60hz BFI on OLED

[Nicklah]

Reading some of these posts I was wondering three things and I was hoping someone would be able to confirm them.

1. Since the BFI on OLED is just adding a black frame every other frame its just software BFI yeah but integrated into the monitors firmware somehow?

2. If it's just software BFI does it has the same issue with burn in as LCD where you need to run it at odd integer multiples of 60hz to safely use? Does 120hz bfi on a 240hz OLED lead to faster image retention due to it not being an odd multiple of 60hz?

3. In order to get 60hz bfi couldn't the manufacturer just make 3/4 frames black and do exactly the same trick they do with 120hz bfi using every second frame black? you would lose 75% bright instead of 50% but you could get 60hz BFI to give you 240hz clarity yeah? seems like it would just be getting the monitor to do what they already have it doing? I can't see why this would be hard (or difficult at all) to do?

Thanks in advance for any responses!

[O-T-T]

Reading some of these posts I was wondering three things and I was hoping someone would be able to confirm them.

I'll try, but keep in mind that everything I write below is only what I have read/understood and my personal opinion.

1. Since the BFI on OLED is just adding a black frame every other frame its just software BFI yeah but integrated into the monitors firmware somehow?

I think so, in the sense that the principle is the same except that in that case it acts directly at the hardware level.

I can't tell you if there is a "performance" difference between sending a black frame (BFI software) and directly turning off the pixels but as far as I know the real difference is that a hardware implementation (in the monitor firmware) allows you to manage some parameters (don't ask me the names, you can find all the info by searching one of the dozens of Chief's posts) that allow fine-tuning of the entire process, resulting in an overall improvement compared to standard software BFI.

All this only on paper however, as neither the panel manufacturers (LG, Samsung) nor the "assemblers" (Asus, Dell, MSI, Gigabyte, HP, etc.) care about this feature: hardware BFI is offered very very rarely, even in top-of-the-range and more expensive monitors, and when it happens it is often implemented very poorly. In addition, the option of managing the "special" parameters I mentioned above is practically never offered and when this happens the user usually has very limited control and about only 1 or 2 of them. As to why, read my reply to your 3., below.

2. If it's just software BFI does it has the same issue with burn in as LCD where you need to run it at odd integer multiples of 60hz to safely use? Does 120hz bfi on a 240hz OLED lead to faster image retention due to it not being an odd multiple of 60hz?

No, I'm pretty sure the answer is NO to both your questions. OLED do not suffer from this problem and as you can imagine this constitutes another great advantage compared to IPS. With the latter you are "forced" to limit yourself to 180hz BFI for a 240hz panel.

Even worse, for the higher-ranking IPS panels, you are basically limited to 300hz BFI wasting a lot of the theoretical potential of the panel: this is valid for almost all panels above 240hz as the market usually offers refreshes rates up to max 390hz while the next "step" to be able to use the software-BFI at its best would require a 420hz panel... which means that if you want to get to the next level (above 300hz BFI) today you are forced to buy a 500+hz monitor, which costs twice as much as 300-360hz monitors.

3. In order to get 60hz bfi couldn't the manufacturer just make 3/4 frames black and do exactly the same trick they do with 120hz bfi using every second frame black? you would lose 75% bright instead of 50% but you could get 60hz BFI to give you 240hz clarity yeah? seems like it would just be getting the monitor to do what they already have it doing? I can't see why this would be hard (or difficult at all) to do?

Yes, they could do it EASILY.

So, if you are wondering why manufacturers offer at most a paltry basic BFI at 120hz rather than making the most of the potential of much faster panels as logic would dictate (and as the buyer expects), in my opinion the reason is simple: they don't care about BFI, the only reason why they sometimes offer it at 120hz is to allure those who want to use the monitor with consoles (which are limited to a 120hz refresh). In other words, it is an extra that serves to differentiate itself in an ultra-super competitive market in an attempt to snatch from the competitors some buyers interested in using the monitor with consoles.

Manufacturers are not interested in pursuing the holy grail of motion clarity in itself or for the "satisfaction" of enthusiasts, they act only and exclusively where they see the possibility of a profit margin for some reason, which is understandable and normal... except that sometimes this attitude becomes blatantly short-sighted and stupid.

In fact, there has already been for many years LOT of users very interested in these aspects (BFI, blur reduction, best motion clarity) outside the mainstream world of modern games or current consoles: just think about retrogaming, a sector where you can easily find tens of thousands of enthusiasts who are often willing to spend a lot of money to get the best emulation experience possible (I'm one of those ).

For them, a monitor with high-level specifications (at least QHD, better 4K, possibly with HDR) offering hardware-BFI with all the bells and whistles (decent implementation, ability to set "special" parameters, no limits on refresh rate) would be a absolute must-buy, even at a challenging price. It is no coincidence that many were anxiously awaiting these new 4K 240hz OLEDs, beyond the obvious benefits: for example I am very interested in the possibility of using the BFI at 240hz with these monitors while until yesterday (literally), for 4K, you could only find monitors with a maximum refresh of 160hz OC, totally useless as I would have been limited to 120hz BFI anyway.

So basically, the mistake that in my opinion manufacturers are making is that they consider high-refresh monitors intended exclusively for those who play modern "competitive" games who would be perfectly satisfied anyway with the worst panels on the market (1080p TN) while there is a good portion of users who would be interested in the development of monitors that offer maximum quality images (OLED or at least decent MiniLed) AND high/very high refresh rate outside of circle of competitive gamers.

I hope my answers/opinions are useful to you!