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

[Chief Blur Buster]

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

There's a nuance/confusion.

So let's say hello to Albert Einstein's "frame of reference" (pun on "frame"). Physical? Pixels?

For a physical motion speed (inches/second or centimeters/second), the physical motion blur is indeed correctly the same length (centimeters or inches).

But higher spatial resolutions over that dimension (higher DPI) means more pixels of motion blur.

Thus, one can easily argue the temporal motion resolution is definitely worse relative to spatial resolution. Remember, we are saying resolution, and that can have multiple meanings depending on frame of reference. And it even is interpreted differently in different circles.

Thus, the confusion.

___

Physical space is invariant, but pixel space scales with DPI. The frame of reference (physical vs pixels) creates some confusion.

Persistence has not changed, but the resolution degradation that persistence does to spatial resolution, is relatively worse because more pixels of motion blur has occured over the same spatial dimension. It becomes easier to see differences between stationary images and moving images as a result. This is why higher resolutions requires lower persistence to more fully hide display motion blur.

In more nuanced researcher circles, there is a word "spatiotemporal" and it goes into rather dry semantics when scientists/researchers talk about this matter. ( <aside> Myself being cited in 50 research papers, yet more frequently operating in the content creator domain, I'm frequently called to clarify definitions which can be a bit subject to interpretation or simplifications </aside> ).

[purplemelon1]

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

There's a nuance/confusion.

So let's say hello to Albert Einstein's "frame of reference" (pun on "frame"). Physical? Pixels?

For a physical motion speed (inches/second or centimeters/second), the physical motion blur is indeed correctly the same length (centimeters or inches).

But higher spatial resolutions over that dimension (higher DPI) means more pixels of motion blur.

Thus, one can easily argue the temporal motion resolution is definitely worse relative to spatial resolution. Remember, we are saying resolution, and that can have multiple meanings depending on frame of reference. And it even is interpreted differently in different circles.

Thus, the confusion.

___

Physical space is invariant, but pixel space scales with DPI. The frame of reference (physical vs pixels) creates some confusion.

Persistence has not changed, but the resolution degradation that persistence does to spatial resolution, is relatively worse because more pixels of motion blur has occured over the same spatial dimension. It becomes easier to see differences between stationary images and moving images as a result. This is why higher resolutions requires lower persistence to more fully hide display motion blur.

In more nuanced researcher circles, there is a word "spatiotemporal" and it goes into rather dry semantics when scientists/researchers talk about this matter. ( <aside> Myself being cited in 50 research papers, yet more frequently operating in the content creator domain, I'm frequently called to clarify definitions which can be a bit subject to interpretation or simplifications </aside> ).

Ah, right. I got so used to resolution being used to describe pixel counts that I forgot the definition. I just meant persistence.

I think what I originally replied to was "A 21" 1080p display is going to look clearer than a 42" 4K display at the same refresh rate."