Motion blur is good. It is useful when we don't mind it or want it.Joel D wrote: ↑10 May 2020, 15:11I see more blur in real life when I move my hand quickly in front of my face, so why would I try to fix a real organic anomaly that's part of real life ? WAIT, I don't like blurry no, but when comparing it down to these hair splitting differences, that most likely has no impact on actual real usage (watching/playing video), I really don't get the obsession there.
TL;DR: Real world doesn't force extra motion blur above-and-beyond human vision. Nearly all displays add extra blur above-and-beyond.
Researchers have confirmed that the finiteness of refresh rates creates motion blur and/or other artifactds above-and-beyond natural human vision. This is important whe you want a display to perfectly emulate a window into real life for any reason, without artifacts, without SOE, without unwanted extra blur, etc.
Our business name is Blur Busters.
There are situations where displays should not enforce more motion blur above-and-beyond natural human vision. Motion blur is more important in some contexts. For example, emulating a Holodeck requires a display not to enforce more motion blur above-and-beyond natural human vision. That's why all the good VR headsets are low-persistence. The Valve Index is 0.33ms MPRT(100%).
Also, it's relative, just like Einstein is relative. You don't see display motion blur unless you eye-track the moving objects. It's the same reason of www.testufo.com/eyetracking and www.testufo.com/persistence ....
This is because pixel visibility time is static. As your analog eyes move past, your eyes are in different positions at the beginning and ends of pixel visibilty time (equals full refresh cycle on sample-and-hold, and equals pulse width on strobed displays). This creates the additive display motion blur -- above and beyond human vision -- during good eye-tracking situations.
Many esports players do stationary-eye-gaze on crosshairs. So they don't see the blur effects directly. But if you track eyes during a smooth pan (like Super Mario scrolling or RTS panning, or Rocket League turning (no crosshairs or fixed-objects to gaze at), or reading text while scrolling on a CRT tube, or turn head while viewing VR headset = permanent continuous panning that means motion blur equals bad VR / nausea / etc). There are other users of high-Hz displays other than CS:GO esports, y'know. We are a viable business because of our anal-ness on motion artifacts, including blur.
Displays are inherently imperfect windows to motion, and we write useful articles such as The Stroboscopic Effect of Finite Frame Rate Displays, as well as Blur Busters Law: The Amazing Journey To Future 1000 Hz Displays. If you haven't read those, go ahead and read those now. Articles like these are why some manufacturers such as ASUS has a road map to 1000 Hz displays.
Yes, it might not be important to you, but it is important to others -- eliminating display motion blur made it feasible for Half Life: Alyx VR to exist -- because motion blur was one major cause of VR nausea that happened hundreds times more often than desktop monitors. Blur Busters had a small chaos-butterfly push: We convinced the Oculus Rift to go low-persistence.
Mind you, I love 24fps natural blur cinema as much as anyone, but also see the benefit of 1000fps UltraHFR video/graphics (superior to 120fps HFR).