VESA Group annouces new "ClearMR" certification to clarify monitor response time specs

[Qub3d]

Summary

The VESA industry group seems to have decided that response times and ghosting need a standardized spec, similar to how it standardized HDR specs a few years back. The result is "ClearMR" (site link: https://www.clearmr.org), which aims to provide a simple single bullet list item to give a general expectation of a monitor's speed and clarity.

 

Quotes

Quote

The Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA), which makes other display standards, including DisplayPort and Adaptive-Sync, today announced a new specification program that puts a label on displays quantifying their expected motion blur performance.

...

VESA believes ClearMR paints a more informative picture of potential motion blur than looking at response time specs, be it motion picture response time (MPRT) or gray-to-gray (GtG).

"It is our goal that ClearMR will replace existing metrics that are used in advertisements for blur-based metrics that are solely based on time, like MPRT. I would be perfectly happy if I didn't see that in advertisements anymore," Stolitzka said.

 

My thoughts

I always appreciated how RTings and BlurBusters stepped in to provide 3rd party oversight, but it would be really fantastic to have certified information regarding display clarity on the box from the get-go.

 

It really shows how far display tech has come as well -- the fact that the industry is willing to do this also shows that they feel the need for another price differentiator, because who cares about refresh rates when your options are between insanity like 360hz vs 400hz?

The downside, of course, is that these badges may be used as a way to create artificial "halo" products and increase prices. But I suppose that was going to happen anyway...

 

On a final note, the Ars article is really great, especially the sections showing the test images. Really neat stuff, and even if marketing is driving, its clear that some serious tech chops are getting put into this under the hood:

 

Sources

https://www.clearmr.org/

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/08/vesas-latest-standard-grades-displays-on-motion-blur/

[PineyCreek]

All of it reads like sales-speak to me, which makes me immediately wary of it.

 

Linus: AND YOU SHOULD BE WARY OF TODAY SPONSOR, RandStuff!

 

...but seriously, I stopped trusting the stuff on the box years ago based on buyer's remorse-type experiences, so I'll wait for it to be implemented and then likely go through several revisions and then let reviewers that can afford and/or are given the privilege of testing multiple monitors with the rating on them to see how much of a point it will actually be.

[BobVonBob]

I'd be interested given two prerequisites.

 

It needs to account for differences in response times with color, specifically black smearing on VA and OLED.

 

The lowest tier needs to not be worthless like DisplayHDR 400.

 

Never mind the lowest tier is worthless. What is that?

 

Edited August 23, 2022 by BobVonBob

[Thaldor]

Finally. Has been too long with the "response time" crap that fucked up when VA panels came out and everyone moved from BtW to GtG shit to make better marketing points rather than something useful specs.

 

Those not knowing "response time" used to mean how long the pixel takes to change from black to white or vice versa and everybody was fine with it because TN panels easily went to <1ms and IPS panels started from bit over 5ms but quickly dropped to 3ms range and lower. Then came VA panels that were utter garbage when it came to BtW response time, we were talking over 10ms response times but they were cheap and had almost as good color reproduction as IPS panels. So someone took a long look at the testing and found out that nothing limits response time testing to be BtW and decided that it is just as good if it's just some random darker gray color changing to lighter gray color and the great fucker named "GtG response time" was born and even the utter garbage VA panels could boast "<1ms response time!" in their marketing.

[BabaGanuche]

 

If it is anything like the display HDR certification this will be completely worthless. And given that it is being done by the same company I have no reason to believe that it would be different.

[LAwLz]

54 minutes ago, BabaGanuche said:

If it is anything like the display HDR certification this will be completely worthless. And given that it is being done by the same company I have no reason to believe that it would be different.

What's wrong with the HDR certification? 

 

 

7 hours ago, BobVonBob said:

I'd be interested given two prerequisites.

 

It needs to account for differences in response times with color, specifically black smearing on VA and OLED.

 

The lowest tier needs to not be worthless like DisplayHDR 400.

 

Never mind the lowest tier is worthless. What is that?

 

What's wrong with having a certification for lower tiers?

Also, according to VESA, most 60Hz screens won't even be able to reach ClearMR 3000 certification. So not only is the ClearMR 3000 certification a clear indicator of "better than most common monitors, but still not that good", it also makes it easier to compare against monitors with slightly higher certification.

For example having ClearMR 3000 exist makes it easier to compare that product vs one that has ClearMR 4000 certification.

 

 

There is nothing wrong with having lower tiers of certification. The more granular scale the better. 

 

 

Also, I think people greatly overestimate how good monitors are with handling motion blur.

BlurBuster has good tests of motion blur and while they can not be compared to the ClearMR tests, this is what a various refresh rates looks like in their tests. Even 120Hz monitors looks like a blurry mess.

Spoiler

 

This is what the Gigabyte M34WQ looks like at 144Hz without overdrive turned on:

 

[Franck]

1 minute ago, LAwLz said:

For example having ClearMR 3000 exist makes it easier to compare that product vs one that has ClearMR 4000 certification.

Specially that if it require a test to certify you now wont end up buying a monitor that claim 1ms response time when actually testing you get 8ms.

 

Same thing as gas mileage thing. It was out of the wazoo until they standardized it. It wont remove all the crap out there. Knock off will still lie but at least respectable brands should be more consistent and easier choice for the consumer. I now just hope everyday stores start displaying small guide/pamphlet for the consumer that explain what is HDR certification, ClearMR, GSync, etc so that EVERY consumer can know what they are buying no matter if you are aware of latest tech or not.

[LAwLz]

1 minute ago, Franck said:

I now just hope everyday stores start displaying small guide/pamphlet for the consumer that explain what is HDR certification, ClearMR, GSync, etc so that EVERY consumer can know what they are buying no matter if you are aware of latest tech or not.

I think that's an admirable but unrealistic goal.

Even if stores had pamphlets and guides, chances are most people wouldn't bother reading them, and most of which did read them wouldn't understand half the text inside them. 

Hopefully this will help some people though. If some kid knows that ClearMR monitors are better for gaming and they are deciding between one that says ClearMR 4000 and one that says ClearMR 5000 then it will hopefully make the choice a bit easier for them, even if they don't fully understand what the numbers represent.

[Stahlmann]

20 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

What's wrong with the HDR certification? 

It's set up in a way so brands can easily certify monitors to be a high-tier HDR display even though the HDR esperience is horrible in reality. In the end all it does is give brands more marketing bullet points without really helping the consumer much. Hardware Unboxed did a more detailed takedown of the VESA DisplayHDR certification and how disconnected it is from common testing methods in this video:

 

I just hope they will account for all (or at least most of) the factors. Response times are not as simple as saying "this monitor has a 1ms response time". There is black smearing for some panel types, different refresh rates result in different response times, overshoot, etc.

 

I'm not against certifications. Just against ones that only help the seller, not the buyer. And that's exactly what the Vesa DisplayHDR certification currently is imo. 

[Stahlmann]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

This is what the Gigabyte M34WQ looks like at 144Hz without overdrive turned on:

Except this picture shows every sign that pixel overdrive is used. See that bright trail behind the legs? See that blue trail behind the yellow cabin? That's overshoot caused by pixel overdrive. It's also worth mentioning that Gigabyte monitors use overdrive even in their "off" or "picture quality" settings in the OSD. Still, i don't really get what the point was in bringing this particular image up.

[BetteBalterZen]

Anything under CMR9000 should be illigal!  

[LAwLz]

44 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

It's set up in a way so brands can easily certify monitors to be a high-tier HDR display even though the HDR esperience is horrible in reality. In the end all it does is give brands more marketing bullet points without really helping the consumer much. Hardware Unboxed did a more detailed takedown of the VESA DisplayHDR certification and how disconnected it is from common testing methods in this video:

<video>

I think the problem there is that people expect DisplayHDR 1000 monitors to have great dynamic range, which is not really what that certification is for.

The part of that video can be summarized as "I thought this certification meant X but it actually means Y so now I don't like it".

 

I mean, just look at the DisplayHDR website under DisplayHDR 1000.

It highlights things like peak brightness (that's where the 1000 comes from), bigger color gamut and 10 bit processing.

If you read RTINGS's summary of DisplayHDR, they don't even mention contrast in the examples of things DisplayHDR looks at.

 

 

Would it be better if the certification also focused more on contrast? Absolutely, but just because the certification process is very relaxed in that area does not mean it isn't good for the other areas. A display is more than just contrast. Hell, monitors are incredibly complex and the performance varies a lot depending on how the test is performed. It took ages before people realized what APL was for example.

It would be incredibly difficult to design a certification standard that covers all various testing methodologies.

 

I feel like a lot of people don't want to think when buying things, which I understand, but don't blindly assume various stickers mean things.

DisplayHDR 1000 means certain things but it does not mean "this display is amazing in every single way".

 

It will be the same thing with ClearMR.

 

 

Also, even if you think a certification is "worthless", please remember that the display still has to be of a certain level to pass the certification. It should be pretty telling that despite these requirements being so "worthless", most monitors still doesn't pass them.

 

 

Don't judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree.

[TetraSky]

Honestly, this is good. Though I do wonder how many monitor manufacturers will bother getting this extra certification for their monitors. Unless they have absolute confidences that it's ClearMR 9000. The shit tier ones certainly won't advertise it, why would they, it will hurt their sales.

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, Stahlmann said:

I just hope they will account for all (or at least most of) the factors. Response times are not as simple as saying "this monitor has a 1ms response time". There is black smearing for some panel types, different refresh rates result in different response times, overshoot, etc.

Yes, it seems like those things will be taken into account.

 

1 hour ago, Stahlmann said:

I'm not against certifications. Just against ones that only help the seller, not the buyer. And that's exactly what the Vesa DisplayHDR certification currently is imo. 

And I strongly disagree with that conclusion.

DisplayHDR does help consumers. It's just not an absolute bullet-proof certification that definitively proves that a monitor is super awesome in every single measurable way.

It's a tool you can use to filter out monitors that don't meet certain criteria. If you buy a DisplayHDR 1000 monitors then you can be sure (if it's from a trusted brand at least, some Chinese manufacturers have been caught slapping certifications they haven't earned on boxes) that it meets the minimum requirements specified in the certification. For example peak brightness, color gamut and color depth. DisplayHDR is not a "this monitor is worth buying" sticker. It's a "this monitor does at least these things" sticker. It's a minimum spec guarantee, not a seal of approval.

 

 

1 hour ago, Stahlmann said:

Except this picture shows every sign that pixel overdrive is used. See that bright trail behind the legs? See that blue trail behind the yellow cabin? That's overshoot caused by pixel overdrive. It's also worth mentioning that Gigabyte monitors use overdrive even in their "off" or "picture quality" settings in the OSD. Still, i don't really get what the point was in bringing this particular image up.

I think you were missing my point. My point was that even a fairly high end gaming monitor will look blurry in these types of tests.

The point wasn't "I want to discuss overdrive!". The point was "I think people overestimate how clear images are on monitors, this is one example of what a 144Hz gaming monitor looks like in a similar test, look it's also quite blurry".

I only mentioned overdrive being turned off in case someone would bring up "yeah but what if you set overdrive to X".

The point was not to discuss overdrive. The point was to give people a point of reference before going "wow, these images look awful so these lower tier certifications will be worthless".

[BabaGanuche]

12 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I think the problem there is that people expect DisplayHDR 1000 monitors to have great dynamic range, which is not really what that certification is for.

Wow I am shocked that the average person thinks that the "Display(HDR)HighDynamicRange" certification means that they have great dynamic range. That is why I think the standard is worthless. It does not communicate what the customer is actually looking for.

[LAwLz]

22 minutes ago, BabaGanuche said:

Wow I am shocked that the average person thinks that the "Display(HDR)HighDynamicRange" certification means that they have great dynamic range. That is why I think the standard is worthless. It does not communicate what the customer is actually looking for.

HDR is about more than just high contrast.

If you look up any HDR standard such as HDR10+, Dolby Vision, HLG etc you will find that the vast majority of the specifications are not about contrast. 

 

Again, don't judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree.

 

And yes, it does communicate what the customers is looking for. If someone wants to buy a HDR monitor for the sole purpose of having high contrast then that person is dumb and/or uninformed. HDR is far more than just contrast and contrast is not the be-all-end-all measurement. There are so many other things that are important in order to get HDR, and those other factors are taken into consideration during the DisplayHDR certification process.

Things like maximum brightness, color depth, brightness adjustment latency, white point accuracy, etc.

 

 

I am sorry that you seem to have misunderstood what the certification tests, but that does not mean it is useless.

[Stahlmann]

26 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I think the problem there is that people expect DisplayHDR 1000 monitors to have great dynamic range, which is not really what that certification is for.

The part of that video can be summarized as "I thought this certification meant X but it actually means Y so now I don't like it".

 

I mean, just look at the DisplayHDR website under DisplayHDR 1000.

It highlights things like peak brightness (that's where the 1000 comes from), bigger color gamut and 10 bit processing.

If you read RTINGS's summary of DisplayHDR, they don't even mention contrast in the examples of things DisplayHDR looks at.

 

 

Would it be better if the certification also focused more on contrast? Absolutely, but just because the certification process is very relaxed in that area does not mean it isn't good for the other areas. A display is more than just contrast. Hell, monitors are incredibly complex and the performance varies a lot depending on how the test is performed. It took ages before people realized what APL was for example.

It would be incredibly difficult to design a certification standard that covers all various testing methodologies.

 

I feel like a lot of people don't want to think when buying things, which I understand, but don't blindly assume various stickers mean things.

DisplayHDR 1000 means certain things but it does not mean "this display is amazing in every single way".

 

It will be the same thing with ClearMR.

 

 

Also, even if you think a certification is "worthless", please remember that the display still has to be of a certain level to pass the certification. It should be pretty telling that despite these requirements being so "worthless", most monitors still doesn't pass them.

 

 

Don't judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree.

Worthless might've been the wrong word. Still, the main problem here is that the Vesa DisplayHDR certification doesn't measure a monitor's HDR capabilities, yet everyone thinks that's exactly what the certification is there for. The only people who this certification is for are the same people who won't know that Vesa DisplayHDR doesn't measure real world HDR performance.

 

I'm not saying ClearMR will be the same, but it could be.

[Stahlmann]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

Things like maximum brightness, color depth, brightness adjustment latency, white point accuracy, etc.

These things are mostly what EVERY monitor is about, not just HDR.

Wide color gamuts, 10bit color depth and color accurate displays have existed long before HDR has been this prevalent and can be used in SDR aswell.

 

THE main thing that HDR adds on top of what's already possible with SDR is more brightness headroom to be able to make bright highlights stand out. In other words: Contrast.

 

The 2nd main difference is that HDR works with an absolute brightness scale (PQ-EOTF curve) compared to the relative brightness used with SDR. That means brightness is set to a specific value by the content creator and then tonemapped to the capabilities of the user's display. In SDR the brightness of the content is entirely dependant on the user's brightness settings.

 

If a monitor can only achieve these bright highlights while sacraficing shadow detail (lacking or no local dimming so the whole screen has to go brighter just for the highlight), then the monitor is simply not able to display a high dynamic range because there IS no highlight when everything is bright. That's pretty simple.

[starsmine]

3 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Except this picture shows every sign that pixel overdrive is used. See that bright trail behind the legs? See that blue trail behind the yellow cabin? That's overshoot caused by pixel overdrive. It's also worth mentioning that Gigabyte monitors use overdrive even in their "off" or "picture quality" settings in the OSD. Still, i don't really get what the point was in bringing this particular image up.

doesnt overdrive overshoot the leading edge, not the trailing edge?
Honestly, I am mostly fine with the lower ratings, to me its similar to 80+ on power supplies.

HDR400 is a worthless certification and it should just be trashed and done away with. It communicates that a screen can ACCEPT an HDR signal... wohoo. All it does is confuse consumers who think it means it can do HDR, which is... only true because its defined as true, when its not really true.

[Stahlmann]

1 minute ago, starsmine said:

doesnt overdrive overshoot the leading edge, not the trailing edge?

No, overshoot is also a kind of blur on the trailing edge like ghosting but it's more noticeable.

[tikker]

55 minutes ago, starsmine said:

HDR400 is a worthless certification and it should just be trashed and done away with. It communicates that a screen can ACCEPT an HDR signal... wohoo. All it does is confuse consumers who think it means it can do HDR, which is... only true because its defined as true, when its not really true.

But what is "really true"? You are right that it's only true due to definition, but that's what we're after. For me contrast is an important metric as that is basically just another word for dynamic range, which for HDR is supposed to be, well, high. As we see in this thread, however, different people have different opinions on what constitutes (acceptable) HDR or what else the certification is about and what criteria should be included for them. Certifications should resolve part of that. Are they perfect? Nah, probably not, but with them we at least get a list of defined behaviour.

 

I am more towards the side where it is worth spending to get above average HDR performance, but I know there are others who will tell me that my C9 OLED is trash and doesn't begin to compare to the real real HDR. So I think these certifications should also include the bare minimum one would even consider to start going into HDR territory, such as DisplayHDR 400, if not purely for having a bottom-line reference point. Marketing will for sure abuse it, but maybe it'll incentivise manufacturers to at least hit that bottom line as well.

[Thaldor]

4 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Still, the main problem here is that the Vesa DisplayHDR certification doesn't measure a monitor's HDR capabilities, yet everyone thinks that's exactly what the certification is there for.

So, is the problem bad certification or that people are stupid enough not to read the certification and just assume it does something it doesn't do?

Influencers of course go for the bad certification because calling their viewers and supporters "fucking idiots" isn't great for the business.

[Stahlmann]

2 hours ago, Thaldor said:

So, is the problem bad certification or that people are stupid enough not to read the certification and just assume it does something it doesn't do?

Influencers of course go for the bad certification because calling their viewers and supporters "fucking idiots" isn't great for the business.

Is it so wrong to assume that a certification called "Vesa DisplayHDR" evaluates HDR performance? I know it doesn't, but also know perfectly well that i'm not the majority. The vast majority of customers will not do the research to find out what the certification is about. That's why these certifications like DisplayHDR, G-Sync Ultimate and FreeSync Premium Pro annoy me so much. I know they're BS and know i need to watch and read reviews to really find out what a monitor is about, but fact is most people don't and rely on the stickers on the box. (Or worse: Amazon reviews)

 

The fact that everyone looking for advice on buying an HDR monitor on forums starts with some sort of Vesa certification requirement shows that the communication around what this certification does is non existent and most people take it for what is in the name.

 

I just think this certification will change nothing about how current monitor marketing works. The brands will probably end up tuning the monitor exactly that a best case scenario will boost it's certification tier up a few and the real world performance will differ vastly. Just like every 1ms monitor on the market can only hit these kinds of response times in an absolute best case scenario and real world response times are actually 4-6 times slower. (Other than OLED, which are true 1ms, but then again Dell already started to market their 1ms OLED monitors with 0,1ms)

 

I'm just saying, Vesa's actions in the past have not given me much hope that they'll actually introduce a useful certification process that can give a definitive answer to the motion performance of a monitor. Again, with the example of the vastly misleading DisplayHDR certification. The "everything is HDMI 2.1 now" move is another example leading to consumers needing to dig way deeper than they should have to to find out what the HDMI port on the monitor actually supports in terms of features and bandwidth.

 

Moves like this serve no purpose in helping consumers to buy the right product for their needs and are only made to mislead consumers. Idk why some people feel the need to defend this.

[Quackers101]

sadly it will be abused? unless they have more rules to it as with "HDR" standards etc.

also in a certain range this doesn't tell anything besides the tech used, and is it per HZ setting or any fps?

but I guess it can sort out some of the really bad ones?

 

https://blurbusters.com/faq/motion-blur-reduction/

[Senzelian]

7 hours ago, Quackers101 said:

also in a certain range this doesn't tell anything besides the tech used, and is it per HZ setting or any fps?

The displays are run on their maximum refresh rate while testing, if that is what you were asking.

During the test backlight strobing is turned off.

 

"Limits are also placed on overshoot and undershoot", tho I'm not sure what that means. 
To be honest this entire table doesn't make all that much sense to me...

 

https://www.clearmr.org/performance-criteria/