Curved monitors with high Hz.

WRT to temporal resolution (motion resolution), I find that it's easier to explain to someone by breaking it down to the amount of data that is being presented to the viewer's eyes and brain.

In motion 1x 4k frame at 60 FPS presents very roughly a similar amount of information to your visual system as 4x 1080p frames at 240 FPS.

However, with 4 frames of 1080p content per 1 frame of 4k content not only are you getting a similar amount of visual data, but it fills more temporal "space" leading to less judder/stutter/etc.

That said, when not in motion, 1080p versus 4k is going to look perceptibly worse even if you see 4 frames of 1080p for every frame of 4k. Also, while it may help to remove some aliasing artifacts, most will still remain even in motion.

That's where temporal reconstruction comes in. You get the benefits of temporal resolution (higher perceived resolution with lower resolution or lower data at same resolution per frame) while in motion while also retaining the benefits when not in motion. As well, depending on the reconstruction method, this will address many forms of aliasing artifacts as the developer can choose what data is presented in each frame (kind of like multi-sample AA but instead of it being in one frame, it's spread over multiple frames).

However, temporal reconstruction breaks down at 30 FPS where each frame is presented too slowly to mask differences between frames.

It's why I believe that at least MS if not Sony as well, want to move the baseline rendering speed from 30 Hz to 60Hz or even 120 Hz.

Regards,
SB
such a super smart and well written response, it's a delight to read. It's quite interesting to know that the same principle is behind the temporal antialiasing.

What you describe certainly work very well on many games. You can sacrifice AA for extra frames that way, specially when you set almost everything to low. :mrgreen:

At least in some games, not all. Having most settings to low..., well, of course is not the same, but it has some advantage too, specially 'cos there are less things distracting you. :yes:

On another note, Halo Reach at 240 fps is a reality with a 1080, no problem at all. The only advantage I found playing it a 4k 60 is that 4k gives you extra AA, other than that there is no contest.
 
Shame that HDR is still such a cluster on PC, because those two should go hand in hand, 4K HDR.
HDR alone is a lot better than 4k.

When colleague of mine recently switched to a 4k TV, he was a little disappointed... "So much for this?" he said. He told me that the resolution is a bit noticeable, but it is such a tiny thing that in his opinion it does not deserve the hype and the importance given to it.

However, for him HDR is a truly substantial change.

Too bad I haven't had the luck to experience it myself yet.
 
Last edited:
More games tested and got running at 240fps on the 240Hz monitor. I used Geforce Experience framerate counter to check the average framerate:

- Halo Reach (gamepass PC): I get 240 fps indoors and in areas with few enemies. When it comes to heated battles, I get 170 fps on average, the lowest I saw was 110 but it's very rare.

- Metro Last Light Redux (gamepass PC). I am surprised with this one. 300 fps in High. 220-240fps on Very High. So I prefer High. Tesselation also lowers performance somewhat (20-40 fps). SSAA off, on a 240Hz monitor is not necessary, nor the creepy motion blur, which I never liked even at 30 fps.
 
Last edited:
the sweet spot in my experience -for a 240Hz Gsync monitor- is having these settings in nVidia Control Panel:

- Vsync On
- Tripe Buffering On
- On the graphics menu of games: Vsync Off (Vsync On can create stutter in games like PES 2020, and enabling it only on the nVidia panel makes for a heavenly fast response experience)

That's it.
 
Last edited:
As for the model of my monitor, the Samsung 27 CRG5, Dynamic Contrast works like a charm. Contrast is the strongest point of the monitor.

What Dynamic Contrast does is that when the image darkens, the contrast becomes darker, and in regions with average light or a lot of light it also changes accordingly.

It was a nice discovery -I used Custom previously- on Metro Last Light Redux -fun game, almost completed it-.

Metro Last Light Redux has dark areas and they tell you to turn on the flashlight.

Without Dynamic Contrast like in any typical monitor, I could perfectly see in the so called darkness. I never felt the need to turn on the flashlight.

With Dynamic Contrast on, it's night and day, so to say. Dark areas feel actually dark. The night feels like a typical night. And you have to turn the flashlight on.

Without Dynamic Contrast, in the church level, the night vision glasses did nothing. It's fun, perhaps the closest thing to HDR without actual HDR -wish I could have that-.

Gotta use Dynamic Contrast in a game like Alien Isolation.. :love::love:
 
What makes me laugh is monitors claiming to have a contrast ratio
of 100million to one (and these are non hdr)
yup, but this one is like 3000:1.

That being said Dynamic Contrast works very well overall. However, there are situations like at the start of Bioshock where the game starts at night and there is fire over the water, where when you rotate the camera towards the dark, the fire which was very shiny before, becomes suddenly dimmed at the edges of the screen, when it is disappearing from your point of view.

So it's not perfect, but I prefer it 'cos it does the job most of the time quite well.
 
Btw, I completed Metro Last Light Redux. My favourite Metro to date -still I havent tried Exodus but I'm downloading it from gamepass PC-. I completed the game, the ending was...inspiring.

As for the monitor, I noticed it has 2 dead pixels -black- and 1 stuck pixel -red- so I am going to return it for another one of the same model.

If the next one has the same issue I am going to get an Ultrawide one in its place.
 
What makes me laugh is monitors claiming to have a contrast ratio
of 100million to one (and these are non hdr)
they call it dynamic, while the static contrast is the aforementioned 3000:1 in this case.

be sure you can some manufacturers dont consider the odd bad pixel a defect.
they told me they have no problem replacing the model. I was thinking of keeping the same monitor or switching to an ultrawide monitor, but I like this one very much, I am not quite sure.

Also, the most interesting ultrawide monitor I found in my price range is a LG, with an IPS screen, but I prefer VA.
 
while I am waiting for a replacement, I am falling for this ultrawide monitor. :?:

https://www.asus.com/us/Monitors/VP348QGL/specifications/

The Asus VP348QGL, which is a 3440x1440 monitor, with Adaptive Sync -should work with Gsync-.

What makes me fall for this is the ultrawide screen, HDR 10 support, adjustable height (how much I miss that, I am not that tall, but my height is 182cm and on my desk I have to tilt the head down) and something as simple as the Reading Mode (Splendid Technology), which for someone who reads a lot on the screen is a boon.

Simple, I know, but.... those are crucial. Curiosly enough, I saw this monitor several times the other day, but never paid attention to it. Odd.:oops:

The lack of a curved screen is a bit of a bummer, but the screen is ultrawide so.... Also, I lose the 240Hz refresh, and get 75Hz :/ -same as my first monitor ever-, but imho, it's still better than 60Hz and I am not rich to have everything at 2000€.

Plus at 3440x1440, even with a GTX 1080, running games at 200fps is quite difficult, but 75fps is doable.

Thing is, I haven't found a single review of this model anywhere, yet I like it very much -Asus is a good brand also-. The closest bit of info I found after searching a lot:

https://randomunboxtv.com/asus-vp348qgl-gaming-monitor
 
I'm a massive fan of ultrawide, the only worry is how does it cope with
games that cant deal with the aspect ratio ?
 
I'm a massive fan of ultrawide, the only worry is how does it cope with
games that cant deal with the aspect ratio ?
afaik, what it does is that it creates huge black vertical bars to match the standard 16:9 resolution.

Another simple thing I like about the Asus VP348QGL is that it features a built-in framerate counter. It's not much, but the less my PC has to work the better.
 
I'm a massive fan of ultrawide, the only worry is how does it cope with
games that cant deal with the aspect ratio ?
The same way 16:9 monitors dealt with 4:3 resolutions.

Why are all your posts now multiple lines? It's very annoying.
 
everyones posts are multiple lines including yours

But your posts are multiple
lines after only a few
words. Are you trying
to write Haikus?

Or are you just hitting enter in the middle of your thoughts and not at the end thus instead of letting the line flow naturally so those of us with screen wider than seven words can see it as a single line and not as multiple lines? It is kind of annoying not to have things just wrap naturally by the browser and instead have that line break being forced.
 
I'm a massive fan of ultrawide, the only worry is how does it cope with
games that cant deal with the aspect ratio ?

Usually it can add massive bar or crop top bottom.

Btw on PC, you usually can hack the game to force ultra wide
 
returned the 240Hz monitor already, and I also decided about whether to replace it with the same monitor or with a totally different model.

So I am using my old 4k 60Hz TN monitor for the time being. Playing games on it is okay, at 60Hz it is bearable. Still I was getting used to a monitor with a higher framerate and when performing certain actions I miss the smoothness those give you. The difference is more notorious than I thought.

When I first played at higher framerates, the difference was not staggering. It's when you return to 60Hz or less when you actually notice the difference. Not life changing, but it is beautiful in motion. In the meanwhile, playing at 60Hz can't hurt, but in the future 60Hz won't make the cut, and should be the minimum for every game out there, but I suspect console gaming will prioritize resolution to framerate, the same ol' mistake.
 
Back
Top