Meadows wrote:mdrejhon wrote:Pursuit cameras tracking objects on ANY display, including LCD's.
Unless they can show that the leading and trailing edges of the displayed movement are of the same delay (I doubt it)
They do. It is scientifically confirmed in papers written in the last ten years, including the "Correlation between perceived motion blur and MPRT measurement" paper and others (Google
Correlation between perceived motion blur and MPRT measurement for many other papers, many peer-reviewed)
Meadows wrote:it remains an artificial approximation of motion blur and thus unworthy of the sacred term.
Okay, "perception of motion blur". Perhaps this term is more acceptable, and that's what many papers use too, because "perception" is key (also covers artificial blur).
Regardless, the scientific equivalence between perceived blur (caused by eye tracking) and measurable blur (caused by camera tracking) is already confirmed in many papers. This is regardless of artificial or natural; all results in motion being less sharp.
There are many causes of human-perceived motion blur (it doesn't matter if it's artificial and natural; it makes motion less sharp looking):
-- Source-based (e.g. videos with slow shutter, GPU motion blur effects, excess overcompression, etc)
-- Pixel-persistence (includes ghosting, coronas, or other 'defective-looking' blurring effects)
-- Eye-tracking-based (sample and hold displays)
These are the major ones of relevance for PC videogamers.
Unfortunately, situations arise that all the above simultaneously act in combination with each other on LCD, making LCD terrible for motion clarity.
For the purposes of making motion motion as sharp as possible (desirable for video gaming), we need to eliminate as much weak links to perceived motion blur (artificial, natural, or whatever).
-- Source-based perceived blurring in video games is non-issue (may need to turning off GPU "motion blur" effects.)
-- Pixel-persistence-related degradation to motion sharpness is solved by impulse-driving (i.e. flicker -- via using a CRT, or via using a LightBoost LCD which turns off backlight while waiting for pixel persistence to finish)
-- Degradation to motion sharpness caused by eye-tracking is solved by using short duration of display frames (shorter samples).
Shorter samples = Either via extra frames, or via black periods between frames. Higher fps=Hz is hard to do without interpolation which adds input lag. Adding more black period between frames which is easier to do but has disadvantage of flicker. Using a higher impulse-driven refresh rate is a balanced compromise (e.g. 120Hz CRT)When all weak links are eliminated, fast motion look very sharp. For example, games 60fps@60Hz on CRT has always looked incredibly sharp during very fast panning motion because it had none of the weak links. This was not possible to reproduce the "CRT-motion" experience on LCD's until recently (e.g. LightBoost strobe backlights). The recent testimonials (in the last few weeks) of competition gamers using LightBoost LCD's speak for themselves (from former CRT users who's been hanging onto CRT's due to hating poor motion quality on LCD).