Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
PirateBob
Jun 14, 2003

TheFluff posted:

Both of these are VA panels. That means a lot of smearing and blur in dark areas (even the new expensive Samsung ones only have it sorta under control in the darkest 20% of the luminance range). VA can still be a valid choice if you value black levels/contrast higher than most other factors but in that case a high refresh rate one might not even be worth it, because if you're playing any sort of game with low light areas the screen won't be anywhere close to being able to keep up with the refresh rate. Like, if you're running a game at 144 Hz a frame lasts about 7 ms, while that Dell you're thinking about basically never has a response time faster than 20ms if the pixel brightness is lower than about 50% (source: the Rtings review). That is, anything darker than a midtone gray will effectively be running at well below 60 Hz and all you'll see is blur, so why are you even paying for 144Hz?

Also, be aware that the GTX970 doesn't support Freesync, so you won't have variable framerate support until you upgrade your GPU unless you buy an actual Gsync monitor (but don't do that, they're really overpriced). That's not necessarily a problem, but you'll probably have to run the monitor at 60Hz or whatever framerate your GPU can keep up with to avoid tearing. Considering how long it might take to get ahold of a 3070 these days you might be stuck in that situation for a while so you might want to look at the "response time performance at 60Hz" section of the Rtings.com reviews.

I wasn't planning on freesync or high fps gaming on my current gpu :P

I'm not super tempted to spend 500 on a 27" monitor, coming from a 26".

So this panel tech weakness tradeoff fuckery is still ongoing. It was the same the last time I bought a monitor 12 years ago. That time I landed on IPS.

What are the downsides to IPS compared to, say, the Samsung VA panel on the AOC CU34G2X?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

TheFluff
Dec 13, 2006

FRIENDS, LISTEN TO ME
I AM A SEAGULL
OF WEALTH AND TASTE

PirateBob posted:

I wasn't planning on freesync or high fps gaming on my current gpu :P

I'm not super tempted to spend 500 on a 27" monitor, coming from a 26".

So this panel tech weakness tradeoff fuckery is still ongoing. It was the same the last time I bought a monitor 12 years ago. That time I landed on IPS.

What are the downsides to IPS compared to, say, the Samsung VA panel on the AOC CU34G2X?

Main downside of IPS is that it glows in the dark. That is, it's pretty bad at showing deep blacks, which will tend to look grey-ish instead because the backlight leaks through, or in other words it has a relatively poor static contrast ratio. It's especially noticeable when the screen is used in a dark room, but much less of a problem in a well lit office type environment. That's the main disadvantage really, and aside from that it's still the best tech we got (other than OLED, which isn't really a thing in computer monitors yet, and if it was a 27" would probably cost well north of $2000). The third option (TN) is not worth considering at all these days unless you're a literal video gaming professional.

There's no real reason to go bigger than 27" if you're not going for either 4K resolution or an ultrawide. High refresh rate makes a big difference to most people though, to some even more so than resolution. If your current monitor is 12 years old I'd wager you'd notice a difference even if it doesn't get much bigger physically.

TheFluff fucked around with this message at 16:41 on Mar 16, 2021

Helter Skelter
Feb 10, 2004

BEARD OF HAVOC

Black levels have improved somewhat on IPS panels in the last decade or so, however, so it's not like you'd be downgrading in that regard coming from a 12 year old IPS.

PirateBob
Jun 14, 2003
Why don't LG just make some 32" OLED monitors or something :mad: If the 48" costs 1300, the 32" shouldn't be any more prohibitively expensive than other 4K monitors.

Rinkles
Oct 24, 2010

What I'm getting at is...
Do you feel the same way?

PirateBob posted:

Why don't LG just make some 32" OLED monitors or something :mad: If the 48" costs 1300, the 32" shouldn't be any more prohibitively expensive than other 4K monitors.

they announced one two months ago, no pricing yet afaik

https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/blog/lg-ultrafine-32ep950-oled-pro-monitor-announced-with-4k-for-professional-users/

TheFluff
Dec 13, 2006

FRIENDS, LISTEN TO ME
I AM A SEAGULL
OF WEALTH AND TASTE

quote:

Update 8/2/21: US retailer B&H have listed a smaller LG OLED monitor on their website, even though the 32EP950 has yet to appear on any retailer. They have a smaller 27″ model, the 27EP950 listed now although there are currently no images or specs listed. It is available to pre-order at $2996.99 and is listed as “coming soon”. More info on this 27″ model when we get it.

This is $3000 for 27" 4K 60Hz, mind. The Asus ProArt PQ22UC, which is a 21.6" 4K 60Hz display and one of two OLED computer monitors currently available, is 4000€. The other OLED computer monitor that currently exists is the Dell AW5520QF, which is "only" $3000 but is basically worse than an equivalent size LG TV. It seems like that in order to get a reasonable lifetime without burn-in when used as a computer monitor what they did was cap the brightness at 130 nits in SDR mode, which means it's physically incapable of being as bright as many people would want in a well lit environment. It's also capped at 400 nits in HDR mode. There are IPS monitors that aren't even branded as HDR400 that are capable of 400 nits when set to max brightness, which is fairly comical.

I haven't read up on it but I suspect that as with most semiconductors OLED cells get more sensitive to degradation as they get smaller, so I'd expect smaller OLED screens (that is, with smaller pixels) to degrade faster than bigger ones, which may be a reason 48" OLED TV's are very much a thing but 32" computer monitors aren't.

TheFluff fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Mar 16, 2021

Rinkles
Oct 24, 2010

What I'm getting at is...
Do you feel the same way?
IDK what I'm talking about, but wouldn't that be something that phone screen tech would've had to have solved?

TheFluff
Dec 13, 2006

FRIENDS, LISTEN TO ME
I AM A SEAGULL
OF WEALTH AND TASTE

Rinkles posted:

IDK what I'm talking about, but wouldn't that be something that phone screen tech would've had to have solved?

Burn-in on OLED phone screens is a very widespread issue that is only somewhat masked by changes in UI design ("night mode" interfaces are a conspiracy by Big OLED, wake up sheeple). The only reason you don't see more complaining about it is because the kind of people who buy flagship phones with OLED screens don't really keep them for very long. Computer monitor UI and usage patterns are also far more problematic than phone screen or TV ones.

Shipon
Nov 7, 2005

Rinkles posted:

IDK what I'm talking about, but wouldn't that be something that phone screen tech would've had to have solved?

Phones these days are basically disposable after 2-3 years. Pretty sure you want to keep a monitor longer than that.

Butterfly Valley
Apr 19, 2007

I am a spectacularly bad poster and everyone in the Schadenfreude thread hates my guts.

TheFluff posted:

Computer monitor UI and usage patterns are also far more problematic than phone screen or TV ones.

Within like a year and a bit of me having my Samsung S8 I had extremely noticeable burn in of both the onscreen keyboard, and a pokeball and other Pokemon Go UI elements

repiv
Aug 13, 2009

Phones also have more integrated software stacks, which lets them mitigate burn-in to some extent on the software side

Most OLED phones these days subtly move static UI elements like the top status bar around to spread out the panel wear

K8.0
Feb 26, 2004

Her Majesty's 56th Regiment of Foot
And it still winds up being noticeable after 2 years. OLED is not going to be our savior, and it's increasingly looking like MicroLED won't be either. There's probably a 50/50 chance I die before we get a decent display tech, or at least get so old I can't see for poo poo anyway.

Rusty
Sep 28, 2001
Dinosaur Gum
LG May have a 42" TV to go along with their 48 this year. I'm waiting for that announcement and may just move to that if it a 120hz panel.

ACValiant
Sep 7, 2005

Huh...? Oh, this? Nah, don't worry. Just in the middle of some messy business.

Rusty posted:

LG May have a 42" TV to go along with their 48 this year. I'm waiting for that announcement and may just move to that if it a 120hz panel.

I wonder why LG themselves didn't announce a 42 inch this year. Apparently they're just making the panel? Seems odd.

Rollie Fingers
Jul 28, 2002

This guy’s been using the LG CX Oled screen as a monitor for six months and hasn’t noticed burn yet:

https://youtu.be/AhV09HD7Ee0

He says he hasn’t had to babysit it, but he’s still hidden the taskbar and all desktop icons and changes backgrounds regularly.

The part that I’d find ultra irritating is the screen’s burn-in protection auto adjusting brightness regularly

lurker2006
Jul 30, 2019

K8.0 posted:

There's probably a 50/50 chance I die before we get a decent display tech

we had it 25 years ago.

lurker2006 fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Mar 17, 2021

PirateBob
Jun 14, 2003
Can IPS panels not be curved or something? I'm looking at IPS alternatives to the 32-34" VA monitors, and they're all flat?

Shipon
Nov 7, 2005

PirateBob posted:

Can IPS panels not be curved or something? I'm looking at IPS alternatives to the 32-34" VA monitors, and they're all flat?

They can have curves, they just tend to be more gentle. I have the 34GP83A which has a 1900R curve and it's actually the right amount of curve for the ultrawide in my opinion.

K8.0
Feb 26, 2004

Her Majesty's 56th Regiment of Foot
There's nothing inherently desirable about curves. The curves are an attempt to mitigate the fact that VA shifts contrast when viewed from off-axis, and on a large enough screen from close enough you wind up being at a sufficient angle that the colors start getting hosed on the edges.

Splinter
Jul 4, 2003
Cowabunga!
In theory, curved screens can also help correct the distortion you'd see when viewing a a flat utlrawide screen at a relatively close viewing distance (as opposed to just correcting viewing angle related contrast/color shifts). In other words, a curve can actually make an ultrawide monitor's picture appear more rectangular/flatter. However, I'm not sure if a lot of these monitors are actually curved enough to make a huge difference in correcting this distortion.

wolrah
May 8, 2006
what?
One of my friends has the same Alienware 34" as I do as a primary, but a LG flat 34" above as a secondary. The lack of curve on that one is very noticeable and annoying when sitting at normal desktop distances.

Curved TVs have always been loving stupid unless you're building a one person game dungeon with a recliner placed dead center in the sweet spot, but curved desktop monitors are great once you reach a certain width.

I'd argue that the majority of ultrawides and all doublewides should be significantly curved, but 16:9 and 16:10 generally don't benefit from it until you're getting up in to the 37+ inch range.

K8.0
Feb 26, 2004

Her Majesty's 56th Regiment of Foot

Splinter posted:

In theory, curved screens can also help correct the distortion you'd see when viewing a a flat utlrawide screen at a relatively close viewing distance (as opposed to just correcting viewing angle related contrast/color shifts). In other words, a curve can actually make an ultrawide monitor's picture appear more rectangular/flatter. However, I'm not sure if a lot of these monitors are actually curved enough to make a huge difference in correcting this distortion.

I have one. It doesn't matter. It's a complete wash. Your brain is already used to looking at flat things and correcting for perspective, you're literally always doing it and you are never in exactly the right place to observe things. In games, the viewport is flat rather than curved and thus looks more perspective-correct on a flat screen. The minor curve isn't a disadvantage once your brain gets used to it, but it's certainly not an advantage either.

Rusty
Sep 28, 2001
Dinosaur Gum
My LG 34GK950F-B has a 1900R curve I think and to be honest, I don't think it does anything. It's maybe a half an inch closer at each end at most. Looks neat though.

Splinter
Jul 4, 2003
Cowabunga!

K8.0 posted:

I have one. It doesn't matter. It's a complete wash. Your brain is already used to looking at flat things and correcting for perspective, you're literally always doing it and you are never in exactly the right place to observe things. In games, the viewport is flat rather than curved and thus looks more perspective-correct on a flat screen. The minor curve isn't a disadvantage once your brain gets used to it, but it's certainly not an advantage either.

At a certain point screen width / viewing distance wise, you're at a point where you're beyond your brain being able to correct for the extreme angle to the edge of a flat screen. It's why those with 2-3 screen setups generally have the screens at least somewhat angled towards center (which is similar to what a significant curve on an ultrawide accomplishes) rather than just in a flat row. I think this idea that the curve never matters is flawed, and the actual answer depends mainly on the screen width, viewing distance and curve amount (or lack thereof) variables.

Rinkles
Oct 24, 2010

What I'm getting at is...
Do you feel the same way?
I made some up close photos of the problematic text at different refresh rates, and this time I really can't see much of a difference (they all look equally bad). But I'm pretty confident at one point raising the frame rate did make the text fuzzier. Either I'm losing my mind, or its inconsistent or there's some variable I'm missing.

This is the M27Q

[original full res shots:60 120 170

Actually, I kinda doubt this is related, but I did update the firmware yesterday. This is the extent of the patch notes (afaict)
    "Update include: 1. Add notice message for new EU energy policy."
But it apparently does more than that, because it supposedly fixes an issue the monitor had with the Series X. It couldn't recieve a 1440p144Hz signal from an Xbox (RTings confirmed this; the issue not the fix). You couldn't even do VRR with an Xbox before. I can't test any of this, this is based on some reddit posts.

Just for reference, this is how big a difference the wrong cleartype setting can make (of course it's exaggerated at this zoom level)




Chrome tabs, which aren't affected by cleartype settings, are some of the worst offenders (open in new tab to see without the resize)

K8.0
Feb 26, 2004

Her Majesty's 56th Regiment of Foot
That chrome image is very clearly showing incorrect subpixel elements. Refresh rate won't change that, though it's possible at some point you had some setting like 4:2:2 chroma enabled, which would make things even worse. Honestly it's so annoying, because aside from this issue it seems like the M27Q would be the ideal monitor for many people, but I don't think that's very tolerable.

Splinter posted:

At a certain point screen width / viewing distance wise, you're at a point where you're beyond your brain being able to correct for the extreme angle to the edge of a flat screen. It's why those with 2-3 screen setups generally have the screens at least somewhat angled towards center (which is similar to what a significant curve on an ultrawide accomplishes) rather than just in a flat row. I think this idea that the curve never matters is flawed, and the actual answer depends mainly on the screen width, viewing distance and curve amount (or lack thereof) variables.

I'll grant you that's true. I just don't think it applies to 34" screens, unless maybe you're sitting insanely close to it. Also I'd argue that any time your monitor is big enough to really need a curve at the distances you're using it, it's probably too big to be used effectively as a single monitor anyway.

Rinkles
Oct 24, 2010

What I'm getting at is...
Do you feel the same way?
I keep on waffling on the text issue. It bothers me more sometimes than others, though I've kinda gotten used to it now.

I think I'm gonna keep it, because it's an improvement over the LG and I've had it with dealing with Amazon (they still haven't refunded the broken ASUS). In games, in my opinion, it's a big pretty big step up from the LG. There's just more dark detail without the blacks turning grey.

e:how would I check whether 4:2:2 chroma was enabled? it probably is by default at 170Hz, cause this is DP 1.2.

Rinkles fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Mar 17, 2021

Zorilla
Mar 23, 2005

GOING APE SPIT

K8.0 posted:

There's nothing inherently desirable about curves. The curves are an attempt to mitigate the fact that VA shifts contrast when viewed from off-axis, and on a large enough screen from close enough you wind up being at a sufficient angle that the colors start getting hosed on the edges.

I briefly had an MSI MAG341CQ, which had a VA panel. The 1900R curve did hardly anything to mitigate gamma shift at the edges. This made it a bad fit for productivity because text was harder to look at if it it was located far away from the center of the screen. I ended up returning that monitor due to a much more pressing issue however lol:



Rusty posted:

My LG 34GK950F-B has a 1900R curve I think and to be honest, I don't think it does anything. It's maybe a half an inch closer at each end at most. Looks neat though.

For me, there is a distinct ergonomic advantage to having a curved screen over a flat one at 34". 1900R seems to be ideal for me, but 3800R is a good tradeoff between viewability and reduced desktop footprint.

Zorilla
Mar 23, 2005

GOING APE SPIT

Rinkles posted:

e:how would I check whether 4:2:2 chroma was enabled? it probably is by default at 170Hz, cause this is DP 1.2.

Check https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/chroma-subsampling. If the vertical lines in the test pattern blur together, you may have a problem.

Rinkles
Oct 24, 2010

What I'm getting at is...
Do you feel the same way?

Zorilla posted:

Check https://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/chroma-subsampling. If the vertical lines in the test pattern blur together, you may have a problem.

I kinda don't trust my eyes anymore, but everything seems pixel perfect even at 170Hz

Zorilla
Mar 23, 2005

GOING APE SPIT

Rinkles posted:

I kinda don't trust my eyes anymore, but everything seems pixel perfect even at 170Hz

You would know if something was off because the colored text wouldn't even be legible anymore. This page has an example if you scroll down a bit: https://www.geeks3d.com/20141203/how-to-quickly-check-the-chroma-subsampling-used-with-your-4k-uhd-tv/

FAT32 SHAMER
Aug 16, 2012



Did the LG27GL83A-B go up from $279 to $349 permanently? I was going to use some BidenBux to complete my set but the price tag was way higher

FAT32 SHAMER
Aug 16, 2012



Ignore me, apparently I paid $379 in September and it’s on sale for $349 now

Paul MaudDib
May 3, 2006

TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

K8.0 posted:

That chrome image is very clearly showing incorrect subpixel elements. Refresh rate won't change that, though it's possible at some point you had some setting like 4:2:2 chroma enabled, which would make things even worse. Honestly it's so annoying, because aside from this issue it seems like the M27Q would be the ideal monitor for many people, but I don't think that's very tolerable.


I'll grant you that's true. I just don't think it applies to 34" screens, unless maybe you're sitting insanely close to it. Also I'd argue that any time your monitor is big enough to really need a curve at the distances you're using it, it's probably too big to be used effectively as a single monitor anyway.

1800R/1900R curve isn't really that much of a curve anyway. 1000R is where it gets very aggressive and probably visible (and afaik it's only on VA).

Rinkles
Oct 24, 2010

What I'm getting at is...
Do you feel the same way?
I think this is something you're not supposed to do, but applying RTings ICC profile fixed my Chrome oversaturation. This is what it was on by default: sRGB IEC61966-2.1

crepeface
Nov 5, 2004

r*p*f*c*
Thinking about buying this: Acer XB323UGP 32" WQHD G-SYNC-C 144Hz 1MS IPS LED Gaming Monitor. Also known as "Predator"

Seen some reviews, and it looks pretty good despite "only" having HDR400. Little wary of 32" at 1440p, but I have an old Dell U3011 that's 1440p at 30" and it's acceptable. Any thoughts?

Wibla
Feb 16, 2011

crepeface posted:

Thinking about buying this: Acer XB323UGP 32" WQHD G-SYNC-C 144Hz 1MS IPS LED Gaming Monitor. Also known as "Predator"

Seen some reviews, and it looks pretty good despite "only" having HDR400. Little wary of 32" at 1440p, but I have an old Dell U3011 that's 1440p at 30" and it's acceptable. Any thoughts?

I wouldn't get a >27" 16:9 1440p monitor, and that U3011 is 2560x1600 at 30", not 2560x1440.

PirateBob
Jun 14, 2003
16:9 is a plague as far as computers are concerned. Why should desktop use be tied to a TV show ratio?

16:10 should have been the standard :mad:

Rinkles
Oct 24, 2010

What I'm getting at is...
Do you feel the same way?
Sorry if these posts are annoying: You can actually screenshot the difference ICC profiles make on an application with color management


RTings profile vs default* respectively
(cropped screenshots of chrome)

The first image is what it's meant to look like (the source image was sRGB), the second is what it looked like with the wrong color profile

e:

but now itunes seems to have issues



RTings profile vs default* respectively (it shouldn't be yellowish)

:negative:


*sRGB IEC61966-2.1

Rinkles fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Mar 18, 2021

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

K8.0
Feb 26, 2004

Her Majesty's 56th Regiment of Foot

PirateBob posted:

16:9 is a plague as far as computers are concerned. Why should desktop use be tied to a TV show ratio?

16:10 should have been the standard :mad:

16:10 makes no sense, frankly. The likelihood that a slightly different AR from 16:9 makes a real difference to you is insignificant compared to the likelihood that 5:4 or 4:3 is an even better AR for you, yet I see no one campaigning for those to return. At 1080p vs 1200p when vertical space was significantly reduced compared to 4:3/5:4 CRTs, there was something of an argument to be made for every vertical pixel you could get. At 1440p and especially 4k, it's silly.

The vast majority of what people do with their monitors are browsing the internet, consuming media, professional apps, and gaming, all of which are optimized for 16:9 and will remain so for at least a decade, probably multiple decades. 16:10 is just wasted space or cropping in almost everything you do with a computer. At least 21:9 ultrawides have the advantage of being an almost perfect AR for cinematic content, and possibly being wide enough to double up text views for some use cases.

K8.0 fucked around with this message at 23:43 on Mar 18, 2021

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply