So I experimented with Lightboost on the XL2420T, and all I really noticed was the screen going pretty dark and the colours getting all desaturated. Pumping brightness to maximum only barely helps, but I could live with it.
I read claims that the difference between Lightboost and non-Lightboost is like going from 60hz to 120hz, but I don't really notice a difference. Is there supposed to be a huge noticeable impact, or is the difference negligible to most people? I'm using the 320.00 drivers with a 660Ti, with these instructions:
http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur/lightboost/
Could someone who has experience using Lightboost on a BenQ maybe shed some light on this?
Also, my monitor power cable stopped working during the process, but only in the BenQ. Works fine everywhere else. Weird.
So I experimented with Lightboost on the XL2420T, and all I really noticed was the screen going pretty dark and the colours getting all desaturated. Pumping brightness to maximum only barely helps, but I could live with it.
I read claims that the difference between Lightboost and non-Lightboost is like going from 60hz to 120hz, but I don't really notice a difference. Is there supposed to be a huge noticeable impact, or is the difference negligible to most people? I'm using the 320.00 drivers with a 660Ti, with these instructions:
http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur/lightboost/
Could someone who has experience using Lightboost on a BenQ maybe shed some light on this?
Also, my monitor power cable stopped working during the process, but only in the BenQ. Works fine everywhere else. Weird.
I noticed a huge difference using lightboost on my Asus VG248QE.
I sometimes get this bug where i move in slow motion in source games (it is related to C++ somehow http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-635372.html )
When I went from 120Hz->120Hz lightboost, I thought I had that bug. Everything was so crystal clear, I thought I was moving much slower, but I wasn't. It was definitely noticeable. That being said, I didn't think it provided much of a benefit compared to 120Hz non lightboost. While there was less motion blur and tracking was a little easier, there was a slight increase in input lag. I think these 2 effects effectively cancelled out as far as tf2 goes. I think it may be more beneficial in games where enemies are camoflagued, etc. I concluded that I definitely preferred 144Hz, while 120Hz lightboost and non-lightboost were a tossup in tf2.
But this was just plugging my monitor into my friends desktop, now I'm back on my laptop stuck at 60Hz :(
I noticed a huge difference using lightboost on my Asus VG248QE.
I sometimes get this bug where i move in slow motion in source games (it is related to C++ somehow http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-635372.html )
When I went from 120Hz->120Hz lightboost, I thought I had that bug. Everything was so crystal clear, I thought I was moving much slower, but I wasn't. It was definitely noticeable. That being said, I didn't think it provided much of a benefit compared to 120Hz non lightboost. While there was less motion blur and tracking was a little easier, there was a [i]slight[/i] increase in input lag. I think these 2 effects effectively cancelled out as far as tf2 goes. I think it may be more beneficial in games where enemies are camoflagued, etc. I concluded that I definitely preferred 144Hz, while 120Hz lightboost and non-lightboost were a tossup in tf2.
But this was just plugging my monitor into my friends desktop, now I'm back on my laptop stuck at 60Hz :(
Hm, all right, thanks. So mileage varies depending on the game and person. I'll get the exact drivers the guide used and try again, maybe it'll make a bigger difference. Hello, dx9.
Hm, all right, thanks. So mileage varies depending on the game and person. I'll get the exact drivers the guide used and try again, maybe it'll make a bigger difference. Hello, dx9.
frknI noticed a huge difference using lightboost on my Asus VG248QE.
I sometimes get this bug where i move in slow motion in source games (it is related to C++ somehow http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-635372.html )
When I went from 120Hz->120Hz lightboost, I thought I had that bug. Everything was so crystal clear, I thought I was moving much slower, but I wasn't. It was definitely noticeable. That being said, I didn't think it provided much of a benefit compared to 120Hz non lightboost. While there was less motion blur and tracking was a little easier, there was a slight increase in input lag. I think these 2 effects effectively cancelled out as far as tf2 goes. I think it may be more beneficial in games where enemies are camoflagued, etc. I concluded that I definitely preferred 144Hz, while 120Hz lightboost and non-lightboost were a tossup in tf2.
But this was just plugging my monitor into my friends desktop, now I'm back on my laptop stuck at 60Hz :(
Da fuq? Man I thought I was the only person who got that weird Matrix slow-mo bug...hasn't happened to me in a while, but holy shit was it infuriating when it did. Was always a crapshoot trying to fix it, let alone trying to google that 'slow-mo tf2' 'slow motion in my games' etc...
So you prefer 144Hz to 120Hz+LB?
It seems that 120Hz+LB is the option w/ least motion blur.
from here - http://www.overclock.net/t/1339384/zero-motion-blur-lcd-nvidia-lightboost-hack-looks-like-crt-looks-like-480hz
baseline - 60 Hz mode (16.7ms frame samples)
50% less motion blur (2x clearer) - 120 Hz mode (8.33ms frame samples)
60% less motion blur (2.4x clearer) - 144 Hz mode (6.94ms frame samples)
85% less motion blur (7x clearer) - 120 Hz LightBoost, set to 100% (2.4ms frame strobe flashes)
92% less motion blur (12x clearer) - 120 Hz LightBoost, set to 10% (1.4ms frame strobe flashes)
[quote=frkn]I noticed a huge difference using lightboost on my Asus VG248QE.
I sometimes get this bug where i move in slow motion in source games (it is related to C++ somehow http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-635372.html )
When I went from 120Hz->120Hz lightboost, I thought I had that bug. Everything was so crystal clear, I thought I was moving much slower, but I wasn't. It was definitely noticeable. That being said, I didn't think it provided much of a benefit compared to 120Hz non lightboost. While there was less motion blur and tracking was a little easier, there was a [i]slight[/i] increase in input lag. I think these 2 effects effectively cancelled out as far as tf2 goes. I think it may be more beneficial in games where enemies are camoflagued, etc. I concluded that I definitely preferred 144Hz, while 120Hz lightboost and non-lightboost were a tossup in tf2.
But this was just plugging my monitor into my friends desktop, now I'm back on my laptop stuck at 60Hz :([/quote]
Da fuq? Man I thought I was the only person who got that weird Matrix slow-mo bug...hasn't happened to me in a while, but holy shit was it infuriating when it did. Was always a crapshoot trying to fix it, let alone trying to google that 'slow-mo tf2' 'slow motion in my games' etc...
So you prefer 144Hz to 120Hz+LB?
It seems that 120Hz+LB is the option w/ least motion blur.
from here - http://www.overclock.net/t/1339384/zero-motion-blur-lcd-nvidia-lightboost-hack-looks-like-crt-looks-like-480hz
[quote]baseline - 60 Hz mode (16.7ms frame samples)
50% less motion blur (2x clearer) - 120 Hz mode (8.33ms frame samples)
60% less motion blur (2.4x clearer) - 144 Hz mode (6.94ms frame samples)
85% less motion blur (7x clearer) - 120 Hz LightBoost, set to 100% (2.4ms frame strobe flashes)
92% less motion blur (12x clearer) - 120 Hz LightBoost, set to 10% (1.4ms frame strobe flashes)[/quote]
OdissiusfrknI noticed a huge difference using lightboost on my Asus VG248QE.
I sometimes get this bug where i move in slow motion in source games (it is related to C++ somehow http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-635372.html )
When I went from 120Hz->120Hz lightboost, I thought I had that bug. Everything was so crystal clear, I thought I was moving much slower, but I wasn't. It was definitely noticeable. That being said, I didn't think it provided much of a benefit compared to 120Hz non lightboost. While there was less motion blur and tracking was a little easier, there was a slight increase in input lag. I think these 2 effects effectively cancelled out as far as tf2 goes. I think it may be more beneficial in games where enemies are camoflagued, etc. I concluded that I definitely preferred 144Hz, while 120Hz lightboost and non-lightboost were a tossup in tf2.
But this was just plugging my monitor into my friends desktop, now I'm back on my laptop stuck at 60Hz :(
Da fuq? Man I thought I was the only person who got that weird Matrix slow-mo bug...hasn't happened to me in a while, but holy shit was it infuriating when it did. Was always a crapshoot trying to fix it, let alone trying to google that 'slow-mo tf2' 'slow motion in my games' etc...
So you prefer 144Hz to 120Hz+LB?
It seems that 120Hz+LB is the option w/ least motion blur.
from here - http://www.overclock.net/t/1339384/zero-motion-blur-lcd-nvidia-lightboost-hack-looks-like-crt-looks-like-480hzbaseline - 60 Hz mode (16.7ms frame samples)
50% less motion blur (2x clearer) - 120 Hz mode (8.33ms frame samples)
60% less motion blur (2.4x clearer) - 144 Hz mode (6.94ms frame samples)
85% less motion blur (7x clearer) - 120 Hz LightBoost, set to 100% (2.4ms frame strobe flashes)
92% less motion blur (12x clearer) - 120 Hz LightBoost, set to 10% (1.4ms frame strobe flashes)
This is true, there is definitely a lot less motion blur. The thing is, I don't have any problems with the amount of motion blur present at 144Hz, it doesn't affect my tracking at all. The amount of input lag increase, while small, is noticeable enough to affect gameplay. Although I was able to adjust to it, in a game like tf2, I found the decrease in motion blur didn't really outweigh the increase in input lag. I think it would be more beneficial in games where enemies are harder to spot (camouflage, etc) than in tf2 where enemies stand out quite a bit.
Plus the colors are better without lightboost (even when using a lightboost calibrated ICC profile).
[quote=Odissius][quote=frkn]I noticed a huge difference using lightboost on my Asus VG248QE.
I sometimes get this bug where i move in slow motion in source games (it is related to C++ somehow http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-635372.html )
When I went from 120Hz->120Hz lightboost, I thought I had that bug. Everything was so crystal clear, I thought I was moving much slower, but I wasn't. It was definitely noticeable. That being said, I didn't think it provided much of a benefit compared to 120Hz non lightboost. While there was less motion blur and tracking was a little easier, there was a [i]slight[/i] increase in input lag. I think these 2 effects effectively cancelled out as far as tf2 goes. I think it may be more beneficial in games where enemies are camoflagued, etc. I concluded that I definitely preferred 144Hz, while 120Hz lightboost and non-lightboost were a tossup in tf2.
But this was just plugging my monitor into my friends desktop, now I'm back on my laptop stuck at 60Hz :([/quote]
Da fuq? Man I thought I was the only person who got that weird Matrix slow-mo bug...hasn't happened to me in a while, but holy shit was it infuriating when it did. Was always a crapshoot trying to fix it, let alone trying to google that 'slow-mo tf2' 'slow motion in my games' etc...
So you prefer 144Hz to 120Hz+LB?
It seems that 120Hz+LB is the option w/ least motion blur.
from here - http://www.overclock.net/t/1339384/zero-motion-blur-lcd-nvidia-lightboost-hack-looks-like-crt-looks-like-480hz
[quote]baseline - 60 Hz mode (16.7ms frame samples)
50% less motion blur (2x clearer) - 120 Hz mode (8.33ms frame samples)
60% less motion blur (2.4x clearer) - 144 Hz mode (6.94ms frame samples)
85% less motion blur (7x clearer) - 120 Hz LightBoost, set to 100% (2.4ms frame strobe flashes)
92% less motion blur (12x clearer) - 120 Hz LightBoost, set to 10% (1.4ms frame strobe flashes)[/quote][/quote]
This is true, there is definitely a lot less motion blur. The thing is, I don't have any problems with the amount of motion blur present at 144Hz, it doesn't affect my tracking at all. The amount of input lag increase, while small, is noticeable enough to affect gameplay. Although I was able to adjust to it, in a game like tf2, I found the decrease in motion blur didn't really outweigh the increase in input lag. I think it would be more beneficial in games where enemies are harder to spot (camouflage, etc) than in tf2 where enemies stand out quite a bit.
Plus the colors are better without lightboost (even when using a lightboost calibrated ICC profile).