AbRASiON wrote:OLED or bust people.
OLED is a great technology.
But it's not done properly for perceived motion blur in all of them.Even an instant 0ms response display can have lots of perceived motion blur -- due to sample-and-hold.
For example, the PS Vita OLED screen has more perceived motion blur than CRT or plasma, because it's sample and hold.
mdrejhon wrote:I have bad news... OLED is no good for motion blur if it's sample-and-hold version (e.g. PS Vita). Notice how [perceived] motion blur PS Vita isn't any better than a good 2ms TN LCD? (The colors ARE much better; but we're strictly talking about [perceived] motion blur here).
The good news is it's possible to impulse-drive (flicker) an OLED or Crystal LED -- which is what good ones do to eliminate [perceived] motion blur.
Sony's expensive "Crystal LED" prototype intentionally flickers, for the purpose of motion-blur elimination.
Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. The only way to eliminate flickers *AND* keep sample lengths short (e.g. 1ms) is to have 1000fps@1000Hz -- something that's not going to happen unless motion interpolation is used (and motion interpolation is not game friendly). This is why people say CRT 60fps@60Hz (1ms samples) has less [perceived] motion blur than LCD 120fps@120Hz (8.33ms samples). Sample lengths dictate [perceived] motion blur. (Note: sample length is not pixel persistence. Sample length is the length of time that a refresh is visible to human eyes for. LCD refreshes are generally static for the whole refresh).
Yes, I prefer OLED over LCD, assuming equal [peceived] motion blur ability (e.g. equal strobe length). The colors on OLED is so much better.
It's a misnomer/myth that pixel persistence is 100% the cause of [perceived] motion blur on LCD.
Pixel response have been becoming shorter and shorter, and on fast gaming TN panels, is an insignificant part of a refresh. Pixel persistence is currently now the minority cause of [perceived] motion blur, and most of [perceived] motion blur you see is eye-tracking-based.Even if pixel response was instant (0ms) on a sample-and-hold display, you still get lots of [perceived] motion blur
due to the sample-and-hold effect (which leads to eye-tracking-based motion blur), because your eyes are continuously moving when tracking moving objects. Your eyes are at a different position at the beginning of the displayed refresh (sample start) and the end of the displayed refresh (sample end). That's retinal blurring -- just like moving a camera while taking a picture without its flash. The camera movement cause blurring in the photograph taken at a slow shutter speed (e.g. 1/60 sec). But if the whole scene flashes instead briefly (Xenon flash) then shaking the camera doesn't blur anymore (e.g. Xenon flash 1/1000sec). Likewise, the strobe driven nature of CRT, plasma, and LightBoost, shortens the visible sample (very quick start-to-end of a displayed refresh -- whether via higher refresh rate, or via large black period between refreshes) that prevents it from being blurred across your human vision.
More reading -- Science & References
(skip first part, scroll halfway down)
OLED's that are sample-and-hold have the same issue. Remember, LCD 120fps@120Hz has more motion blur than CRT 60fps@60Hz -- and that is not because of pixel persistence but the sample-and-hold.
Mark my words, it is going to continue to be a problem with OLED monitors, because various solutions for eliminating motion blur are problematic:
-- Sample and hold means perceived motion blur (many hate LCD for that)
-- Impulse-driving means flicker (many hate CRT for that)
-- Motion interpolation means input lag (Not good for games or computer)
-- Higher native refresh rates (go all the way to the end of point of diminishing returns for 99.9% of population).
The only way to solve all the above simultaneously is insane native refresh rates and framerates. Well above 240fps@240Hz. A 240fps@240Hz sample-and-hold display would use ~4ms samples, which is longer than CRT impulses of 1-2ms (phosphor illuminate-and-decay cycle). So a 240fps@240Hz sample-and-hold display does not have as clear motion as CRT, which is impulse-driven at 1-2ms. To bypass all the way to the end of the diminishing returns WITHOUT flicker and WITHOUT interpolation, you need to equal CRT samples. (1ms samples = 1000fps@1000Hz, and 2ms samples = 500fps@500Hz) This is fully impractical (e.g. 1000Hz displays with GPU's capable of 1000fps won't be happening). So we have to go with compromises like impulse-driving or motion interpolation. We already know motion interpolation is not suitable for games due to lag, so that leaves impulse-driving as method to shorten samples without flicker (the CRT flicker effect).
It is worth saying you need extra (extreme) brightness for impulse-driving. CRT phosphor shine insanely brightly when they're illuminated -- so CRT's don't have a dim image. This complicates impulse-driving, since OLED's have long had brightness problems. Though Sony's expensive "Crystal LED" prototype display (not OLED) solve the problem by using over 6 million discrete LED's instead. That is, however, insanely expensive. Eventually OLED will be bright enough for CRT-quality impulse-driving, but until then, we're stuck with sample-and-hold OLED's as well as OLED's with long strobe lengths, which don't eliminate motion blur as well as CRT yet. Give it another decade, though.The best OLED monitors should have a switch between sample-and-hold mode (solid image) and impulse-drive mode (best game motion). This would be the best of all worlds.