VESA wants to replace monitor response time specs with ‘ClearMR’ stamps

[Kyouki]

News:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/08 ... tion-blur/
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 09564.html
https://videocardz.com/press-release/ve ... r-displays

Official:
https://www.clearmr.org/

Good or bad news?
Chief should be involved in this process!

[thatoneguy]

Advertised pixel response times are always bullshit, to the point where both OLED and LCDs are always advertised with a 1ms GtG claim(even though OLED is much faster than that and technically isn't monochrome so it's not really GtG and even though most LCDs advertised with 1ms GtG are really more like 5-6ms lol).

So yeah, it's probably more advertising bullshit, just of a new flavor.

[RonsonPL]

I may be wrong on this one, but I think this is bad news.
They write

Backlight strobing is disabled during testing in order to establish a level playing field and prevent unfair comparisons with products that do not utilize those blur reduction methods.

This is bad. Really bad. No display below 480Hz will ever come close to usable picture in fast motion, without taking care of sample and hold blur.

It will only push strobing away from mainstream even more. Now, even people who care about motion will think what they get with official VESA certificate is simply best thing that exists, if it has a good rating.

It will help getting rid of horrible displays, but will hurt popularization of goood displays.



That's my take on it - keep in mind that I'm super demanding in this regard. My whole gaming life spent on CRTs and then strobed displays. I admit I am biased. Maybe someone can see 240Hz sample and hold OLED mode as "good enough". But not me. 4.4ms "hold" is way too much blur.

There's some hope though. The highest ratings may be reserved for displays better than 240Hz. Maybe one day we'll get 480Hz based on something fast, not an LCD.

[Kyouki]

I may be wrong on this one, but I think this is bad news.
They write

Backlight strobing is disabled during testing in order to establish a level playing field and prevent unfair comparisons with products that do not utilize those blur reduction methods.

This is bad. Really bad. No display below 480Hz will ever come close to usable picture in fast motion, without taking care of sample and hold blur.

It will only push strobing away from mainstream even more. Now, even people who care about motion will think what they get with official VESA certificate is simply best thing that exists, if it has a good rating.

It will help getting rid of horrible displays, but will hurt popularization of goood displays.



That's my take on it - keep in mind that I'm super demanding in this regard. My whole gaming life spent on CRTs and then strobed displays. I admit I am biased. Maybe someone can see 240Hz sample and hold OLED mode as "good enough". But not me. 4.4ms "hold" is way too much blur.

There's some hope though. The highest ratings may be reserved for displays better than 240Hz. Maybe one day we'll get 480Hz based on something fast, not an LCD.

That's why I hope they introduce or invite industry champions like the Chief to help and assist in capturing this right certification. I think they also have a VESA certified method for validating Adaptive Sync tech which was also argued by industry people to be flawed.

I absolutely do agree on your stance.

[Discorz]

Yeah this ClearMR isn't very clear. But I see what they wanted to achieve. Capture the actual blur our eyes see and translate it to a number so it could be categorized. Because pixel response times expressed in milliseconds are not accurate demonstration of perceived blur. This only gives us partial insight into percevied ghosting. Persistence blur (MPRT) must be taken into account together with Pixel response blur (GtG). Also GtG response is a curve and that curve can be shaped anyhow over those few milliseconds. Meaning full 5 ms transition can appear both fast and slow.

One way to go around this is by gamma correcting the response and taking response area into account. Ashun from Aperture Grille has already done this with his Cumulative Absolute Deviation (CAD) score. Basically it's deviating area from ideal instant response. Currently that is the most accurate way of scoring GtG-overshoot ratio. But the score still doesn't reflect real perceived blur our eyes see because of ruled out persistence blur.

So if there was a way to also convert MPRT into area we could merge CAD and MPRT into one score. Overshoot and GtG heatmaps become unnecessary, very neat. I believe it would provide more accurate picture of overall perceived blur, but at the same time I'm not sure if it's doable because eyes don't really work this way. I've tried to make it and this is what first came to mind. It's definitely not fully thought through. Can someone more experienced chime in or advise?

cad+mprt area score.png (33.85 KiB) Viewed 4443 times

EDIT:

I believe same should work for strobed displays too.

cad+mprt area score strobed.png (29.19 KiB) Viewed 4247 times

[NDUS]

Completely omitting BFI from the scoring is stupid and basically a matter of industry politics.
It's supposed to be an objective, all-encompassing, integrated measure of image quality during motion. So why disallow one technique for improving motion clarity? Do A/B testing with and without BFI if you wish...

[RonsonPL]

Completely omitting BFI from the scoring is stupid and basically a matter of industry politics.
It's supposed to be an objective, all-encompassing, integrated measure of image quality during motion. So why disallow one technique for improving motion clarity?

Pick one or more, as you wish
- they lack any knowledge. People who don't play any games or just played some casual games OR they only play turn based strategy games and such, may simply be unaware that the issue with sample-and-hold mode is so severe. Some people only see non-gaming content like movies. I've seen people calling me stupid (because I talk about clear image in motion) arguing that you also see motion blur in real life. I should wave my hand before my eyes to realize that human eyes create motion blur. Also, their LCDs from 2002 had problems, but none of the modern LCD have any. Everything's perfect and better than ever before because a lot of 144Hz monitors and 120Hz TVs are on the shelves. Everything is clear and I am stupid and demanding ridiculous things. (no, seriously, that's what one guy wrote to me )
- they do know, but they don't really want to do anything about it. They just want another marketing card to play with
- they do know, they not only don't care but want to actively dismiss the issue, cause if people suddenly got aware, then a lot of displays would not be so popular anymore, the best marketing card since decades wouldn't work (HDR) in strobed modes and a lot of upcoming display technologies would suddenly become much less profitable or not profitable at all.

Imagine telling the laymen "HDR is cool and all, but you basically have nothing left of it when you want blur-free mode enabled on this display"
That wouldn't work that well..


If this certification idea can bring any benefits, it will be for 480+Hz displays. Everything else will just be another "1ms on paper" meaningless marketing BS. To me, the idea of calling a display "decent" or "good" in motion when it doesn't even have low persistence mode and less than 400Hz, is simply baffling. I'd slap "awful" on every single display of this kind. What difference does it make if you get a blurry mess in fast motion instead of even more blurry mess in motion. For me - none whatsoever. Still a blurry mess. Unusable.
We have 4K and 8K displays and 2022 in calendar. Nobody should be using displays which cannot even match VHS tapes in fast motion.