I'm not seeing any arguing here, just differences of opinion.
Because of how the crystals are oriented, and how they block light.
LCs are polarization devices. TN stands for twisted nematic, which describes the physical configuration of the crystals that perform the switching. Nematic means "threadlike" and looks like this:
*snip*
So basically, what I've learned here, is that an IPS monitor may not have the color advantages that are touted when motion is applied. This is because of how long it (could) takes the pixel to change from previous color to current color.
I think the best option for me is something like the ROG for gaming (although I'm not spending that much) and another IPS monitor (such as the Dell U2412M) for photo editing.
I find it odd that you call it a difference in opinion, when you keep telling people that their TN panels are low quality and your IPS panel is superior. If you really see it as an opinion, it would go a long ways if you would at least occasionally slip in the words, "In my opinion". You continue to state all your opinions as facts.
Awesome info BrightCandle - I've never read a clearer description of the ins and outs of high refresh rate monitors
If you look at high quality reviews of IPS monitors (like that on tftcentral) you will find the switch time of an IPS pixel is usually above 12ms, but the range depending on how far it has to change is anywhere up to about 24ms. If we wanted to guarantee that the pixel had fully completed changing colour, IPS screens would actually only run at about 40 hz. Most of the time they can do a little better than 60hz worth of switch, although it really depends on the type of transition. So you can overclock the panel all you like its still going to switch the pixels at a similar speed and thus the pixel wont reach the colour its meant to be before the next frame comes along.
, to quote TFTCentral's exact words. Alas, this screen was of course only reviewed at a non-OC'd refresh rate of 60Hz, and (as this was review was prior to 2013) TFTCentral was not yet using its current response time measurement methodology featured in the ROG SWIFT review. So, we are left with frustratingly inadequate data to do a true apples-to-apples comparison...which is rated by LG.Display with a 12ms ISO response time (black > white > black)
Very true and well-articulated, but again, given how much the pixel response times of IPS panels can vary, this generalisation is perhaps less true for the panel in the Overlord Tempest X270OC. Unless someone is aware of response time measurements of the LM270WQ1-SLA1 that have been conducted with an oscilloscope so that we can find a review of an equivalent monitor to compare?So the issue with IPS monitors is that when you calibrate them and show the colour quality what you are doing is testing them on a static image, something they are very good at. But when we look at a game that is in motion, with pixels going through large transitions of colour the pixels are taking a large amount of time to switch, even at 60hz they don't spend even half their time at the colour they are meant to be. Regardless of how great their static colour quality might be they aren't showing that colour quickly enough or for longer enough before the next frame arrives. Overclocking helps in some scenarios just because you are seeing the updates, but you'll also typically have a shadow following around a high contrast object like a person or mouse pointer because the pixels still aren't making the transition fast enough. Overclocking reduces the latency, it can reduce certainly improve the update rate of the image but it also increases the problem of colour accuracy under motion with potentially multiple screens worth of "bleed" into the current one.
I take your point but REALLY think that these (general) remarks you are making better describe the slower IPS panels out there.
Looks like the monitor has launched in Europe and elsehwere, but won't arrive in N. America until late August.
With the exception of a couple very expensive UK pre-orders and an even more ludicrous deal on Amazon.de Marketplace, I have not really seen any evidence that this has launched for real in Europe yet.
Its perfectly possible that the tempest is the first IPS monitor ever to have fast pixel response time, but I wouldn't bet on it. The problem with subjective measures as we have seen is that we often don't perceive things properly, our eyes trick us. Look at all the people who made mistakes with other overclocked monitors that actually skipped the frames. I trust objective measures of particular models, so far I haven't seen a model of IPS that performs as well as the TN in the measure of clarity under motion. You are right that we need to see a proper review, but we also shouldn't expect the tempest to do any better than other monitors of its class, because its not purpose built by a big firm like the ROG is, its a existing IPS screen with a controller open to overclocking and that is about it, nothing suggests its a magic IPS panel above all others.
pixel transition time [in terms of contributing to motion blur) no longer becomes important once transitions are less than about half a refresh long.
The requirement for the application to be running in full screen mode is also a turn-off.It should be noted that the real benefits of G-sync really come into play when viewing lower frame rate content, around 45 - 60fps typically delivers the best results compared with Vsync on/off. At consistently higher frame rates as you get nearer to 144 fps the benefits of G-sync are not as great, but still apparent.
I would've been totally fine just using the ULMB feature since:There will be a gradual transition period for each user where the benefits of using G-sync decrease, and it may instead be better to use the ULMB feature discussed in the following section which is not available when using G-sync. Higher end gaming machines might be able to push out higher frame rates more consistently and so you might find less benefit in using G-sync. The ULMB could then help in another very important area, helping to reduce the perceived motion blur caused by LCD displays.
I'll wait till they release a revision without [redacted] G-SYNC....it is also important to note that ULMB does not work when you are using G-sync, it's one or the other.
I'm not seeing any arguing here, just differences of opinion.
Came across some more info on the Swift launch - not sure if this has been posted yet: http://www.techpowerup.com/203375/asus-republic-of-gamers-launches-swift-pg278q-gaming-monitor.html
Looks like the monitor has launched in Europe and elsewhere, but won't arrive in N. America until late August.
Anyway, I didn't see where anyone posted this. TFT Central review.
Yes, it was the thread starter post.
Totally wasted this monitor's potential purchase incentive by attaching G-SYNC. If I wanted G-SYNC, I would've just bought the module separately. But now that they tacked it on, this monitor is now $800 instead of $600.
So, no Gsync and ULMB at the same time? Has anyone mentioned this?
It's been known for months.
yeah, I don't know if there is an official G-Sync version, AFAIK, the monitor doesn't come with G-Sync from ASUS, you either have to DIY or order it from a company that builds it for you (and ends up costing ~$500, ~$25-50 more than DIY and nearly twice as expensive as the monitor without G-Sync)Isn't the ASUS VG248QE G-SYNC exactly that, same monitor with built-in G-Sync?
Damn ASUS has confusing model naming, they are all so close.
1. again, its not lower quality, its different quality, vastly superior for motion, which I value for video games, many if not most of which revolve around motionI don't know that talking yourself into accepting lower quality panels to accommodate your perceptions is necessarily making you worse off. Everyone finds the value that fits and works for them and it's a matter of what you have to settle with that is going to have to be a fit for you.
I don't see how you can prefer one over the other when I haven't seen you stipulate that you've actually had experience beyond what you already have. So perhaps it might help to clear this up; have you had any experience with LMB? Or is it just some experience with 120Hz IPS? Because 1440p120Hz IPS is definitely nowhere near the same class as what the Swift is capable of. I don't think you have much right to be so dismissive if you don't even know what you're dismissing.I don't mind waiting for more improvements to come to the IPS/IGZO panels, and in the mean time will continue to use them for what they provide. Once GPUs have caught up, hopefully next year, there is again no way I'll pass up gaming on a 4K 32" IGZO against an option with lower fidelity but better motion. So even if there winds up being some good 1440p IPS options with 120hz I will still find myself preferring a higher resolution and better PQ option.
never if you can help itSo, when do you sacrifice ULMB for Gsync and vice versa?
never if you can help it
the problem with LMB is that it requires staying as close to 120fps (or 100fps) as much as possible to match the 120Hz (or 100Hz) strobing to avoid the tearing/stutter you get get when you stray away from that mark, which is extremely difficult for most games and borderline impossible for many.
Since there are quite a few games that have trouble maintaining a frame rate suitable for 60Hz monitors no matter how fast your hardware or how far you sacrifice settings (Planetside 2 comes to mind) G-Sync would be highly favorable for such scenarios. However for less hardware demanding games (Source comes to mind) particularly ones that give you the option to employ framerate caps or proper triple buffer v-sync, ULMB would be the ideal.