- Sep 7, 2004
TFT review not sure when it was published but think it was a few days ago for non Patrons.
And the calibration guide:
TFT review not sure when it was published but think it was a few days ago for non Patrons.
According to Rtings, they still couldn’t reign in the color as much as the sRGB mode. I think the color space was still 112% of sRGB after calibration.
Really annoying. I don’t want to drop $1K on a monitor to have even less calibration options than my $219 monitor from 2019.
https://www.rtings.com/monitor/reviews/lg/27gr95qe-bHmmm...I haven't seen RTINGS review this one yet - curious where you saw that?
I just did the LG Calibration Studio calibration when I did it for sRGB, but it seemed to have a dE of well under 2 for everything. Visually, not too much difference switching between sRGB and Calibration - the main difference is I could set target brightness and gamma.
Scroll down to Color Accuracy (Post-Calibration). This is the first time in memory where I've seen a monitor score worse than the pre-calibration. Are they doing something wrong? Also - the LG Calibration Studio calibration that you did - is it a true hardware calibration? Are the settings you apply to the screen done on hardware and thus hold for whatever display you use?
Also, I've been playing a game not using DLSS [on my video card] and thought the performance was good. Playing around, I enabled it the other day (I always thought it was unnecessary/could introduce artifacts if your system was beefy enough to run without it) and got a HUGE performance boost, to the point I can't even believe how responsive this monitor can actually get. (It was decent before, but this is a whole other level as far as how good/smooth it feels.) Pretty insane! I didn't use the frame counter but I'm quite sure I was hitting the 240 with DLSS on. It was like butter - definitely not going back to DLSS off.
Yep.BFI for modern titles too? If you want to turn on Ray Tracing...
While I am doing a fair number of strobe/BFI contracts behind the scenes, I am pressing hard for brute framerate-based motion blur reduction to gain much more traction by the end of the decade. Feeding off a small percentage of my contract work, I'm actually spending a significant amount of time/funds towards the future 1000fps 1000Hz ecosystem, since I've developed a new Blur Busters Master Plan all around it. So I plan to release some white papers/articles sometime this year about it. Reprojection is actually easier to deploy than one thinks -- the biggest problem is integration of inputreads into the reprojection API, so would ideally need to be done as sort of a UE plugin;Re-projection idea is cool but its much easier to make shader-less demo with few primitives than modern game with it. That said this tech already exists in VR world and I saw it years ago on Oculus Rift along with frame-rate interpolation. It made games running at 45 fps roughly feel like 90 fps. Even input latency was not an issue. What however was were artifacts. Some times subtle and at places somewhat jarring. Still I could see this tech adopted for games for normal displays. Especially with BFI could make real difference.
Please tell the manufacturers that the customers want it. Lots of us enthusiasts would love being able to have our cake and eat it too with OLED and BFI. I would jump on it in an instant. No cap. I’m a crt tube head that’s been waiting for this moment.While I am doing a fair number of strobe/BFI contracts behind the scenes, I am pressing hard for brute framerate-based motion blur reduction to gain much more traction by the end of the decade. Feeding off a small percentage of my contract work, I'm actually spending a significant amount of time/funds towards the future 1000fps 1000Hz ecosystem, since I've developed a new Blur Busters Master Plan all around it. So I plan to release some white papers/articles sometime this year about it. Reprojection is actually easier to deploy than one thinks -- the biggest problem is integration of inputreads into the reprojection API, so would ideally need to be done as sort of a UE plugin;
What I found that;
- ASW 2.0 was much more artifactless than ASW 1.0 because it used the depth buffer; so the jarring artifacts mostly disappeared; and
- Sample and hold reprojection has no double-image artifacts, it's simply extra motion blur on lower-framerate objects (unreprojected objects).
Tests with the downloadable demo (which is more akin to ASW 1.0 quality, rather than ASW 2.0 quality). Doing 100fps as the base frame rate, is above the flicker fusion threshold also eliminates a lot of reprojection artifacts. To understand the stutter-to-blur continuum (sample and hold stutters and blur is the same thing) -- see www.testufo.com/eyetracking#speed=-1 and look at 2nd UFO for at least 20 seconds. Low frame rates vibrates like a slow-vibrating music string, and high frame rates blur like a fast-vibrating music string.
Once reprojection starts off with a base frame rate above flicker fusion threshold (e.g. 100fps), the vibrating stutter is blur instead; and the sample and hold effect ensures there's no double-image effect. Now, apply the ASW 2.0 algorithm instead of ASW 1.0, and the artifacts is less than DLSS 3.0.
Some white papers will come out later 2023 to raise awareness by researchers, by developers, by GPU vendors, etc. With OLED having visible mainstream benefits even in non-game use (240Hz and 1000Hz is not just for esports anymore) if it can be done cheaply, with near zero-GtG displays. People won't pay for it if it costs unobtainum, but reprojection is a cheap upgrade to GPUs. And, will help sell more GPU s in the GPU glut, and also expand the market for high-Hz displays outside esports.
120Hz vs 240Hz is more mainstream visible on OLED than LCD, and the mainstreaming of 120Hz phones, tablets and consoles is raising awareness of the benefits of high refresh rates. One of the white papers I am aiming to write, is about the geometric upgrade requirement (60 -> 144 -> 360 -> 1000) combine with the simultaneous need to keep GtG as close to zero as possible. Non-flicker-based motion blur reduction is a hell lot more ergonomic; achieved via brute framerate-based motion blur reduction; reprojection ratios of 10:1 reduces display motion blur by 90% without strobing, making 1ms MPRT possible without strobing -- and I've seen it with my eyes. It's the future; but I need to play the Blur Busters Advocacy role to educate the industry (slowly) over the years -- like I did with LightBoost in 2012 to, um, spark the explosion of official strobe backlights.
The weak links preventing Hz-vs-Hz visibility caused by the spoonfeeding of GtG-bottlenecked jitter-bottlenecked refresh rate incrementalism means 240Hz-vs-360Hz, only a 1.5x difference, is literally throttled to only about 1.1x because of other various factors (slow GtG, jitter factors). Average users don't care about that. Even high-frequency jitter (70 jitters/sec at 360Hz) vibrates so fast that it's just extra blur; and that's on top of GtG blur mess on top of pure nice linear-blur MPRT.
Now, in a blind test, more Average Users (>90%) can tell 240Hz-vs-1000Hz on an experimental 0ms GtG display (monochrome DLP projector) in a random test (e.g. www.testufo.com/map becoming 4x clearer) much better than they can tell apart 144Hz-vs-240Hz LCD. You did have to zero-out GtG, and go ultra-dramatic up the curve, but just because many can't tell 240Hz-vs-360Hz or 144Hz-vs-240Hz, doesn't mean 240Hz-vs-1000Hz isn't a bigger difference to mainstream! (Blind test instructions were posted in the Area 51 of Blur Busters Discussion Forum).
On a zero-GtG display (where all motion blur is MPRT-only), for 240fps 240Hz versus 1000fps 1000Hz, the blur difference is akin to a 1/240sec photograph versus a 1/1000sec photograph (4x motion clarity difference):
As an indie that plays the Refresh Rate Advocacy role -- I try to find ways to convince companies. If the companies can see a market to pushing frame rates AND refresh rates up geometrically (and catch even a bigger % of the niche). The high Hz market is slowly becoming larger and larger.
I'm really focussed on firing all the cylinders of the weak-links motor. 240Hz OLED just solved the GtG bottleneck, reprojection will solve the GPU bottleneck, and 1000Hz OLED is being targeted before the end of the decade.
But yes, BFI is going to be perpetually important for games that can't use reprojection, and legacy material (I love saying "60 years of legacy 60fps 60Hz material"), as I'm pushing REALLY hard to multiple parties to add BFI to OLED. It's a challenge, since some don't think BFI is needed.
I'm doing both routes.
That's the content that OLED shines really well on. I've noticed even 10,000-LED-count FALD LCD still struggle on this specific type of material. FALD is superior for larger amounts of bright pixels than that, but if you're a lover of horror/space/dungeon/etc...Loving this monitor more and more.
Still doing my best. You've seen what I've done with some models to successfully bring 60Hz single-strobe to a few models.Please tell the manufacturers that the customers want it. Lots of us enthusiasts would love being able to have our cake and eat it too with OLED and BFI. I would jump on it in an instant. No cap. I’m a crt tube head that’s been waiting for this moment.
For simplicity of expectations, the first BFI would be for 60Hz and 120Hz only.
Based on what I now know about large-size OLED panel backplane behavior, I suspect we're hurtling faster towards 1000Hz capability (~2027-2030ish) than for subrefresh rolling-scan BFI.Noooooooo I already have a 120Hz BFI OLED (LG CX) and was really hoping for that next leap to 240Hz BFI OLED. I'm sure the motion clarity will be a sight to behold! Hopefully my CX will last until that day arrives.