Blur Busters Forums

Discorz wrote: ↑

14 Aug 2026, 08:18

Baron of Sun wrote: ↑

14 Aug 2026, 00:39

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.

Discorz wrote: ↑

14 Aug 2026, 08:18

Baron of Sun wrote: ↑

14 Aug 2026, 00:39

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:

Discorz wrote: ↑

04 Jun 2025, 01:26

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:

Discorz wrote: ↑

13 Aug 2025, 16:32

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.

lumi2007 wrote: ↑

14 Aug 2026, 16:21

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.

Chief Blur Buster wrote: ↑

21 Aug 2026, 01:25

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

Discorz wrote: ↑

16 Aug 2026, 15:54

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.