Blur Busters Forums

flood wrote:oled gamut isn't wide enough. how bout an array of laser diodes + microlenses for gap filling?

True, that. But OLED gamut is still bigger than IPS LCD, and OLED gamut can exceed CRTs!

Chief Blur Buster wrote: - Higher refresh rate where possible, but would rather have extra resolution while keeping low persistence. 4K 100Hz strobed over 1080p 400Hz strobed (bandwidth-wise), even if persistence was equivalent. The 400Hz monitor would have a few milliseconds less input lag, though!

You forget to mention that the 400Hz would feel a lot smoother and that it would be flicker free (if no PWM dimming)

There is no difference in smoothness of different refresh rates (assuming persistence remains constant) for eye-tracking situations on perfectly-synchronized frame rates.

In eye-tracked situations (when the whole screen is going in one uniform direction, such as a pan, rather than mixed motion)Smoothness of 60fps@60Hz 1ms persistence CRT looks identical to 120fps@120Hz 1ms persistence, when tracking eyes on moving objects like http://www.testufo.com/photo - a good experiment is to run this motion test on a CRT at various refresh rates, at same motion speeds. No difference in smoothness, for perfect VSYNC ON motion.

In fact, 100fps@100Hz LightBoost 'looks' smoother than 144fps@144hz non-strobed in motion tests if the framerate is perfectly synchronized (and perfect game VSYNC ON double buffered motion, such as Source Engine on a powerful GPU). But if there is a single stutter, or even mouse microstutter, then the stutters are much more noticeable at lower refresh rates, especially when strobed (no motion blur to mask stutter).

Smoothness of VSYNC OFF will be much better, however. Less aliasing between framerate vs refreshrate.
And smoothness of non-eye-tracked motion is better too (less stroboscopic / stepping effects).

What I mean by smoothness is the feeling you see a continuous stream of image VS a series of discrete frames.
30fps => slideshow
60fps => smooth
120fps => very smooth

Whats the ideal word to describe it? Should I have said "fluidity"?

well in most cases of eye tracking, there is something that isn't tracked (e.g. the background of the moving object)

Im just pretty sure that a 2:1 aspect ratio would be perfect.

- More immersive in games than 16:9 and not too wide as 21:9.
- Still comfortable for desktop use. Not too wide.
- And for video content, movies will have very small black bars at top and bottom and tv shows will have very small black bars on the sides. As 2:1 is like ... in the middle between 16:9 and 21:9.
- Also if you stretch a planets surface map to fit a flat surface you will get a 2:1 aspect ratio for that picture,
whether its rectangular or oval ^^

actually, the "theoretically best display" would take up the entire wall.

To me, the best display would have a
resolution of 28000 x 14000
framerate of 600 with low persistence
any size larger than 70cm but smaller than 100cm
RGBCYMVOW pixel structure (nine subpixels per pixel)
Quantum dots or UV laser projection onto phosphors/color laser onto diffuser
glossy
under 2cm bezel
ANSI contrast ratio exceeding 750 thousand
over 50Kg (too heavy for theft)
next frame predictor. By calculating pixel color changes, the display can start the next frame before it's rendered. This gives latency below zero.
3D optional.

Eyeblur wrote:glossy

Not sure if trolling...

Fine, then:
Not glossy or matte, but it absorbs all light that falls onto the display. Happy?