New Research on Display Format to Match Perception of Reality [Retina Refresh Rate Talk]

Advanced display talk, display hackers, advanced game programmers, scientists, display researchers, display manufacturers, vision researchers & Advanced Display Articles on Blur Busters. The masters on Blur Busters.
User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
Posts: 11647
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44
Location: Toronto / Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: New Research on Display Format to Match Perception of Reality [Retina Refresh Rate Talk]

Post by Chief Blur Buster » 24 May 2022, 15:56

stl8k wrote:
24 May 2022, 13:34
Here's the author giving a talk on this research...

phpBB [video]
For the final slide in this video...

Good research, but definitively answering the question of final slide in the video.

Image

I call out "Woefully low."

Try these test variables:
1. 16K 180-degree FOV virtual reality screen (widest possible "retina resolution" FOV to amplify Hz liimts as FOV and resolution increases visibility of Hz limts)
2. Sample and hold. That's zero flicker, zero impulse driving (simulate real life, no flicker)
3. Perfect framerate=Hz (avoid jitter error margin)
4. VSYNC ON, not VSYNC OFF (avoid jitter error margin)
5. No control device jitter (e.g. don't use a mouse that's only 1000Hz. Read: Why?)
6. Test large 4x-8x geometric differences in refresh rates (e.g. 120Hz vs 480Hz, or 240Hz vs 1000Hz).
7. Ensure pixel response not the limiting factor, or acknowledge it in your Error Margins section
8. Fast motion speeds, that are still eye trackable
9. Test that force eye tracking (if testing via motion blur weak link)

In this extreme test, retina refresh rates hits 5-digits (>10,000 Hz).

The problem is technology does not exist, but we can at least experimentally confirm this:
- Doubling the resolution can double the required retina refresh rate (when doing 2x-4x refresh rate differential blind tests).
- Keeping pixels within human angular resolving resolution
- Make FOV wider, such as in VR, to produce more time to eyetrack objects, for humans to immediately notice Hz limitations.

Retina refresh rates of desktop displays are lower, but far closer to ~4000 Hz based on my research. When this deep into the diminishing curve of returns, you need toi compare 4x Hz differences (1000Hz vs 4000Hz) using VSYNC ON framerate=Hz with fast motion speeds (4000 pixels/sec on 4K), so for this test, you need a 4K 1000Hz vs 4K 4000Hz display for a 24-27" form factor (retina rez on the 24" or 27" form factor). You can't blind-test 1.5x-2x differences in refresh rates when you're close to the vanishing point of the diminishing curve of returns -- we have experimentally confirmed that you need to begin comparing more massive differences (e.g. 4x, possibly more).

Displays of identical size now exist for all four:
- 1080p 60Hz
- 1080p 240Hz
- 4K 60Hz
- 4K 240Hz

Disable strobing, keep them sample-and-hold;

This provides the basis for multiple blind tests that determines ease of detecting refresh rate limitations. We use a 4x differential to make blur easier to tell apart (much like 1/60sec SLR photograph and 1/240sec SLR photograph -- though GtG error margin will diminish 60Hz vs 240Hz difference), while we do a 2x resolution differential to see how motionspeeds affect detectability of Hz limitations.

For example scrolling at quarter screenwidth per second, half screenwidth per second, and one screenwidth per second. We can use a 4K photo of fine text, and a downconverted photo of the same text (to keep the test pattern dimensions identical). We test motionspeeds until motion blur is noticed by the human. We observe that 4K makes it easier for humans to see Hz limitations when test is structured this way.

Based on the results of the above tests, we easily reliably extrapolate retina refresh rate is far in excess of 1000Hz -- guaranteed, at least when we're comparing large differentials (e.g. 1000Hz vs 4000Hz at framerate=Hz and GtG=0 to avoid GtG error margin on blur), since such differences are needed when we're in the diminishing-curve-of-returns in the refresh rate stratospheres. Just like a 1/1000sec SLR photo and a 1/4000sec SLR photo, you need really fast ultra-sharp (e.g. 70mm or full frame) photos of fast sports, to see the difference between the two photos. Likewise, this is the same for display motion blur. Easier if it's full-FOV (like 180-degree VR)

The important point is that this is easily and reliably extrapolated, by scientifically testing resolution effect's on raising the retina refresh rate, with now newly-available displays.

See this thread:

Properly Designing A Blind Test That >90% Of Humans Can See 240Hz-vs-1000Hz (non-Game Use Cases Too!)

Certainly this isn't classical esports use case, we're testing future use cases, not current use cases -- such what Hz we need to max out VR quality for humankind. And other theoretical use cases.

This is already experimentally confirmable, e.g. 1080p 240Hz versus the brand new 4K 240Hz displays at same display size. 240Hz limitations is much easier to see at double the resolution. Combining ultra high resolution increases the maximum Hz of humankind benefit. When extrapolated from this, it's confirmable research because of motion blur and stroboscopics.
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter

Image
Forum Rules wrote:  1. Rule #1: Be Nice. This is published forum rule #1. Even To Newbies & People You Disagree With!
  2. Please report rule violations If you see a post that violates forum rules, then report the post.
  3. ALWAYS respect indie testers here. See how indies are bootstrapping Blur Busters research!

Post Reply