Whoever releases a 16:9 42" 240hz 4k OLED screen first will get my money so fast I might break my arms.

G

Gatecrasher3000

Gawd
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
527
16:9 42" 240hz 4k OLED - this is it, this is what I have been waiting for before building a new PC, waiting for several years, and the kind of screen I would think about the future might have when I was a kid.
Once a 16:9 42" 240hz 4k OLED screen is out then I will build my new PC around getting the most out of that screen.
16:9 42" 240hz 4k is what I feel is the next 24" 1080P screen, the one that we all have and all strive to power, and feel no need to upgrade from for a very long time.
I know there is no announcement of a 16:9 42" 240hz 4k OLED, however we do have 42" OLED screens, and we do have 240hz OLED screens so I feel it is just a short matter of time.
Look at the extra clarity a 240hz OLED would offer on top of OLEDs already great motion clarity.
Anyways, I'm just yelling to all of you about how we are so close to getting (IMO) a dream monitor.
And yes I know, we could have 1000hz OLEDs one day, one step at a time...

Screen Shot 2022-09-13 at 12.12.02 PM.png
 
Good luck running games consistently near 240 Hz though. At least the games I play (mostly single player ones) will not run at those framerates even with a 4090 most likely.

The thing I want to see most is higher resolution. 4K is fine at 27-28" but above that, I want to see Displayport 2.0 bringing us into a new era of above 60 Hz 5-8K screens. Just use lower res integer scaling for gaming, or DLSS.
 
kasakka said:
Good luck running games consistently near 240 Hz though. At least the games I play (mostly single player ones) will not run at those framerates even with a 4090 most likely.

The thing I want to see most is higher resolution. 4K is fine at 27-28" but above that, I want to see Displayport 2.0 bringing us into a new era of above 60 Hz 5-8K screens. Just use lower res integer scaling for gaming, or DLSS.
Click to expand...

Not at a consistent 240fps no, but definitely more than 120fps in many games. And also, 240Hz would at least be future proofed for 2024 GPUs. Can't say that about 120Hz displays.

https://videocardz.com/newz/alleged...-3-0-ghz-scores-20k-points-in-timespy-extreme

I don't actually believe the rumor that the 4090 is going to be twice as fast as a 3090 based on that videocardz article, so let's go with something a little bit more feasible like 70% faster.

1663089591258.png


A 3090 is already good for 93fps at 4K across various titles. Now factor in a 70% performance uplift, combine that with the use of DLSS + Optimized settings and you would easily be past 120fps in a lot of games. So while 240Hz might not get fully utilized by a 4090 in every game, it's bound to blow past the 120Hz barrier we have right now, and you would at least be future proofed for the 2024 RTX 5000 series with a 4K 240Hz monitor. That is of course unless you love to max out the ray tracing and cut your fps in half.
 
Last edited:
I'm trying to move back to triples for the first time in years. I can almost guarantee you that as soon as I find 3 PG42UQs, someone will announce a 240Hz version. :D :D :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: p3sty
like this
Eh there's always something to look forward to on the horizon. I say enjoy the tech that's available now. When 240hz 4K OLED is out, then you'll want to wait for 5xxx series to run it, then something else will be out, and it goes on and on.
 
cvinh said:
Eh there's always something to look forward to on the horizon. I say enjoy the tech that's available now. When 240hz 4K OLED is out, then you'll want to wait for 5xxx series to run it, then something else will be out, and it goes on and on.
Click to expand...
true, but I feel this tech is "it", this is what I feel would be the next level, a level that I would be happy at for a long time.
OLED = a great picture quality, beautiful contrast and colors.
4K = perfect res for anything smaller than a 75" screen
240hz = so fluid, maybe 1000hz screens will make 240hz look like crap, but that is a longggg time from now, if ever
42" 16:9 = perfect size for desks IMO.

Is just needs to all come together in one package...
 
kasakka said:
Good luck running games consistently near 240 Hz though. At least the games I play (mostly single player ones) will not run at those framerates even with a 4090 most likely.

The thing I want to see most is higher resolution. 4K is fine at 27-28" but above that, I want to see Displayport 2.0 bringing us into a new era of above 60 Hz 5-8K screens. Just use lower res integer scaling for gaming, or DLSS.
Click to expand...
Same, I've also been on 4k since 2014. It's time for higher refresh higher resolution panels. I'd be ecstatic with a 32" 8k120, but happy with an 8k60 panel for now.

EDIT: What I'd really love would be 6k120 oled, or as high as it can go.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: noko
like this
Love my LG CX. 4K120 is a joy, especially on OLED.

HOWEVER...

I agree. I want a smaller 4K OLED display with 240hz, HDR, and 1000 nits brightness. I will easily pay $1500 for it. Your move LG, Samsung, and any other company who is competent enough to make a good OLED display. This is your notice. I have the money in savings right now and I will gladly drop some good money for a good display.
 
It won't be the next 24" 1080p. Even if someone makes a perfect 42" OLED like you suggest, you'll be buying a new one every 3 to 5 years because of burn in.
 
OLED needs to be more popular, and OLED factories to ramp up quickly at the highest possible refresh rates.

They follow Blur Busters Law more closely than LCDs do at 240Hz+ (1ms of frametime translates to 1 pixel of motion blur per 1000 pixels/sec, but that is exact only at GtG=0).

My eyes sees that 240Hz OLEDs are about ~1.5x clearer motion than 240Hz LCDs. Basically the blur trail in TestUFO is shorter in sample-and-hold operation.

I can fully confirm that's a major part of why TFTCentral LG C2 120Hz OLED is fairly close to 240Hz LCD in sample-and-hold operations -- there should be a blur difference of 2x (but that only occurs at GtG=0ms)

Unstrobed framerate=Hz 240Hz-vs-360Hz is only a 1.1x motion blur difference on LCD mainly because of LCD GtG issue.

Strobed LCD still beats 240Hz unstrobed OLED if the motion clarity line item is a bigger priority than OLED color. But 240Hz unstrobed OLED is roughly 1.5x clearer than 240Hz unstrobed LCD thanks to the lack of human-visible GtG (pixel response).

Long term, blurless sample and hold is the Holy Grail (future 1000fps+ 1000Hz+ OLEDs and MicroLEDs) -- no need to modulate/flicker light in order to reduce display motion blur for ultra high frame rate gaming/content.

Various strobing modes can be added later for retro frame rates and retro use cases (as a software-based rolling scan. Like CRT electron beam simulator algorithms. Doing 16 digital OLED refresh cycles at 960fps 960Hz to generate a single CRT-like 60Hz sweep, including phosphor decay emulation, as a superior more eye-friendly rolling-scan BFI algorithm).

kasakka said:
Good luck running games consistently near 240 Hz though. At least the games I play (mostly single player ones) will not run at those framerates even with a 4090 most likely.
The thing I want to see most is higher resolution. 4K is fine at 27-28" but above that, I want to see Displayport 2.0 bringing us into a new era of above 60 Hz 5-8K screens. Just use lower res integer scaling for gaming, or DLSS.
Click to expand...
There are benefits to low frame rates at 240Hz+

1. Reduced latency due to faster panel refreshing. A "120fps" frame will refresh in 1/240sec on a 240Hz panel.

2. Better strobing (for LCDs) with less double image crosstalk 120Hz strobing on 240Hz-capable LCDs (run at 120Hz QFT) have fewer double-images than 120Hz strobing on a 144Hz-capable panel.

3. Fewer problems from VRR LFC LCD-decay flicker or OLED VRR gamma flicker. The rapid enabling/disabling of LFC will also happen less frequently, since you can have a wider LFC enter/exit stiction range (e.g. enable LFC when dip below 50fps, disable LFC when framerates recover above 75fps), since the rapid cycling across LFC fine-line thresholds is a major cause of flicker problems. NVIDIA drivers seemed to have had done a workaround for this (ignore EDID FreeSync range, choose more conservative LFC thresholds for G-SYNC Compatible)

4. Less stutter from LFC during VRR (FreeSync/GSYNC). Say your game falls to 35fps and LFC is triggered. LFC is more invisible when VRR max Hz is 240Hz, because of a LFC stutter penalty of maximum 1/240sec than maximum 1/144sec (for 144Hz)

5. Less motion blur during browser smooth scrolling (e.g. ordinary web browser scrolling already go 500fps on 500Hz displays), since you don't have to keep up in all apps to benefit from the extra Hz.

6. More flexibility in Hz granularity control for superior OLED BFI algorithms. 240Hz OLEDs will be able to do 120Hz BFI at lower persistence than 120Hz OLEDs, since you can adjust BFI cadence (ala TestUFO Variable Persistence BFI Demo For 240Hz Monitors -- works on existing 240Hz LCDs so should work on 240Hz OLEDs).

Since some OLED HDR processing is very laggy, extra Hz also reduces HDR processing latency dramatically, since some HDR implementations has to prebuffer frames to find max-brightness pixels for automated average-picture-level algorithms. If you can transmit frames into the OLED in 1/240sec instead of 1/120sec, HDR processing can begin sooner.

More Hz the merrier (if same cost & same quality) even if you can do only 50 frames per second.
 
Last edited:
Chief Blur Buster said:
OLED needs to be more popular, and OLED factories to ramp up quickly at the highest possible refresh rates.

They follow Blur Busters Law more closely than LCDs do at 240Hz+ (1ms of frametime translates to 1 pixel of motion blur per 1000 pixels/sec, but that is exact only at GtG=0).

My eyes sees that 240Hz OLEDs are about ~1.5x clearer motion than 240Hz LCDs. Basically the blur trail in TestUFO is shorter in sample-and-hold operation.

I can fully confirm that's a major part of why TFTCentral LG C2 120Hz OLED is fairly close to 240Hz LCD in sample-and-hold operations -- there should be a blur difference of 2x (but that only occurs at GtG=0ms)

Unstrobed framerate=Hz 240Hz-vs-360Hz is only a 1.1x motion blur difference on LCD mainly because of LCD GtG issue.

Strobed LCD still beats 240Hz unstrobed OLED if the motion clarity line item is a bigger priority than OLED color. But 240Hz unstrobed OLED is roughly 1.5x clearer than 240Hz unstrobed LCD thanks to the lack of human-visible GtG (pixel response).

Long term, blurless sample and hold is the Holy Grail (future 1000fps+ 1000Hz+ OLEDs and MicroLEDs) -- no need to modulate/flicker light in order to reduce display motion blur for ultra high frame rate gaming/content.

Various strobing modes can be added later for retro frame rates and retro use cases (as a software-based rolling scan. Like CRT electron beam simulator algorithms. Doing 16 digital OLED refresh cycles at 960fps 960Hz to generate a single CRT-like 60Hz sweep, including phosphor decay emulation, as a superior more eye-friendly rolling-scan BFI algorithm).


There are benefits to low frame rates at 240Hz+

1. Reduced latency due to faster panel refreshing. A "120fps" frame will refresh in 1/240sec on a 240Hz panel.

2. Better strobing (for LCDs) with less double image crosstalk 120Hz strobing on 240Hz-capable LCDs (run at 120Hz QFT) have fewer double-images than 120Hz strobing on a 144Hz-capable panel.

3. Fewer problems from VRR LFC LCD-decay flicker or OLED VRR gamma flicker. The rapid enabling/disabling of LFC will also happen less frequently, since you can have a wider LFC enter/exit stiction range (e.g. enable LFC when dip below 50fps, disable LFC when framerates recover above 75fps), since the rapid cycling across LFC fine-line thresholds is a major cause of flicker problems. NVIDIA drivers seemed to have had done a workaround for this (ignore EDID FreeSync range, choose more conservative LFC thresholds for G-SYNC Compatible)

4. Less stutter from LFC during VRR (FreeSync/GSYNC). Say your game falls to 35fps and LFC is triggered. LFC is more invisible when VRR max Hz is 240Hz, because of a LFC stutter penalty of maximum 1/240sec than maximum 1/144sec (for 144Hz)

5. Less motion blur during browser smooth scrolling (e.g. ordinary web browser scrolling already go 500fps on 500Hz displays), since you don't have to keep up in all apps to benefit from the extra Hz.

6. More flexibility in Hz granularity control for superior OLED BFI algorithms. 240Hz OLEDs will be able to do 120Hz BFI at lower persistence than 120Hz OLEDs, since you can adjust BFI cadence (ala TestUFO Variable Persistence BFI Demo For 240Hz Monitors -- works on existing 240Hz LCDs so should work on 240Hz OLEDs).

Since some OLED HDR processing is very laggy, extra Hz also reduces HDR processing latency dramatically, since some HDR implementations has to prebuffer frames to find max-brightness pixels for automated average-picture-level algorithms. If you can transmit frames into the OLED in 1/240sec instead of 1/120sec, HDR processing can begin sooner.

More Hz the merrier (if same cost & same quality) even if you can do only 50 frames per second.
Click to expand...
Soooooo, you're telling me I'm right.
Thank you Chief.
 
Gatecrasher3000 said:
Soooooo, you're telling me I'm right.
Thank you Chief.
Click to expand...
Ha, yea. That being said, don't get too cocky -- some future facts may be correct, others accidentaly wrong until new research is revealed -- and as Hz increases, some new surprises sometimes reveals themselves. Back in the 60Hz days, we didn't know the science of >240Hz yet, after all... And all of us just assumed...

"Retina" refresh rate for sample and hold, unfortunately, is not until quintuple digit refresh rates. So we've got a long technological journey to the vanishing point of visible humankind benefit.

The important thing for the refresh rate race to retina refresh rates.
1. Keep upgrading Hz and framerate geometrically (e.g. 2x-4x refresh rate upgrades).
2. Keep GtG a tiny fraction of a single refresh cycle for all colors of pixel transition combinations.

For some people in esports, they benefit from Hz incrementalism (e.g. 144 -> 165 > 240 -> 280 -> 360 -> 480)

For the average users like Grandma, most need 2x-4x upgrades (e.g. 60 -> 240 -> 1000). Commonly, witness previous generation people not telling much difference between VHS-vs-DVD and DVD-vs-HD and HD-vs-4K but most of those "couldn't tell apart" people can tell apart VHS-vs-4K given sufficient vision acuity (or if fixable by eyeglasses prescription, etc).

Likewise, internally it was discovered more than 90% can tell apart 240Hz vs 1000Hz sample-and-hold in certain internal-laboratory TestUFO tests on prototypes -- e.g. forced text-follow tests like www.testufo.com/map ("Try to read the street name labels!") has 4x motion blur differences at 4x Hz differences (At GtG=0 or darn near, like ultrahigh Hz experimental DLP projectors used for testing vision limits). That test is a blurry mess to read at 60Hz sample-and-hold, and you need a good strobed display to read it easily. But now, with sample and hold getting to 500 Hz on the consumer market -- I'm now just about barely able to read it on a 500Hz display at 960pps (almost...). But now, try to double motion speed to 1920pps or triple it to 3000pps, and we're now super blurry again even at 500fps 500Hz! Ouch. Needs 0.5ms MPRT just to be even readable -- requires good strobing or 2000fps+ 2000Hz+.

Now try to increase resolution to 8K and increase motion speed to 8000 pixels/sec. Ouch, 2000fps 2000Hz not enough to fully fix sample-and-hold motion blur since 8000 pixels/sec is 4 pixels of motion blur at 2000fps 2000Hz sample and hold. (Great demo of human visible 0.5ms vs 1.0ms MPRT because it's a 1.5 pixel blur versus 3.0 pixel blur). And yet again, 1000Hz vs 4000Hz is STILL human visible, though less dramatic than 240-vs-1000 fps=Hz. So geometric upgrades like 60 -> 240 -> 1000 -> 4000 -> whatever Hz is the vanishing point of diminishing curve of returns for the most extreme 16K 180-degree Holodeck-quality VR headset, since resolution increases amplify Hz-limitation human visibility...

But what about other weak links? There's many, other than just Hz.

Now, we got lots of weak links like the stutter-to-blur continuum (where even 1000Hz mouse microjitter, where 70 microjitters per second at 500Hz just blends into an extra pixel of motion blur), and the stutter-to-blur continuum is easily demonstratable at www.testufo.com/eyetracking#speed=-1 (look at bottom UFO for at least 1 minute to watch how stutter blends to blur and how blur blends back to stutter). This applies to all stutter/jitter harmonics embedded in ultrahigh frequency elements (frame rates, software game time clocks, mouse poll rates, refresh rates, etc, all jittering against each other to create additional persistence-derived display motion blur).

Same effect on framerate-ramping animations on VRR, like www.testufo.com/vrr as framerates increase/decrease, low-frame-rate stutter blends to high-framerate persistence blur and blur back to stutter. Low frequency stutter/judder/jitter are like a slowly vibrating music string (guitar, harp, piano) while high frequency stutter/judder/jitter adds extra motion blur like a fast vibrating music string (guitar, harp, piano) -- remember the blurry string? Same thing. It's just the flicker fusion science applied to the flicker/shake of stutter/judder/jitter.

Lots of weak links slow down the refresh rate race to retina refresh rates, for those people very concerned about display motion blur. Sometimes motion blur is lovely when we want it (e.g. atmosphere, artistic) and other times motion blur above-and-beyond normal human brain/vision generates headaches (e.g. virtual reality).

So we have to keep whack-a-mole in this refresh rate race to retina refresh rates.

Now... Yet more weak links preventing high Hz benfit? GPU.

The GPU technology is going to be tough to keep up. Frame rate amplification technologies, helped by high-frequency controller input and AI-based infilling. Did you know DLSS and AI art "enhance" style engines like DALL-E actually has overlap -- they are based on neural networks that add detail where they didn't exist before. They'll converge a bit more, with real-time infill artisting of perfect intermediate frames faster than redrawing all those triangles). By the 2030s, I would hope midrange GPUs can generate 1000fps+ UE5 necessary -- with advanced DLSS-style + ASW-style + AI-art-style + Tempoally-dense raytracing algorithms + AI-based noise reduction + etc algorithms converged together simultaneously to infill intermediate frames (in all 3 dimensions) as perfectly as the I-Frames of a high-bitrate MPEG4 streams (we can't tell that Netflix is only 1 non-interpolated frame per second, they pulled off those intermediate frames almost perfectly with their lastest compression engines). The full-render-per-frame workflow will eventually be obsolete over the longer term, given the need.

You got it right that we need to go well into the quadruple digit refresh rates. Or even quintuple digits. Discovering sample and hold need to go to quadruple digit Hz to go fully blurless when variables are configured extreme (180-degree FOV + packing the whole FOV with retina resolution)). In the interim, shortcuts such as eye-tracking-compensated variable GPU motion blur combined with strobing, will likely be used to try to equalize stationary-gaze with real life, and moving-eyes with real life (zero blur differential to real life is the goal for future Holodeck-quality VR).

Y'all see end users merrily keep arguing over Hz/temporals not too different from old debates over "Humans Can't Tell 30fps vs 60fps"
...I micdropped this over 30 years ago with MS-DOS MOTION.EXE I created in 1993...

Y'all see reviewers say "240Hz vs 360Hz has no difference"
...They forget certain variables like GtG and microjitter (from GPU limitations, from engine, from mouse, etc) adding blur that almost eliminates the difference, and the blur difference between stationary gaze (eyetracking) versus moving eyes (watching objects move inside a scroll/pan/turn)...

Y'all see researchers merrily research on.
...I or Blur Busters is already cited in over 25 peer reviewed papers too, having invariably shown that I'm often right years in advance....

At the end of the day, people will argue over Hz and its various items (e.g. OLED-vs-LCD motion blur, both strobed and unstrobed) till the End of the Days.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if we'll see an LG Displays OLED panel at 4K 240 Hz anytime soon. It requires a 240 Hz back-plane which costs more money.. for a very small audience of ultra-high end PC users. TV users don't care about that, console players don't care about that since they max at 4K/120 Hz. And they'd have to find a way (T-Con) to push 4K 240Hz via DSC over HDMI 2.1 or DP 1.4, which can be done (see G8), but isn't common at all.

The same panels that go into monitors for PC use are the same panels that LG uses for their TV's, so to put a higher end back-plane on their panels isn't cost feasible at the time. One reason why they got rid of 120 Hz BFI on the C2 series... that requires 240 Hz back-plane. So we've actually gone backwards.

The only exception it appears so far that we know about is them using extra space on the multi-modual on glass to cut 3440x1440, 45" panels for strictly monitor use. That's likely going to be the only 240 Hz OLED we'll see for a while until the new 30" OLED panels come off its 8.5-Gen lines, hopefully 4K and at high refresh.
 
Vega said:
I'm not sure if we'll see an LG Displays OLED panel at 4K 240 Hz anytime soon. It requires a 240 Hz back-plane which costs more money.. for a very small audience of ultra-high end PC users. TV users don't care about that, console players don't care about that since they max at 4K/120 Hz. And they'd have to find a way (T-Con) to push 4K 240Hz via DSC over HDMI 2.1 or DP 1.4, which can be done (see G8), but isn't common at all.

The same panels that go into monitors for PC use are the same panels that LG uses for their TV's, so to put a higher end back-plane on their panels isn't cost feasible at the time. One reason why they got rid of 120 Hz BFI on the C2 series... that requires 240 Hz back-plane. So we've actually gone backwards.

The only exception it appears so far that we know about is them using extra space on the multi-modual on glass to cut 3440x1440, 45" panels for strictly monitor use. That's likely going to be the only 240 Hz OLED we'll see for a while until the new 30" OLED panels come off its 8.5-Gen lines, hopefully 4K and at high refresh.
Click to expand...

It's probably going to first be a 27" 1440p 240Hz like what TFTCentral reported on.
 
If they released it as 1600p or higher, tho.....I'd find that interesting for sure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top