Controversial Debate: Is 360Hz+ Worth It?

[Supermodel_Evelynn]

NOTE: This thread was split from a different thread

The best experience with Retroarch is using CRT Royale Shader on a 4K Glossy OLED screen 120HZ and strobed at 60hz.

Avoid matte OLED at all cost it defeats the whole purpose of OLED by putting that nasty coating on it, only opt for Glossy Coating OLED

Luckily for us since OLED can only strobe for a max of half its refresh rate, you can safely buy a 42" LG C3 and have the perfect Retro Gaming Display just make sure you sit far far back from the screen as the old CRT screens were never this big.

Don't listen to people telling you to buy OLED monitor, an LG C3 TV is far better than any OLED monitor out here and there is massive diminishing return on anything above 120HZ.

All OLED flat monitors have the nasty matte coating which will ruin your CRT royale retro experience, the only glossy OLED monitors are the QD-OLED samsung panels which have a ugly purple tint with ambient light so instead of black you get purple and gray unless it's a purely dark room.

The LG C3 also has much better HDR and brightness than the monitors.

Don't fall for the 360hz and 480 hz OLED scam, you only need 120HZ for buttery smooth competitive performance and you aren't part of the 0.0000001% of the pro Esport Gamer population on this planet doped up on energy drinks in their prime, pulling off flick shots with their Model 0 Gaming Mouse and capable of inhuman reaction and pixel splitting on their 500hz ugly TN Panels with a resolution set to 640x480 and purposely stretched wide screen.

That's correct those pros who play on 500hz monitors etc play on 640x480 with lowest setting purposely forcing a stretched 4:3 screen to pixel split in CS GO and Valorant.

There is a reason all BenQ Dyac+ monitors use TN it's because Pros are already choosing the ugliest most ridiculous resolution and setting and to them even 1ms pixel response is the difference between winning and losing or so they believe anyways. So BenQ has no incentive of making a IPS with Dyac+ let alone one that does 60hz strobe.

[Chief Blur Buster]

Don't fall for the 360hz and 480 hz OLED scam, you only need 120HZ for buttery smooth competitive performance and you aren't part of the 0.0000001% of the pro Esport Gamer population on this planet doped up on energy drinks in their prime, pulling off flick shots with their Model 0 Gaming Mouse and capable of inhuman reaction and pixel splitting on their 500hz ugly TN Panels with a resolution set to 640x480 and purposely stretched wide screen.

Yes, 120Hz is enough for most emulators for many games -- BUT:

1000 Hz is not just for esports. It's not a scam.

4K was a crazy $10K luxury in year 2001 with the IBM T221.
Now 4K is relatively cheap in TVs.

When I was at CES 2024, 120-vs-480Hz OLED is more mainstream visible than 60-vs-120 Hz LCD. 240Hz-vs-360Hz on LCD is worthless garbage refresh rate incrementalism (1.5x throttled to 1.1x due to slow GtG). You need 4x Hz differences AND also GtG=0, for it to be really mainstream visible.

LCD GtG limited 120-vs-240 visibility for example, but OLED 0ms makes it more visible. 1ms MPRT strobing can only be matched by 1000fps 1000Hz (1ms MPRT without strobing). It's impossible to get 1ms MPRT without strobing, unless frametimes are 1ms, because MPRT=frametime on flickerless displays.

The sharp up the curve of geometric returns, really helps.

It even helps browser scrolling and Windows desktop use;

Please refer to the science:







The Stroboscopic Effect of Finite Frame Rates -- www.blurbusters.com/stroboscopics
Lagless 10:1 Frame Gen (100fps->1000fps) -- www.blurbusters.com/framegen

Homework Exercise

1. Exercise: Look at www.testufo.com/map and TRY to read street name labels.



That's it, just look at it, and see what it looks like.







v v v This is what I saw at CES 2024 v v v
Nearly blurless without strobing! VIDEO PROOF

Nearly blurless without strobing! VIDEO PROOF
^ ^ ^ This is what I saw at CES 2024 ^ ^ ^

And even that is still ever slightly blurrier than a stationary image, so we still need to push to 1000fps 1000Hz:



Again, you bring that weaponized word "scam" to this honest science?

1000Hz is mainstreamable in 30 years, when it's a freebie feature.
120Hz is arriving to televisions, office monitors (UltraSharp), tablets, phones, consoles, etc.

But even Apple looked at 500Hz displays at the BOE booth at DisplayWeek 2023, so they're evaluating eventual (further) increases in refresh rates over the long term. 240+Hz will mainstream next decade (as a freebie feature), with plain human-visible benefits instead of yesterday's "fake Hz" stuff.

So please, don't spread misinformation on the Internet that 1000Hz is only for esports, because long-term, high refresh rates will slowly mainstream as it becomes a freebie feature (slowly). 120Hz is coming to phones slowly, but 60-vs-120Hz is awful on Apple LCDs but amazing on Apple OLEDs. But beyond 120Hz, you need 4x differences. It's like how you need VHS-vs-4K it to see a giant difference, not 720p-vs-1080p. The same is true for refresh rates and GtG=0.

What do you have to answer to the post you made, that hurts Blur Busters?

High Hz is no longer just for gaming, as it's not a scam.

RECIPIE FOR MAINSTREAM BENEFITS:
1. You need GtG=0; (aka not LCD) and
2. You need ultra-geometrics up the curve (e.g. 120-vs-480, 240-vs-1000)

This amplifies differences to (HigherHz/LowerHz), so 1000Hz is about 8x clearer-motion than 120Hz, but ONLY on 0ms-GtG displays like OLED (not LCD). LCD throttles refresh rate differences!

Listen to the science, not the armchair people out there that see "Huh, 240 vs 360 seems worthless"; but they don't understand why. The slow pixel response makes it only a 1.1x blur difference, unlike the 4x blur difference like 480fps 480Hz (or 1/8 pulsewidth BFI) versus 120fps 120Hz.

It may not help all games, but we cannot deny the ergonomic benefit of reducing display motion blur WITHOUT strobing. Some people hate flicker (BFI), because it's the same thing as PWM eyestrain, and they want to reduce motion blur WITHOUT strobing.

Don't fall for the 360hz and 480 hz OLED scam

Can you help me? The name of my hobby-turned-business named "BLUR BUSTERS", and at least try to understand the framerate/Hz-based motion blur reduction route that have practical mainstream applications too? I'm such a big fan of that route too.

Blur busting without strobing is something getting very popular among users. The only problem is it requires (A) GtG=0 to amplify refresh rate differences, and (B) Large geometric differences like 4x

Honest question: Have you ever seen 120-vs-480 on OLED and on LCD?
It's literally like a 4x difference on OLED, compared to only 1.5x-2x difference on LCD, due to being GtG-throttled.

We can see the difference between 1/60sec camera shutter, and 1/480sec camera shutter:



(This assumes GtG=0, so LCD does not perfectly apply)

That's why you need such large Hz differences, since 120-vs-240 is only a 2x blur difference on OLED (and less than that on LCD, some 60-vs-120 is so crappy like a 1.1x difference like on overdriveless Apple LCDs). But 120-vs-1000 is a bit over an 8x blur difference on OLED. In Blur Busters (the name of my hobby-turned-business).

I am in over 30 peer-reviewed science papers, see Google Scholar, and I also have the easier articles at Blur Busters Research Portal.

The left side is for strobing, and the right side if for sample-and-hold:



Some people hate flicker-based strobing (BFI flicker, etc) because their eyes are more sensitive than you are, and they get massive eye pain killing them when BFI is turned on. That means they need to turn on BFI, and a larger ratio reduces motion blur even more. But instead, you can just simply use shorter frametimes.

MPRT=pulsetime on strobed
MPRT=frametime on non-strobed

So you've got a fierce pick-compromise poison, so high Hz is not just a scam, especially when OLED so eloquently and beautifully unlocks the non-strobed refresh rate improvements much better than LCDs. While LCDs still strobe better, OLEDs still has less motion blur without strobing, and more Hz always helps it.

Also, if you play Sonic Hedgehog, 240Hz allows you to adjust the amount of motion blur you want during scrolling: TestUFO Variable-Persistence Black Frame Insertion for 240Hz Displays.

Don't fall for the 360hz and 480 hz OLED scam

Help me here, how can I help better educate other people, Evelyn?

So people say more nuanced things like "....There's quite some noticeable differences, especially if you need to browser scroll, pan maps, or track eyes during turns in arena games, or track eyes on that ball in Rocket League, but it's not as useful to me for emulator/low-resolution Mortal Kombat Fighting Games since I don't need that degree of motion blur reduction..."

The lower resolutions of emulators means 120Hz BFI is enough for most retro games, but at higher resolutions, refresh rate differences are bigger because of a vicious cycle effect, where higher resolutions amplify refresh rate limitations. Also, some games like Sonic Hedgehog scroll so fast, that there's a gigantically noticeable difference for 120-vs-240, even if it's not as useful for slower-scrolling platformers. You don't have tiny 6-point text in 256x224 emulators, so those big pixels can motionblur a bit without much fuss at 4-8ms MPRT. But, crissakes, using the weaponized word "scam"??? Why blanket it like that?

Also certain models of LG OLED (e.g. LG CX) has "240Hz-like" BFI for 60Hz at most optimal settings, where it pulses briefer. But not all OLEDs have subrefresh-BFI, and their BFI is throttled to minimum refreshtime. So some OLED TV BFI has more motion blur than others, depending on whether they can do sub-refresh BFI (e.g. briefer flashes).

Help me here, how can I help better educate other people, Evelyn?

[Supermodel_Evelynn]

hmm interesting nice write up very informative.

[Chief Blur Buster]

Glad you found it informative.

Moral of the story.
1. Content needs to keep up. Framerates AND refreshrate need to go up ~4x for mainstream to really notice
2. Pixel response needs to be zeroed out. Otherwise Hz differences are massively throttled.
3. No jitters (no mouse jitter, no game stutter, no sync technology stutter, Framerate=Hz)
4. Large geometrics up the curve after about ~120Hz.

If either 1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4 fails, then 144-vs-360 can be worthless except to high end esports atheletes. Mainstream benefits of high Hz really genuinely starts to appear if you can do 1 AND 2 AND 3 AND 4 at the same time.

That's why I am pressuring GPU industry to follow these instructions: www.blurbusters.com/framegen
You can see how passionate I am about making 1 AND 2 AND 3 AND 4 happen (more cheaply) eventually over the long term.

Obviously, this is for the framerate-based motion blur reduction.

People who need to improve blur of low frame rates, should use BFI or strobe-based motion blur reduction instead of framerate-based motion blur reduction.

However, everybody plays different games, and some games (reality simulation) benefits more from framerate-based blur reduction. And to do it successfully, requires very aggressive combining of 1 AND 2 AND 3 and 4 at the same time for it to be visible to most of human population, to prevent a weak link blotting it out.

Framerate-based motion blur reduction (for the mainstream) requires major frame rate improvements, and that's why pressure is needed to be put on the GPU industry to unlock 8:1+ framegen that we so want for the beautiful new OLEDs...

[jman54]

The left side is for strobing, and the right side if for sample-and-hold:



I am confused does this chart have a typo? It shows impulse displays as having the same blur as the sample and hold? I guess impulse can have a fade duration that might give it blur similar to sample and hold but I don't think that is the intent here?
EDIT: Okay I see now it is the intent to convey that a hypothetical longer persistence impulse display would have the same blur as sample and hold. A little confusing at first glance though and might be more confusing to someone newer to the subject. All the correct info is there so idk why it is so confusing. I think it might help if you mention examples of different displays specific persistence, so like crt had ~1ms persistence, plasma had ~4ms, ect..

[tong]

It's worth it. Imagine how clean Half-Life and Max Payne will look at 480hz in higher resolutions.

[Supermodel_Evelynn]

So the pic you took of the map at 480HZ

Can we expect this same kind of clarity from content locked at 60 FPS?

[Chief Blur Buster]

Can we expect this same kind of clarity from content locked at 60 FPS?

No, not for sample and hold operation.

On flickerless sample and hold, 60fps looks the same at 60, 120, 240, 480 if BFI is disabled and the pixel response speed (GtG) is identical.

Only with maximum full-frame BFI (non-subrefresh-based BFI).

Motion blur = pulsetime on strobed (at framerate=Hz)
Motion blur = frametime on unstrobed

- For eye tracking situation on moving objects
- Excludes other factors like strobe crosstalk;

[Supermodel_Evelynn]

Can we expect this same kind of clarity from content locked at 60 FPS?

No, not for sample and hold operation.

On flickerless sample and hold, 60fps looks the same at 60, 120, 240, 480 if BFI is disabled and the pixel response speed (GtG) is identical.

Only with maximum full-frame BFI (non-subrefresh-based BFI).

Motion blur = pulsetime on strobed (at framerate=Hz)
Motion blur = frametime on unstrobed

- For eye tracking situation on moving objects
- Excludes other factors like strobe crosstalk;

Ok because I was thinking more on the lines of what you said earlier about 1200hz being able to do Pure XP on Extreme Mode without the use of BFI
And then I think you said 600HZ can do PureXP Extreme - Normal without the use of BFI all on 60 FPS content.

So I was thinking maybe then if I bought a 480HZ OLED I would be able to get close to Pure XP extreme with 60 FPS games, it would be a huge thing actually cause even normal mode Pure XP was a hell of a lot more blur free on my Viewsonic

I am regretting selling the XG2431 now, I should have stuck with it and let my eyes get adjusted to the dimmer screen but the thing is also I did want a 1440P 27" Screen and 1080p was getting pretty outdated

And CRT Royale in Retroarch gives a much better image quality at 1440P than 1080p although 4K OLED is the best and it almost replicates a perfect CRT I was told by reddit.

In some ways you probably don't need strobing or BFI with 60 FPS games and it's not such a deal breaker like say DOTA 2 or league of legends which is true does get a huge benefit with strobing

But once you see that PureXP Extreme in 60 FPS locked games even fighting games it's really hard for me to tell myself the lie that it isn't a big deal because it actually is a HUGE deal what can be seen cannot be unseen now my eyes are spoiled forever and I want strobing / BFI

I am so excited for VRR + Bright Strobing

Maybe it will be called Blurbusters 3.0?

[Chief Blur Buster]

Ok because I was thinking more on the lines of what you said earlier about 1200hz being able to do Pure XP on Extreme Mode without the use of BFI

Terminology Disambiguation

PureXP is defacto hardware based BFI (via backlight strobe), so "PureXP without BFI" is a misunderstanding of display-impulse physics... So let's use the more engineering-friendly phrase "impulsed displays", to describe any light-modulated-based blur reduction (hardware and software).

Impulse=ANY form of display flickering, ideally at one flash per frame, that reduces display motion blur.

Impulsed Techniques (requires briefer flash to reduce blur)
BFI=impulsing
strobe=impulsing
CRT=impulsing
plasma=impulsing

Flickerless techniques (requires more framerate to reduce blur)
LCD=sample and hold (when BFI/strobe not used)
OLED=sample and hold (when BFI not used)


Low Frame Rates Still Require A Form of BFI/Strobe/Impulsing

You will still mandatorily need some form of light impulsing/flicker at 1 flash per frame (BFI or strobing or etc) in order to reduce 60fps motion blur.

So to repeat:

• Motion blur = pulsetime on strobed (at framerate=Hz)
• Motion blur = frametime on unstrobed

Therefore for impulsing (squarewave)

• Pulsetime of visible frame during software BFI
• Pulsetime of backlight flash during hardware strobe

(When combining the two, the software black frame's purpose is to suppress/snuff the unwanted extra hardware flashes -- to flash fewer visible frames than the hard-coded artificial firmware restrictions on hardware strobe backlight frequency -- aka using software BFI as a refresh rate range extension for a refresh-rate-restricted hardware strobe backlight)

(*Slow GtG can interfere with all of this, but at GtG=0, the laws of physics is simplest / clearest / mathematically simplest / most crosstalk-free. Therefore, the educational lessons here, assumes GtG=0 for blur sciences, regardless of impulsing or sample and hold. For sample and hold, GtG means the transition from old frame to new frame. For strobed, nonzero GtG has more complex considerations such as strobe crosstalk. For the simplicity of education, it is assumed GtG=0, which makes the motion blur math the simplest on OLED displays)

So to repeat the universal law:
"Motion blur is pixel visibility time"

which means:

• Motion blur = pulsetime on strobed (at framerate=Hz)
• Motion blur = frametime on unstrobed

And for framerate=Hz material,

• Software BFI pulsetime for maximal BFI = one refreshtime
• Software BFI pulsetime for variable-persistence BFI = refreshtime times count of refresh cycles visible frame is displayed for
• PureXP pulsetime = one-tenth refreshtime for PureXP Ultra, two-tenth refreshtime for PureXP Extreme, three-tenth refreshtime for
• PureXP Normal, and four-tenth refreshtime for PureXP Light (for motionblur in primary image; excludes strobe crosstalk double image)
• Any other hardware strobe backlight = Pulsetime varies depending on how they're designed

If combining two, the blur is the same as the hardware BFI, except two things happen (A) crosstalk is generally reduced by the software BFI, and (B) you now have defacto hardware strobing at lower Hz.

It's similar to camera shutter physics, e.g. 1/120sec pixel visibility time is the same motion blur equivalence of a 1/120sec camera shutter (assuming no other effects, GtG=0, and zero strobe crosstalk).



In reality, there are technological-limitation-related artifacts (e.g. slow LCD GtG, or strobe crosstalk, or frame rates lower than strobe rates, etc)