Less Motion Blur in 60fps 144hz than 60fps 60hz

[IMartz]

Hi!

I am new to the forum, despite having been a reader for a few years now, so I hope I am posting in the right place. Firstly, congratulations on the valuable information you provide; it is the best source for information on monitor motion. I create content about monitors (I am a relatively small content creator), and I always refer to your page to substantiate the accuracy of what I am explaining with professional web support.

I have some doubts concerning motion blur in relation to Hz/FPS. Let's imagine a situation in which you have the same game running at 60fps on a 144Hz display next to a 60Hz display. Let's also assume that VRR and Vsync aren't enabled, so you are likely to encounter frame pacing issues, tearing, stuttering, etc. The GTG (Gray-to-Gray) time is the same for all frames on both displays, so this is a hypothetical scenario.

My question is, even though we may experience artifacts in this configuration, is the amount of motion blur supposed to be less on the 144Hz display? This question arose in my mind due to a comment I received on a video. In this video, I explain that FPS is related to motion blur, especially in a practical and modern situation where you play with G-Sync enabled, making the Hz equal to the FPS.

However, I had never considered that motion blur could be less on a higher Hz screen. I provided the example of 60Hz vs. 144Hz, but the question would be the same for 60Hz vs. 240Hz or 144Hz vs. 240Hz.

I've done some research, and it seems that on a higher Hz screen, motion blur could be reduced because it refreshes faster. What's clear is that latency would be lower, but what about motion blur?

Consequently, what would be more accurate to say: Is motion blur related to a screen's FPS or its Hz? In your animations and explanations about MPRT (Moving Picture Response Time), you often refer to persistence and Hz, but does the same principle apply to FPS?

I'm a bit confused on this topic, as you can see, so it would be immensely helpful for me to have this doubt clarified. I understand that this situation may be somewhat illogical because, in a typical practical case, we would enable VRR (G-Sync or similar) and Vsync to make Hz equal to FPS, ensuring that motion blur would be the same in both cases. However, I still want to thoroughly understand the difference, especially when a follower asks me.

All of this discussion pertains to LCD screens.

Thank you very much for reading in advance!

[RealNC]

Consequently, what would be more accurate to say: Is motion blur related to a screen's FPS or its Hz? In your animations and explanations about MPRT (Moving Picture Response Time), you often refer to persistence and Hz, but does the same principle apply to FPS?

On sample-and-hold displays (as opposed to strobing or rolling scan displays), motion blur gets lower the more frames you see per second. So Hz doesn't matter if there's not enough FPS, and FPS doesn't matter if there's not enough Hz. To see more frames per second, you need high FPS and high Hz.

So higher FPS alone (like 144FPS on a 60Hz screen) doesn't help at all. And higher Hz alone (like 60FPS on a 144Hz screen) doesn't help either. You need to see the frames, so that means both FPS and Hz need to increase. On a 144Hz screen, the lowest motion blur happens when you get to 144FPS. Any more FPS won't decrease motion blur further.

You can put a number on motion blur. You just use the frame time. With 60FPS@60Hz, you get a motion blur of 16.7ms. At 144FPS@144Hz, the motion blur is 6.9ms. It's important to note that the frame time is more important than its equivalent frame rate. For example, if you go from 60 to 120, you reduce motion blur by 8ms. If you go from 120 to 240, even though doubled the frame rate, motion blur only got reduced by an additional 4ms. And if you double FPS again from 240 to 480, motion blur is barely being reduced since it's only 2ms lower.

So the higher the FPS, the more into "diminishing returns" territory you're going, and to see the same kind of huge leap in visible motion blur reduction like you do with 60 to 120, you''d need to jump straight up to about 1000Hz, which has a frame time of 1ms. Which is why strobing was introduced in LCD displays. With strobing, you can get a very low millisecond value for motion blur without having to actually run at that FPS or Hz. If the stobing uses 2ms, and you're running at 120FPS, that means motion blur looks like as if you were running 500FPS at 500Hz. (CRT displays used rolling scan, so motion blur was also not a problem there.)

[GammaLyrae]

If I recall correctly, any monitor with pixel overdrive function (so... Basically all of them), the firmware is going to be evaluating the current pixel state and calculate how to accelerate to the intended pixel state on every refresh. This means if you have content locked at 60fps on a refresh rate of 240hz, there are 4 opportunities per frame for the overdrive function to recalculate how to arrive at the destination color. This is mostly helpful for displays that have a known troublesome range to transition to and from, like VA panels trying to accelerate out of black. From full black to any color is very slow, but the Grey it will reach in 4ms to the desired color is faster, which would result in less "black smearing" being visible, improving image clarity and perceived blur associated with that slow transition. That same transitioning n at 60fps/60hz won't recalculate the destination until the next frame at 16ms. This effect as describe, if it works the way I remember it, only helps with fixed refresh rates and doesn't work with VRR. It also wouldn't be great for BFI as the image duplication effect would likely be worse than any gains you make from forcing more pixel transition calculations.

[IMartz]

If I recall correctly, any monitor with pixel overdrive function (so... Basically all of them), the firmware is going to be evaluating the current pixel state and calculate how to accelerate to the intended pixel state on every refresh. This means if you have content locked at 60fps on a refresh rate of 240hz, there are 4 opportunities per frame for the overdrive function to recalculate how to arrive at the destination color. This is mostly helpful for displays that have a known troublesome range to transition to and from, like VA panels trying to accelerate out of black. From full black to any color is very slow, but the Grey it will reach in 4ms to the desired color is faster, which would result in less "black smearing" being visible, improving image clarity and perceived blur associated with that slow transition. That same transitioning n at 60fps/60hz won't recalculate the destination until the next frame at 16ms. This effect as describe, if it works the way I remember it, only helps with fixed refresh rates and doesn't work with VRR. It also wouldn't be great for BFI as the image duplication effect would likely be worse than any gains you make from forcing more pixel transition calculations.

What you are describing is what I want to know if it is true. It makes sense that a higher refresh rate helps in motion blur even though you are watching content at less fps, as you said.

So let’s imagine you are playing a fighting game in which the maximum fps is 60fps, capped by the developer (as Street Fighter V). Is the game going to look smoother (or clearer) in a 240hz rather than a 60hz display? Or even 120hz vs 60hz.

Let’s see if someone can confirm this and explain why this is happening. Thanks for the response!

[jorimt]

What you are describing is what I want to know if it is true. It makes sense that a higher refresh rate helps in motion blur even though you are watching content at less fps, as you said.

The only thing a higher than 60Hz display running at, say, 60 FPS will improve where motion performance is concerned, is pixel transition (aka GtG) time, and only if the panel in question has a lower native GtG level and better adjoining overdrive tuning than the lower refresh rate monitor it is being compared to, which will result in less smearing/ghosting/crosstalk in motion.

MPRT/persistence blur caused by both the sample-and-hold nature of the display and finite refresh + framerate will remain, regardless of the refresh/framerate ratio being displayed.

[Dapra]

Hi!

I am new here, sorry when my english is bad.

I have two questions:
- which one has the lowest input lag? 60FPS@120Hz vsync on or 60FPS@120Hz scanline sync x/2 or 60FPS@120Hz with freesync/gsync?
- which one has better gaming experience (blur, overshoot) 60FPS@60Hz scanline sync or 60FPS@120Hz scanline sync x/2?

Thanks!

[RealNC]

- which one has the lowest input lag? 60FPS@120Hz vsync on or 60FPS@120Hz scanline sync x/2 or 60FPS@120Hz with freesync/gsync?

Scanline sync and VRR (freesync/gsync) should both have the lowest input lag. They should be about the same.

- which one has better gaming experience (blur, overshoot) 60FPS@60Hz scanline sync or 60FPS@120Hz scanline sync x/2?

Both should be the same, unless the panel itself looks different at 60 vs 120.

[Dapra]

Hi RealNC!
Thank You your answer. I have an other question, sorry when the theme is different.
I have a Dell P2419H monitor. FHD, 60Hz. The response time is 8ms. There are more new monitors on the market with 1ms response time (FHD, 60Hz). The question: will the blur effect and the overshoot effect better when i buy a FHD,60Hz,1ms monitor? Thanks!

[RealNC]

Hi RealNC!
Thank You your answer. I have an other question, sorry when the theme is different.
I have a Dell P2419H monitor. FHD, 60Hz. The response time is 8ms. There are more new monitors on the market with 1ms response time (FHD, 60Hz). The question: will the blur effect and the overshoot effect better when i buy a FHD,60Hz,1ms monitor? Thanks!

Probably. 8ms panels usually have a quite visible trail when you move the mouse around the desktop. With games, this results in extra motion blur. You don't get that (or not as strong) with panels that have lower pixel response times. Although it's still 60Hz, so even with 0ms you'd still get motion blur, but the annoying "ghosting" effect with moving objects leaving trails behind them should be lessened.