24%? Or, since I have often read that a 240Hz OLED corresponds approximately to a 360Hz IPS, 36% blur reduction?
Or none of these percentages is correct?
I'd like a simple and straightforward answer
Thanks!
OLED 240Hz & 240 FPS = how much blur reduction?
OLED 240Hz & 240 FPS = how much blur reduction?
As per the title of the thread, I would like to know what % of blur reduction you get on a 240Hz OLED monitor if you can get constant 240 FPS.
24%? Or, since I have often read that a 240Hz OLED corresponds approximately to a 360Hz IPS, 36% blur reduction?
Or none of these percentages is correct?
I'd like a simple and straightforward answer
Thanks!
24%? Or, since I have often read that a 240Hz OLED corresponds approximately to a 360Hz IPS, 36% blur reduction?
Or none of these percentages is correct?
I'd like a simple and straightforward answer
Thanks!
Re: OLED 240Hz & 240 FPS = how much blur reduction?
https://blurbusters.com/persistence-vs-motion-blur/
This chart is about SLOW motion. Double the blur to simulate the real image quality in faster motion.
IPS is too slow to squeeze everything from the 360Hz so this is why you can hear opinions that 240Hz OLED > 360Hz IPS.
But those are two types of motion representation flaws. The question is which one will be more prelevant, and therefore will be noticeable "on the surface".
240Hz means ~4ms persistence. That's still way off from clear image in fast motion, but it's at least usable with slow motion, so you can track a walking character in game, with your eyes, but fast camera rotation will turn nice vistas into a blurry mess.
Percentage and raw persistence numbers are not important. The real result is. So preferably, you should find a way to test a really good display with 1m to 4ms persistence, on a near-perfect technology (OLEDs or the fastest TN LCDs) and just see for yourself what's imporant for you, although 99% of people will shape their opinion wrongly even when doing that, because it's a very tricky matter to understand and has a lot of psychological pitfalls. So you may think you're fine with sligh blur, but that would be wrong conclusion, unless you have some serious eyesight defect preventing you from tracking things with your eyes. If you don't know, you can simply hold your hand and focus on your fingers. Now start moving the hand sideways, while tracking the fingers with your eyes.
If you cannot see your moving finger clearly, you are in that 0,1% minority of people who can basically buy anything as you won't be able to see clear objects in motion anyway. Otherwise - I'd strongly advise you to aim for something better than 4ms persisence. If you cannot afford upcoming 480Hz OLEDs (coming later this year) or the superb 540Hz LCD TN panel, you get some ancient gems like Benq 2420Z, which handle motion exceptionally well, because of compatibility with Blurbuster's Strobe Utility app, and because it allows for low persisnce mode in every refreshrate, so 60, 70,80,90,100,120,144 and everything in between.
Going from a slow crappy LCD, like VA panels, to an 240Hz OLED, will be a huge upgrade, but you'll still be locked to 360p-like image quality in motion, for example in side-scrollers like Rayman Legends, where you run fast and the beautiful visuals scroll quickly. It's a treat for the eyes on razor-sharp motion representation, but you won't be able to make quick glances at enemies and background objects while you run. And since this running mode in the game is rather difficul, you'll be repeating it many times. And without having any eye candies during the run, the game quickly starts getting boring and annoying, cause you died again and are running through the same blurry mess-level again.
That's just one example.
If you want to come out from the blurry "darkness", I'd strongly suggest solving this issue definitely. Aim at 2ms persistence. It's still far from 4K image quality. It's more like 720p on a native 720p, but in 99% games, it's not a problem. Personally, I use Strobe Utility to go from 1ms to 2ms and sometimes even 2.5-3ms, depending on my room lighting conditions and the type of game I play, but 3ms is already annoying.
I'm using a superfast TN LCD panel. Nowhere as fast as an OLED, but sufficient to learn how persistence affects the image quality in practice.
Buy something cheap and wait or consider getting two displays + 2 monitor holder. Spending a lot on 240Hz now is not wise, cause 2024 is a very important year. Some would even say it's a revolutionary year. Non-strobed CRT clarity on OLED 480Hz displays and Nvidia pulsar. This will shake things up by quite a bit.
This chart is about SLOW motion. Double the blur to simulate the real image quality in faster motion.
IPS is too slow to squeeze everything from the 360Hz so this is why you can hear opinions that 240Hz OLED > 360Hz IPS.
But those are two types of motion representation flaws. The question is which one will be more prelevant, and therefore will be noticeable "on the surface".
240Hz means ~4ms persistence. That's still way off from clear image in fast motion, but it's at least usable with slow motion, so you can track a walking character in game, with your eyes, but fast camera rotation will turn nice vistas into a blurry mess.
Percentage and raw persistence numbers are not important. The real result is. So preferably, you should find a way to test a really good display with 1m to 4ms persistence, on a near-perfect technology (OLEDs or the fastest TN LCDs) and just see for yourself what's imporant for you, although 99% of people will shape their opinion wrongly even when doing that, because it's a very tricky matter to understand and has a lot of psychological pitfalls. So you may think you're fine with sligh blur, but that would be wrong conclusion, unless you have some serious eyesight defect preventing you from tracking things with your eyes. If you don't know, you can simply hold your hand and focus on your fingers. Now start moving the hand sideways, while tracking the fingers with your eyes.
If you cannot see your moving finger clearly, you are in that 0,1% minority of people who can basically buy anything as you won't be able to see clear objects in motion anyway. Otherwise - I'd strongly advise you to aim for something better than 4ms persisence. If you cannot afford upcoming 480Hz OLEDs (coming later this year) or the superb 540Hz LCD TN panel, you get some ancient gems like Benq 2420Z, which handle motion exceptionally well, because of compatibility with Blurbuster's Strobe Utility app, and because it allows for low persisnce mode in every refreshrate, so 60, 70,80,90,100,120,144 and everything in between.
Going from a slow crappy LCD, like VA panels, to an 240Hz OLED, will be a huge upgrade, but you'll still be locked to 360p-like image quality in motion, for example in side-scrollers like Rayman Legends, where you run fast and the beautiful visuals scroll quickly. It's a treat for the eyes on razor-sharp motion representation, but you won't be able to make quick glances at enemies and background objects while you run. And since this running mode in the game is rather difficul, you'll be repeating it many times. And without having any eye candies during the run, the game quickly starts getting boring and annoying, cause you died again and are running through the same blurry mess-level again.
That's just one example.
If you want to come out from the blurry "darkness", I'd strongly suggest solving this issue definitely. Aim at 2ms persistence. It's still far from 4K image quality. It's more like 720p on a native 720p, but in 99% games, it's not a problem. Personally, I use Strobe Utility to go from 1ms to 2ms and sometimes even 2.5-3ms, depending on my room lighting conditions and the type of game I play, but 3ms is already annoying.
I'm using a superfast TN LCD panel. Nowhere as fast as an OLED, but sufficient to learn how persistence affects the image quality in practice.
Buy something cheap and wait or consider getting two displays + 2 monitor holder. Spending a lot on 240Hz now is not wise, cause 2024 is a very important year. Some would even say it's a revolutionary year. Non-strobed CRT clarity on OLED 480Hz displays and Nvidia pulsar. This will shake things up by quite a bit.
Re: OLED 240Hz & 240 FPS = how much blur reduction?
First let me thank you for the detailed explanation and for sharing your experience!RonsonPL wrote: ↑04 Feb 2024, 08:06https://blurbusters.com/persistence-vs-motion-blur/
This chart is about SLOW motion. Double the blur to simulate the real image quality in faster motion.
IPS is too slow to squeeze everything from the 360Hz so this is why you can hear opinions that 240Hz OLED > 360Hz IPS.
But those are two types of motion representation flaws. The question is which one will be more prelevant, and therefore will be noticeable "on the surface".
240Hz means ~4ms persistence. That's still way off from clear image in fast motion, but it's at least usable with slow motion, so you can track a walking character in game, with your eyes, but fast camera rotation will turn nice vistas into a blurry mess.
Percentage and raw persistence numbers are not important. The real result is. So preferably, you should find a way to test a really good display with 1m to 4ms persistence, on a near-perfect technology (OLEDs or the fastest TN LCDs) and just see for yourself what's imporant for you, although 99% of people will shape their opinion wrongly even when doing that, because it's a very tricky matter to understand and has a lot of psychological pitfalls. So you may think you're fine with sligh blur, but that would be wrong conclusion, unless you have some serious eyesight defect preventing you from tracking things with your eyes. If you don't know, you can simply hold your hand and focus on your fingers. Now start moving the hand sideways, while tracking the fingers with your eyes.
If you cannot see your moving finger clearly, you are in that 0,1% minority of people who can basically buy anything as you won't be able to see clear objects in motion anyway. Otherwise - I'd strongly advise you to aim for something better than 4ms persisence. If you cannot afford upcoming 480Hz OLEDs (coming later this year) or the superb 540Hz LCD TN panel, you get some ancient gems like Benq 2420Z, which handle motion exceptionally well, because of compatibility with Blurbuster's Strobe Utility app, and because it allows for low persisnce mode in every refreshrate, so 60, 70,80,90,100,120,144 and everything in between.
Going from a slow crappy LCD, like VA panels, to an 240Hz OLED, will be a huge upgrade, but you'll still be locked to 360p-like image quality in motion, for example in side-scrollers like Rayman Legends, where you run fast and the beautiful visuals scroll quickly. It's a treat for the eyes on razor-sharp motion representation, but you won't be able to make quick glances at enemies and background objects while you run. And since this running mode in the game is rather difficul, you'll be repeating it many times. And without having any eye candies during the run, the game quickly starts getting boring and annoying, cause you died again and are running through the same blurry mess-level again.
That's just one example.
If you want to come out from the blurry "darkness", I'd strongly suggest solving this issue definitely. Aim at 2ms persistence. It's still far from 4K image quality. It's more like 720p on a native 720p, but in 99% games, it's not a problem. Personally, I use Strobe Utility to go from 1ms to 2ms and sometimes even 2.5-3ms, depending on my room lighting conditions and the type of game I play, but 3ms is already annoying.
I'm using a superfast TN LCD panel. Nowhere as fast as an OLED, but sufficient to learn how persistence affects the image quality in practice.
Buy something cheap and wait or consider getting two displays + 2 monitor holder. Spending a lot on 240Hz now is not wise, cause 2024 is a very important year. Some would even say it's a revolutionary year. Non-strobed CRT clarity on OLED 480Hz displays and Nvidia pulsar. This will shake things up by quite a bit.
I plan to buy an OLED monitor for both gaming and mixed use. Gaming-wise, I would mostly use it with retro-games (emulation, mostly via RetroArch). I would be oriented towards 4K, albeit "limited" to "only" 240hz, because I have never had a 4K monitor so far and I'm curious to try this experience, because 4K is the minimum resolution to be able to decently simulate the CRT masks and make the best use of the shaders (for retro-emulation) and for several other reasons that I will try to explain below.
I discussed the various options with the Chief in another thread, as I considered for a long time whether it could be wise to opt for a lower resolution but gain in frequency and therefore in motion clarity (i.e. QHD @360 or 480Hz): the Chief convinced me to choose 4K, as for retrogaming an OLED @240Hz + BFI offers a 75% blur reduction and under optimal conditions too (no ghosting, fringing, artifacts, etc.).
He explained that 240Hz refresh rate on OLED + BFI ensures me practically perfect motion clarity (on par with a CRT) for games that don't involve scrolling > 480p, which is absolutely sufficient for 99% of the games I'm interested in. Moreover I also made this reasoning: if I want a CRT-like motion clarity I am currently forced to use BFI and 480Hz allows me to obtain only a slight improvement in blur reduction compared to 240Hz (87.5% vs 75%) but the price is a corresponding reduction in brightness which is already the second Achilles' heel of OLED panels (especially monitors) after burn-in.
Therefore, assuming a maximum brightness of 250 nits (declared by the panel manufacturers, LG/Samsung) for displaying a 100% white screen this would translate into 62.5 nits maximum with use of BFI/75% blur reduction: this is already a low value, I personally believe I can adapt but I am sure that for 95% of people - today accustomed to bright screens like headlights - this is already a deal breaker.
It is therefore clear that, given the peak value guaranteed by current panels, a brightness reduction of 87.5% is totally unusable for practically anyone. I also considered that the 250 nits refer to the unrealistic scenario of a 100% white screen (and by white we mean maximum shade, another unrealistic factor) so it is very likely that with standard images, including video games and especially retro-games, much higher values can be achieved: I estimate around 400 nits (all to be verified, I'm waiting for a decent review of these new OLED panels). If so, the 75% brightness (blur) reduction would be even more usable (I dare say more than good as far as I'm concerned) but 87.5% would still be too much.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that opting for frequencies above 240Hz on OLEDs, at the moment, given the "guaranteed" maximum brightness, is not a smart choice if you intend to use BFI and make the most of it... it's obvious that you can use BFI at 50% even with a 480Hz panel, but what would be the point then?
All this considered, I'm pretty sold on the 4K 240Hz OLED: when there will be much better options available such as, for example, OLEDs with double peak brightness or microled monitors at humane prices I will upgrade.
On the other hand, I already had many doubts about the current offer of QHD OLEDs, since - in addition to the problem of the "low" resolution, the models presented offer many fewer features than their 4K "big brothers" and above all, in this case, I would like at least the 480Hz but unfortunately LG panels will all have matte coating which is a very bad choice for an OLED, IMO. Going for the 360Hz panel by Samsung (glossy) feel like a half-give-up, at this point...
Consider that I was lucky enough to live and play in the golden era of CRTs, with true glass screens: I could never suffer the LED/LCD garbage imposed by the industries as "new best technology", I still remember the horror of first time I saw the lifeless and "flat" images showed by such "revolutionary" monitors, made even worse - if possible - by the matte coating.
Now obviously I have had to get used to these "wonderful" conditions, but when today the new generations discover with surprise the wonder of colors and images through a "glossy" display it makes me laugh as it seems that the industry is giving us a extraordinary thing... we had it - and much better - decades ago.
Finally, I realized that perhaps my way of asking the question wasn't very clear, so I'll try to reformulate it in other terms to make you understand what I wanted to know: assuming that a CRT offers 0% motion blur or 100% clarity, how do you compare an OLED at 240hz? (implied: without the use of BFI obviously)
My understanding is that it should be 4x worse, or in other words offer 24% blur reduction compared to 100% blur reduction of a CRT: is it correct?
The fact that you wrote that OLED @ 240hz has a persistence of 4ms should confirm my hypothesis, given that a CRT has a persistence of 1ms.
I also clarify the meaning of my question: I was wondering what minimum frequency is necessary for an OLED (again: without BFI) to offer motion clarity identical to a CRT, if not technically at least from a subjective human perception point of view. This is based on the assumption that OLED offers a better perception of motion blur than an LCD at the same refresh rate, so we don't have to wait to reach 720+ Hz to get the sensation of motion clarity on par with a CRT. If my speculations are correct, perhaps a 600Hz OLED could already be enough, what do you think?
NOTE: obviously for all these elucubrations it is assumed that FPS=refresh rate!
Re: OLED 240Hz & 240 FPS = how much blur reduction?
edit:
Great. A whole hour of typing just evaporated.
Great. A whole hour of typing just evaporated.
-
HumanAI_004
- Posts: 3
- Joined: 29 Jan 2024, 07:28
Re: OLED 240Hz & 240 FPS = how much blur reduction?
THIS
exactly my experience. Thanks for sharing your experience which confirms mine. I am on 2ms for my setup by ULMB-(1)-strobing (ASUS) WQHD.
I had strong hope to switch to OLED this year.
But now, I really doubt that an OLED at 240Hz=FPS will have same motion clarity compared to my setup even if there is a bonus. For me the bonus must be about 50%! (probably due to the faster pixel switching times compared to LCD? Mark explained this somewhere in detail, but I forgot where). And another problem would be to get 240FPS for my games.
(I know that there are other viewing perceptions for which the 240HZ=FPS motion blur are completely fine.)
For the same motion blur reduction on an 240Hz=FPS OLED for me this would work only with sub-refresh BFI which we will probably not see in 2024 (BFI time shorter than frame time, adjustable even) as explained by Mark in this forum. Mainly probably because of required current for the LED reducing lifetime.
My hope is PULSAR. I would like to switch to OLED but if not, I will be the first one purchasing one of the upcoming 27 inch LCD Pulsar monitors. If Pulsar is working as they claim it will be my endgame monitor until I can achieve 500FPS safely
Re: OLED 240Hz & 240 FPS = how much blur reduction?
Is it true that blur busters strobe calibration utility is working only for v2 firmware version of benq monitors?