Lol @ all the people waiting for monitors with HDR.just like me
HDR /= Gaming?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
New gaming monitors at CES2017 (VA, IPS, TN, 240 Hz, etc.)
- Thread starter Durante
- Start date
HDR /= Gaming?
Input lag, refresh rates, variable refresh rate support, pixel density.
Yes.
Sure, it would be nice, but I think people are a bit unclear on what "HDR" means. For example, there is this LG monitor with HDR support, but it's an IPS panel. That means that in reality, it will only ever show a ~1000:1 ANSI contrast. So you can feed it a HDR signal, but at the end of the day you won't actually get higher dynamic range (in terms of brightness) than on any VA panel.
I'm kinda interested in news for this monitor:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10916/lg-announces-32ud99-4k-ips-display-with-95-dcip3-hdr-and-usbc
Since it has HDR.
Though I prefer colour accuracy, and 60Hz is fine for me.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10916/lg-announces-32ud99-4k-ips-display-with-95-dcip3-hdr-and-usbc
Since it has HDR.
Though I prefer colour accuracy, and 60Hz is fine for me.
How many high refresh rate displays have you used? I find it hard to believe anyone would be shopping for a gaming display in 2017 and consider 60Hz fine unless they'd never used something higher. My 65 year old father could see the difference when I demoed my display.
I like my 144hz, but I also really want HDR and at least 1440p
HDR - as in supporting a HDR10 input signal -- is possible on pretty much anything.
Meaningful HDR support is, in my opinion, only possible either with local dimming LCDs (not particularly suitable for monitors or gaming in most current implementations), or, much better, OLED.
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
I hate this curved monitor trend. I'm still waiting for a normal 40" G-sync I can use as a TV of sorts.
This is interesting.
molnizzle
Member
I thought contrast ratios were all bullshit? If a display is HDR10 certified wouldn't it have to be capable of displaying far brighter pixels than a non-HDR? Maybe I'm completely wrong here but I thought that was the entire point of the certification.
Also I think you're being a bit disingenuous by hyping up contrast and downplaying color accuracy. Color accuracy is the most important feature of any display for many (me, for example).
HowardRoark
Member
I'm not normally one to use lack of market options as justification for my purchases, but this makes me feel like I will have my G-Sync Acer XB271HU (both IPS and Gamerzzzzz, sorry Durante) for a long while.
Yes, this. Exactly. Ideally with G-Sync.
There was the Samsung C34F791 that came out a couple of months ago, albeit it has just Freesync. I was pretty interested in it, but in the end couldn't justify the price for the amount of gaming I do and went with 43" Sony XD800 4k-tv instead.
ANSI contrast can be easily measured. I'm talking about measured ANSI contrast whenever I talk about contrast, not fantasy numbers dreamed up by monitor companies.
I'm describing my preferences here, how can that even be disingenuous?
Anyway, for content consumption, contrast seems much more important than the (minor!) difference in color stability across angles (absolute color accuracy is basically the same once calibrated) between IPS and VA to most people. How do I know? Because the vast majority of higher-end TVs (designed for consumption) use some type of VA panel (when they are not OLED of course).
Yes regional backlight control is going to be a problem for monitors where "HDR" is concerned. I understand that the technology TVs use is just not possible to squeeze into these smaller PC displays. At least not yet in an affordable manner.
I can see "HDR" getting thrown around all this year for PC monitors, but they'll just be disappointing IPS panels. From the pace of progress, I'll probably be waiting until 2020 for QLED or something.
Thanks. So in other words we are far off from getting true HDR capable monitors, (not mentioning 144 Hz)
StereoVsn
Gold Member
Curved monitors work well unlike TVs (for larger monitors). Since you sit close to the monitor the curvature helps for your vision to grasp the screen. Otherwise the edges would be less visible to your peripheral vision.
Source: I have used several as well as larger flat monitors.
I've got 1440p 165Hz G-Sync monitor and I'd much rather go back to 1080p and keep the refresh than touch 4k at 60 if I had to choose. Trying to play Rocket League at 60fps on my laptop and it just feels wrong.
Oh, I actually missed that. Sadly I can't use Freesync -- if it was 120 Hz it would still be worth considering though. Can't find a good review for it either :/
Danny Dudekisser
I paid good money for this Dynex!
Well, the point in this case would be that I'm not using it as a computer monitor that's right in my face -- I'd be sitting like 6 feet away.
Yeah, lack of reviews was one aspect of giving it a pass, it seems that it has been quite slow to get out of the gate and I've seen the first user experiences on forums just in the last few weeks. The high-ish price and lack of G-Sync probably doesn't help either, but since I'm on AMD and I was looking for a VA-panel, it seemed pretty interesting.
Yeah, I sucked it up, but that now means I'm locked into NVidia too. Same with Freesync and AMD since NVidia will never support it, but I like that tech too much to be without it now.
Yeah, when I spend 1k on a monitor I really want everything (including of course contrast and color accuracy, but also input lag, and in particular pixel switching times at various Hz and settings as well as potential overdrive artifacts) to be measured before I bite.
molnizzle
Member
This will be pricey as hell. 1000+ for sure.
There isn't any certification for HDR-10. It's a metadata standard, not a standards body.
General Lee
Member
Dynamic contrast ratios are bs, and even for static contrast pretty much every display that isn't VA claims a 1000:1 static contrast, regardless of whether it reaches that or goes slightly over. HDR10 support doesn't touch the quality of the panel, it simply states requirements for the signal. For quality certification, there's Ultra HD Premium but that's just an agreement between TV makers. There's no authority there saying your panel isn't good enough, only signal requirements for HDR10, Dolby Vision and other HDR formats.
For gaming and media in general, deep blacks and now with HDR bright highlights matter far more than the slight improvement color accuracy, which is more important for print/photo work. Wider gamut and 10/12-bit colors might start to matter too for gaming, once we start getting support for games, but AFAIK the current HDR games on consoles don't actually use a wider gamut, so PC ports might not either.
Personally I'm waiting for Philips to actually launch their updated BDM4037UW, which they already showed back in August, but said it won't be out until early this year. It won't have HDR either I think, but it should be improved over my current BDM4065UC. 5000:1 contrast is just superb for games and movies, and it would take a lot for me to go back to something worse. I don't think I'd take any IPS panel at this point, but it helps to make that choice when all of these 144 Hz G/FreeSync monitors are horrendously expensive. I got the 40" 4K 60 Hz panel for 700€ back in early 2015. Why would I pay 1000€+ now for something smaller, with poor contrast? As much as I'd like VRR, I'll make do with Vsync.
Guardian Monkey
Member
Seems like monitors and tvs have diverged once more. Tvs with hdr and gaming monitors with high refresh rates. Seems like on the pc side 1440p is the sweet spot which makes sense considering the ppi for example on a 27" is the same~ as 4K on a 40". Not to meantion the diminishing returns of 4K on a smaller screen vs power needed to run a 4K effectively. No I'm not saying 4K won't become standard down the road but it's not worth the performance cost or actual cost at this time.
Yup, that's pretty much why I went with a "placeholder" 4k-tv that has all the basics in order for half the price. Pretty much all the 1440p 100Hz offerings seem more or less jury-rigged and have severe problems either in QC or the quality of the panels, for me it's just too much of a compromise to give up for higher refresh rate and adaptive sync and pay more for the pleasure.
Looking out for an affordable 1440p 100Hz+ Freesync (with a good range) monitor this year, so hopefully there's a bit of competition on that front with this year's models.
Wide-gamut monitors have been a thing for quite a while, but they've largely been made for content creation, and typically targeted macOS rather than Windows (due to how poorly the latter deals with anything other than sRGB).
AMD just announced Freesync 2, which confusingly is more about HDR than adaptive sync. It bypasses Windows pretty much completely and allows the game to tone-map directly to the monitor's colour space, which should improve compatibility and reduce latency (as it skips the extra tone-mapping step on the monitor itself).
They've only just announced the spec, though, so actual monitors which support it might be a while off, and it has the typical barriers to adoption that a vendor-specific standard would have, notably that the games themselves have to actually support Freesync 2 (although in theory it shouldn't be a hugely difficult thing to implement).
Wide-gamut monitors have been a thing for quite a while, but they've largely been made for content creation, and typically targeted macOS rather than Windows (due to how poorly the latter deals with anything other than sRGB).
AMD just announced Freesync 2, which confusingly is more about HDR than adaptive sync. It bypasses Windows pretty much completely and allows the game to tone-map directly to the monitor's colour space, which should improve compatibility and reduce latency (as it skips the extra tone-mapping step on the monitor itself).
They've only just announced the spec, though, so actual monitors which support it might be a while off, and it has the typical barriers to adoption that a vendor-specific standard would have, notably that the games themselves have to actually support Freesync 2 (although in theory it shouldn't be a hugely difficult thing to implement).
Yeah been on the lookout for a UW Monitor for a while and I was really tempted to jump on a ROG SWIFT PG348Q
but decided to hold that thought until 2017 to see what new comes out.
HP Omen X35 is sexy AF and in the same price range tho
Code:
[IMG]http://edgeup.asus.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/1-PG34-front-view.jpg[/IMG]HP Omen X35 is sexy AF and in the same price range tho
D
Deleted member 245925
Unconfirmed Member
I was hoping you would chime in on the new monitors presented at CES, Durante. I know from your previous posts in other threads that we are both looking for a similar monitor. The HP Omen X35 looks very interesting, it has pretty much everything I want and its design is relatively unostentatious. I hope it reviews well. Price is harsh but expected...
copelandmaster
Member
240hz would be worth it if Nvidia upgraded the ulmb spec to support refresh rates over 120hz. Otherwise, nah.
Where is the asus 4k144hz panel they teased 6mo ago?Maybe in a few days? AOU had the panel ready forever.
Where is the asus 4k144hz panel they teased 6mo ago?Maybe in a few days? AOU had the panel ready forever.
I think ASUS' CES presentation is in 2 hours' time.
The monitor rat race is one of the main reasons I can't game on PC for the foreseeable future. $250-500+ for a panel with dead pixels, clouding, banding, bleeding, etc, or the option of paying $1500+ for the same roll of the dice.
...I've done that hustle one too many times. Gives me conniptions.
...I've done that hustle one too many times. Gives me conniptions.
I don't really understand. TVs evolve comparably quickly if you want to keep up with the very best thing, and they are even more expensive per unit.
And if you don't need to keep up with the very best thing then you can easily pay 300€ for a monitor once every 5 years and be content with it. (I bought my current monitor for ~350€ ~5 year ago)
And if you don't need to keep up with the very best thing then you can easily pay 300€ for a monitor once every 5 years and be content with it. (I bought my current monitor for ~350€ ~5 year ago)
Yeah, i'm waiting for news about new Samsung 6300.
This is about where I stand right now. There's no way I'll ever go SLI so 1440p is what I feel I'll be able to push at great framerates even with a single card (an affordable one at that).
Don't expect Freesync2 capable monitors to show up any time soon. The Anandtech article implies that it is still early days for the standard.
Sectorseven
Member
Do these monitors support hdmi 2.1?
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I think 240hz might make Gsync unnecessary. The tears would be too fast to see.I came in here expecting to find something to make me regret my recent purchase, honestly surprised to see them chasing Hz at 1080p still. I bought the 27" 165Hz 1440p Acer last year and at this rate I think it's going to serve me well for a few years yet. That red gamerzzz stand is actually pretty muted in real life
I wonder if there's really any benefit to 240Hz. I bet it'd feel amazing while you were wiggling the mouse around the desktop, but it'd take sharper eyes than mine to pick out anything far beyond 120ish once you're actually in-game. I feel like the 165Hz overclock setting on my monitor could just be a placebo and I'd never know.
Read riflen and my posts further up on why producing a meaningfully "HDR" monitor is not trivial (and why you probably don't actually want one with an IPS panel).
Yeah, I expect it to make the benefit of variable refresh extremely minor. But we don't have the bandwidth yet to run it at higher resolutions.
It's not about achieving 144fps at 4K although I'm sure that will be possible on fairly simple games. It's about obtaining the fluidity of a high refresh panel with the IQ of 4K. 144hz makes a huge difference in day to day PC work .
There's a model from a Chinese manufacture that seems to be close to the same thing, 100Hz and FreeSync, just a much lower price ($700).
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Perfect-M34...826050?hash=item33bfe59442:g:gucAAOSwA3dYDb0e
Impressions that I've read on reddit seem to be positive.