Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Skakruk:You're still spewing that BS I see. It's is not that noticeable in-game unless you're one those people who are more interested in image artifacts than the game.
Pixels per second vs Blur width
500 / 1 ~ 1.5 dots
600 / 1.5 ~ 2 dots
700 / 2.5 dots
800 / 2.5 ~ 3 dots
900 / 3 dots
1000 / 3.5 dots
*Swapping to a black line halves the blur width
*At around 800 pps the rear dot turns a pale yellow
If your eye isn't moving there is ZERO motion blur, the blurtrail, UFOs and every other graphic remains as sharp and clear as any static image at any speed including 6400pps!
I can reproduce this even at 60hz, the only purpose higher refresh rates serve is reducing eye-tracking based blur
The answer lies in sample-and-hold. OLED is great in many ways, but some of them are hampered by the sample-and-hold effect. Even instant pixel response (0 ms) can have lots of motion blur due to the sample-and-hold problem. Some newer OLED’s use impulse-driving in order to eliminate motion blur, but not all of them do.
Your eyes are always moving when you track moving objects on a screen. Sample-and-hold means frames are statically displayed until the next refresh. Your eyes are in a different position at the beginning of a refresh than at the end of a refresh; this causes the frame to be blurred across your retinas:
sampleandhold1
(Source: Microsoft Research)
Vertical axis represents position of motion. Horizontal axis represent time.
Middle image represents flicker displays, including CRT and LightBoost.
Right image represents sample-and-hold displays, including most LCD and OLED.
The flicker of impulse-driven displays (CRT) shortens the frame samples, and eliminates eye-tracking based motion blur. This is why CRT displays have less motion blur than LCD’s, even though LCD pixel response times (1ms-2ms) are recently finally matching phosphor decay times of a CRT (with medium-persistence phosphor). Sample-and-hold displays continuously display frames for the whole refresh. As a result, a 60Hz refresh is displayed for a whole 1/60th of a second (16.7 milliseconds).
sampleandhold2
(Source: Microsoft Research)
Motion blur occurs on the Playstation Vita OLED even though it has virtually instantaneous pixel response time. This is because it does not shorten the amount of time a frame is actually visible for, a frame is continuously displayed until the next frame. The sample-and-hold nature of the display enforces eye-tracking-based motion blur that is above-and-beyond natural human limitations.
An excellent web-based animation of sample-and-hold motion blur can be found via the Blur Busters UFO Motion Tests: Eye-Tracking Motion Blur Animation (View this link via a supported web browser on your LCD computer monitor or laptop LCD screen).
Solution to Motion Blur
The only way to reduce motion blur caused by sample-and-hold, is to shorten the amount of time a frame is displayed for. This is accomplished by using extra refreshes (higher Hz) or via black periods between refreshes (flicker).
.
While I am very interested in blur reduction and optimally blur elimination, there are additional benefits to running high fps and high hz.
.
When I say "smoothness" I mean something separate from blur reduction. If I were using a general term for blur reduction I would use something like "clarity" or "clearness".
.
Smoothness to me means more unique action slices, more recent action going on in the game world shown - more dotted lines per dotted line length, more slices between two points of travel per se, more unique and newer pages flipping in an animation booklet, pick your analogy. It means less "stops" in the action per second and more defined ("higher definition") animation/action flow, which provides greater aesthetic motion and can increase accuracy, timing, and reaction time.
.
Disregarding backlight strobing for a moment.. As I understand it - where a strobe light in a room someone runs across would show blackouts, a typical lcd rather than blacking out just continues displaying the last "frozen" frame of action until it is updated. At 60hz that is every 16.6ms of course, and at 120hz and high fps it would have shown a new state of/peek into the room and run cycle 8.3ms sooner instead of freeze-frame skipping (over what would have been a new state at +8.3ms) to the next later state of the room and run cycle a full 16.6ms later. What is displayed of the entire animated world action in games is updated twice as often(and twice as soon) which can increase accuracy, and in providing more "dots per dotted line" per se, makes movement transitions "cleaner"/aesthetically smoother, providing higher definition movement and animation divided into 8.3ms updates. This goes hand in hand with blur reduction/elimination to make the entire experience a drastic improvement over 60hz/60fps.
..
Plasma TVs like the Panasonic VT50 are not fit to display even 60 FPS of fast motion, let alone higher. You get all sorts of weird stuff, like warping effects due to the way the subfields work. They're designed and optimized for 25-30fps Television/Cinema where panning speeds are strictly controlled. Even consoles are generally running at lower framerates and there's no rapid (twitch) panning thanks to the controller handicap. You feed these TVs 60fps of ultra smooth mouse-driven PC motion, and they're well out of their depth.
Add to that the retention, dithering, etc. etc. - I tried really hard to make Plasmas work as PC gaming monitors, but it didn't take me long to realise I was pissing in the wind. Increasing the refresh rate wouldn't have made it any more viable.
oops I meant it's the only solution not purposeI completely disagree that the only purpose of high hz (input+output) combined with high fps is reducing eye tracking based blur.
How did you go with gaming so far? fyi there should be no dithering on Cinema/True Cinema/Pro1/Pro2 picture modessnip
How did you go with gaming so far? fyi there should be no dithering on Cinema/True Cinema/Pro1/Pro2 picture modes
That's television view distance. Not suitable for some of us.Seeing dithering simply means you are sitting too close. Minimum distance is ~2m for a 50".
That's television view distance. Not suitable for some of us.
Common proportional view distance is approximately 1:1 for a primary computer monitor.
24" monitor = common desktop view distance of ~24" (e.g. 24" monitors)
50" monitor = common desktop view distance of ~50" (e.g. HDTV mounted on wall at back of deep desk)
etc.
In fact, many people sit closer to the SEIKI 50" (wall mounted at the back of their desk, 3 feet away from their head), because of the pixel density of the SEIKI. From a computer monitor usage perspective where you want to use it as a primary monitor for everything, I don't necessarily buy the "too close" stuff on every use case; this is why plasma becomes flawed as a computer monitor. You're forced to sit further back just to gain the full plasma benefits, which is unacceptable for many if they like to use Visual Studio, PhotoShop, and videogames, on the same TV panel as a computer monitor. As a result, people who are sensitive to plasma artifacts, means plasma won't let you sit close enough comfortably without seeing plasma artifacts. It automatically disqualifies plasma for many people who want to scale the angular coverage proportionally to a computer monitor. Plasma is great when it fits your use case. For desktop usage, I find close viewing of LCD motion blur (of non-LightBoost) is more comfortable than close viewing of plasma artifacts. Your mileage will vary based on your use case.
Not necessarily
1. Viewing distance. Sitting computer-monitor-proportional distances (3 feet from 42" plasma) can cause artifacts to be easier to see.
2. Plus (see below), sensitivity to the specific types of artifacts that plasma has, versus sensitivity to the specific types of artifacts that LCD has.
Some people are color blind. (reportedly ~8% of population!). Some people are not.
Some people have better hearing. Some people have poorer hearing.
Some people are more sensitive to motion blur. Some people are not.
Some people get headaches by looking at a display. Some do not.
Some people are sensitive to intra-frame temporal effects (rainbow artifacts on DLP, subfields artifacts on plasma). Some are not.
Some people are more uncontrollably distracted by certain display artifats. Some people are not.
So, if you're all for equality in diversity of humanity, and your sentence is clearly an assumption someone is "interested" in artifacts; some people uncontrollably see them as a distraction (not too unlike a high-pitched noise screaming annoyingly into your ears, while others can't hear the noise at all). It's THAT annoying to a small proportion of people. Some artifacts are THAT uncontrollably annoying to some human eyes, just like a high-pitched coliwhine. Or a symptom such as a PWM-dimming headache you get that others cannot get, etc. Vision is NOT THE SAME among all humans.
For my eyes (when excluding colors), the LCD look is much, much more pure/natural than plasmas. I am sensitive to high-frequency elements of a DLP and plasma (I can see DLP rainbow artifacts easily & I can see plasma subfield artifacts easily). However, accounting for colors, plasmas are certainly better. This is not a lie for my own specific set of human eyes (and many others), even if not your set if eyes. This is a lot of human eye's preference.
I don't quite remember, but I think this was the muppet who claims to be a reviewer, yet has all the discernment of my grandmother when it comes to identifying flaws in the displays allegedly being reviewed. What next, shall we have the hearing impaired reviewing Hi-Fi gear?
Newsflash: This is Hardforum, an enthusiast website. Generally, you can expect the people who post here have a keen interest in things like image artefacts.
Actually I'm already familiar with itWell I have testufo working on the latest Opera and I have some crazy discovery to share
Correct.If your eye isn't moving there is ZERO motion blur, the blurtrail, UFOs and every other graphic remains as sharp and clear as any static image at any speed including 6400pps!
Correct.I can reproduce this even at 60hz, the only purpose higher refresh rates serve is reducing eye-tracking based blur
Cool, I didn't realize that.I never claimed to be a reviewer. I do actually review for HDTVtest. Here's a little teaser:
Sony Motionflow Impulse does not use MCFI.Without MCFI, LCDs are only capable of 300 lines of motion.
One simpler method to interpret MPRT ("Moving Picture Response Time") is that it is just simply a reinterpretation of "lines of motion resolution".spacediver said:I was thinking more along the lines of devising a test where, instead of deriving the MPRT/MER (which I still don't have a fluent grasp of!), you just find the threshold of that particular test.
But in a way that can be measured more accurately, and can be recorded in a number that is test-pattern independent.
Firstly, you can even begin by just using today's "lines of motion reslution" test pattern for now.
-- If a display's known MPRT is 16.7ms, and that display known "lines of motion resolution" (for one specific Blu-Ray test pattern at one specific motion speed) is "300 lines of motion resolution", then it's easy to approximately translate between MPRT and "lines of motion resolution" that specific test pattern:
MPRT 16.67ms = 300 lines of motion resolution
MPRT 8.33ms = 600 lines of motion resolution
MPRT 4.16ms = 1200 lines of motion resolution
(If the test pattern caps out at 1200 lines of motion resolution, its ability is limited. Thus, for that specific pattern, you can't measure MPRT better than about 4ms, which happens to be conveniently near time of plasma phosphor decay of a very fast plasma phosphor.)
-- Now, if you had a different Blu-Ray pattern where it measures 200 on a fast 60Hz LCD in Game Mode (16.7ms MPRT), with different resolutions, caps out at 1080 lines, and runs at a different motion speed, you might have conversion numbers:
MPRT 16.67ms = 200 lines of motion resolution
MPRT 8.33ms = 400 lines of motion resolution
MPRT 4.16ms = 800 lines of motion resolution
MPRT ~3ms = 1080 lines of motion resolution
(caps out here)
Then you've got a 4K video file, with lines of motion resolution that goes all the way to 2000 (more dense lines), which creates this example:
MPRT 16.67ms = 500 lines of motion resolution
MPRT 8.33ms = 1000 lines of motion resolution
MPRT 4.16ms = 2000 lines of motion resolution
(cass out here)
Now, you begin to realize the problem; comparing different benchmarks of "lines of motion resolution" becomes problematic!
-- MPRT is test-pattern independent
-- MPRT is resolution independent
-- MPRT doesn't cap out. There's no upper or lower bound.
You can see then, here.
-- MPRT is more apples-to-apples comparision.
-- MPRT is future proof.
-- MPRT is more standardizable.
Also, we already scientifically know for MPRT:
-- 1ms of motion blur equals 1 pixel of motion blur for every 1000 pixels/second of motion
-- Example: That means 6ms of MPRT at 500 pixels/sec creates 3 pixels of motion blur
-- Example: That means 9ms of MPRT at 2000 pixels/sec creates 18 pixels of motion blur
Subjective versus Objective
-- MPRT can optionally be used with a pursuit camera.
-- Obviously, various inefficiencies such as temporal dithering/ghosting/rise/fall times, will come into play, but displays are getting better and better and getting so good that the motion blur measurements very accurately matches MPRT, especially on several display technologies.
-- LCD, OLED, DLP works great with the human-eye-based MPRT test, for example and the subjectively-observed numbers closely agree with objectively-measured numbers in these situations!
-- The situation of CRT and plasma becomes slightly complicated but apparently, when I run the numbers at "50% rise-fall" cutoff points, the numbers between objective-vs-subjective apparently come into closer harmony! The question is whether this is appropriate/good enough (aka non-controversial)
MPRT (full name "Moving Picture Response Time" (Google Search)) was originally invented for LCD's, but is not properly being used by monitor manufacturers because MPRT's actually give terrible numbers to LCD's once LCD's became far faster than 16ms. MPRT is *not* GtG transition measurement. Instead, monitor manufacturers are instead measuring the time it takes for a pixel to transition (GtG), rather than measuring the time of the sample-and-hold effect. Completely ignoring MPRT. However, it's apparently a good standard (The MPRT standard was mentioned to me -- by no less than an email from Raymond Soneira from DisplayMate) -- I was trying to find a standard way of measuring motion blur and that was one of them. I have grown to like the standard very much, and I have learned quite a lot in the last few months, with a more intimate understanding of motion blur. Although Raymond and I may have different approaches to motion testing, MPRT is quite a great standard that deserves a closer look. The MPRT standard is quite applicable to all displays, not just LCD's, and even retroactively applicable to CRT's. Yes, it's problematic, but no less problematic than the concept of "contrast ratios" (given our human visions' limited dynamic range and all, to things like ambient light interfering with contrast ratio, to display non-uniformity). I argue, that this decade is a good time for the industry to begin considering going to MPRT standard (even if old test patterns have to be recycled for now).
To keep things simple, makers of blue-ray test patterns can also list MPRT numbers alongside the "lines density" numbers. That's the simple way without needing to invent new patterns (we still have the capping-out disadvantage, but at least we're now not locked to a specific test pattern)
Okay, makes better sense? Now, moving on:
MPRT is measurable both electronically and by human vision. That's what makes it so promising, like a standardized way -- a universal motion blur number measurement like a contrast ratio measurement (as subjective as contrast ratio measurements can be, with all its complications I've already explained) There are superior ways to measure MPRT than using a "lines of motion resolution" test pattern. That's what some of my discussions in this thread, has been about.
Hopefully this de-mystifies MPRT a little bit.
Basically this thread is simply talking about standardizing motion blur measurement.
To the point where it's far easier to get subjective measurements more closely agreeing with objective measurements.
With no bias to a specific display technology.
Ok, I thought you knew before you read this thread.spacediver said:Can you explain what "lines of motion resolution" is? Before this thread, I'd never heard of it, and I can't seem to find an answer on google. I imagine it's something about how many moving lines you have have before they blend into each other?
Let Me Google That For You.
Search: "1080 lines of motion resolution" -avsforum (excludes AVSFORUM posts)
Search: "1200 lines of motion resolution" -avsforum (excludes AVSFORUM posts)
Examples:
- C|Net Review of HDTV measuring motion blur by "lines of motion resolution"
- HDGuru talks about motion blur by "lines of motion resolution"
- HDTV Magazine: Panasonic Viera touting "lines of motion resolution"
Hundreds of home theater magazines sitting here, blabbing about "lines of motion resolution" in their HDTV reviews. Ugh.
Mainstream reviewers are still using "lines of motion resolution" which is not future-proof [you can't easily compare 1080p blur vs 4K blur], is arbitrary, and is not apples-vs-apples [it's very test pattern specific].
Bollocks. How do you think I discovered the bloody issue in the first place? Did I go scanning the set for a phenomenon I didn't even know existed? No. I was playing a game and noticed the vertical boards on a picket fence were curved during pans. Later, I saw straight pillars warping in the same way in another game. Then l noticed that a bright slab of rock on a dark background appeared to be floating when the scene was in motion. Then in F.E.A.R, a game full of sharp contrasts and rich shadows, I saw whole scenes appearing warped/disjointed. THEN, and only then, did I decide to try and figure out the cause. At this point I was ignorant to the mechanism of subfields.
Cool, I didn't realize that.
I've talked to David Mackenzie, Vincent Teoh and and Moderator FoxHounder., who are all fans of Blur Busters now (sent a few PM's), plus a few posts. Here's one of my articles that I posted about my tests of Sony Motionflow Impulse on HDTV Test Forums
http://forums.hdtvtest.co.uk/index.php?topic=7938.0
BTW, they've (HDTVTest) asked for a unit of my upcoming Blur Busters Input Lag Tester (three-flashing-square method, supports all resolutions and refresh rates; 4K and 120Hz compatible), expected during Winter 2014.
I haven't tested nor seen it, so can't really comment. My biggest issue with any kind of pulsing is maintaining sync, which can lead to multiple ghost images (frame doubling/tripling/quadrupling). I can see it working with TN since TN can respond within 8ms, but not sure about VA and IPS (especially VA since most VAs still struggle to respond within 16ms). Not to mention ambient temperature directly affect pixel response. FoxHounder did point out some downside so I'm guessing Pulse-based Motion-Flow it's still isn't good as Samsung and Panasonic plasmas. At least for now. The other issue is black level. ATM, Plasmas are 6-7 times better than leading LCD. That needs to be addressed as well, but I don't see it happening.Sony Motionflow Impulse does not use MCFI.
It's 100% pure strobe based on the KDL55W905A, adds less than one additional frame of input lag, and is available in Game Mode!
It returns over 1000 lines of motion resolution on the motion tests pattern on the KDL55W905A.
Pure strobe backlights allow breaking the "300 lines of motion resolution" barrier on LCD, without using MCFI!
You may want to be aware that "lines of motion resolution" isn't future-proof.
Standardizing Motion Resolution: "Milliseconds of motion resolution" (MPRT) better than "Lines of motion resolution"
Yeah -- the faint crosstalk ghost effect that also happens on several LightBoost displays. Basically, a trailing ghost sharp image (non-blurred) roughly similiar to intensity of 3D crosstalk. I already explain this in the HDTVTest posting about Sony's Motionflow Impulse, and explain exactly why it's a non-issue for gaming. An easy way to test strobe crosstalk (faint sharp trailing ghost double-image) similiar in faintness to 3D crosstalk, is the TestUFO Eiffel Tower Test.I haven't tested nor seen it, so can't really comment. My biggest issue with any kind of pulsing is maintaining sync, which can lead to multiple ghost images (frame doubling/tripling/quadrupling). I can see it working with TN since TN can respond within 8ms, but not sure about VA and IPS (especially VA).
Yep, he didn't test 60fps videogames, which is where Impulse shines massively (IMHO -- it benefits 60fps games massively more than video -- I'd even argue a 10x bigger benefit to games than to video). FoxHounder agreed with me about Motionflow Impulse could be potentially good for videogames, as he hadn't closely considered that use case during his tests. (videogames use sharper graphics, closer view distances, and faster motion, all of which makes motion blur easier to see than with video)FoxHounder did point out some downside so I'm guessing it's still not good as Samsung and Panasonic plasmas.
Agreed, it's probably okay for the average home theater audience. That said, I'm trying to contact several test pattern manufacturers to try and consider MPRT as a unified motion blur measurement standard. But I'm just a small drop in a big ocean. That said, if a test pattern disc maker gives you a free sample, please tell them about a future-proof motion blur measurement such as MPRT by providing a link to my articles and the MPRT scientific papers. ThanksLines of motion isn't future-proof, but I don't think Vincent will change that any time soon. It still gives pretty good indication tho.
Yes, and maybe you're less sensitive to subfield rendering, but that doesn't mean that no one else will see it or that it's "BS". Better to overstate potential issues than understate them, and I expect supposed 'reviewers' to approach this sort of thing with a more critical eye. This is why I'd take any review from the likes of you with a grain of salt.
Agreed - especially in space movies.As things stand, plasma has a major upper hand. It's blacks are 6-24 times better than LCDs (no, that's not a typo)
Agreed -- except for Game Mode motion uniformity.has better uniformity and winder viewing angle.
Agreed.But in the end, it all depends on which can you tolerate better. Personally, I can tolerate plasma more than LCD.
Not for computer use at 1:1 viewing distances.It has cleaner and better motion than LCD (for now)
This is video processing which can be turned offNo. I was playing a game and noticed the vertical boards on a picket fence were curved during pans. Later, I saw straight pillars warping in the same way in another game. Then l noticed that a bright slab of rock on a dark background appeared to be floating when the scene was in motion. Then in F.E.A.R, a game full of sharp contrasts and rich shadows, I saw whole scenes appearing warped/disjointed. THEN, and only then, did I decide to try and figure out the cause. At this point I was ignorant to the mechanism of subfields.
The VT60 can not do that perfectly at 1920 pixels @60hz, simply too blurry, but in 2D-3D conversion (120hz refresh, 60hz per eye + brain-postprocessing to meld the images), some of the text is easily readable, some is hard to read but doable, and some is not readable at all.No plasma displays can successfully pass the TestUFO Panning Map Test at 1920 pixels/second
www.testufo.com/photo#photo=toronto-map.png&pps=1920
When you are talking about 2D-3D conversion does that mean are using 3D goggles?
If you are able to read 1440pps with 60 unique frames and chroma softening (VT60 uses the 4:2:2 color space) image what is technically possible with 125fps+ 4:4:4 2D with full gradations (no noise), makes me sad thinking about what is being thrown away (I probably need another hobbies)
Well thanks to the Custom Resolution Utility I have successfully plugged in a greater range of resolutions at 120hz and the performance is just phenomenal, input lag has been cut down to virtually nil and there is absolutely zero perceptible flicker or motion artifacts in games
I do not remember CRT being this good
According to some graphic I found earlier the sub-field order are reversed in 3D mode so you get the brightest pulses first instead of last like at 60hz, it was not made clear whether hold time was shortened though I don't see why it would need to beYes, 2D->3D using the 3D-goggles (this is the only way i can get it to run 120hz, 60fps per eye, half the frames being faked for 3D effect).
I think there is probably some mild chroma softening for the RGB colorspace but nothing to worry about if it does not bother you.So, afaik, it supports 4:4:4. I have also set hdmi range full both in nvidia panel and in the monitor's settings, 1080p Pure Direct on. I could definitely be wrong though, i searched for some tests, and the best thing i found was to create a colored background in paint, and draw single pixel wide lines/scribble on it. Blue on red looked normal, red on blue looked a touch odd, like vertical lines were a touch brighter red than horizontal lines, but every pixel was certainly displayed as red. Black on white/white on black looks normal. I don't know much about chroma subsampling, and am not very picky with colors unless its quite far off.. such as IPS/TN being completely unable to display black.. (I see color errors briefly, after a minute or so it fades away due to adjusting to it, i guess).
Yeah sure, they are just auto calculated from CRU I didn't tweak themCould you pm me some of those timings, just in case any would work on mine?
According to some graphic I found earlier the sub-field order are reversed in 3D mode so you get the brightest pulses first instead of last like at 60hz, it was not made clear whether hold time was shortened though I don't see why it would need to be