Who you gonna call? The Blur Busters! For Everything Better Than 60Hz™
https://forums.blurbusters.com/
What's that simulation based on? Judging by what I've personally seen on 120Hz woled and what's seen here on slow down video from Linus Tech Tips, it should prolly be even a bit more clear with trasistions.
Was that 120hz woled in BFI mode? Because the simulation should be right with the blur coming from sample-and-hold. Slow motion capture of oled (e.g. the LTT video) will appear clear as if BFI is active but it's just because the recording is high framerate and then played back so slow that the moving object is now below the speed that induces motion blur by sample-and-hold on our screens.planart wrote: ↑16 Feb 2022, 00:30What's that simulation based on? Judging by what I've personally seen on 120Hz woled and what's seen here on slow down video from Linus Tech Tips, it should prolly be even a bit more clear with trasistions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Piteu5gyKq0&t=530s
I've seen LTT do ufo test correctly only couple of times. This oled one and all the other attempts are captured with static camera, which is incorrect. For sample-and-hold display it is important to pursuit the camera to simulate eye tracking. Even in strobed situations there are very few use cases where static capturing would work. So it's not recommended. This is a common issue people do.planart wrote: ↑16 Feb 2022, 00:30What's that simulation based on? Judging by what I've personally seen on 120Hz woled and what's seen here on slow down video from Linus Tech Tips, it should prolly be even a bit more clear with trasistions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Piteu5gyKq0&t=530s
It's sample-and-hold. Fixed recording/gaze makes it appear as it's in BFI mode - stroboscopic effect.DrR1pper wrote: ↑16 Feb 2022, 01:10Was that 120hz woled in BFI mode? Because the simulation should be right with the blur coming from sample-and-hold. Slow motion capture of oled (e.g. the LTT video) will appear clear as if BFI is active but it's just because the recording is high framerate and then played back so slow that the moving object is now below the speed that induces motion blur by sample-and-hold.
https://blurbusters.com/faq/oled-motion-blur
Okay, fair enough. It's just that personally I feel that the simulated image looks somewhat similar to what for example I'm actually seeing in terms of blur in something like 160Hz fastIPS panel without VRB. Where I do believe QD-OLED should actually perform quite a lot better in flesh.Discorz wrote: ↑16 Feb 2022, 02:46I've seen LTT do ufo test correctly only couple of times. This oled one and all the other attempts are captured with static camera, which is incorrect. For sample-and-hold display it is important to pursuit the camera to simulate eye tracking. Even in strobed situations there are very few use cases where static capturing would work. So it's not recommended. This is a common issue people do.planart wrote: ↑16 Feb 2022, 00:30What's that simulation based on? Judging by what I've personally seen on 120Hz woled and what's seen here on slow down video from Linus Tech Tips, it should prolly be even a bit more clear with trasistions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Piteu5gyKq0&t=530s
No worries, simulation is quite accurate.
In real world its not that far off from fast IPS in terms of response times. On Internet in the other hand people tend to exaggerate things. But sensitivity to it also depends from person to person... Ghosting and blurring are not the same. Ghosting comes from slowplanart wrote: ↑16 Feb 2022, 04:48Okay, fair enough. It's just that personally I feel that the simulated image looks somewhat similar to what for example I'm actually seeing in terms of blur in something like 160Hz fastIPS panel without VRB. Where I do believe QD-OLED should actually perform quite a lot better in flesh.
Here you go - UFO Motion Test Collectionplanart wrote: ↑16 Feb 2022, 04:48With this kind of image I feel it would be interesting to see more reference points on the side of this simulation to get a better idea what's it like in comparison to what we have available today. How it fares against your typical top contenders what's available on the market right now. Like 360Hz IPS variants or 240Hz popular models.
To reinforce what @Discorz stated, OLED effectively eliminates GtG artifacts (smearing, ghosting, strobe crosstalk), it does not eliminate MPRT (motion picture response time), which is entirely dependent on max refresh + framerate due to the image persistence from sample-and-hold, regardless of pixel response time.planart wrote: ↑16 Feb 2022, 04:48Okay, fair enough. It's just that personally I feel that the simulated image looks somewhat similar to what for example I'm actually seeing in terms of blur in something like 160Hz fastIPS panel without VRB. Where I do believe QD-OLED should actually perform quite a lot better in flesh.
Thanks. Most of these seem to be actual photos or tests by many parties, not synthetic simulations like the image you posted no? This I fell always introduces some amount of human difference from workflows equipment etc.
After you see bunch of them through time you learn to spot camera and human errors.planart wrote: ↑17 Feb 2022, 00:12Thanks. Most of these seem to be actual photos or tests by many parties, not synthetic simulations like the image you posted no? This I fell always introduces some amount of human difference from workflows equipment etc.
In the end I'll just have to wait and see. Very often I feel it's hard to actually fully justify the visual effect in real life from these benchmark stopped motion photos / tracking videos. The experience in real life can be quite different than what you'd think from a photo.
I do remember seeing this test on a 120Hz 48" woled on a friends house and it was visually very clean and clear, super nice transistions, even if the movement was somewhat juddier @120Hz mainly even because the pixel response time is so instant. Compared to even 390Hz LCD I have here at my desk. I'm not sure if he had BFI on at that time.