| Page 4 of 5 |
|
|
 Posted: Mon, 23rd Mar 2015 20:02 Post subject: |
|
 |
i read most of your posts actually. i just don't have excessive time to quote every single sentence and respond to it in detail. not sure what i have to prove about ghosting, yes it can be caused by software and/or post processes that are happening on displays, especially HDTVs. is this all news to you?
but getting back to freesync...
it's all 3 monitors that have ghosting problem. Benq and LG from pcper testing and Acer from hardware.fr test. you are on a losing side of this argument so not sure why are you so aggressively defending your position. it's us, costumers, who are getting fucked by this in the end.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Mon, 23rd Mar 2015 20:38 Post subject: |
|
|
| rgb#000 wrote: | | not sure what i have to prove about ghosting, yes it can be caused by software and/or post processes that are happening on displays, especially HDTVs |
Nailed it. That's exactly what I'm saying. Ghosting occurs on the display side, not the source side. FreeSync only works from the source side (GPU). Adaptive Sync works on the receiving end, but before the panel itself is driven, as this lives in the scaler.
You and PCPer both stated that it is caused by FreeSync. Neither FreeSync nor Adaptive Sync is responsible for driving the TFTs and at most they could be making it too complicated for cheap panels to apply RTC because they can't apply RTC at variable rates. Do note that the scaler does not apply RTC nor does it drive the pixels; there are displays without scalers and there are also displays where the scaler only exists to do, you know, scaling. On higher end displays images will generally always pass through the scaler (to do colour corrections, apply interpolation and other such nonsense).
Do note however, that ghosting is a physical phenomenon that involves the crystals. What you're referring to with the post processing and software is motion blur, which is an entirely different phenomenon. That can be caused on both the software and hardware end, yes. Honestly, check out the Blur Busters link. Look at the ghosting and motion blur, the difference is quite obvious. Motion blur is what we do get in a lot of post processing, be it rendering engines or on crappy TVs. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Mon, 23rd Mar 2015 22:53 Post subject: |
|
|
i wonder if this make the freesync screens also play 23.976 fps MKVs like HDTVs do through cccp
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nui
VIP Member
Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Mar 2015 12:27 Post subject: |
|
|
| Paintface wrote: | | i wonder if this make the freesync screens also play 23.976 fps MKVs like HDTVs do through cccp |
Try madvr with its motion smoothing. No "error causing" motioninterpolation, just frameblending, works charmingly.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Mar 2015 15:40 Post subject: |
|
|
problem with madvr's smooth motion is it introduces a little bit of blur, it's very visible on faces when people are walking and talking. basically, the closer your monitor refresh rate is to movie fps, the more blur you'll get. on 60hz monitors there is some blur. but on monitors with 120hz or 144hz there should be next to no blur.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14382
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nui
VIP Member
Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Mar 2015 20:22 Post subject: |
|
|
well it's not easily visible, but once you know it's there everything seems a bit blurry. maybe it also depends on tv type, plasma vs lcd etc. like you say on plasma it might not be visible at all.
i used smooth motion for a while but then gone back to using TV's native 24p mode.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nui
VIP Member
Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Mar 2015 21:55 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Mar 2015 22:12 Post subject: |
|
|
That's all great. Now release chep oled monitors so we can finally have crt blacks
3080 | ps5 pro
Sin317-"im 31 years old and still surprised at how much shit comes out of my ass actually ..."
SteamDRM-"Call of Duty is the symbol of the true perfection in every aspect. Call of Duty games are like Mozart's/Beethoven's symphonies"
deadpoetic-"are you new to the cyberspace?"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Mar 2015 22:14 Post subject: |
|
|
oled as it is now is shit for monitors. burn in is a major problem for that technology. if you want great blacks there are plenty MVA type monitors that offer that without having to worry about burn in or excessive oled cost.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nui
VIP Member
Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Mar 2015 22:22 Post subject: |
|
|
| rgb#000 wrote: | | if you want great blacks there are plenty MVA type monitors that offer that without having to worry about burn in or excessive oled cost. |
I wonder what you mean by great. What black level do these models measure?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Mar 2015 22:42 Post subject: |
|
|
| Nui wrote: | | What black level do these models measure? |
at 120cd/m² brightness, depending on the monitor between 0.021cd/m² and 0.055cd/m² black level.
outside the center of your field of vision the black tends to get lighter on VA panels, this effect is more noticeable at closer viewing distances and the bigger the panel is.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Mar 2015 22:53 Post subject: |
|
|
| rgb#000 wrote: | | oled as it is now is shit for monitors. burn in is a major problem for that technology. if you want great blacks there are plenty MVA type monitors that offer that without having to worry about burn in or excessive oled cost. |
mva ?
I've tried researching on this topic but there are thousand of differend va panel types.
mva is the current best? Wonder how about lag, ghosting and viewing angles. After owning tn for years, I never again want bad viewing angles
3080 | ps5 pro
Sin317-"im 31 years old and still surprised at how much shit comes out of my ass actually ..."
SteamDRM-"Call of Duty is the symbol of the true perfection in every aspect. Call of Duty games are like Mozart's/Beethoven's symphonies"
deadpoetic-"are you new to the cyberspace?"
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nui
VIP Member
Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Tue, 24th Mar 2015 23:54 Post subject: |
|
|
| KillerCrocker wrote: | | rgb#000 wrote: | | oled as it is now is shit for monitors. burn in is a major problem for that technology. if you want great blacks there are plenty MVA type monitors that offer that without having to worry about burn in or excessive oled cost. |
mva ?
I've tried researching on this topic but there are thousand of differend va panel types.
mva is the current best? Wonder how about lag, ghosting and viewing angles. After owning tn for years, I never again want bad viewing angles |
it's not the "current best". there is no such thing, IPS isn't the best either, far from it. VA monitor is a really good alternative for home user, sadly it's been kinda ignored lately because there is IPS craze going on right now. although i could easily argue that VA panels are superior to IPS for home user who just browses internet, plays games and watches movies on a monitor, because VA has many times better black levels (4, 5 or even more times better than IPS), doesn't have dreaded IPS glow and color accuracy is almost on par with IPS.
let's take on of more famous VA monitors as an example Eizo Foris FG2421. it has black level of just 0.03 and contrast of 4845:1, while average IPS has black level of around 0.15 and contrast around 800:1 to 1000:1
other notable VA monitors are Asus VN279QLB and the new monster 4K monitor Philips BDM4065UC 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 25th Mar 2015 10:14 Post subject: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
couleur
[Moderator] Janitor
Posts: 14382
|
| Posted: Wed, 25th Mar 2015 10:54 Post subject: |
|
|
Whatever they say, Ghosting or not. I'm never going to buy a Monitor that forces me to use some companys graphics card over anothers. And since AMD leaves the choice open to everyone to support. Nvidia can go fak itself.
The monitors usually survive at least three gens of GPUs here. Stupid Nvidia and their proprietary tech.
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment."
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nui
VIP Member
Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 25th Mar 2015 15:14 Post subject: |
|
|
I think the biggest thing to take away from this is here:
| Quote: | | See, variable refresh rates change the way you have to deal with it. Again, we need that module. With AMD, the driver is doing most of the work. Part of the reason they have such bad ghosting is because their driver has to specifically be tuned for each kind of panel. They won’t be able to keep up with the panel variations. We tune our G-Sync module for each monitor, based on its specs and voltage, which is exactly why you won’t see ghosting from us. |
Sounds to me like that problem needs to be shifted to display manufacturers. If it's not easily achievable on their side via hardware, then perhaps there "just" needs to be some kind of a interface to provide the driver with the necessary information for tweaking the overdrive function.
With all respect to Nvidia for putting a lot of effort in developing and spearheading the technology, exclusive control of a limited number of a displays is hardly an ideal solution to bypass some hurdles in the way of getting the open standard solution to work.
I mean, their reasoning is basically "We can make it work better because we have less displays to deal with".
It really doesn't help that Nvidia has a such a huge market share and those $750 display keep selling like crazy (allegedly) though.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 25th Mar 2015 17:37 Post subject: |
|
|
"We can make it work better because we have less displays to deal with".
not really. they can make it work only with an extra hardware device. which is not common to the whole range of monitors. they dont like amd aproach, and nothing can force them to take that route. like usual, the choice is on customer field.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Wed, 25th Mar 2015 18:06 Post subject: |
|
|
The implication from the quote I posted is that AMD can fix the issue on a driver level, and the problem he sees for them will be the sheer variety of display panels (too much work to tweak things for all of those) while Nvidia does that only for a few select displays.
Sure, he says it's "part" of the problem, but he doesn't really elaborate on other possible issues...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Tue, 31st Mar 2015 11:09 Post subject: |
|
|
Did anyone actually watch PCPer's video btw?
G-Sync doesn't even do 30 Hz per se. The Acer XB270HU (G-Sync panel) isn't actually a 30 Hz panel. Surprise surprise, the real window ends at 37 Hz; meaning that up to 36 FPS, the G-Sync PSR thing kicks in already. At 36 FPS it's actually driving the panel at 72 Hz.
So for that "fixed" image above, on both sides the "implementation" should read "limited to TFT LCD panel capabilities", which makes perfect sense. And the G-Sync capability most likely is what Nvidia is advertising with (30-144), because that sure as shit isn't the actual capability of all G-Sync monitors. As in, even if a panel does support 24 Hz, the G-Sync module will still drive it at a minimum of 30 Hz (so for 24 FPS, 48 Hz).
I hope AMD come up with a driver-side PSR soon, because that right now is the only difference between the two. Once they do, that's when there's only one more test to do with regards to the current implementations, which is input lag. The driver can proactively duplicate frames; the driver knows ahead of time whether a new frame will be done in time. The G-Sync module on the other hand (which is where Nvidia claim they do the PSR stuff) is a reactive process; it can't know it needs to refresh until it needs to do so because no new frame is ready.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
russ80
Posts: 4679
Location: Romania
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Wed, 3rd Jun 2015 12:39 Post subject: |
|
|
| russ80 wrote: | Anandtech article shows nothing but excuses from AMD and the fact that they're shifting the blame to monitor manufacturers for blur/ other issues.
Pls werelds. |
Wake me up when you grow a brain and are actually able to comprehend how a monitor works. The second link proves exactly what AMD has been saying and what everyone who understands how monitors work has been saying. BenQ fixed it on the hardware side you tool. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tonizito
VIP Member
Posts: 51456
Location: Portugal, the shithole of Europe.
|
| Posted: Wed, 3rd Jun 2015 12:40 Post subject: |
|
|
Why the fuck do you keep replying werelds? 
| boundle (thoughts on cracking AITD) wrote: | | i guess thouth if without a legit key the installation was rolling back we are all fucking then |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 4 of 5 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
