IPS monitors look terrible compared to an HDR television

Jumpem

Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2000
Messages
727
Everyone always raves about IPS monitors. After gaming on an HDR television my 144 Hz IPS monitor has lost its luster.

The low contrast ratio, IPS glow, and less vibrant colors are readily apparent. It's too bad that the very few HDR G-Sync monitors are still priced so high.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,031
There literally is no buyable monitor that looks anywhere near as good as a flagship HDR TV except for the PG27UQ/Acer X27 @ $1700. Well, I guess there's probably still some refurbished stock of the UP3017Q @ $2700, but I'd still take the the X27 over that for gaming due to gsync and refresh rate.
 

Jumpem

Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2000
Messages
727
Yup, the PG27UQ is what I would buy tomorrow if it were under a thousand dollars. I don't know what to do for the time being. Cheap console players end up with better picture quality while gaming.
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,759
Don't mistake exaggerated colors and contrast for accuracy though. Properly calibrated IPS display and HDTV should look just as good when viewing SDR content, depending on the individual displays compared of course.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,031
Don't mistake exaggerated colors and contrast for accuracy though. Properly calibrated IPS display and HDTV should look just as good when viewing SDR content, depending on the individual displays compared of course.
You can calibrate all you want but no non-FALD IPS display is ever going to have decent black levels though.
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,759
You can calibrate all you want but no non-FALD IPS display is ever going to have decent black levels though.
That's fair but most HDTVs don't have anything more than edge backlights either. OP isn't saying if he is comparing to OLED or something.
 

HiCZoK

Gawd
Joined
Sep 18, 2006
Messages
821
There literally is no buyable monitor that looks anywhere near as good as a flagship HDR TV except for the PG27UQ/Acer X27 @ $1700. Well, I guess there's probably still some refurbished stock of the UP3017Q @ $2700, but I'd still take the the X27 over that for gaming due to gsync and refresh rate.
There is one 384 dimming zones dell up2718q I think
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,497
Everyone always raves about IPS monitors. After gaming on an HDR television my 144 Hz IPS monitor has lost its luster.

The low contrast ratio, IPS glow, and less vibrant colors are readily apparent. It's too bad that the very few HDR G-Sync monitors are still priced so high.
The 'HDR' G-Sync monitors are FALD- which is a fairly halfassed way to approximate HDR.

However, once calibrated, both should be similar outside of black levels where the emmissive OLED should win hands down.
 

Seyumi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 30, 2011
Messages
248
Everyone always raves about IPS monitors. After gaming on an HDR television my 144 Hz IPS monitor has lost its luster.

The low contrast ratio, IPS glow, and less vibrant colors are readily apparent. It's too bad that the very few HDR G-Sync monitors are still priced so high.
Also doesn’t help that:

1. Every generation of console closes the gap even more when compared to PC (Xbox One X can play some games 4K 30-60 FPS, although probably medium-high PC settings)

2. PC gaming is become more expensive every year (see RTX 2080ti, i9 9900k, 16gb ram prices, etc.)

3. Less PC exclusives and more console-ports every year (I end up using my Xbox Controller more than my mouse/keyboard with my varied PC game library since the controller just works better)

4. Shitty PC monitors vs modern HDR TV’s for visuals/wow factor (like you mentioned in this thread)

I'm a biased PC-only gamer and almost refuse to touch a console since I feel like it "dilutes" my overall experience but even I know that I'm a dying breed and having a gaming PC that looks/performs better than a console is starting to become more of an upper-class hobby than a middle-class one.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,497
1. Every generation of console closes the gap even more when compared to PC (Xbox One X can play some games 4K 30-60 FPS, although probably medium-high PC settings)
The Xbox One/PS4 generation was one of the worst relative to modern hardware, at the time, and it's gotten worse, not better. The One X/PS4 Pro upgrade brought very little, and none of these consoles are actually rendering 4k. The next generation might roll with minimal 4k performance.

2. PC gaming is become more expensive every year (see RTX 2080ti, i9 9900k, 16gb ram prices, etc.)
If you're looking for top-end performance, absolutely! But that gets you quite a bit more performance than your average ~US$1000 PC, which is then significantly more capable in gaming and many other tasks than a gaming console.

3. Less PC exclusives and more console-ports every year (I end up using my Xbox Controller more than my mouse/keyboard with my varied PC game library since the controller just works better)
Not really arguing for or against this; really, the argument is that the catalogs are different. I personally don't use a controller but I could.

4. Shitty PC monitors vs modern HDR TV’s for visuals/wow factor (like you mentioned in this thread)
There are a few TVs with good picture quality that also have low input/processing lag, but that's still a bit of a determining factor. Then there's the lack of 1440p options which are really the sweet-spot for desktop usage and gaming.

but even I know that I'm a dying breed and having a gaming PC that looks/performs better than a console is starting to become more of an upper-class hobby than a middle-class one.
PC gaming has actually been taking off. One thing to consider is that while the 'top end' is pretty far up there, the bottom end has simultaneously gotten lower; even the integrated graphics on Intel CPUs is capable of respectable performance for low-end titles, including many that are not available on consoles. League of Legends is my example, but there are plenty of others, and that game specifically would not be amenable to controller play.
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,772
The 'HDR' G-Sync monitors are FALD- which is a fairly halfassed way to approximate HDR.

However, once calibrated, both should be similar outside of black levels where the emmissive OLED should win hands down.
OLED will never be able to do high HDR color volume.

" 384 - 480 zone FALD and mini LED FALD will be better because it will go over 2000 nit in HDR highlights and color volume, perhaps even 10,000 nit like the article I quoted.
contrary to what I know many people reading this might expect, even the brightest parts of the image on this claimed 10,000 nits screen didn’t make me feel uncomfortable. They didn’t hurt my eyes. They didn’t make me worry for the safety of children, or send me rushing off to smother myself in suntan lotion. Even though the area of Sony’s stand where the screen was appearing was blacked out

These shots showed, too, that it’s only when you’ve got this sort of real-life brightness at your disposal that colors truly start to look representative of reality rather than a construct limited by the screen technology of the day.

OLED will be rolling down from its low color volume brightness ceiling and/or cutting off it's color volume to white at a ceiling as a safety feature/fear of burn in mechanism. The brightness it's capable of before that is also making impure color by using a white subpixel (that means lots of added white subpixels on the screen) to cheat higher brightness measurements which makes the color accuracy way off and the color volume lower , so it can't even be calibrated in HDR.

The current samsung Q9FNs already do ~1800nit, more advanced displays and especially mini LED should do 4000 to 10,000nit. Movies are mastered at 10,0000nit and UHD HDR discs are mastered at 10,000 .. 4,000 .. and 1,000 currently."

-------
https://www.resetera.com/threads/hdr-games-analysed.23587/

-----
Incomplete HDR UHD movie list including Mastered peak luminances per movie:
-------

https://www.techhive.com/article/3239350/smart-tv/will-hdr-kill-your-oled-tv.html

"manufactured by LG) don’t actually use true blue, red, and green OLED subpixels the way OLED smartphone displays do. Instead, they use white (usually, a combination of blue and yellow) subpixels with red, green, and blue filters on top. This has many advantages when it comes to large panel manufacturing and wear leveling, but filters also block light and reduce brightness.

To compensate, a fourth, white sub-pixel is added to every pixel to increase brightness. But when you add white to any color, it gets lighter as well as brighter, which de-emphasizes the desired color. "

---
AVS forum reply
" The WRGB OLEDs due to the introduction of the 'white' sub-pixel, this distorts the standard RGB color channel relationship - excessively at HDR brightness levels. (if you sum the Y of 100% patch of R+G+B primaries you get 400nits while the same time if you display a 100% White patch you get 800nit...so your color gamut is limited to 400 nits... this means that WRGB OLED's can never be calibrated accurately for HDR... ...but can be calibrated with 3D LUT in SDR mode, the recommendation is up 105-110 nits, there will be to ABL limiting and displays are more stable overs the time at these nits levels."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nenu
like this

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,772
Samsung Q9FN is pretty good response for a tv.. even relatively low with interpolation on for 30fps consoles and 60hz limited pc games. The 2019 versions should have hdmi 2.1 for 120hz native input at 4k.


1440p @ 120 Hz: 10.8 ms

Excellent low input lag on the 2018 Q9FN across all input resolutions, as long as Game Mode is activated. Excellent low input lag at 120Hz, which is great for gaming.

With Game Motion Plus enabled, input lag is 21.0 ms with 60 Hz interpolation, and 27.3 ms with 120 Hz interpolation.

Update 06/05/2018: Input lag of 1440p @ 120 Hz: 25.2 ms. This input lag was tested at the same time as the others, but was omitted from the review by mistake.

Update 06/11/2018: 1440p @ 120 Hz performance has improved as of firmware version 1103. The 1440p @ 120 Hz input lag is now 10.8 ms, down from 25.2 ms.
 
Last edited:

MistaSparkul

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
1,404
Yep people on overclock.net all act like the shitty edge lit AUO 144Hz panels have the best image quality ever.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
5,927
I'm enjoying my LG IPS monitor over the Samsung TV I have.

Mostly because it does 166Hz and lag is very low. It feels really smooth and responsive. Picture quality is not a issue either.

The TV is still cool for PS4 Pro console gaming, but it feels pretty choppy for PC gaming at 4K60 (1440p120 is decent though).
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,759
The Xbox One/PS4 generation was one of the worst relative to modern hardware, at the time, and it's gotten worse, not better. The One X/PS4 Pro upgrade brought very little, and none of these consoles are actually rendering 4k. The next generation might roll with minimal 4k performance.
It matters little what the hardware is when the console exclusives still manage to look better than most PC games thanks to checkerboard rendering. I am not too bothered that they run at 30 fps, it's acceptable for a lot of slower paced 3rd person games. PC is becoming the domain of multiplayer shooters and indie games and I have zero interest in Battlefield, R6 Siege etc. I actually sold my 980 Ti several months ago because there were no PC games coming out this year that I would consider must buys. My favorite games in the last 6 months have been all console exclusives.

The next game I consider a must buy is Sekiro coming sometime next year. My plan was to get a new GPU at that time, hopefully cheaper than what they cost now but it is not looking great. At this rate I have to re-evaluate if I want to play on PC when the next console generation rolls around.
 

chris7191

n00b
Joined
Sep 25, 2018
Messages
62
I still prefer IPS for monitors. I use my monitor in a well-lit room, VA color shift is more of an issue for me.
 

haste.

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
1,651
1. Every generation of console closes the gap even more when compared to PC (Xbox One X can play some games 4K 30-60 FPS, although probably medium-high PC settings)
Depends on the game. Forza 7 on the onex @4k/60 HDR looks far better than on my 980ti and 5820k OC on high settings. Same with Horizon 4. Depends on the dev and what resources they are utilizing. Can't keep up the frame rates that I get on the PC and both are well optimized on PC, but for PQ it's no comparison. Full disclosure I'm using a few year old BenQ 144 for my main and certainly have muddled colors when comparing to either my OLED or QLED.
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,031
PC is becoming the domain of multiplayer shooters and indie games
Um? There has never been a time with a wider variety of quality PC games being released in all genres. There are flat out too many good games coming out these days for anyone with a job to even hope to play a small fraction of them. Ignoring FPS and battle royales which are obviously superior on PC, MMORPGs are still primarily the domain of the PC. So is the moba genre(lame attempts to make them work on mobile notwithstanding). There are tons of great strategy games(Civ6, Stellaris, Total War, Xcom 2, Frostpunk, Battletech) being released all the time. Certainly the RPG and racing genres tend to have more options on console, but they've gotta be good for something, right?

There is one 384 dimming zones dell up2718q I think
Yeah but this monitor sucks, no one should buy it. The HDR implementation is garbage and has very high FALD delay, on top of it being 60hz only. And it's certainly not cheap, either, despite being crap.
 

fwiler1

Weaksauce
Joined
Feb 14, 2016
Messages
66
It matters little what the hardware is when the console exclusives still manage to look better than most PC games thanks to checkerboard rendering. I am not too bothered that they run at 30 fps, it's acceptable for a lot of slower paced 3rd person games. PC is becoming the domain of multiplayer shooters and indie games and I have zero interest in Battlefield, R6 Siege etc. I actually sold my 980 Ti several months ago because there were no PC games coming out this year that I would consider must buys. My favorite games in the last 6 months have been all console exclusives.

The next game I consider a must buy is Sekiro coming sometime next year. My plan was to get a new GPU at that time, hopefully cheaper than what they cost now but it is not looking great. At this rate I have to re-evaluate if I want to play on PC when the next console generation rolls around.
That's the truth right there. I'm still amazed at how good stuff looks on my ps4 pro compared to games that need 1080 graphics card. Some of it is from developers that know how to limit or exaggerate lighting to give better sense of depth and the other is not spending time on details that no one ever notices unless you are up close and standing still.
 

Jumpem

Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2000
Messages
727
That's fair but most HDTVs don't have anything more than edge backlights either. OP isn't saying if he is comparing to OLED or something.
I have an edge lit quantum dot Samsung. The picture quality is significantly better than an IPS monitor. An OLED would be much better even.
 

Jumpem

Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2000
Messages
727
The 'HDR' G-Sync monitors are FALD- which is a fairly halfassed way to approximate HDR.

However, once calibrated, both should be similar outside of black levels where the emmissive OLED should win hands down.
FALD and also with quantum dots. That is good as it is going to get until OLED monitors are a thing.
 

Jumpem

Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2000
Messages
727
having a gaming PC that looks/performs better than a console is starting to become more of an upper-class hobby than a middle-class one.
This is where my thoughts have also been going.

A monitor that can keep pace with a living room TV is $1,900. Add another $1,300 for a video card to drive it.
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
14,497
FALD and also with quantum dots. That is good as it is going to get until OLED monitors are a thing.
I won't argue the 'good as it's going to get' part, but I'm not a fan of FALD artifacting. It's distracting enough in movies, I'd rather just do without it in games/desktop use.

Just like your console comment is personal bias. So, you both have opinions and no one cares what those are.
Not really? It's a comment on the level of hardware in the console versus what was available on desktops at the time of release. That's fairly objective. The main jump this generation has been in the number of real thread resources and the amount of memory available relative to graphics requirements, but performance was/is objectively lower.
 

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,221
Don't mistake exaggerated colors and contrast for accuracy though. Properly calibrated IPS display and HDTV should look just as good when viewing SDR content, depending on the individual displays compared of course.
Dont mistake the ability to actually be able to display the colours for exaggerated.
You can calibrate the nuts off a display but if it does not have a wide enough gamut, it wont display all the colours correctly.
Calibration cannot fix this.
 

wyqtor

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
447
This is why I bought a 144 Hz Quantum Dot VA monitor from Samsung last year. Only downside for me is no G-Sync.
 

Greyson

n00b
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
57
Dont mistake the ability to actually be able to display the colours for exaggerated.
You can calibrate the nuts off a display but if it does not have a wide enough gamut, it wont display all the colours correctly.
Calibration cannot fix this.
There are plenty of wide-gamut monitors on the market and few games actually make use of the extended color space, console or otherwise.

IPS certainly has its flaws but don't mistake mid-tier 144hz gaming monitors for the kind of IPS performance found in professional monitors.


2. PC gaming is become more expensive every year (see RTX 2080ti, i9 9900k, 16gb ram prices, etc.)
PC gaming is becoming less expensive every year because the performance of the mid-tier cards is increasing and you no longer need an xx80/TI or Titan series card to run modern games at max unless you're driving 4K, or VR, and the difference is that 4K on PC is real 4K.
 
Last edited:

Nenu

[H]ardened
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
19,221
There are plenty of wide-gamut monitors on the market and few games actually make use of the extended color space, console or otherwise.

IPS certainly has its flaws but don't mistake mid-tier 144hz gaming monitors for the kind of IPS performance found in professional monitors.
I didnt say wide gamut, I side wide enough gamut. No mention of HDR.
ie the % of SDR colour space not HDR.
 

kasakka

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Messages
1,759
PC gaming is becoming less expensive every year because the performance of the mid-tier cards is increasing and you no longer need an xx80/TI or Titan series card to run modern games at max unless you're driving 4K, or VR, and the difference is that 4K on PC is real 4K.
The problem is also that most PC games don't support things like checkerboard rendering whereas they tend to be the norm on consoles now. Hell, consoles even properly scale 1080p to 4K without the blurry crap that happens on AMD and Nvidia cards because after years of requesting better scaling they have done absolutely nothing to improve it.
 

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,772
IPS weakness is black depth. The only good one for that are the nvidia FALD ones.


6OJtiel.png

----------------------------------------
tftcentral review pg27uq

"screen calibrated to around 120 cd/m2 and FALD active in SDR mode we measured a black depth of 0.02 cd/m2 and therefore an active contrast ratio of ~6000:1"

"absolute peak luminance of the screen measured was around 1236 cd/m2 which represents the upper limit of the backlight capabilities and is actually a fair amount beyond the manufacturer spec of 1000 cd/m2. This was achieved when the screen tried to show content mastered at 2000 and 4000 cd/m2 levels.

With a peak luminance of around 1237 cd/m2 possible, we measured a black point on the same screen of 0.02 cd/m2."

------------------------------------------

Unfortunately they are small for my taste for 4k at 27" diagonal's ~ 13" height. They also lack hdmi 2.1 for 4:4:4 120hz 4k native and are $2000+ for such a small 4k screen.
 
Last edited:

xp3nd4bl3

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 25, 2004
Messages
2,259
To me the biggest difference between gaming on my HDR OLED and my IPS monitor seems to be the goddamn antiglare coating. There was a brief period when high refresh 1440p semi-gloss could be had and they were pretty glorious compared to all the washed out heavily coated gaming monitors these days.
 

Greyson

n00b
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
57
The problem is also that most PC games don't support things like checkerboard rendering whereas they tend to be the norm on consoles now. Hell, consoles even properly scale 1080p to 4K without the blurry crap that happens on AMD and Nvidia cards because after years of requesting better scaling they have done absolutely nothing to improve it.
It's the norm on consoles because they don't have the power to render 4K at native res, even at 30 frames. (Which feels awful.) There's no demand for it on PC because the only market space it would occupy is people who want to drive 4K displays on mid-tier hardware but hell even the 1070 can do native 4K @ 30-60FPS with decent quality settings (depending on the game, obviously) when paired with a similar processor, and the sharpness of native 4K on a monitor with high pixel density blows away any console experience you'll get on a TV, in my personal opinion.

IPS weakness is black depth.
I don't think anyone would argue that. But i'll point out that the highest contrast they measured on that list was a static contrast of 1090:1 which may be the max on gaming monitors, but professional IPS displays can measure at 1500:1 which combined with much better luminance uniformity and low backlight bleed (two things that do not help the already low contrast and are typically notoriously bad on high refresh rate monitors) produce a much better looking image, espically when combined with IPS's benefits and 4K.

Is IPS the end-all be-all technology? Definitely not. They all have their advantages and disadvantages and until some real strides are made in the industry either with OLED or MicroLED that's probably not going to change. As always right now it's just a matter of picking which advantages suit you better.
 

wyqtor

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 30, 2011
Messages
447
Is IPS the end-all be-all technology? Definitely not. They all have their advantages and disadvantages and until some real strides are made in the industry either with OLED or MicroLED that's probably not going to change. As always right now it's just a matter of picking which advantages suit you better.
Things already changed, there are plenty of good 144 Hz VA monitors out there for the people who like high contrast and good uniformity, maybe at a small cost in terms of longer pixel transitions.

Personally I am done with IPS and its atrocious uniformity problems, IPS glow and low contrast, which has always been just one small step above TN. It's 144 Hz Quantum Dot VA or bust from now on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: elvn
like this

elvn

2[H]4U
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
3,772
I agree about non FALD IPS/TN pitiful black depths and contrast ratios. However 384 zone FALD works pretty well for now on the nvidia HDR IPS monitors. Their contrast ratio and black level is very high even being IPS, well above modern VA gaming monitor's ~3000:1 and even equal to or higher than many non FALD VA tv's native contrast of ~ 5,000:1 to 6,000:1.

----
"screen calibrated to around 120 cd/m2 and FALD active in SDR mode we measured a black depth of 0.02 cd/m2 and therefore an active contrast ratio of ~6000:1"
----

I've read that the PG27UQ 27" HDR FALD can even hit 8000:1 to 11,000:1 in HDR mode. A samsung Q9FN being VA based with 480zone FALD can hit 19.000:1

Of course FALD has trade-off in that in some scenes it has either a slight dimming or slight glowing offset to the surrounding pixel areas (samsung's dim slightly). For SDR 4k movies, I'm pretty happy with my vizio 4k from a few years ago that has only 32 zones I believe, maybe 64. I'm looking forward to getting a 480 zone samsung with hdmi 2.1 4k 120hz native 4:4:4, VRR, and ~ 2000nit HDR with 19,000:1 contrast ratio or more in 2019 I hope, perhaps as a pc gaming monitor with my pc setup re-arranged around it for distance. I'm not interested in a ~ 13" tall 4k nvidia HDR screen that lacks hdmi 2.1 so those are out of the running for me.
 

Jumpem

Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2000
Messages
727
Things already changed, there are plenty of good 144 Hz VA monitors out there for the people who like high contrast and good uniformity, maybe at a small cost in terms of longer pixel transitions.

Personally I am done with IPS and its atrocious uniformity problems, IPS glow and low contrast, which has always been just one small step above TN. It's 144 Hz Quantum Dot VA or bust from now on.
With G-Sync?
 
Top