think is God, and what everyone else thinks is incorrect. End of class

 

[Nielo TM]

zing !!!

 

[elvn]

Yes its all about tradeoffs, which is why I use a high rez ips for desktop stuff (where I feel it is not overrated) and keep a 120hz tn dedicated to gaming. The 120hz TN still blurs though, just half as much. I'm looking forward to getting a lightboost2 1ms strobe monitor sometime this year, and a nvidia card (might wait for the gtx 780). LCD blurring has always annoyed me horribly. The promise of full motion clarity is great news. IPS for everything else (at least desktop wise.. for tv/movies VA lcd or Plasma have way better black levels and detail-in-blacks .. again tradeoffs).

lightboost2 TNs leaving both 120hz non-lightboost2 TN's and 1440p ips's a blurry mess in the rearview for a gaming monitor as far as I'm concerned, assuming the reports of the 94% ~ "crt-like clarity" and essentially zero blur reported by so many are correct. They aren't talking about half as much blur as 60hz -yet-still-a-mess, or a higher rez 1440 but a little worse than the "half of the blur-yet-still-a-mess" reduction.. they are talking about essentially fully clear readability of text, texture, objects/scene elements with if anything, a subtle ghost after effect/shadow that doesn't smudge any of the original material.I'm hoping to get the XL2411T or similar and a nvidia card sometime this coming year (perhaps after tax return).

For me its not just about scoring/accuracy... I find smeared out high detail textures and depth via bumpmapping, nameplates, etc.. and all of the scene basically blurring extremely annoying during FoV movement. I know what an fw900 looks like and lcds , even "1/2 as much blur" or "nearly so "(ips) of 120hz non-lightboost lcds is nothing compared to full readability of texture, text and full scene clarity during FoV movemement. Even 70% would be blurring and not truly readable. These blur reductions rather than essentially full clarity are more like soften blur effects that stick closer to the shadow mask of an object so to speak, but that still makes for a fuzzy/blurry, unreadable detail mess during FoV movement. If crt-like , essentially full scene motion clarity is available on a gaming lcd I will definitely be upgrading to it sometime in the future, and I think it makes the 50% +/- blur reduction of non-lightboost2 TN vs ips argument moot as far as I'm concerned. Blurry lcds vs clear is no contest imo.

 

[SirMaster]

You can't just say 120Hz TN is better than IPS. It's completely subjective.

I play lots of games, fast ones too. I got a 120Hz display because lots of people were hyping it to be a big deal for games. I have the BenQ XL2420T, which I do not believe to be a slouch of a monitor. However I still prefer the picture of my Dell 2408WFP. I just can't seem to get used to the TN no matter how much I tweak or calibrate it. I prefer playing on the Dell. Picture quality is more important to me I guess than it being a bit smoother. I've been playing games on 60Hz LCDs for the last 11 years since I got my first LCD, the Dell 2001FP and it's never been a problem or a hindrance from what I can tell.

 

[Dan_D]

It's never bothered me either. Personally I care more about pixel pitch and resolution, viewing angles, etc. than anything else. I game a lot on my 30"s and can't stand most 1920x1080 displays. I've got a couple 20" Dell TN monitors and they are fine for gaming because 1920x1080 is fine at that size.

 

[elvn]

120hz (and higher) at very high fps does result in smoother motion tracking. Retinal retention blur is another matter. The new lightboost2 monitors with 1ms response time and backlight strobing reportedly reduce blur 94%, to crt-like clarity.. the remaining % reportedly a sometimes visible afterimage "shadow" which in no way smears the primary objects/textures.

Reminds me of the "Allegory of the Cave".
Some are so used to wearing their slushy goggles they don't know what its like to see clearly.

Its like you have goggles filled with some liquid-gel and every time you turn quickly, your eyes see all fine detail lost in a blurring. 120hz might replace your goggles with a fluid which has double the viscosity, blurring near half as much.. but its still a lousy prescription compared to clear sight imo.

If the lightboost2 reports are accurate, then as far as I'm concerned they make any comparisons of 1440p ips 120hz+ and 1080p non-lightboost2 120hz+ TN panel's blur reductions moot. (and 60hz panels for gaming have twice their blur, and ips worse with higher response times).

That's not the story I'm talking about. I'm talking about lightboost2 TNs leaving both 120hz non-lightboost2 TN's and 1440p ips's a blurry mess in the rearview for a gaming monitor as far as I'm concerned, assuming the reports of the 94% ~ "crt-like clarity" and essentially zero blur reported by so many are correct. They aren't talking about half as much blur as 60hz -yet-still-a-mess, or a higher rez 1440 but a little worse than the "half of the blur-yet-still-a-mess" reduction.. they are talking about essentially fully clear readability of text, texture, objects/scene elements with if anything, a subtle ghost after effect/shadow that doesn't smudge any of the original material.I'm hoping to get the XL2411T or similar and a nvidia card sometime this coming year (perhaps after tax return).

We are talking about 1ms Lightboost2 enabled (in 2D) essentially being the same clarity as the crt in this simulation. Of course the blurry monitors would have a much worse result in a full scene of complex objects, very high detail textures, depth via bump mapping, shaders, etc being blurred in your entire viewport rather than a single object simple cell shaded car example.

I'm talking about choosing a 1080p lightboost2 enabled monitor over both a 120hz non-lightboost2 2560x1440 ips and a 120hz non-lightboost2 1080p TN. Choosing full readability/detail (of the entire scene, textures, objects, text ) during FoV movement (with perhaps a tiny ghost afterimage that apparently does not smudge the original/primary scene/objects), quoted as 94% "crt-like clarity".

I love high rez but blur during FoV movement is much more annoying to me than playing at 1080p personally. Some people just seem to settle for blur due to whats available and perhaps that many don't know what zero blur FoV movement looks like. If there are LCD's (Lighboost2 enabled) available that result in essentially zero blur of texture detail, objects, and text during FoV movement, I'd go with that one whenever I could afford to. If a few years down the line a higher (than 1080p) rez display came out with essentially zero motion blur, of course I'd be interested in that.

 

[Mark Rejhon]

regarding blur, i have a samsung s27a750d @ 120 hz, it has bright, nice colors for a TN, but i wish it was faster. for example, the "need more socks" text in pixperan's car chase test starts blurring already at speed 5 of 16 (which an ancient CRT can do flawlessly). it takes the car whole 2 seconds to cross the screen at speed 16, pretty slow compared to quick turns in shooters. i played for about 4 hours yesterday and felt like puking afterwards. perhaps i'm more than average sensitive to blur, and playing with a high sens only makes it worse. however, this is from a 120 hz monitor.

On a my LightBoost LCD monitor, I was able to perfectly see "NEED MORE SOCKS" even at speed 16 of 16, just like on a CRT. Sadly, no IPS LCD computer monitor is able to do that (yet) at this time, sadly -- I'd love to see 1440p + IPS + LightBoost (or some other strobed backlight / scanning backlight technology). You choose compromises.

I've got the VG278H, and supposed to have a BENQ XL2411T arriving soon to compare (but apparently, it is undergoing shipping problems). Keep tuned.

 

[elvn]

yes but as detailed in the main lightboost monitor thread, the IPS don't have the high frequency lightboost2 strobing backlight tech included in them , and even if they were able to add it to newer models the ips response time is too slow to produce the clear crt-like clarity. IPS response times would have to improve a lot, to 1ms + have lightboost2 in order to reach 94% blur reduction. Lesser blur reductions even at 120hz + and high fps will still "soften blur" the whole scene during FoV movements rather than maintaining crisp "readable" un-blurred content (with perhaps a single crisp aftershadow, thus not 100%.) So even 2ms lightboost2 monitors have more blur ( I think 70% vs the 94% "full motion clarity" of 1ms lightboost2 monitors). A 10ms+ ips if it had LB2 would be worse.
.

Agreed. Although 120Hz TN (non-LightBoost, too) has less motion blur than 120Hz IPS, 120Hz IPS still has less motion blur than 60Hz IPS. The pixels on IPS cannot transition fast enough to be an exact halving of motion blur from 60Hz->120Hz, but there IS a reduction of motion blur from 60Hz->120Hz IPS. Just not as much as the blur reduction from 60Hz->120Hz TN, due to the slower IPS pixel response.

If a strobe backlight is a sequential scanning backlight (like those used in some existing high-end HDTV's), the LED's can flash in sync, in a top-to-bottom scanning fashion, then you don't need to wait for the pixel persistence to finish in the VSYNC. As long as some part of the display has adequately refreshed while keeping other parts of the display (still refreshing) in the dark. The disadvantage of a sequential scanning backlight is much more complexity in the electronics, and backlight diffusion (on-segments of backlight leaking into off-segments of backlight). So that puts a limit on motion blur reduction.

However, it should be possible to reduce motion blur on IPS displays by another approximately 50-75%, using a good sequential scanning backlight. You just won't get the 94% motion blur reduction (over a LCD 60Hz display) that a 1ms strobe backlight would provide. (94% comes from 1ms versus 16.67ms), at least not until IPS speeds up and uses response-time acceleration (with its disadvantages alas, it is also an ingredient that allows 3D and zero motion blur to be possible). Some IPS HDTV's work with shutter glasses, so it's possible to make IPS fast enough. It just has not arrived on computer-monitor sized panels.

 

[10e]

On a my LightBoost LCD monitor, I was able to perfectly see "NEED MORE SOCKS" even at speed 16 of 16, just like on a CRT. Sadly, no IPS LCD computer monitor is able to do that (yet) at this time, sadly -- I'd love to see 1440p + IPS + LightBoost (or some other strobed backlight / scanning backlight technology). You choose compromises.

I've got the VG278H, and supposed to have a BENQ XL2411T arriving soon to compare (but apparently, it is undergoing shipping problems). Keep tuned.

As a frame of reference, back in 2008 with the AMA on a BenQ FP241VW A-MVA turned up to full I was easily able to see this up to 13 on that relatively slow panel. AMA on that monitor was just market-speak for BFI (black frame insertion).

It was irritating as f**k due to the flicker, but it was quite effective in reducing blur from sample and hold. As a contrast, Samsung's 245T which had MPAA (similar to BFI) didn't show any real motion blur reduction, even though it was a faster responding panel otherwise. It just induced flicker.

I've also noticed the scanning backlight on my Sony Bravia KDL-40EX723 is incredible at keeping fast moving text legible.

Good luck with the XL2411T and the LightBoost experiments!

 

[Mark Rejhon]

As a frame of reference, back in 2008 with the AMA on a BenQ FP241VW A-MVA turned up to full I was easily able to see this up to 13 on that relatively slow panel. AMA on that monitor was just market-speak for BFI (black frame insertion).

It was irritating as f**k due to the flicker, but it was quite effective in reducing blur from sample and hold. As a contrast, Samsung's 245T which had MPAA (similar to BFI) didn't show any real motion blur reduction, even though it was a faster responding panel otherwise. It just induced flicker.

Yes, BENQ did early strobe backlights, at 60Hz and the strobes was very long (In the neighborhood of 10ms long). The LightBoost is a strobe backlight at 120Hz (and no longer flickers due to that high strobe rate), and the strobe lengths are very short (1ms or 2ms). With the short LightBoost strobes, the motion blur is approximately 8 to 10 times less on an BENQ XL2411T than on a BENQ FP241VW, pushing the motion blur to below human detectable levels (ala zero perceived motion blur).

Poorly designed scanning backlights, do not reduce motion blur noticeably for various reasons - e.g. excessively long strobe length; pixel persistence bleeds too much between frames, and light bleeding between backlight segments ("on" segments leaking light into "off" segments). Motion blur reduction can be less than 50%, which may not be noticeable at all. For a scanning backlight to be really worth it, it really has to add closer to an order of magnitude improvement in motion blur reduction. (or at least, 3x to 4x clearer motion). Modern LightBoost strobe backlights, however, adds a full order of magnitude of motion blur elimination (~10x). 3D compatible panels have helped this progress a lot, because they are designed to prevent pixel persistence from bleeding too much between frames.

I've also noticed the scanning backlight on my Sony Bravia KDL-40EX723 is incredible at keeping fast moving text legible.

Right. Do you use that mode for games, though? It is too bad many full-size HDTV's adds an incredible amount of input lag, when the scanning backlight is enabled. We need gaming-friendly scanning backlights in HDTV's. That said, the LightBoost monitors blows away all Sony scanning backlights in terms of text clarity and gaming-friendliness, by a huge margin. Although the color quality on Sony HDTV's is much, much, much, better. I'd like to see such motion clarity come to HDTV's, without input lag, and at least 120Hz strobe (so flicker is not annoying). Unfortunately lag-free flicker-free strobe backlights for gaming, will require a high native refresh rate without interplation -- i.e. 120Hz refresh rate.

Many LED HDTV's use IPS with good color (comparatively), and the scanning backlight (a strobe backlight) that Sony uses in some of their better TV's, is great for video (sports, etc).
But the input lag is so terrible for gaming. It would be lovely to combine the Sony color quality, with the gaming-friendliness of LightBoost.

 

[xoleras]

You can't just say 120Hz TN is better than IPS. It's completely subjective.

I play lots of games, fast ones too. I got a 120Hz display because lots of people were hyping it to be a big deal for games. I have the BenQ XL2420T, which I do not believe to be a slouch of a monitor. However I still prefer the picture of my Dell 2408WFP. I just can't seem to get used to the TN no matter how much I tweak or calibrate it. I prefer playing on the Dell. Picture quality is more important to me I guess than it being a bit smoother. I've been playing games on 60Hz LCDs for the last 11 years since I got my first LCD, the Dell 2001FP and it's never been a problem or a hindrance from what I can tell.

Completely agreed. IPS offers something that TN doesn't: higher resolution of 2560x1440/1600. To me the combination of higher resolution, better picture quality, and better viewing angles trumps anything that a TN offers including 120hz.

Having used a 27 inch 1080p panel in the past, it truly looked awful with the viewing angles. The pixel density was also pretty bad. Even if its 120hz, I spend at least 70% of my time not gaming and I can't go back to a TN panel like that.

 

[Valnar]

Compare a TN panel to IPS with this viewing angle test and tell me there is no advantage.

 

[elvn]

You really have to be more specific now. Echoing back to the 120hz TNs with "half-as-much-blur" (yet still a mess) FoV movement vs. a 60hz 10ms+ response time 2560 x 1440 ips with double that blur (or worse than compared to low response time 60hz TN) is not the current best available tech anymore. There are 120hz(and 120hz+) "overclocked"ips, which can show the better motion tracking at high fps and "slightly worse than half the blur" of a 60 hz lcd. There are also 1ms response time and 1ms lightboost2 backlught strobing TNs now, which have full motion clarity with if anything, a single solid afterimage "shadow ".
So, generically saying 120hz TN vs ips would seem to make a lot of people assume the "original" comparison, ignoring the essentially zero-blur 1ms ~ 94% "crt clarity" option. now available. With crt motion clarity available, the blurry TNs vs worse blurring ips argument is moot imo. Both types have 120hz models available now for better motion tracking and near half as much blur as 60hz, which is the best you can get on ips currently (for gaming) . TN's new best has 1ms LB2 models with essentially zero blur, just an afterimage shadow. IPS still provides higher ppi and resolution, and doesn't suffer TN shift/"shadow", but is stuck, at best(120hz/120hz+ oc models), at a "worse than half the blur" of a 60hz lcds until, if ever, ips response times are reduced drastically combined with a 1ms backlught strobe or equivalent.
I love ips and high rez for desktop usage, but for a dedicated gaming monitor alongside I would choose motion clarity.