The future of strobing display tech

[Edmond]

Although in the future the amount of games that can be run with very high FPS will only go up proportionally to the games that cant be.

From 99% of all games today that are available on PC to 99.5% of all games available on PC in say 5 years will be able to run on tripple digit fps with the most modern single top tier gpu, with that percentage approaching 100% more and more and never reaching 100% ^^

Id say we are on our way to having more and more games available that will run @ 200-300 fps.

I personally dont care if i couldnt run Crysis3 @ 300fps.... that game is dogshit anyway. But a single gtx970 allowing CS GO to be played @ 300 fps, thats something else, if only there was a 300hz OLED with VRR available....

[blargg]

I can't see OLED motion blur at 60Hz being much better than LCD though. Somewhat better, but not much. In the end, it's still gonna be a blur-fest.

Yep, quibbling over 1-2ms difference in response time when there's 16.7ms of persistence that swamps everything else.

Your GAMER LCD has about 10ms response time. That g2g advertising is just a pure lie.

OLED has a response time of 0.02ms. For ALL color shifts equally. Basically, for all practical uses, you can say it has CRT response time.

I think you're missing a critical point. Say you have a slow 10ms LCD. OK, let the 10ms go by while it updates the pixels, but keep the backlight OFF during this time. Everything updated? Flash the backlight for 2ms. All the pixels are shown at once, all updated. Now turn it off while you update them for the next frame.

[RealNC]

I think you're missing a critical point. Say you have a slow 10ms LCD. OK, let the 10ms go by while it updates the pixels, but keep the backlight OFF during this time. Everything updated? Flash the backlight for 2ms. All the pixels are shown at once, all updated. Now turn it off while you update them for the next frame.

He was referring to non-strobed LCDs

But also keep in mind that waiting for 10ms before turning on the backlight increases input lag by... 10ms A strobed OLED would not have this problem. Strobed OLED screens should therefore also offer decreased input lag.

The discussion was mainly about how much motion blur is reduced by OLED vs LCD when *neither* of them is strobed.

[Edmond]

The discussion was mainly about how much motion blur is reduced by OLED vs LCD when *neither* of them is strobed.

I went to the electronics store and looked at the 55" LG 1080p OLED tv. Its 2400 eur now.

I asked if they can put on the best demo they have for moving stuff... they put on something with colorful dancing dresses on a black background.
Still... even that motion was something else. Not comparable to LCD at all.... i couldnt tell about the blur, cuz it wasnt fast enough, but i know that this on LCD would have looked like a smeary, ghosty crap. It was fucking insane how sharp the motion was.
Not to mention the black was pefect... its very hard to describe the erection i had to hide. I can only imagine how games would look on this.

There is a 55" 4k OLED tv coming from LG this year for 4800 $
http://www.oled-info.com/danish-site-pu ... price-list

[flood]

I can't see OLED motion blur at 60Hz being much better than LCD though. Somewhat better, but not much. In the end, it's still gonna be a blur-fest.

Yep, quibbling over 1-2ms difference in response time when there's 16.7ms of persistence that swamps everything else.

except 1-2ms isn't precisely defined and doesn't take into account overdrive artifacts.

if we look at some data of fast lcds:
http://display-corner.epfl.ch/index.php/ASUS_VG248QE
http://display-corner.epfl.ch/index.php/BenQ_XL2411Z

you see that it takes closer to ~10ms for the pixel to actually settle

[pinobot]

Wave your hand in front of your eyes... notice the natural blur?

There is no blur if you follow your hand's movement with your eyes. On an LCD, there is blur even if you do follow movement with your eyes.

A 100% blur-free monitor would not look unnatural. It would look just as blurry as your eyes normally perceive movement. Any blur introduced by the monitor just adds to that.

If i wave my finger in front of the screen at 144Hz with montion blur reduction on i see strobing of my finger. If i switch the motion blur reduction off i see my finger truly blur.

[flood]

thats not the same type of blur as what strobibg eliminates

[RealNC]

Wave your hand in front of your eyes... notice the natural blur?

There is no blur if you follow your hand's movement with your eyes. On an LCD, there is blur even if you do follow movement with your eyes.

A 100% blur-free monitor would not look unnatural. It would look just as blurry as your eyes normally perceive movement. Any blur introduced by the monitor just adds to that.

If i wave my finger in front of the screen at 144Hz with montion blur reduction on i see strobing of my finger. If i switch the motion blur reduction off i see my finger truly blur.

You need to move your finger and FOLLOW the movement with your eyes. It's clear. It's only blurry if you don't follow the movement.

Following movement on a 60Hz LCD is blurry. That is the difference. The UFO tests demonstrate this very nicely, by making you read moving text. You can't. In real life, you can do that very easily, as movement is crystal clear when your eyes track it, since when your eyes track it, it's not actually really moving; it appears stationary to you. Tracking movement on the LCD does make the image stationary; it's still moving on the LCD and so you see it blurry, even though relative to your eyes (since they're tracking it) it's not moving at all. So it appears like a blurry stationary object.

[blargg]

That is, on a non-strobed display the object moves a large step, then freezes for the frame, while your eyes are moving smoothly the whole time, so it smears across your vision. On a strobed display, the object is effectively moving smoothly along with your eyes, but only having light flashed on it for a short moment each frame, in the dark the rest of the time. Since your eyes have persistence, they see the after-image where the object would be, without any blur. If we had no persistence in our vision, a non-strobed display would make moving objects look like they were wiggling madly, and a strobed would flicker extremely, terribly, totally unbearably, leaving the only approach very high FPS displays.

[jaranis]

In probably every case a strobed display is only going to matter for things your eyes focus on. If an object goes whizzing by on the screen and I'm not looking at it, it probably wouldn't matter if my screen was 60Hz full persistence. BUT if my eyes lock onto it and I can see all the little details that object has despite it moving maybe 1000px+ per second, that is huge for me regardless of the game or application. Full persistence is like bottle-necking your eyes and IMO, that's pretty bad.

But anyways to be more on topic, I have a question. Since I'm paying ~$200 extra for a VRR monitor (G-Sync that is), can't they have a piece of logic in there that sets the backlight strobe at different lengths based on what my refresh rate is? If I'm running a game at 120fps/Hz, set ULMB to 10%. If I dip down to 80 or 75Hz maybe set ULMB to 100%. Better yet, in the Geforce CP give me a graph so I could set which strobe-length at what refresh myself. I understand you'd probably have some backlight issues, but something like this would be awesome with VRR on higher-end machines that can't quite get 120fps constantly.