![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
New Samsung 4k for everyone.
- Thread starter seanclayton
- Start date
It's 1/25 shutter speed. This is why I mentioned that it's hybrid. The pictures don't lie, that's why I posted it.
Edit: Notice how lighter at backlight 5 than 15 and 20? Doesn't it make you believe it's some sort of direct current involved?
Nobu
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2007
- Messages
- 10,054
Duty-cycle and pulse width are related, but...well: You can adjust the pulse width while still having the same duty cycle, so long as the Period is also adjusted. If you shorten the period but have the same pulse width, then you'll have a higher duty cycle (because the pulses are necessarily closer together).
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,315
I'll describe the concept of PWM and how the current driver is implemented.
There could also be variations on the theme in practise as well, I'll cover one.
To detect what is really happening, the pulses need to be viewed in the time domain because the whole screen is lit at the same time.
This means that a trace of the pulse width is not left on part of the screen so I'm not sure its possible to capture this in a photo.
I'll keep an open mind on it just in case
PWM = Pulse Width Modulation.
A pulse is repeated at a determined frequency, the width of which can be varied to change the average power level.
The pulse has an on portion and an off portion before being repeated, these are described by the duty cycle %, as referenced by Nobu above.
When pulses are played fast into a light system, the eye sees the average light level from the light power produced.
Ordinarily, the pulse length remains static for all pulses at a certain brightness level.
However there is no law that says this must be so, and where it is convenient to change the pulse width, it may well be happening.
Until we know better though, its best to assume that the pulse width for a brightness level is constant.
This means that all pulses are exactly the same width all the time until the brightness setting changes.
Possibly...
When used for LCD purposes, PWM lighting can be used for setting the brightness level and for masking the ghosting period of the LCD display as the old picture fades away and the new picture is being drawn.
Its "possible" that regardless of the light level set (ie the PWM pulse width if it were constant), the display mfr may have set the first pulse of a frames off period to be a constant length to mask the ghosting/drawing period.
ie the first pulse which is timed such that its off period co-incides with the drawing of the frame is set to be off for long enough such that all or most of the ghosting/blur is never displayed.
This results in different length pulses in one frame.
These might cause more flickering which results in a need for higher frequency PWM operation to hide.
There is also the ability to control the maximum power of a pulse as well.
This will be under a backlight control setting. Mine on my LG TV is called Power Saving and gives me 3 different max light levels.
This controller will be a constant current/voltage driver.
The PWM circuit uses this constant output to determine the maximum height (power) of the pulse.
So PWM lighting has its power controlled in 2 ways, the pulse width and the pulse height.
Nenu
[H]ardened
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2007
- Messages
- 20,315
You are right, it certainly figures.
The shorter the duty cycle (the shorter the on period of the pulse) and the lower the frequency, the more likely the eye will notice for either case.
Even worse for low f and short duty cycle together.
They are short but not short enough for many display types.
It took a few searches but here's Ziran's test/photo of the 7500 backlight @ 1/9s:
http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041516094&postcount=279
Looks like pretty standard PWM to me.
> You can adjust the pulse width while still having the same duty cycle, so long as the Period is also adjusted.
These backlights are pulsed at fixed freq afaik. PWM is just a fancy way of saying changing the duty cycle to adjust average output.
> To detect what is really happening, the pulses need to be viewed in the time domain because the whole screen is lit at the same time.
The way the test is done is by moving the camera across a line or whatever, the resulting motion blur through its shutter opening period is time-domain.
> This will be under a backlight control setting. Mine on my LG TV is called Power Saving and gives me 3 different max light levels.
Ziran tested the Eco level on his 7500 and it's same thing as lowering backlight setting. Is the LG one actually lower levels?
----
edit: Actually I'm not sure what the model in Ziran's photos is. He mentioned the 7500 just before the posts, but 120hz pwm seems pretty ridiculous for a 240hz set. Maybe it lowers freq for <240hz refreshes or I misread the model he's talking about.
Last edited:
Is that on lowest backlight setting?
Can you capture more than one cycle for this TV? See Ziran's pic for ref. If yours is accurate that means the backlight on the 7100 and 7500 are completely different.
--
edit:
Again to clarify. You're moving the camera against static lines and not using something like this which is not a PWM test, right?: http://www.testufo.com/#test=blurtr...&thickness=1&height=-1&ppf=16&separation=1000
Last edited:
I'm not sure why I'm not getting the same results. Here is my camera taking it at 1/10 shutter. The camera is a Nikon D800, so I don't think it's because I"m using a cheap camera.
With a shutter open for 1/10 of a second, I am counting 6 fat pulse lines.
Whatever the case may be, it looks like the backlight is almost always "on" which is very close to continuous. Doesn't this suggest that even with a low PWM rate, this should not cause issues with eye strain or headaches?
I think a 120 PWM with lines like the Dell would be an issue. With the backlight that's on 95% of the time like the picture shows, it shouldn't be as bad as ones where the backlight is off 50-75% of the time like the Dell?
So your PWM operates at 60hz? Really? You sure you're doing a PWM test?
This might mean we need more folks to test their 6500/6700/7100/7500 sets (make sure to move camera against a static line) to make sure the backlight is actually substantially different between them.
This might mean we need more folks to test their 6500/6700/7100/7500 sets (make sure to move camera against a static line) to make sure the backlight is actually substantially different between them.
That's it! We were using different methods. The static method does show similar lines to Ziran's. However, the moving method shows that the Samsung has more persistence (single blob) than the Dell. Does that mean anything or is it a waste of time?
The motion test tests for motion blur, not pwm. It's supposed to be done at full backlight (100%) or otherwise can cause side-effects from the pwm.
The weird "trails" your photos show is why I suspected you were using something else. To be fair I've never done the test and basing this off theoretical understanding.
You're showing the dell has a lot less persistence, which may or may not mean anything depending on the combination of backlight PWM / line-moving-speed / panel-itself. This actually still *implies* higher pwm duty/% (since the panel appears OFF when backlight is OFF). I suppose if someone thought through & calced these combination of factors they can figure out what it's showing but not too useful as is.
Best if you did the proper PWM test which is moving the camera against a static line (producing a time-domain trace like an oscilloscope), and comparing the ratio of on/off.
The weird "trails" your photos show is why I suspected you were using something else. To be fair I've never done the test and basing this off theoretical understanding.
You're showing the dell has a lot less persistence, which may or may not mean anything depending on the combination of backlight PWM / line-moving-speed / panel-itself. This actually still *implies* higher pwm duty/% (since the panel appears OFF when backlight is OFF). I suppose if someone thought through & calced these combination of factors they can figure out what it's showing but not too useful as is.
Best if you did the proper PWM test which is moving the camera against a static line (producing a time-domain trace like an oscilloscope), and comparing the ratio of on/off.
Unfortunately, I exchanged my 6500 for the 7100 so I don't have an A/B test. However, here is the motion blur for the 7100, captured at 1/60s shutter. This is much better than the blur on the J6500. The blur on the J6500 is different and much more pronounced. It seems to have "rings" around it.
If someone else has Starcraft, they can upload a capture with the mouse scrolled left and right, can compare on their J6500/J6700. I'm not sure that image blur, which can be seen with the eye, can be a placebo effect. However, I'm happy to be proven wrong so I can save $400. =)
If someone else has Starcraft, they can upload a capture with the mouse scrolled left and right, can compare on their J6500/J6700. I'm not sure that image blur, which can be seen with the eye, can be a placebo effect. However, I'm happy to be proven wrong so I can save $400. =)
Are we sure that PWM is ONLY affected by the 'Backlight' setting?
I'm not convinced that the Contrast & Brightness settings don't also affect PWM. This may explain some of the inconsistencies - if Contrast, for instance, wasn't at the same level while adjusting and measuring different backlight settings. It seems whether you adjust Contrast, HDMI Black Level, or Backlight Level or even brightness, it's all basically doing almost the same thing and ends up at the same result, IMO.
I'm not convinced that the Contrast & Brightness settings don't also affect PWM. This may explain some of the inconsistencies - if Contrast, for instance, wasn't at the same level while adjusting and measuring different backlight settings. It seems whether you adjust Contrast, HDMI Black Level, or Backlight Level or even brightness, it's all basically doing almost the same thing and ends up at the same result, IMO.
Lateralus
More [H]uman than Human
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2004
- Messages
- 18,503
I just realized what a bunch of nerds we are. Analyzing this stuff to the Nth level.
How about this: buy it with a safe return policy. Does it make you squeal with joy? If so, keep it. Why are we over-analyzing everything?
I just came to this revelation after playing a few hours of GTA V on my 48JU6700. It's freaking awesome. No regrets. I could be happy with this display for the next few years, yet we spend hours/days and debate in endless posts about what's marginally better. Trying to find that extra 1%...
Carry on.
How about this: buy it with a safe return policy. Does it make you squeal with joy? If so, keep it. Why are we over-analyzing everything?
I just came to this revelation after playing a few hours of GTA V on my 48JU6700. It's freaking awesome. No regrets. I could be happy with this display for the next few years, yet we spend hours/days and debate in endless posts about what's marginally better. Trying to find that extra 1%...
Carry on.
I just realized what a bunch of nerds we are. Analyzing this stuff to the Nth level.
How about this: buy it with a safe return policy. Does it make you squeal with joy? If so, keep it. Why are we over-analyzing everything?
I just came to this revelation after playing a few hours of GTA V on my 48JU6700. It's freaking awesome. No regrets. I could be happy with this display for the next few years, yet we spend hours/days and debate in endless posts about what's marginally better. Trying to find that extra 1%...
Carry on.
I agree. I'm doing this as service to other people who want to know the difference and which one to purchase. If other's don't think this is productive, let me know and I'll stop. I'd rather be playing games and watch Game of Thrones myself. =)
Supposedly the Contrast (white point)/Brightness (black point) are panel-side adjustments.
This is why I asked from the start on the single digit thread pages whether contrast scales linearly to mitigate possible backlight PWM issues using the LCD.
> How about this: buy it with a safe return policy. Does it make you squeal with joy? If so, keep it. Why are we over-analyzing everything?
Many of us have to buy new video cards and possibly new computers. In any case it's a nerd forum.
Brahmzy will break it all down in a few days, looking forward to it.
But you can tell how happy the guys who took delivery a week ago are with their 6500/6700s though because they've gone quiet in the thread the past few days...
No time to post when you're playing with your new toy for hours on end lol.
But you can tell how happy the guys who took delivery a week ago are with their 6500/6700s though because they've gone quiet in the thread the past few days...
No time to post when you're playing with your new toy for hours on end lol.
48JU7500
And yes its 120Hz PWM.
Here is an even better picture at 20 back light brightness (and moving camera MUCH faster):
http://i.imgur.com/3K7iDdH.jpg
You can see there there is a little PWM even at 20 back light. And it is 120Hz (1/9s shutter and 13 bands)
Also 48JU7500 has a "Motion Rate 240" that is not the same thing as 240Hz refresh. In fact I am pretty sure it is 120Hz actual internal maximum refresh (with the 6500/6700 having maximum 60Hz refresh and "Motion Rate 120"). But the only way to use the 120Hz refresh is in the "movie" mode to enable fake frames to be inserted in (high lag looks bad for computer images), or to insert a blank frame every frame. That 60Hz black frame causes horrible flicker so its unusable (it works much better at 24Hz for movies).
It is possible that the 7000 lines does have a panel with a better response to enable it to use the 120Hz internal refresh rate. But other then less blur there is no way to use it directly in PC or GAME mode.
So really nobody's measured for the 6x00 TVs yet.
It's also not possible to have 240 of something displayed on an LCD per sec with only 120 pulses of illumination, so who knows what Samsung's game is.
Also, PWM strain can be bit of a "silent killer" since it's not obvious. The problem is compounded on a computer display because the backgrounds are white, and when you're working at a computer for a while the white level is turned down to prevent searing retinas but that only makes the pulses narrower.
Last edited:
All I'm really hoping for is less blur. Less enough to make the switch worth the $. We'll see.
Problem is, there's NO way I can go baack now though - I've tasted the curved 4K fruit and it is SWEET.
I think you're going to find it worth it. The rtings reviews and comparisons between the 6500 and 7100 were pretty definitive, and they did them pretty close together. Plus as Ziran just mentioned, basically it's a 120Hz panel versus a 60Hz panel, and all that comes with that.
Good stuff either way, thank god Fry's is only ten minutes away haha.
Since it was requested I have taken some motion response / lag testing of the 48JU7500 compared to BL3200PT (JU7500 on left, BL3200PT on the right).
The ONLY way I found to do this that produced repeatable results that made sense was to duplicate the monitors. Set 1080p resolution and set scaling to be done on display not GPU. This way both monitors are getting the exact same input. The downside is that both go through the internal hw scaler.
There is no way to do this without using internal hw scaler because if one of the monitors is going through GPU scaling or running at different resolution Windows will run one monitor with vsync off which throws off the results randomly.
These tests were done with the refresh rate set to 60Hz 1080p resolution. Back-light: 20, contrast: 90, brightness: 60, sharpness 50 (0 in game). Bl3200PT settings where brightness 100 contrast 50 (these are my normal settings I use for both monitors and also the most bright settings you can use that do not crush the blacks or the whites).
This gif shows what happens when using the refresh rate multi tool (except at much higher speed with new bar lighting up every 1/60s and the previous one turning off):
This thread explains the multi tool:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1423433
The images have exposure time of 1/30s so it is normal to see 2 frames fully lit up (any more then 2 is "blur").
These are the images I took in PC mode (4-4-4 chroma):
http://imgur.com/uMFNs02,ItbrVu9,9Z...JT4Q3,5L3QqTr,CJQsoQ3,iRrtOwc,rLCY8Ph,XqnFcMj
These are in GAME mode (not 4-4-4 chroma):
http://imgur.com/yNZN9Zf,C3vsFR1,du...YqkNc,OgnBRZh,eDlBQCF,NHNJWFj,sIE9pCG,98uDDT1
To me it looks like in PC mode the JU7500 has about half a frame worth of higher input latency compared to BL3200PT. In GAME mode the JU7500 has about half a frame worth of lower input latency compared to BL3200PT. But you can judge for yourself. There are 14 images for each mode and I just picked the first 14. I did not cherry pick anything.
In terms of pixel response both monitors are roughly equivalent with each having less then 1 frame worth of "blur"
On subjective note the PC mode is plenty fast for me. I do not bother setting game mode for games because I cannot see the difference anyway and I can see the 4-4-4 difference. If you do use GAME mode make sure to set sharpness to 0 as the default sharpness of 50 look horrible (50 sharpness in PC mode looks good).
On another subject I removed the monitor stand and placed the monitor directly on bar stools behind the desk (they are about 1/2 inch lower then desk). This places the LCD screen flush with the desk. The height for me now is perfect. This monitor is not too tall in this configuration (you can see it in these pictures). The bottom of the monitor is slightly slanted such that when placed on flat surface the monitor leans back slightly. This is perfect as angles the monitor up toward me naturally. Just hope there is no earthquake
The ONLY way I found to do this that produced repeatable results that made sense was to duplicate the monitors. Set 1080p resolution and set scaling to be done on display not GPU. This way both monitors are getting the exact same input. The downside is that both go through the internal hw scaler.
There is no way to do this without using internal hw scaler because if one of the monitors is going through GPU scaling or running at different resolution Windows will run one monitor with vsync off which throws off the results randomly.
These tests were done with the refresh rate set to 60Hz 1080p resolution. Back-light: 20, contrast: 90, brightness: 60, sharpness 50 (0 in game). Bl3200PT settings where brightness 100 contrast 50 (these are my normal settings I use for both monitors and also the most bright settings you can use that do not crush the blacks or the whites).
This gif shows what happens when using the refresh rate multi tool (except at much higher speed with new bar lighting up every 1/60s and the previous one turning off):
This thread explains the multi tool:
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1423433
The images have exposure time of 1/30s so it is normal to see 2 frames fully lit up (any more then 2 is "blur").
These are the images I took in PC mode (4-4-4 chroma):
http://imgur.com/uMFNs02,ItbrVu9,9Z...JT4Q3,5L3QqTr,CJQsoQ3,iRrtOwc,rLCY8Ph,XqnFcMj
These are in GAME mode (not 4-4-4 chroma):
http://imgur.com/yNZN9Zf,C3vsFR1,du...YqkNc,OgnBRZh,eDlBQCF,NHNJWFj,sIE9pCG,98uDDT1
To me it looks like in PC mode the JU7500 has about half a frame worth of higher input latency compared to BL3200PT. In GAME mode the JU7500 has about half a frame worth of lower input latency compared to BL3200PT. But you can judge for yourself. There are 14 images for each mode and I just picked the first 14. I did not cherry pick anything.
In terms of pixel response both monitors are roughly equivalent with each having less then 1 frame worth of "blur"
On subjective note the PC mode is plenty fast for me. I do not bother setting game mode for games because I cannot see the difference anyway and I can see the 4-4-4 difference. If you do use GAME mode make sure to set sharpness to 0 as the default sharpness of 50 look horrible (50 sharpness in PC mode looks good).
On another subject I removed the monitor stand and placed the monitor directly on bar stools behind the desk (they are about 1/2 inch lower then desk). This places the LCD screen flush with the desk. The height for me now is perfect. This monitor is not too tall in this configuration (you can see it in these pictures). The bottom of the monitor is slightly slanted such that when placed on flat surface the monitor leans back slightly. This is perfect as angles the monitor up toward me naturally. Just hope there is no earthquake
Last edited:
I'm using this same cable in 10' with white sheathing and it's working fine.
http://www.amazon.com/Monoprice-10-Feet-18Gbps-Performance-Technology/dp/B00H7N50HG
Maybe you just got a bad cable and a replacement will be fine?
Other variables:
MSI GTX 980
40JU6700
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
JU7100 vs JU7100 with Motion Interpolation vs JU7100 with LED Clear Motion Enabled
JU6500 vs JU6500 with Motion Interpolation
PWM Free 2014 Sony vs PWM Free 2014 Sony with Motion Interpolation
When MI is disabled, the Samsungs appear to have multiple stacked letters since they use PWM. PWM makes moving content like the UFO in the Test UFO Ghosting Test appear stuttery or like it's moving side to side rapidly while also moving in a set direction. Rtings tests are quite similar to the Blur Buster comparison I posted. The Crossover 44k (OCN thread) I mentioned earlier has been confirmed to be PWM free, support 4:4:4 and look much better the new 4k Seikis, but it does drop frames when overclocked as expected. It likely stretches content like the Philips too.
JU6500 vs JU6500 with Motion Interpolation
PWM Free 2014 Sony vs PWM Free 2014 Sony with Motion Interpolation
When MI is disabled, the Samsungs appear to have multiple stacked letters since they use PWM. PWM makes moving content like the UFO in the Test UFO Ghosting Test appear stuttery or like it's moving side to side rapidly while also moving in a set direction. Rtings tests are quite similar to the Blur Buster comparison I posted. The Crossover 44k (OCN thread) I mentioned earlier has been confirmed to be PWM free, support 4:4:4 and look much better the new 4k Seikis, but it does drop frames when overclocked as expected. It likely stretches content like the Philips too.
Last edited:
> PWM makes moving content like the UFO in the Test UFO Ghosting Test appear stuttery or like it's moving side to side rapidly while also moving in a set direction
That's a misunderstanding of what's actually going on. The image looks stuttery because it's shot with a real camera shutter and therefore persists though time even for events which do not overlap. IOW, the double image isn't happening at the same time, but one after another and just happen to be caught in a certain slice of time.
This happens on artificial images (not video filmed with real camera) which aren't generated with motion blur. PWM or not, the Samsungs or similar are true to the source.
If such discrete/sharp images appear smoother it's because some internal video processor added blur, either within each image and/or by using a lot of frames in between. Interpolation has its own issues (esp for real world video, which is most video not CG), and LCDs which display frames cannot magically blur time in between them. In the images of the sony set shown, there's actually less motion than in the samsung set, which which imply a shorter shutter speed (apples to bigger apples) and likely a shutter speed/timing was chosen include muliple frames from the samsung but not the sony.
Apparently these expert blur hunters never figured out how cameras or displays work.
That's a misunderstanding of what's actually going on. The image looks stuttery because it's shot with a real camera shutter and therefore persists though time even for events which do not overlap. IOW, the double image isn't happening at the same time, but one after another and just happen to be caught in a certain slice of time.
This happens on artificial images (not video filmed with real camera) which aren't generated with motion blur. PWM or not, the Samsungs or similar are true to the source.
If such discrete/sharp images appear smoother it's because some internal video processor added blur, either within each image and/or by using a lot of frames in between. Interpolation has its own issues (esp for real world video, which is most video not CG), and LCDs which display frames cannot magically blur time in between them. In the images of the sony set shown, there's actually less motion than in the samsung set, which which imply a shorter shutter speed (apples to bigger apples) and likely a shutter speed/timing was chosen include muliple frames from the samsung but not the sony.
Apparently these expert blur hunters never figured out how cameras or displays work.
No it is not, it's an anecdote about what I observe when comparing a monitor without PWM to one with PWM, which is something I have done numerous times. It's irrational to think that blurred content does not look worse on a display with PWM compared to one without, but it does not surprise me that you think it does not, nor does your dismissal of the similarities between Blur Busters and Rtings results, and neither does your attempt to imply Rtings reviewers are incompetent. It's possible that Rtings did use different shutter speeds, but it won't make much of a difference unless the shutter speeds are quite different.
> , it's an anecdote about what I observe when comparing a monitor without PWM to one with PWM, which is something I have done numerous times
No, it's showing an image which is only possible with a camera shutter given it's a composite of separate events distinct in time. Please take the time to understand what this statement means since it's evidently not trivial.
If the tripe above is what the display review sites are pushing, then they simply don't understand display/image basics and therefore whatever they might get right is a matter of coincidence.
PWM doesn't "cause" blur, and if anything blur is what you want for moving abstract art to appear smooth. Temperal interpolation (algorithms) is the way to get that desired smoothness without added bandwidth. That also ideally should be done in the computer/source with full info of what's being shown (eg. CG or not and all sorts of hints to these necessarily imperfect algs) rather than the display where the metadata is lost.
No, it's showing an image which is only possible with a camera shutter given it's a composite of separate events distinct in time. Please take the time to understand what this statement means since it's evidently not trivial.
If the tripe above is what the display review sites are pushing, then they simply don't understand display/image basics and therefore whatever they might get right is a matter of coincidence.
PWM doesn't "cause" blur, and if anything blur is what you want for moving abstract art to appear smooth. Temperal interpolation (algorithms) is the way to get that desired smoothness without added bandwidth. That also ideally should be done in the computer/source with full info of what's being shown (eg. CG or not and all sorts of hints to these necessarily imperfect algs) rather than the display where the metadata is lost.
That Crossover panel is garbage, one that makes that hilarious $299 43" Quasar look a Kuro...
But if it works for you and your strange ultra-ultra-sensitivity to any PWM, even at the cost of image quality, by all means go for it...and I say that without snark.
We all have to do whatever works for us, our own individual choice. It's all just opinion, and I choose my opinion over yours NCX. Just as your opinion, to you, is a better fit than mine is for you.
Amazing how that works.
Please let me know when you have published your article about superior testing methodology and disproven what we know about PWM. Mark Rejhon and TFT Central will be very interested in your article, as will all of the major display manufacturers since they will be able to use your article to justify the use of low frequency PWM and save a ton of money.
No, your ignorant post is garbage.
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
I just realized what a bunch of nerds we are. Analyzing this stuff to the Nth level.
How about this: buy it with a safe return policy. Does it make you squeal with joy? If so, keep it. Why are we over-analyzing everything?
I just came to this revelation after playing a few hours of GTA V on my 48JU6700. It's freaking awesome. No regrets. I could be happy with this display for the next few years, yet we spend hours/days and debate in endless posts about what's marginally better. Trying to find that extra 1%...
Carry on.
Paralysis from Analysis. Usually form the people that don't own what they're discussing about.
Try the TV, don't like it, send it back. Don't like specs and will never buy? Have a discussion in a different topic.
Brahmzy will break it all down in a few days, looking forward to it.
But you can tell how happy the guys who took delivery a week ago are with their 6500/6700s though because they've gone quiet in the thread the past few days...
No time to post when you're playing with your new toy for hours on end lol.
Exactly. Not much else to say. All I can add is that after a couple weeks or however long it's been I haven't changed my mind. I still like it and living with it on a day to day basis isn't any more difficult than it was on day one.
Last edited:
If the rather straightforward statements above are controversial, it's pretty revealing how shambolic those sites or more likely your understanding of them must be.
Higher freq PWM nor anything short of blurring the image to simulate motion does absolutely nothing to prevent the fact that a multi-frame exposure of CG images w/o motion blur will result in the same "shuddery" composites. It's fundamentally baked into the source material. Discrete frames rather than contiguous motion are also a basic property of display technology and no amount of tweaking will change this fundamentally.
Again if these statements are hard to grasp please ask questions instead of reveling in ignorance.
Has anyone here received a panel with bad pixels from Samsung yet? We know that these are all A+ panels. The ones from the Korean companies are all reject panels that didn't make the cut, thus each are expected to have 1-6 dead pixels, and "only lighted ones" are considered bad, dark ones are not! If one is comfortable paying money for panels with dead pixels, then I guess those are worth it.
Furthermore, I hope someone has an A/B comparison of these panels. Samsung is a major and the biggest consumer electronics company in the world right now. To think that their army of brainiacs in the lab could produce an inferior looking product to a fly by night Korean company company that purchases rejected panels from Samsung/LG? These panels destroy any other monitors in image quality and I've gone through at least 5 of them before choosing this one. No crossover Ebay panel with bad pixels is going to be better. To even imply that is laughable.
Also, this infatuation with PWM is perculiar. Samsung expects to sell hundreds of thousands if not millions of these panels to people all over the world and some people can be expected to watch TV for 8-12 hours at a time. If a company with billions of dollars in resources that sell TVs at 3-5ks at a time (the bigger sizes get quite expensive), thinks people are going to get fatigued and return them, they're going to lose money. They obviously don't believe it to be a problem.
There are people who die from exposure to peanuts. Allergic reactions happen. That doesn't make peanuts a poisonous dangerous food.
LOL. Good morning.
Boy I wish those MI shots were what we could use! How much latency do they add? Something like 100ms??
I think one reason we're 'nerding out' here is the fact that quite a few of us ARE sensitive (to varying degrees) to PWM and/or BLUR. Yet we're desperately wanting large 4K monitors. I came off two years of using one of the fastest, largest 16:10 non-TN panels you can buy, with no visible PWM (hella IPS glow though.) Part of this new display is a huge step back for me in areas that are pretty important.
So, that said, I think we're trying to understand if there are any possible ways to optimize our viewing and to full understand the limitations of the things we can't. I don't want to send it back - I want it to work the way I need it to, which is why I'm willing to check the 7500 out.
@Cyph, haven't heard of any dead pixels from anyone - very impressive.
Keep in mind also, that these are TVs, not computer monitors. I think Samsung expects the majority to be sitting 5-10ft away (not 18-24") from these which greatly lessens the affects of PWM for those that are sensitive to it.
Boy I wish those MI shots were what we could use! How much latency do they add? Something like 100ms??
I think one reason we're 'nerding out' here is the fact that quite a few of us ARE sensitive (to varying degrees) to PWM and/or BLUR. Yet we're desperately wanting large 4K monitors. I came off two years of using one of the fastest, largest 16:10 non-TN panels you can buy, with no visible PWM (hella IPS glow though.) Part of this new display is a huge step back for me in areas that are pretty important.
So, that said, I think we're trying to understand if there are any possible ways to optimize our viewing and to full understand the limitations of the things we can't. I don't want to send it back - I want it to work the way I need it to, which is why I'm willing to check the 7500 out.
@Cyph, haven't heard of any dead pixels from anyone - very impressive.
Keep in mind also, that these are TVs, not computer monitors. I think Samsung expects the majority to be sitting 5-10ft away (not 18-24") from these which greatly lessens the affects of PWM for those that are sensitive to it.
Last edited:
When is your 7500 coming? Super curious to read your opinion on the A/B testing. You mentioned you're sensitive to PWM. Has it affected you?
WorldExclusive
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 11,548
This.
I use this TV 10+ hours a day for productivity. No headache or sense of fatigue.
Everyone is different, but the non-owners should take the owners reviews seriously. We love this thing.
Quality large 4K panels will be made by the TV giants, which means PWM, Blur, and slightly higher input lag will be present.
Given the panel quality of Phillips, Acer, ASUS, HP and Korean brands, even without PWM and lower input lag, I don't want what they have to offer now or in the future.