Which type of scenario benefit from high refresh rate but not from strobing?

[Kaled]

I remember reading something about how strobing techniques like DyAc can help in reducing motion blur but that the benefit is limited to some type of games or scenario, something about fixed gaze and whether you are looking at your crosshair or not.

I would like to learn more about when strobing is beneficial and when it's limit compared to brute force high refresh rate found in OLED monitors so I can explain it to others in simple terms.

This post was prompted when I saw a video of someone just like me trying to convey that strobing wasn't beneficial in all scenarios but they couldn't really explain why, so I thought maybe I should ask here since I remember reading something about the limitation of strobing in some scenarios around here.

This is the part of the video I am talking about for those interested.

[kyube]

I remember reading something about how strobing techniques like DyAc can help in reducing motion blur but that the benefit is limited to some type of games or scenario, something about fixed gaze and whether you are looking at your crosshair or not.

I would like to learn more about when strobing is beneficial and when it's limit compared to brute force high refresh rate found in OLED monitors so I can explain it to others in simple terms.

This post was prompted when I saw a video of someone just like me trying to convey that strobing wasn't beneficial in all scenarios but they couldn't really explain why, so I thought maybe I should ask here since I remember reading something about the limitation of strobing in some scenarios around here.

This is the part of the video I am talking about for those interested.

Our eyes were not made to experience light flicker as a positive
The end goal of computer displays is to emulate analog reality, which requires +10k FPS @ +10kHz

Reading these articles might clear up the misconceptions that (meme) video has given you:
https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-la ... -and-hold/
https://blurbusters.com/the-stroboscopi ... -displays/
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=13650

[petight]

Strobing makes motion clearer to the eye. Therefore it is going to be most helpful in situations with lots of movement. Moving targets, moving environment, moving player. Titles exemplifying this in my opinion would be quake, unreal tournament, apex, hl deathmatch, tf2. These are titles where the aim style is not a crosshair-focused (gaze at crosshair) aimstyle, but instead there is lots of action on the screen, part of the mechanics also involves the player using their aim to assist their movement (eg air strafing, bhopping), and instead of the eye being fixed on the crosshair the eye will instead tend to track opponents on screen.
Now compare that to a title such as CS. In CS there is a lot of angle holding, crosshair positioning is a key part of aim, angle peeking and anticipating opponent positioning is much more important than tracking a moving target with a high ttk across the screen. One could say in this situation that motion clarity offers less utility.
A higher refresh rate reduces input latency, increases smoothness of motion, and also via brute force reduces motion blur. It is advantageous for all situations.
I hope that answers your question on why strobing may be less useful in some situations. Now for me I love strobing and I hate using non-strobing displays. I believe it nearly always has a benefit, maybe in some situations not even a competitive advantage but at least a gaming enjoyment benefit.

[Discorz]

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.

The way motion appears in real life or on screens heavily depends on whether our eyes are still or moving and whether the scenery is static or in motion. There can be: 1. Stationary Eyes or 2. Moving Eyes viewing A. Stationary Images and B. Moving Images. We encounter various combinations of these.

When doing 2B in real life (perfectly tracking a moving object), we see perfect motion clarity (2B = 1A). Similarly, when doing 1B and 2A, we see perfect motion blurrity (2A = 1B). In some of these scenarios flicker-based blur reduction help a lot (2B), while in others not as much or at all (1B). In some it fails to replicate real-life motion accurately (2A). Brute sample rate on the other hand improves motion resolution across all scenarios. This is why impulse-based MPRT is not always 100% comparable to sample-and-hold MPRT.

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 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.

[Kaled]

Thank you all for all the info.

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.

The way motion appears in real life or on screens heavily depends on whether our eyes are still or moving and whether the scenery is static or in motion. There can be: 1. Stationary Eyes or 2. Moving Eyes viewing A. Stationary Images and B. Moving Images. We encounter various combinations of these.

When doing 2B in real life (perfectly tracking a moving object), we see perfect motion clarity (2B = 1A). Similarly, when doing 1B and 2A, we see perfect motion blurrity (2A = 1B). In some of these scenarios flicker-based blur reduction help a lot (2B), while in others not as much or at all (1B). In some it fails to replicate real-life motion accurately (2A). Brute sample rate on the other hand improves motion resolution across all scenarios. This is why impulse-based MPRT is not always 100% comparable to sample-and-hold MPRT.

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 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.

Could you please give the link of the page you got that quote from? I would like to read more to better my understanding if possible

[Discorz]

Could you please give the link of the page you got that quote from? I would like to read more to better my understanding if possible

The quote is from upcoming XG2431 article on Blur Busters site. It should be out soon. Idk a good source to read about this stuff. Perhaps start with the provided infographic and analyze things by your self. Recommendation: start with retinal persistence, observe when things blur/do not blur in motion, then it's easier to move onto display persistence.