LG UltraGear 25G590B 25"1080p 1000Hz IPS

[Baron of Sun]

Is the stationary eyes situation really that important for perceived image quality in comparison to the eye tracking in your opinion? I remember the video from someone showing that you need several ten thousands of Hz to get a life like image for every speed of moving objects (was it 20000 Hz or so?). Does that apply to both stationary and tracking eyes?

This is hard to answer. No one ever proved which of the scenario is more important globally, and yet the eye tracking somehow became mainstream way to test displays. Which can be fine if you're mostly eye tracking, but I doubt it. Realistically, we are most likely doing a mix of various eye-movement vs content-movement combinations. So it would be logical to test multiple scenarios, not just one.

To tell exactly how much each is important, someone would need to do some seriously complex testing. I have a couple old comments regarding the topic. Quoting:

Blur Busters have estimated the approximate thresholds for both scenarios. For motion blur (clarity during tracking) it's roughly 1000Hz, while the stroboscopic effect (blurrity during gazing) is ~10x harder to beat at ~10000Hz. It's multiple factor dependent, but motion speed mainly. Both keep improving beyond the thresholds for more extreme scenarios. So 20+kHz sounds about right.

Thanks for these posts, exciting thoughts. I never really paid attention to fixed gaze situations, because the motion blur of eye tracked objects is the only metric that's bothering me (gaming and camera movements). Of course when I am working on my PC the fixed gaze happens sometimes and I can see the stroboscopic effect of my moving mouse pointer, but never considered it to be a bad thing in terms of the viewing experience. But I remember someone saying people are different in how and where their eyes focus for example when scrolling a webpage but I am not sure what exactly the difference was. Do you remember? Maybe some people pay more attention to the fixed gaze motion blur and therefore need rather more fps instead of more strobing?

[lumi2007]

Is the stationary eyes situation really that important for perceived image quality in comparison to the eye tracking in your opinion? I remember the video from someone showing that you need several ten thousands of Hz to get a life like image for every speed of moving objects (was it 20000 Hz or so?). Does that apply to both stationary and tracking eyes?

This is hard to answer. No one ever proved which of the scenario is more important globally, and yet the eye tracking somehow became mainstream way to test displays. Which can be fine if you're mostly eye tracking, but I doubt it. Realistically, we are most likely doing a mix of various eye-movement vs content-movement combinations. So it would be logical to test multiple scenarios, not just one.

To tell exactly how much each is important, someone would need to do some seriously complex testing. I have a couple old comments regarding the topic. Quoting:

It's difficult to tell what are the exact ratios of eye/content speed vs eye/content direction, as these likely vary between individuals and different types of content. It's currently woefully under-researched territory as Chief says. The data would be very useful in determining the benefits of higher refresh rates and flicker.

There are a bunch of Tobii Eye Tracker videos online tho. I encourage everyone to try and analyse just 10 seconds of footage. Hard for head to wrap around it. But I'd dare to assume the most common case is "scenery scanning" which is quickly moving eyes and pausing onto a moving/static object for focus. A little bit of everything is happening there. 100% eye-tracking or 100% fix-gazing are not the only combination we encounter.

One might wonder then how is it fair to do only the pursuit camera (100% eye tracking simulation) for testing? - It's not. Pursuing an moving object with solid-color background like on testufo tests only for motion clarity. Barely anyone tests for motion blurrity (apart from "faulty" stationary camera tests). There are obviously many combinations, but it would be nice to see just the very basic ones in reviews.

One related to strobing:

It all comes down to eye movement and content movement correlation. You just need to figure out how factors such as refresh/frame/visibility rate/time, motion speed and its direction affect the visual persistence. Perhaps start with the infographic bellow. The "Retina Refresh Rate" column is reference for life-like motion. For one to know whether they'd benefit from strobing or not, they must start paying attention to how their eyes/content move in relation to each other.

Rule of thumb is that flickering benefits eye tracking specifically. The more you deviate from perfect eye tracking the less benefit you'll notice. You can have as much motion as you want but if eyes don't track/move strobing will have no beneficial effect. I don't want to name exact gaming scenarios because each most likely includes a little bit of everything (and is why brute sample rate improvements are better). But it is true that some require more eye tracking than others, so logically strobing would be beneficial. To figure out the 1/2/A/B ratios, speeds and directions of a scene one would need to analyse some footage (Tobii Eye Tracker or similar) and spit out the data. Then we'd know what's really going on.

And ofcourse this only regards motion performance, there are other factors that play a role such as latency/reaction times.

Blur Busters have estimated the approximate thresholds for both scenarios. For motion blur (clarity during tracking) it's roughly 1000Hz, while the stroboscopic effect (blurrity during gazing) is ~10x harder to beat at ~10000Hz. It's multiple factor dependent, but motion speed mainly. Both keep improving beyond the thresholds for more extreme scenarios. So 20+kHz sounds about right.

For me, the stroboscopic effect is definitely more annoying than eye tracking motion blur. I use a 240Hz monitor, and when I turn on motion blur in games, it looks so much better, especially in games like doom that let you customize the effect.

I believe it really depends on your playstyle. I play with M&KB, so whenever I want to look at something on my screen, I just do a quick flick toward that object. In that case, in-game motion blur looks so good.

Thats why Im interested in really high refresh rate monitors, even if they are LCD.

[Baron of Sun]

For me, the stroboscopic effect is definitely more annoying than eye tracking motion blur. I use a 240Hz monitor, and when I turn on motion blur in games, it looks so much better, especially in games like doom that let you customize the effect.

I believe it really depends on your playstyle. I play with M&KB, so whenever I want to look at something on my screen, I just do a quick flick toward that object. In that case, in-game motion blur looks so good.

Thats why Im interested in really high refresh rate monitors, even if they are LCD.

Thanks for your thoughts. Now I understand. Never thought others are more bothered by stroboscopic effect than by eye tracking motion blur It makes sense that in this case more fps have a high value for the experience.

[Discorz]

I am surprised more people aren't complaining about stroboscopic effect/phantom arraying. The fact that it takes ~10x more frames to mitigate than eye-tracking motion blur suggests that it should be easier to notice. But again, it depends...

However, I’ve come across many cases where people seek advice on improving motion clarity/reducing motion blur, without realizing that what’s actually bothering them is lack of motion blur/stroboscopic effect. So there is that. Then others suggest solutions like flicker-based blur reduction or upgrading to new monitor with better GtG response times, neither of which addresses the arraying effect. Reddit and YouTube are full of it. All this creates confusion, and sometimes misinformation, which for others can be a waste of time, effort and even money.

More frames is #1 priority in my book as well. Not because of stroboscopic effect specifically, but because it reduces all motion artifacts simultaneously, latency included. It kills multiple birds with one stone. It's the proper way to achieve life-like motion on a display.

[Chief Blur Buster]

Would you like to write a guest article about stroboscopic artifacts?
Contact me or PM me.

[olofsson_tom]

So, for best performance in cs2 (not prettiest experience), you guys think this monitor might be better than the upcoming Asus 1080p 720hz oled simply because of the faster refresh rate even though the refresh rate compliance / response times is far from ideal?
Tftcentral even got 1100 hz vrr to work so it looks very interesting to me to enable vrr and set like a 1080 fps_max gsync+vsync or however low fps needs to go to have insane refresh AND no tearing with no latency penalty since no one realiably goes over that fps in cs2 anyway

Would you like to write a guest article about stroboscopic artifacts?
Contact me or PM me.

I am surprised more people aren't complaining about stroboscopic effect/phantom arraying. The fact that it takes ~10x more frames to mitigate than eye-tracking motion blur suggests that it should be easier to notice. But again, it depends...

However, I’ve come across many cases where people seek advice on improving motion clarity/reducing motion blur, without realizing that what’s actually bothering them is lack of motion blur/stroboscopic effect. So there is that. Then others suggest solutions like flicker-based blur reduction or upgrading to new monitor with better GtG response times, neither of which addresses the arraying effect. Reddit and YouTube are full of it. All this creates confusion, and sometimes misinformation, which for others can be a waste of time, effort and even money.

More frames is #1 priority in my book as well. Not because of stroboscopic effect specifically, but because it reduces all motion artifacts simultaneously, latency included. It kills multiple birds with one stone. It's the proper way to achieve life-like motion on a display.

[gbmaster]

waiting for reviews of the 720hz oled before making my decision on these two