The future of strobing display tech

[Edmond]

I still don't see how OLED would lower motion blur without strobing.

How about the fact that motion in general looks better on OLED than on LCD, if both are 60hz even. OLED has no ghsoting, no trailing, no overdrive artifacts... the point was that due to OLED motion looking pretty good, the masses (the people who actually pay for these new monitors) might not ask for more. And strobing will remain something for hobbyists only.

Luckily 120hz isnt going away ever, thats gotten way to popular and even the nubs know its better than 60hz.

[sIZ#t3XCX$t3*%b1^M0B]

Yeah, that's exactly my point. I mean, that's why there's this post about OLED and motion blur. As RealNC points out, and as Tom Peterson mentions, it is certainly not a simple problem to combine the two technologies but I'd hope that people are trying. But I guess that about wraps up my question. All we have is the knowledge that it's a tricky problem.

I didn't notice you're last post, Edmond, so the response up there was to RealNC.

Like I said in one of my previous posts, I notice persistence based motion blur a lot. Even without ghosting or it's other counterparts, I would be very aware of the blurring. Even if it's pie in the sky sort of stuff, I'm looking to have as close to parity with reality as possible. That's the display tech I want. Unless VRR monitors get super cheap, I probably won't be buying a new display until I have to.

[RealNC]

How about the fact that motion in general looks better on OLED than on LCD, if both are 60hz even. OLED has no ghsoting, no trailing, no overdrive artifacts... the point was that due to OLED motion looking pretty good, the masses (the people who actually pay for these new monitors) might not ask for more.

The masses are happy with 60Hz LCDs too.

I can't see OLED motion blur at 60Hz being much better than LCD though. Somewhat better, but not much. In the end, it's still gonna be a blur-fest.

[blargg]

I can't see OLED motion blur at 60Hz being much better than LCD though. Somewhat better, but not much. In the end, it's still gonna be a blur-fest.

Yep, quibbling over 1-2ms difference in response time when there's 16.7ms of persistence that swamps everything else.

[Edmond]

I can't see OLED motion blur at 60Hz being much better than LCD though. Somewhat better, but not much. In the end, it's still gonna be a blur-fest.

Yep, quibbling over 1-2ms difference in response time when there's 16.7ms of persistence that swamps everything else.

Your GAMER LCD has about 10ms response time. That g2g advertising is just a pure lie.

OLED has a response time of 0.02ms. For ALL color shifts equally. Basically, for all practical uses, you can say it has CRT response time.
Because of that all artifacts related to motion (ghosting, trailing, overdrive artifacts) are just non existent. The only thing remaining is the natural pixel persistence. The only way to reduce this is to have high refresh rates, or to have low refresh rates and an astonishing amount of flicker between them, called strobing.

So OLED is a very big deal. It can go as high as 2000hz without caring, has actual infinite static contrast. Blacks, colors and viewing angles aint getting any better than OLED also. Its such a powerful tech that one could try to combine variable refresh with strobing on it.

Its the return of CRT, yo... except better and without the flicker and possible on huge and thin screens.

You need to see this to believe - but motion on 60hz oled looks WAY different than on 60hz lcd.

[Black Octagon]

All we need is for OLED to actually hit the consumer PC monitor market.

With the specs that the technology can (on paper) deliver

At an affordable price point.

Too bad there is no evidence that this is happening soon. All obvious OLED development seems to be in the HDTV, handhelds and professional space

[RealNC]

Your GAMER LCD has about 10ms response time. That g2g advertising is just a pure lie

That lag is caused by much more than just the pixels though. The total response time of the monitor doesn't only depend on the pixel response time. OLED isn't gonna get rid of signal processing that causes lag.

So OLED is a very big deal. It can go as high as 2000hz without caring, has actual infinite static contrast.

Running your 60FPS game on 2000Hz isn't gonna make it much better though.

You need to see this to believe - but motion on 60hz oled looks WAY different than on 60hz lcd.

Image quality affect this, I'm sure. But there's no way you can convince me that motion blur is gonna be reduced by a meaningful margin.

[pinobot]

A lot of work clearly still needs to be done.
Even though i'm happy with the blur reduction of my XL2430T, if my CRT 15 years ago would have displayed such an image i would have asked for a refund.
Just sayin'.

[Edmond]

That lag is caused by much more than just the pixels though. The total response time of the monitor doesn't only depend on the pixel response time. OLED isn't gonna get rid of signal processing that causes lag.

Yes, i know, i was talking about pixel response time, not input lag.
You can cut away all of the input lag by having a dumb display with just one display connector at the back. This is why the korean overclockable IPSs have less input lag than some gaming TNs.

Running your 60FPS game on 2000Hz isn't gonna make it much better though.

Not what i was suggesting, either way thats the job of the video card to push as much fps as it can. And if the panel has VRR, then 1343fps, 1343hz will look pretty amazing for... half life 1 or something, lol.

And this isnt sci-fi either. If you make an OLED of 2000x1000 resolution, DP1.3 can do 500hz on it (with full 4/4/4 and even real 10bit color).
And 500fps/hz would give you 2ms pixel persistance @ 1000 pixel motion per sec. Which, im sure will be indistinguishable from lightboost`s 1-1.5ms.
I mean, really... during gameplay, unless you go looking for specific test environments, that should be a perfect flicker free VRR display for even the most critical, i believe.

And considering people today buy heavy overkill systems for 120hz lightboost to get min 120fps... achieving an average of 400fps shouldnt be a problem @ 2 megapixels in the 4k resolution videocard era.

Image quality affect this, I'm sure. But there's no way you can convince me that motion blur is gonna be reduced by a meaningful margin.

Well, ye motion blur is the same. 60hz for pixel persistence is what it is for 60hz. BUT oled cuts away all the stuff that normally shouldnt be there but is due to LCD being a shit technology. That alone increases motion clarity a lot. But yes, as i said, you have to see an oled in person to believe it.

[RealNC]

Yes, when it comes to artifacts (ghosting and overdrive) and image quality (colors, contrast, etc,) OLED is going to be a godsent. Whether strobing is your thing or not, is preference of course. My preference would be 85Hz strobed. This seems to be my personal "I can't see flicker" threshold, and it makes it possible to run games at that framerate. 120Hz/144Hz (or higher with OLED) is way too much for the majority of modern games for me (I'm not the person who wants to run triple-SLI 980s...) No matter how much more powerful PCs will get, you will NOT get more FPS in future games. This was never the case. Games target their current hardware, with 30FPS viewed as the minimum acceptable frame rate. This isn't gonna change, imo.