r0ach wrote: ↑08 Dec 2023, 03:36
There are tools to generate a quantifiable flicker rate % for a monitor. The fact big monitor review sites do not tell you this number when they easily could is suspicious.
While it may be tempting to go the conspiracy theory route because of reviewers given free samples by manufacturers and whatnot, and be encouraged to hand wave PWM away (yadda yadda)...
...It's so obviously not suspicious because of the giant size of the PWM rabbit hole, so I'd call out your use of the word "suspicious". Some of the reviewers already do try to measure for flicker frequencies, but not all do. And sometimes the information is limitedd.
My experience with reviewers is that they are either:
(A) Too small/indie to create a large test suite; and/or
(B) PWM eyestrained audience is too small (<1% to 10%); and/or
(C) Complexity of communicating the information.
Let's not forget household lighting -- even mere incandescent light bulbs.
Frequency is not everything -- you have datapoints like;
- Depth of flicker
- Count of flickers per refresh cycle
- Shape of flicker curve
Some OLEDs, for example, flickerdepths less than an incandescent light bulb.
We have all of this:
- People who get eyestrain from ALL kinds of PWM (even household lighting) -- most population usually don't for PWM above flicker fusion threshold.
- People who don't get eyestrain from most PWM but only specific kinds (weird outliers)
- People who only get eyestrain from squarewave PWM (but not softened PWM, e.g. square wave capacitor filtered)
- People who don't get eyestrain from strobe backlights (1 PWM per Hz) but lots of eyestrain from multi-PWM-per-Hz (eyestrain from duplicate image effects
that feel like a serrated knife)
- People who get mysterious eyestrain that was thought PWM but was caused (or more than 50% caused) by other factors than PWM;
Because the display-eyestrain rabbit hole is so big and so full of bad advice, many display reviewers don't bother covering it because everyone eyestrains very differently.
While PWM is a large double-digit percentage slice of a display-ergonomics pie, no single display-ergonomic issue has a majority (not even PWM -- it affects well under 50%). So I have to remind people about
Overemphasis on PWM. Now, if we cover PWM, we have to cover tons of other display ergonomics issue. Even websites that refuse samples from manufacturers and fully complain, just are even also ill-equipped to be able to properly fully cover PWM. The "Everything is caused by PWM" elsewhere is rewritten as "One of the major possible causes of display eyestrain is PWM" around here, which is a lot more honest.
You've seen me complain loudly about reviewers and manufacturers, but manufacturing suspicion where
NONE EXIST simply due to the ratio of "number of users benefitted":"rabbit hole size and work required" is sometimes too small to be worth it.
The "Major Test Effort":"Users Clearly Obviously Benefited" ratio is a major reason:
For example, proper dead pixel reliability % testing requires a reviewer to purchase 100 samples to see how often dead pixels occur. But reviewers can't afford to buy 100 samples, and manufacturers never ship 100 samples to a reviewer, for large-statistical-sampling-of-one-model attributes. Now, when it comes to flicker testing, you can easily test for PWM, but the problem is there are people bothered by 864Hz PWM but not bothered by 240Hz PWM, and other people bothered by one unit of 1000Hz PWM but not a different unit of 1000hz PWM. So, it's sometimes extremely hard to determine exactly what part of the PWM bothers people (duty cycle, flicker depth, conjunction with other display ergonomic problems, motion-related PWM such as stroboscopics artifacts versus direct-view-related PWM such as flicker fusion, etc). The size of rabbit hole then suddenly becomes bigger than a frequency number, which produces a false narrative, and reviewers don't want to go down the reputation-tarnish path with their end users -- because of the giant wild goose chase / red herring factor.
So, it's not suspicious, that's just a strawman shift-blame word, and I am calling you out on your use of the word "suspcious", r0ach -- it just sounds conspiracy tinfoilhattery when the reasons are so Homer Simpson duh obvious that it's not suspcious.
PWM is a major problem, for sure. The problem is that it's hard to diagnose what definitely is painful PWM.
It's just a giant overwhelming rabbit hole that they should cover if they are able to. But it's quite obvious that the size of the rabbit hole is just so gigantic, given that only a minority of users are affected by even the biggest ergonomic-issue lineitems.
Recommendation To Display Reviewers:
I recommend is that display reviewers just publish a photodiode oscilloscope graph for various brightness levels at common settings (and also provide reference comparisions like average lightbulbs / led / fluorescent) and let people decide for themselves. Numbers should be superimposed on the graphs for the dominant frequency in the flicker graph, but let the flickergraph "tell the story" to the end user.
And, provide multiple flickergraph images for common settings (e.g. 25%, 50%, 75%, 100% brightness settings, HDR on/off, and other common settings), with comparision graphs of other light sources (historical CCFL screen, historical early LED screen, incandescent bulb, average fluorescent, and some random top-rated LED bulb like these tested by some indie youtuber that flickers less than incandescent but still has a minor flickerdepth, etc)
(While not common, occasionally display reviewers do randomly pick up ideas from Blur Busters Forums too. Over 500 content creators use a random Blur Busters testing invention or suggestion)