MagicWaist wrote: ↑05 Mar 2023, 01:57
I have a relatively new ips monitor with quick response times. The stutter is pretty bad. How much worse is it on an oled tv in comparison would you say? I have an oled phone, but i assume you don't notice the stutter as much on such a small screen.
I'm curious, because if it's any worse than my monitor, i can't ever imagine getting an oled tv.
Remember LCDs are using a moderate-to-higher level of millisecond blur. While there is GtG transitions as low as 0.5ms or (2000Hz)/(500microseconds) these are mostly marketing in truth. Can LCDs hit that low?, YES; Synthetically, YES; in actual everyday use, NO. You've mostly been seeing through artificial-limited motion blur. Your not seeing the true image like a slideshow of fixed-images. Your seeing images smear and blur across the area. As LCD get faster this phenomena is gonna be more and more apparent.
IF anything MagicWaist you coming to this forum-website. Shows your wanting answers for however long you've used LCDs your now realizing it's technological limitations. Your message is "I'm seeing a technological limitation a negative of the technology I use. And I want answers to my questions."
That is good your on the cutting edge most people don't even do as much research as the people found here in this forum. It's akin to the prior decade during the mechanical keyboard revolution of the early-mid 2010s. Or the gaming and multi-button, technological improvement mouse revolution of the post mid-late 2000s and early-mid 2010s and still currently occurring.
There is and was quite a bit of talk of Blue-Phase LCDs in the prior decade 2010s by 2015 that talk ended as higher end LCDs were coming out. But Blue-Phase are microsecond blurring LCDs, I doubt they stay completely in the microsecond always but do operate an order of magnitude lower more so than standard IPS/TN/VA type crystals.
There IS a difference in LCDs using a lower GtG but in reality most of the time despite High-End TN and High/Ultra-high end IPS panels being exclusively very good especially for some people. And a rarity of VA panels being good which is a harder metric to swallow considering how VA panels are much slower.
Remember in LCDs your metrics are rarely if ever in the microsecond period of time. GtG is more of a marketing measurement rather than an actual use case. Yes lower GtG does mean in many cases the panel is overdriven and or enhanced to be much faster. But in reality we've seen with LCDs even as far back as 10 years ago when the high-refresh rate revolution occurred with Samsung and Viewsonic's first 120Hz monitor.
LCDs are anywhere from some rare synthetic registration of microsecond color shift to mostly millisecond and as high as 30-40millisecond. Even for current extreme speed LCD panels there's colors that often run at those ranges. People are so used to low speeds that they've never seen better. It be akin to a person using a higher end CRT running at a solid 90Hz-200Hz, then complaining LCDs are slideshows because it's blurry and it's refresh rate is too low they see the flicker. The opposite is true perhaps your perception of OLED or MicroLED, when we get to that. Is a bit tainted by being so used to LCDs you didn't give yourself a solid working period with OLED.
In fact I wouldn't be surprised if you use OLED for a solid number of hours/days/period of time. And all of a sudden your bothered by LCDs.
On top of that I should point out that OLED isn't a holy grail as big as it should be. OLED still needs quite a bit of fixing. It's workable but it's like any other technology it can have weaknesses. MicroLED for example I'm more excited despite more and more companies and people mentioning the Plasma situation. Plasma = We can't miniaturize, which isn't a problem for MicroLED in fact MicroLED has the LCD/OLED situation, the smaller you make it the better it is. While making it bigger like a Plasma cranks up the juice and heat.
MicroLEDs biggest weakness in miniaturization is heat and electrical usage. In fact there are some who are going we need large heatsinks or multiple heatsinks at key points to temper the heat.
I wouldn't be surprised how LET and OLET are doing (Light-Emitting Transistors, MicroLED taken to Transistor level) or (Organic Light-Emitting Transistors, OLED-like taken to the transistor level).
Anyways just recently I skimmed over TFTcentral's 27-inch LG OLED review. And it had mostly green transitions low or lower microsecond to millisecond transitions. But in in a few boxes it had orange level of transitions as high as 14 milliseconds.
So OLED at least synthetically can blur like an LCD. This is actually a good thing and not a bad thing. As strange as that sounds. Because Mark Rehjon i.e. Chief Blur Busters i.e. C.B.B. Has pointed out of monitor emulation technology.
We can take OLED and emulate an LCD and give a sorta comparison. If you have a OLED panel that transitions between 200 microseconds and 5-14 milliseconds for a minority of colors. Hey what do you know you can emulate LCD and cross-technologically process the LCD in some way maybe learn from OLED and put things into the LCD or simply use the OLED as a benchmark for LCDs and get tighter response time measurements.
In other words because the OLED for nearly 90% of it's color transitions is an order of magnitude faster i.e. milliseconds to microseconds. Then the obvious factor would be if you connect both monitors and synchronize them such as running a mirror image through both. The OLED is obviously the superior microsecond device but we can improve LCDs by calculating better the LCD transition time.
Maybe in one calculation the metric is 23-milliseconds of color blur. But using the OLED and measuring against the LCD. Maybe the truer measurement is 22.756-millisecond.
Again OLED is better we just need to improve the technologies limitations and negatives. Which there are such as for example touting energy consumption benefits when it became more apparent that as you increase the size of OLED it consumes more energy and even small phone OLED do use a bit more of a charge of the battery for some images and videos and while dropping energy at black is great in fact black-off is excellent there is still the challenge of things like blooms, haloing, and the use of slightly more energy than LCD.
We've so overengineered LCD that it is technically still capable and we can continue to technologically improve it and cross-technologically improve it. For example imagine a crystal made of a quantum-dot derivative or a perskovite material or some new design that lets us extract even more benefits from LCDs. The gap is closing especially with microLED and if history was better with Surface-Emissive Display and Field-Emissive Display i.e. CRTs in thin-format.
But I've iterated this already two and this will be the third time.
As one member of Hard[OCP] Forums stated in 2021: "LCD is the Communism of technology. No matter how much we try and kill it. It comes back and even has improved itself over time."
LCD isn't over it's not gonna DIE or get KILLED quickly, it's gonna go down kicking and screaming. Because that is what we developed for nearly 60 or 70 years now. It be akin to replacing the 9x19mm Parabellum/Luger cartridge with something better. People are still gonna plop down money to plink or practice or defensive carry 9mm because it's what was emplaced as the major killer app technology. It's what we've been manufacturing and developing for over a century now.
