Motion Clarity on cheap Monitor better than on OLED (60hz)

[chado935271]

Hey there,
im slightly going crazy here. I was visiting a friends place and he was emulating old games on his cheap home office monitor. Instantly i noticed that there is something different there. The scrolling is way smoother and less blurry on this cheap 80 euro 60hz ips monitor than on my 1000 euro oled c2 120hz tv.

That made me curious and i wanted to see if other 60hz content behaves the same. And it does. A first person shooter locked to 60fps (hz) looks smoother on that cheap ips panel than on the expensive OLED tv. There is way less blur on that ips panel. The only way to make the OLED look smoother is activating BFI.

Is there something wrong with my TV? I cant believe the experience of 60hz content is better on that cheap monitor. I have both displays running right now at the same time and that cheap 80 dollar office monitor has way better motion clarity. Sonic the Hedgehog is a great example. OLED is blurry during fast movement while the other monitor looks a bit better during that same movement.

Im kinda getting the feeling to only use the OLED for 120hz content only and everything that is locked 60 or even 30 to use a cheap monitor like that.

Is there something wrong with my OLED or is that standard behavior for low hz content?

Thanks for your help!

[Supermodel_Evelynn]

Motion clarity is shit on any monitor without backlight strobing.

It only starts getting better if your monitor can do native 500 HZ and you can achieve 500 FPS at that, 1000 HZ at 1000 FPS is ideal.

Anything below 1000 HZ at 1000 FPS is easily beaten by a 20th century CRT TV running at 60 HZ and 60 FPS.

Nothing can beat an electron gun.

[Chief Blur Buster]

Hey there,
im slightly going crazy here. I was visiting a friends place and he was emulating old games on his cheap home office monitor. Instantly i noticed that there is something different there. The scrolling is way smoother and less blurry on this cheap 80 euro 60hz ips monitor than on my 1000 euro oled c2 120hz tv.

That made me curious and i wanted to see if other 60hz content behaves the same. And it does. A first person shooter locked to 60fps (hz) looks smoother on that cheap ips panel than on the expensive OLED tv. There is way less blur on that ips panel. The only way to make the OLED look smoother is activating BFI.

Is there something wrong with my TV? I cant believe the experience of 60hz content is better on that cheap monitor. I have both displays running right now at the same time and that cheap 80 dollar office monitor has way better motion clarity. Sonic the Hedgehog is a great example. OLED is blurry during fast movement while the other monitor looks a bit better during that same movement.

Im kinda getting the feeling to only use the OLED for 120hz content only and everything that is locked 60 or even 30 to use a cheap monitor like that.

Is there something wrong with my OLED or is that standard behavior for low hz content

The blur is the same but the OLED amplifies visibility of stutter because there's no slow pixel response to hide motion blur.

You need to add black frame insertion to your OLED
- www.testufo.com/blackframes
- www.testufo.com/crt

RetroArch lets you enable BFI or CRT beam emulation, try it.

240Hz OLED + BFI/CRT = can be up to 75% less motion blur for 60fps content.

[RealNC]

Also keep in mind that the larger the display and the higher the resolution, the worse motion blur gets at the same refresh rate. A 21" 1080p display is going to look clearer than a 42" 4K display at the same refresh rate. Motion blur is the result of how much physical distance something appears to move on the screen. That distance gets smaller on smaller displays, thus motion blur is lower.

Zelda Ocarina of Time on a 14" display back in the day was actually playable, even though it's 20FPS.

[Clear Motion Seeker]

Also keep in mind that the larger the display and the higher the resolution, the worse motion blur gets at the same refresh rate. A 21" 1080p display is going to look clearer than a 42" 4K display at the same refresh rate. Motion blur is the result of how much physical distance something appears to move on the screen. That distance gets smaller on smaller displays, thus motion blur is lower.

Zelda Ocarina of Time on a 14" display back in the day was actually playable, even though it's 20FPS.

That's the reason why 4K screens are showcased with static or slow motion videos, because otherwise you lose so many details when sports or video games are displayed without interpolation or bfi.

That's why 8K makes no sense, because what's the point to have so high pixel density if you lose even more details whenever it moves, which means pretty much all the time...

[kyube]

That's the reason why 4K screens are showcased with static or slow motion videos, because otherwise you lose so many details when sports or video games are displayed without interpolation or bfi.

That's why 8K makes no sense, because what's the point to have so high pixel density if you lose even more details whenever it moves, which means pretty much all the time...

Maybe, just maybe.... implement good backlight strobing (<1ms MPRT), which is trivial to do on LCDs?


The display resolution (pixel density) is not the issue here, it's the shoddy foresight of vendors to give the end-user a objectively good viewing experience for both static & dynamic content.
Not pushing display resolutions (pixel density) is the same sentiment as "+120Hz is not necessary", but on the spatial axis.

And no, 60PPD isn't enough. +94PPD is minimum. Link1; Link2

[Clear Motion Seeker]

Maybe, just maybe.... implement good backlight strobing (<1ms MPRT), which is trivial to do on LCDs?

That's exactly what i am looking for, the problem is that most BFI integration tends to be very poor in televisions.

The display resolution (pixel density) is not the issue here, it's the shoddy foresight of vendors to give the end-user a objectively good viewing experience for both static & dynamic content.
Not pushing display resolutions (pixel density) is the same sentiment as "+120Hz is not necessary", but on the spatial axis.

My point is that the goal of marketing is to sell something fancy with content that isn't representative of what the vast majority of consumers will use at home (TV broadcast, low bitrate streaming, etc.)

Most of the time, people won't see a sharper image unless they use their TV as a giant photo frame, but a more smeary motion, which is exactly the contrary of what manufacturers are trying to sell.

viewtopic.php?t=8337

And no, 60PPD isn't enough. +94PPD is minimum. Link1; Link2

I'd say it depends on the content you're using. I think that for video games, being very close to the screen is more tiring because you make more eye movements between the action and the HUD reading for example.

[kyube]

My point is that the goal of marketing is too sell something fancy with content that isn't representative of what the vast majority of consumers will use at home (TV broadcast, low bitrate streaming, etc.)

Most of the time, people won't see a sharper image unless they use their TV as a giant photo frame, but a more smeary motion, which is exactly the contrary of what manufacturers are trying to sell.

viewtopic.php?t=8337

Yep... the static to dynamic image quality difference on non-impulsed low refresh rate displays is quite jarring.

I'd say it depends on the content you're using. I think that for video games, being very close to the screen is more tiring because you make more eye movements between the action and the HUD reading for example.

I'd say it's a inherent physical characteristic of the panel.
Same way you wouldn't want to print <300DPI/PPI, you don't want a <90 PPD experience.
There's no "depends" IMO.
It's about chasing the best static & dynamic image quality, which is currently encapsulated by 27" 5K 165Hz models with backlight strobing (e.g.: ASUS XG27JCG)

[purplemelon1]

Also keep in mind that the larger the display and the higher the resolution, the worse motion blur gets at the same refresh rate. A 21" 1080p display is going to look clearer than a 42" 4K display at the same refresh rate. Motion blur is the result of how much physical distance something appears to move on the screen. That distance gets smaller on smaller displays, thus motion blur is lower.

Zelda Ocarina of Time on a 14" display back in the day was actually playable, even though it's 20FPS.

The motion blur itself (temporal resolution) is the same. It's the spatial resolution that affects how much you see it. By being the final filter it passes through so to speak. viewtopic.php?p=122863#p122863

And man you guys really went at it huh.

I didn't know the ASUS XG27JCG was a thing. Another case of a 5k panel existing while I have no idea. 5k 180hz. Is the elmb 2 adjustable? Maybe it needs it's own thread

[RealNC]

The motion blur itself (temporal resolution) is the same. It's the spatial resolution that affects how much you see it. By being the final filter it passes through so to speak. viewtopic.php?p=122863#p122863

Not sure I agree. Since motion blur is caused by eye tracking pixels that are actually stationary, resulting in a blur trail, smaller displays result in slower eye tracking (since the tracking distance is smaller,) which in turn gives less motion blur.

Or, in terms of the stroboscopic effect (which is just a different side of the same coin), the shorter the distance between each copy of the object, the less the motion blur if you were tracking that object. Smaller display = shorter distance between each copy.