Blur Busters Forums

I think the brightness is just a preference thing. For gaming I always had BFI on high on my LG C1, for SDR as well as for HDR, and I never had complaints about a dim picture. Probably if motion clarity is important enough for you, the brightness becomes less important.

Supermodel_Evelynn wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2024, 11:41

Abandoning CRT has been the biggest crime against humanity since WW2

CRTs were way dimmer than OLEDs OLEDs are "dim" simply because we compare them with LCD backlights. Compared to CRTs, OLEDs are super bright.

RealNC wrote: ↑

24 Aug 2024, 17:12

Supermodel_Evelynn wrote: ↑

23 Aug 2024, 11:41

Abandoning CRT has been the biggest crime against humanity since WW2

CRTs were way dimmer than OLEDs OLEDs are "dim" simply because we compare them with LCD backlights. Compared to CRTs, OLEDs are super bright.

Yup, typically under 120 nits, at least for your average consumer CRT.

Mix that with the ultra-reflective glass front that became a washed out gray mirror in even moderately lit rooms, and perceptive CRT brightness was very low in all but a blacked-out environment.

The thing is tho CRT didn't have to worry about things like strobing or BFI where it had a narrow range or could only operate at a certain refresh rate etc and cross talk etc

IF they were still making it we would be at 240HZ or more at this point the brightness would be a lot brighter it wouldn't be washed out grey it would have had VRR support by now and it would be able to run VRR and have perfect MPRT at any HZ since it doesn't require strobing

Imagine the possibilities and it would have been as thin as an LCD screen by now.

We are currently banking on 1000 HZ OLED to solve our issue except the problem with that is it needs 1000 FPS so that means only a handful of E-Sport titles are going to benefit from this.

And don't forget about the many many millions of games locked to 60 FPS even to this day. Adding frame gen to 60 FPS to get it to 1000 FPS is gonna be a ton of input delay and artifacts especially if it's a driver based version without access to vectors.

Supermodel_Evelynn wrote: ↑

26 Aug 2024, 08:32

And don't forget about the many many millions of games locked to 60 FPS even to this day. Adding frame gen to 60 FPS to get it to 1000 FPS is gonna be a ton of input delay and artifacts especially if it's a driver based version without access to vectors.

Actually the higher the frame rate amplification factor is, the lower the input lag gets. Lossless Scaling FG x4 has less input lag than x2. If you think about it, it makes sense. The more frames you generate, the sooner the first of those frames needs to be shown.

LSFG always buffers one frame, regardless of amplification factor. At x2, added input lag is one and a half a frame. For a 60FPS base, that's 25ms of lag increase. At x3, input lag is one plus one third of a frame and at x4 it's one plus one quarter of a frame. If there was something like x16 to convert 60FPS to 960FPS, added input lag would be one plus 1/16 of a frame (which is just 17.7ms.)

So it's not that bad

Supermodel_Evelynn wrote: ↑

26 Aug 2024, 08:32

IF they were still making it we would be at 240HZ or more at this point the brightness would be a lot brighter it wouldn't be washed out grey it would have had VRR support by now and it would be able to run VRR and have perfect MPRT at any HZ since it doesn't require strobing

Imagine the possibilities and it would have been as thin as an LCD screen by now.

A hypothetical 240Hz modern CRT with VRR support and better anti-reflective coating is possible, yes, but significantly higher brightness with an LCD form factor? Highly doubtful.

Flicker based motion blur reduction is just a temporary solution until we standardize super ultra high sample rate (refresh rate & frame rate). Real life is not flickering! Impulsed displays have to go sooner or later so it's not necessarily a curse that CRTs are gone.

I'd also like to mention that flicker based blur reduction is temporary solution only for eye-tracking case (moving eyes on moving images) and that is only 1 out of 3 eye-movement vs content-movement cases. If your eyes are not tracking (stationary eyes on moving images) u're pretty much immune to strobing/bfi. There is also a third case (moving eyes on stationary images) where flickering introduces stroboscopic effect. Now if u think about it, u're most definitely not eye-tracking 100% of the time in 100% of use cases, which is the reason why even the fastest MPRT (impulsed) can still feel wrong/insufficient. Raw, brute sample rate (e.i. 10kHz) in the other hand helps in all 3 cases, 100% of the time for 100% of the use cases. Not to mention the latency reduction and thing that can be simulated at such high rates.

That's true. Right now flicker based motion blur reduction is the only solution in most cases though. There is very few content with more than 60 Hz (except PC gaming) and lots of console games even run with 30-40 fps. So content and bandwidth wise we are still far away from a good motion blur solution imo. Unless my prediction is too pessimistic. What are your thoughts about that?

Well locking any type of content to such low frame rate is obviously a big flaw. But I guess limitations were there and decisions had to be made. If creators want their content' motion clarity/blurrity feel right, low frame rate is a no-go. Developers repeating the same mistake today proves we are still not living the future, yet.

But yeah, low fps feels very wrong. One day people' reaction to low frame rate will be "Ew, brother ew! What's that?".

Baron of Sun wrote: ↑

26 Aug 2024, 16:09

There is very few content with more than 60 Hz (except PC gaming) and lots of console games even run with 30-40 fps.

MBR isn't gonna help with that. 30-40FPS on a CRT doesn't look good either. Double-image effect, which can be a bit more annoying than blur. With 60FPS content for example, using 120Hz BFI here is just not looking good. ULMB on my old monitor was also not looking good. Blur is preferable IMO.