The 480Hz Tour De Force, Chef's Masterpiece: 480HZ OLED PURSUIT CAMERA

[doug5421]

Can anyone hypothesize what the input lag would look like w/ 240hz ELMB? Could it still be competitive in esports? Assuming it’d be much better than 120hz ELMB.

[RonsonPL]

Can anyone hypothesize what the input lag would look like w/ 240hz ELMB? Could it still be competitive in esports? Assuming it’d be much better than 120hz ELMB.

I estimate the chnace for it to be a problem at 0,00%.

120Hz backlight strobing is already OK with v-sync OFF.
120Hz backlight strobing is laggy v-sync ON, but much less laggy than 60Hz.
240Hz backlight strobing should be usable even with v-sync ON, although you'd still be better off using v-sync off for score-focused gaming. I see no reason why any monitor manufacturer would screw things up so badly that it would give some super stupid amount like +20ms. 240Hz full frame cycle is 4ms, so the backlight strobing itself will have close to zero effect.

[Chief Blur Buster]

Can anyone hypothesize what the input lag would look like w/ 240hz ELMB? Could it still be competitive in esports? Assuming it’d be much better than 120hz ELMB.

I estimate the chnace for it to be a problem at 0,00%.

120Hz backlight strobing is already OK with v-sync OFF.
120Hz backlight strobing is laggy v-sync ON, but much less laggy than 60Hz.
240Hz backlight strobing should be usable even with v-sync ON, although you'd still be better off using v-sync off for score-focused gaming. I see no reason why any monitor manufacturer would screw things up so badly that it would give some super stupid amount like +20ms. 240Hz full frame cycle is 4ms, so the backlight strobing itself will have close to zero effect.

OLED does not have a backlight, so you have to use BFI / multi-refresh techniques.

There's some special considerations with OLED BFI only working up to half OLED max Hz on many OLED panels that do not have two-pass pixel refreshing per refresh cycle...

Only a few OLEDs (e.g. LG CX, Oculus Rift, PSVR2, etc) can do a double-refresh per refresh cycle (once to turn on pixels, again to turn off pixels), allowing sub-refresh BFI at max Hz.

[Tygr]

Has there been input lag test done about this? (LDAT/ high speed camera/reflex equipped monitor/...)

I mean, it’s not that hard to test yourself since there are monitors like the XG27AQMR that let you toggle it on and off in the OSD. This is something you don’t need any fancy machinery to test because the difference is pretty noticeable toggling back and forth where you’re definitely going to like how it feels better off.

Blurbuster man says it might just be bad implementation but I think it’s an inherent DSC problem since the behavior is identical on every single monitor I’ve tried with it. As for actual measurements, it’s slightly anecdotal, but the HP 27QS and LG 27GR83Q-B both use similar BOE panels with the HP not using DSC while the LG does. RTINGS reviewed both and the HP has lower input lag. Don’t think anyone has actually benched it on and off on a monitor like XG27AQMR. It’s not something I personally need to bench as it feels unplayable turned on to me.

So my prediction is that you will see people in the competitive scene either fail to adopt new monitors like the Asus 540hz at all, or the people that do use it will probably underperform. And this will be the first sign of time for engineering to go back to the drawing board.

Hello roach

If the bottom line is that dsc is shit and most new oleds will use it

Can you name a good monitor for competetive games?

Should I consider benq new xl2546x/xl2548x?
Or another model that already exists and available!

Im using very old tn 144hz and want to upgrade

I’ve tried like 10 monitors in the last two months and each one either has 1). INSANELY HIGH EYE STRAIN 2). Sluggish cursor movement or 3). Both.

There’s a very high chance whatever you buy will be worse than what you already have (144hz TN panels aren’t exactly slow).

for now I'm keeping my old benq 144hz tn. it got some issues going on for it but it does the job
I'll wait to see what 2024 will bring to the table and hopefully I will find my "endgame" later this year

[missmah]

Since OLED is self emissive, why would strobing be the approach? (besides being easy to insert black frames in software/firmware)? It would seem that a scanning display, where each pixel is illuminated only for a short time and then the illumination is turned off would make much more sense. I'm guessing columns or rows are driven as groups to simplify things, so there's not going to be per-pixel addressability, but it shouldn't take much for a panel nanufacturer to build a display with a self-decay to black function on a per-row basis, to set persistence (persist until next update, or persist for some set time)...

If it were a priority for the manufacturer, that is..

[Chief Blur Buster]

Since OLED is self emissive, why would strobing be the approach? (besides being easy to insert black frames in software/firmware)?

Strobing is something that can be done at fantastic quality levels in software, once the hardware is sufficiently of brute (high Hz enough). At least for most end-user motion cases. This gives end user control over display limitations, as long as the display has enough brute to allow software-based strobing (via black frame insertion).

Please note, one needs to disambiguate on Blur Busters, if you mean strobing as generic impulsing of any kind (flashing, BFI, backlight), or strobing only specific to backlight flashing. However, the pulsewidth math and physics are identical.

However, strobing can achieve sub-1ms MPRTs on LCDs, which can be human visible (0.5ms vs 1.0ms), in extreme cases such as 3000 pixels/sec TestUFO Panning Map Readability Test. At 3000 pixels/sec, 1ms equals 3 pixels of display motion blur, according to the math of Blur Busters Law, which is a simplification of MPRT(0%->100%).

Also, on this topic... TestUFO motion speeds were intentionally designed to turn MPRTs into something easily human interpretable, 960 pixels/sec is the closest number to 1000 but still divisible by common refresh rates (60, 120, 240, 480) which is nice for explaining Blur Buster Law of "1ms persistence = 1 pixel of motion blur per 1000 pixels/sec" and turning it into something human visible and human explainable in see-for-yourself TestUFO links.

OLED black frame insertion (whether hardware-based and software-based) cannot do sufficiently short pulsewidths necessary to do MPRTs all the way to human visiblity noise floor.

It would seem that a scanning display, where each pixel is illuminated only for a short time and then the illumination is turned off would make much more sense.

Real life does not work that way.
There are permanent artifacts if you don't continuously shine a pixel, see The Stroboscopic Effect of Finite Frame Rates. To buttress my reputation for unfamiliar new forum members, I also in 35+ peer reviewed papers, see blurbusters.com/area51 -- I have been known to be a good teacher of this topic matter.

Impulsing of any kind (pixel-level, strobing, black frame insertion, etc) is fantastic for motion blur reduction, as long as done at only one pulse per refresh cycle. However, it is not appropriate for all user cases. Some people still get eyestrain from 1000Hz PWM due to PWM artifacts (duplicate image artifacts).





Homework exercise, look at 1st UFO then look at 2nd UFO:
(click for full screen version and then maximize window)



And also vastly educational, see the Variable Speed Animation - Stutter to Blur Continuum (stare only at 2nd UFO for 30 seconds), to witness stutter is the same thing as persistence blur. Just different non-erratic stutter frequencies, much like a slow/fast music string which may visibly shake or simply blur.

Brute framerate & brute refresh rate on sample and hold displays is literally the only way to perfectly match real life for all four situations for as close to five-sigma of human population as possible:
1. stationary eyes, stationary imagery
2. stationary eyes, MOVING imagery
3. MOVING eyes, stationary imagery
3. MOVING eyes, MOVING imagery

Displays behave different whether your eyes are stationary or moving, and you can't make 1/2/3/4 match real life perfectly without a flickerless display AND bruting the framerate+refreshrate.

While impulsing is a fantastic solution, it is ultimately a bandaid that doesn't solve-all and fit-all use cases.

I'm guessing columns or rows are driven as groups to simplify things, so there's not going to be per-pixel addressability, but it shouldn't take much for a panel nanufacturer to build a display with a self-decay to black function on a per-row basis, to set persistence (persist until next update, or persist for some set time)...

It will more than quadruple the cost because lithographing those extra components/transistors, while voltage-balancing it perfectly, is an engineering challenge.

Do you know how much realtime Ohm's Law compensation we had to do in active matrix LCDs to make sure the upper-right corner pixel had the same LCD GtG as the pixel in bottom-right corner? The lengths of the microwire grids means GtG varies a lot and crosstalks badly especially back in the passive matrix days. But with 4K screens and extreme contrast ratios, it is quite a tall order to do it on a 5-figure price LCD glass that is now only priced at 3-figures.

And can you imagine the horrendous increase in complexity of the real time Ohm's Law compensation for self-emissive pixels? Those pixels consume ginormously more power, creating more distortions in Ohm's Law in those same microwires, requiring more advanced computes (in an ASIC) rather than things that could be done with simpler electronics...

We haven't dived into the rabbit hole of lifetime candleburn-style counters on a per subpixel basis used for image retention compensation algorithms, where an internal LUT is kept track on the aging of the subpixels based on how brightly/dim the subpixels are lit...

Or the complex LUTs for HDR tonemapping, above the LUTs used for overdrive algorithms (even OLED often still use overdrive, although much more lightly than LCDs need) as well as other picture adjustments. The TCON/scaler is literally a supercomputer nowadays, and we consumers expect to pay less than $1000 for it. Some of them are doing over a trillion operations per second -- this is because scaler/TCONs in modern displays are doing over a billion subpixels per second (3840 x 2160 x 3 color channels x 120 refresh cycles per second), and some of the more advanced ones (4K120+ videophile displays with lots of features) get an average of over a thousand math ops per subpixel per refresh cycle. How do you propose to make that cheap? Any modern screen you're reading this post on, is currently a gigantic engineering miracle, even in a bottom-barrel $150 Android phone.

So, it's kind of a pie in sky to ask for this cost-quadrupling feature, sadly.
It's much cheaper to invent/fabricate a 2000Hz OLED than to do the feature suggestion...

[thatoneguy]

Or the complex LUTs for HDR tonemapping, above the LUTs used for overdrive algorithms (even OLED often still use overdrive, although much more lightly than LCDs need) as well as other picture adjustments. The TCON/scaler is literally a supercomputer nowadays, and we consumers expect to pay less than $1000 for it. Some of them are doing over a trillion operations per second -- this is because scaler/TCONs in modern displays are doing over a billion subpixels per second (3840 x 2160 x 3 color channels x 120 refresh cycles per second), and some of the more advanced ones (4K120+ videophile displays with lots of features) get an average of over a thousand math ops per subpixel per refresh cycle. How do you propose to make that cheap? Any modern screen you're reading this post on, is currently a gigantic engineering miracle, even in a bottom-barrel $150 Android phone.

So, it's kind of a pie in sky to ask for this cost-quadrupling feature, sadly.
It's much cheaper to invent/fabricate a 2000Hz OLED than to do the feature suggestion...

I’m really intrigued by the new color-tunable MicroLEDs by Porotech and Q-Pixel for this reason.
Eliminating subpixels will give us a lot more leeway.

[Chief Blur Buster]

I’m really intrigued by the new color-tunable MicroLEDs by Porotech and Q-Pixel for this reason.
Eliminating subpixels will give us a lot more leeway.

Color tunable pixels are fascinating, but also horrendously complex for different reasons -- doesn't reduce the amount of compute, but rather increases! -- but does give more visual flexibility.

The ability to tune color primaries away from an artificial average of human primaries (R,G,B) can allow a screen to be perfectly synchronized to a specific human's color primaries. Whether you've chosen CIE1931 or Rec.2020, the red/green/blue color-primary standards is simply an arbitrary average of a set of humans tested...

No two humans have exactly a 610.0000000000000000000000 nanometer red color primary (in other words: 100% of population is color blind if you want a perfect 0 error margin in better-than-five-sigma).

Now, we still have that other strange apple, the shape of the color gamut is not a perfect triangle, so we may need to add more points (e.g. 6+ color-tunable subpixels per pixel), or use spatial dithering of hundreds of different color primaries, to have 100% gamut coverage (far bigger than Rec.2020). Spatial dithering on a far-past-retina-resolution screen, will be a good workaround. A Holy Grail, especially for VR and Holodecks...

[thatoneguy]

*snip*

Yeah, driving color-tunable LEDs can’t be easy. Although with R&D there may be solutions that reduce the compuation needed.
It will save on bandwidth though.

I don’t expect perfect color anytime soon, although eliminating sub-pixels will yield better color purity and less eye fatigue.
I think most people are already satisfied with the color quality in top-range QD-OLED displays. Anything beyond 100% Rec. 2020 is gravy(I don’t know if going beyond Rec. 2020 is even worth it aside from maybe VR/Holodeck/AR etc.).
Things like resolution, refresh rate, motion clarity, input lag etc... are a lot more important imo.