31-32" VA Pixel response => MX34VQ

Soldato
Joined
10 Oct 2012
Posts
4,415
Location
Denmark
So fare the 31-32 inch va panels i've looked at seems to smear more than i'd like them to. So was wondering if there was any in the 31-32 inch range that actually had the same level or better pixel response/smearing as the asus MX34VQ.

Maybe something either @PCM2 or @Baddass would know about?

on a side note: if there are any 30+ inch 16:9 IPS screens with a refresh of 100 or better please let me know cause i cannot find any.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Feb 2010
Posts
6,810
Location
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
Which ~32" VA models have you used? In my experience the ASUS XG32VQ is quite similar to the MX34VQ, a touch weaker for some transitions but not massively so. I find the weaknesses a bit more pronounced at higher refresh rates and frame rates, however. The pixel response requirements are of course reduced when comparing 100Hz and 100fps to 144Hz and 144fps.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
10 Oct 2012
Posts
4,415
Location
Denmark
Seen reviews of the Samsung C32HG70, also seen your review @PCM2 of the little brother the 27" model. Then there is the aoc AG322QCX which also seems terrible. The MX34VQ was dreadful in freesync mode in my experience but if you ran it at a fixed 100hz it was passable and wouldn't annoy the living **** out of me. The worse offenders to me in monitors are overshoot, trailing issues due to slow pixel response followed by yellow/white ips glow and poor colour reproduction. I can live with gamma shift if its not to bad. I do not care about gsync/freesync.

The only monitor that i have seen reviews of that i haven't made up my mind about yet is the viewsonic XG3240C but that is mainly because i cannot find a proper review of it. Apparently a review these days is just chanting the word gaming while reading off the spec sheet... useless.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Aug 2010
Posts
8,745
Location
N. Ireland
Been eyeing the AOC 32 model but reviews of smearing put me off. Now looking at the omen 32 which seems to suffer the same. Would like to know the responses to this
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Feb 2010
Posts
6,810
Location
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
The ~32" models all use the same panel (or CELL - which is a panel without backlight assembly). Responsiveness is broadly similar, although there are some differences in pixel overdrive implementation. I find the flexibility and tuning of the ASUS 'Trace Free' solution to be preferable to the fixed solution on the Samsung (as they tied stobing functionality to 'Faster' and 'Fastest'). The AOC is pretty similar to the ASUS XG32VQ in terms of responsiveness. Unfortunately that's about as good as things get from the ~32" models.

If you found the MX34VQ fine at a solid 100Hz (or ~100fps if you had FreeSync enabled, because respnosiveness is very similar) then you may find the XG32VQ fine at a similar refresh rate and frame rate. Then again it's very subjective and to be honest it has been a while since I even tested these models, so it's a tricky comparison.

P.S. There are no IPS-type alternatives of this size currently. I think LG might have something in the works for later this year, but I'm not going to hold my breath for a review sample.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
10 Oct 2012
Posts
4,415
Location
Denmark
The ~32" models all use the same panel (or CELL - which is a panel without backlight assembly). Responsiveness is broadly similar, although there are some differences in pixel overdrive implementation. I find the flexibility and tuning of the ASUS 'Trace Free' solution to be preferable to the fixed solution on the Samsung (as they tied stobing functionality to 'Faster' and 'Fastest'). The AOC is pretty similar to the ASUS XG32VQ in terms of responsiveness. Unfortunately that's about as good as things get from the ~32" models.

If you found the MX34VQ fine at a solid 100Hz (or ~100fps if you had FreeSync enabled, because respnosiveness is very similar) then you may find the XG32VQ fine at a similar refresh rate and frame rate. Then again it's very subjective and to be honest it has been a while since I even tested these models, so it's a tricky comparison.

P.S. There are no IPS-type alternatives of this size currently. I think LG might have something in the works for later this year, but I'm not going to hold my breath for a review sample.

Appreciating you taking the time to reply.. So thank you for that. Think i am going to steer clear of this round of 32ish inch VAs.. They seem like to big a risk with the price they currently carry.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Feb 2010
Posts
6,810
Location
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
No problem. Although I realise my reply was slightly inaccurate as not all ~32" models use that panel. The LG 32GK850G is the exception, but as LG have been unable to provide a sample I have no hands-on experience with that one. I don't count the very brief demonstration at IFA last year as hands-on experience. :)
 
Associate
Joined
11 May 2017
Posts
1,037
Location
Portsmouth
The ~32" models all use the same panel (or CELL - which is a panel without backlight assembly). Responsiveness is broadly similar, although there are some differences in pixel overdrive implementation. I find the flexibility and tuning of the ASUS 'Trace Free' solution to be preferable to the fixed solution on the Samsung (as they tied stobing functionality to 'Faster' and 'Fastest'). The AOC is pretty similar to the ASUS XG32VQ in terms of responsiveness. Unfortunately that's about as good as things get from the ~32" models.

If you found the MX34VQ fine at a solid 100Hz (or ~100fps if you had FreeSync enabled, because respnosiveness is very similar) then you may find the XG32VQ fine at a similar refresh rate and frame rate. Then again it's very subjective and to be honest it has been a while since I even tested these models, so it's a tricky comparison.

P.S. There are no IPS-type alternatives of this size currently. I think LG might have something in the works for later this year, but I'm not going to hold my breath for a review sample.

What's the point of a 100hz when the eye can't see behind 60hz, it you don't believe me google it 'Why Do We Need 120Hz/144Hz Monitors If The Human Eye Can't See Beyond 60Hz?' also it's the brain, not the eye, does the seeing. Pure and simple
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Aug 2010
Posts
8,745
Location
N. Ireland
What's the point of a 100hz when the eye can't see behind 60hz, it you don't believe me google it 'Why Do We Need 120Hz/144Hz Monitors If The Human Eye Can't See Beyond 60Hz?' also it's the brain, not the eye, does the seeing. Pure and simple

Not sure if trolling? Better put on ignore list.

Anyhow, I've just put in an order for the Omen 32 directly from HP which should come in tomorrow.
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Feb 2010
Posts
6,810
Location
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
What's the point of a 100hz when the eye can't see behind 60hz, it you don't believe me google it 'Why Do We Need 120Hz/144Hz Monitors If The Human Eye Can't See Beyond 60Hz?' also it's the brain, not the eye, does the seeing. Pure and simple

If that were remotely true then there would be no point whatsoever. Fortunately that's complete and utter rubbish. Think you need to learn the difference between a reputable source and a user-submitted article from Quora featured on Forbes. It's people like you who let fake news and other such rubbish spread like wildfire.

I'm actually a neuroscientist with expertise in animal vision as well as an expert on display technology. And you are ____?
 

Stu

Stu

Soldato
Joined
19 Oct 2002
Posts
2,737
Location
Wirral
If that were remotely true then there would be no point whatsoever. Fortunately that's complete and utter rubbish. Think you need to learn the difference between a reputable source and a user-submitted article from Quora featured on Forbes. It's people like you who let fake news and other such rubbish spread like wildfire.

I'm actually a neuroscientist with expertise in animal vision as well as an expert on display technology. And you are ____?

After the fake news pretext, I'm trying to decide if this is true? Just curious :)
 
Associate
Joined
11 May 2017
Posts
1,037
Location
Portsmouth
If that were remotely true then there would be no point whatsoever. Fortunately that's complete and utter rubbish. Think you need to learn the difference between a reputable source and a user-submitted article from Quora featured on Forbes. It's people like you who let fake news and other such rubbish spread like wildfire.

I'm actually a neuroscientist with expertise in animal vision as well as an expert on display technology. And you are ____?

How can you compare a Human eye to a animal are you for real It's also people like you to throw people off track because it hurts the pocket of the manufacturers, this has be a debate for a long time on the computer forums even when we had CRT monitors Eye's internal lens and transforms this image into electrical impulses that are carried by the optic nerve to the brain you should know that right! after all you are the ' neuroscientist' in the house

"Are new 144hz monitors just a marketing trick?" Yes, just like the absurd numbers of pixels you see today, far smaller than the angular resolution of most people's poor eyesight. – user10851 Jan 5 '16 at 13:46 https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/227633/how-many-frames-can-human-eye-see

Not sure if trolling? Better put on ignore list. Anyhow, I've just put in an order for the Omen 32 directly from HP which should come in tomorrow.

Trolling it's just stupid As such, your victim to use this word to him/her people like to call a person a trolls no matter how outrageous they are in life because it make them feel power over others.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
18 Feb 2010
Posts
6,810
Location
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
After the fake news pretext, I'm trying to decide if this is true? Just curious :)

Yes it is. Although in this context it doesn't have much relevance, aside from the fact that flicker fusion thresholds (FFTs) are something I'm very much aware of. As for AORUS, I suggest he spends some time learning about the difference between how your typical LCD and CRT samples images and the relevance of smooth pursuit tracking vision. FFTs are not particularly relevant on sample and hold displays such as your typical LCD. Although for somebody who doesn't even understand that humans are also animals, it might be a bit much.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
11 May 2017
Posts
1,037
Location
Portsmouth
Yes it is. Although in this context it doesn't have much relevance, aside from the fact that flicker fusion thresholds (FFTs) are something I'm very much aware of. As for AORUS, I suggest he spends some time learning about the difference between how your typical LCD and CRT samples images and the relevance of smooth pursuit tracking vision. FFTs are not particularly relevant on sample and hold displays such as your typical LCD. Although for somebody who doesn't even understand that humans are also animals, it might be a bit much.

This begs the question… how does animal eyesight compare to our own? a good time to learn our 20/20 eyesight, a dog’s is in the region of 20/75 it seems animals have much better eyesight
https://advancedvisioncare.co.uk/eye-facts-human-vs-animals/

In my time I learn about the manufacturers marketing tricks & fake news. also benchmark cheats on GPUs the big list goes on. Next you are going to tell me a UHD is 4k right! on a LED seeing that you worked on display technology
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
18 Feb 2010
Posts
6,810
Location
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
I suggest you do some research around the concepts I've mentioned instead of remaining ignorant and going off on tangents (hint - visual acuity is not particularly important to this discussion). I've got a very good article on the topic on my website which you and other users here should really read. To briefly summarise:

- Typical LCDs are sample and hold displays and do not 'flicker' on and off at a rate matching their refresh rate. They are fundamentally different to imulse-type displays such as CRTs.
- Most of the blur you see on a screen comes from the movement of your eyes as they track motion on the screen. The eye movement type is called (smooth) pursuit tracking and is easy to demonstrate. Pixel response times also play a role, but like FFTs they're not relevant for this 'discussion' (a term I use loosely).
- Increasing refresh rate (and frame rate at the same time) decreases the amount of time your eyes spend tracking motion on the screen, reducing perceived blur. Most users who have used 60Hz LCDs and those with higher refresh rates will clearly have witnessed this benefit.
- Increasing refresh rate (and frame rate at the same time) greatly improves 'connected feel', which is again something that is very easy to feel for users with experience of both 60Hz LCDs and those with higher refresh rates.

Fortunately many users here have actually used high refresh rate LCDs. So even if they don't understand why the experience is superior, they know from experience that it is. I have used dozens of high refresh rate LCDs now and reviewed many of them. Before I even fully understood why the refresh rate was beneficial, I quite clearly saw and felt it first hand. Science and experience forms a thicker backbone than your very weak and fundamentally flawed counter-argument.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
OP
Joined
10 Oct 2012
Posts
4,415
Location
Denmark
I suggest you do some research around the concepts I've mentioned instead of remaining ignorant and going off on tangents (hint - visual acuity is not particularly important to this discussion). I've got a very good article on the topic on my website which you and other users here should really read. To briefly summarise:

- Typical LCDs are sample and hold displays and do not 'flicker' on and off at a rate matching their refresh rate. They are fundamentally different to imulse-type displays such as CRTs.
- Most of the blur you see on a screen comes from the movement of your eyes as they track motion on the screen. The eye movement type is called (smooth) pursuit tracking and is easy to demonstrate. Pixel response times also play a role, but like FFTs they're not relevant for this 'discussion' (a term I use loosely).
- Increasing refresh rate (and frame rate at the same time) decreases the amount of time your eyes spend tracking motion on the screen, reducing perceived blur. Most users who have used 60Hz LCDs and those with higher refresh rates will clearly have witnessed this benefit.
- Increasing refresh rate (and frame rate at the same time) greatly improves 'connected feel', which is again something that is very easy to feel for users with experience of both 60Hz LCDs and those with higher refresh rates.

Fortunately many users here have actually used high refresh rate LCDs. So even if they don't understand why the experience is superior, they know from experience that it is. I have used dozens of high refresh rate LCDs now and reviewed many of them. Before I even fully understood why the refresh rate was beneficial, I quite clearly saw and felt it first hand. Science and experience forms a thicker backbone than your very weak and fundamentally flawed counter-argument.

I wouldn't bother with people like him. It's like the flat earth society no matter what kind of scientific proof you deliver they are just going to run off to find some fool with a likemind mentality who have created a youtube video and call that as a counter to you. Mark Twain springs to mind.

EDIT: The person in question has been put on ignore.
 
Last edited:
Associate
Joined
11 May 2017
Posts
1,037
Location
Portsmouth
I wouldn't bother with people like him. It's like the flat earth society no matter what kind of scientific proof you deliver they are just going to run off to find some fool with a likemind mentality who have created a youtube video and call that as a counter to you. Mark Twain springs to mind.

You know nothing of me but you are easy to judge me, basic on what I write on the forums? who are you to personal attack me in this way!!:mad: there are rules to follow.
 
Back
Top Bottom