Jump to content

mdrejhon

Member
  • Posts

    62
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    mdrejhon got a reaction from Origami Cactus in Does 240Hz Matter for Gaming ft. Gav from The Slow Mo Guys   
    Fantastic stuff.  
    Founder of Blur Busters here.
     
    All 240 Hz mythbusting is super welcome in the refresh rate race to future retina refresh rates!
     
    The Slo Mo Guys should do some high speed video of refresh cycles in real time.  There's the TestUFO test, as well as the article with IPS + TN + OLED High Speed Video Comparision
     
    High Speed Video of IPS LCD
     
     
    High Speed Video of TN LCD
     
     
    High Speed Video of OLED
     
    More high speed videos can be found at www.blurbusters.com/scanout
  2. Like
    mdrejhon reacted to nicklmg in Does 240Hz Matter for Gaming ft. Gav from The Slow Mo Guys   
    Buy 240Hz gaming monitors
    On Amazon: https://lmg.gg/8KV5r
  3. Like
    mdrejhon got a reaction from Turkatron in 3D 120Hz 1440p & 4K monitors - WHEN??? Any news?   
    It makes strobe-free CRT motion clarity possible.   e.g. CRT clarity without the CRT flicker.
    1ms persistence translates to 1ms of motion blur during 1000 pixels/second (e.g. panning/strafing/turning).
    Frames are static, while eyes are continuously moving. As you track moving objects on a screen, your eyes are in a different position at the beginning of a visible refresh, than at the end of a visible refresh.  That creates motion blur as the static frame gets smeared across your retinas.  The shorter the persistence, the less motion blur, as persistence-based motion blur is like a camera shutter (60Hz sample-and-hold = 1/60sec of motion blurring = like panning a camera at 1/60sec shutter speed).  Sports photographs at 1/250sec, 1/500sec, and 1/1000sec camera shutter speeds are noticeable apart if the motionspeed is fast enough, and likewise, the same also applies to displays as well -- 120Hz is not the final frontier and not even 500Hz is, either.   Good educational animations include www.testufo.com/eyetracking and www.testufo.com/blackframes for those who want to understand persistence better.
     
    You can either flash for 1ms (120Hz flashed 1ms each, with black gaps in between).  CRT phosphor, strobe backlight, light modulation.
    Or you can have 1ms frames with no gaps between frames.  Completely strobe free, flicker free.  That automatically requires 1000fps (either real or via interpolation)
    Both methods would have the same amount of motion blur.
     
    It makes it easier to pass a theoretical holodeck turing test, "Wow I didn't know I was standing in Holodeck", because finite frame rates have side effects (stroboscopic effect, mousedropping effect, wagonwheel effect, motion blur, flicker versus motionblur tradeoff, etc) and going to true 1000fps@1000Hz would pretty much make low persistence possible without needing strobing.
     
    Currently, all low-persistence displays all require light modulation (phosphor, light modulation, strobe backlight, etc), because there's no way to get 1ms persistence without light modulation at the time (unless you fill all 1ms timeslots -- aka 1000fps@1000Hz).
     
    Some useful reading:
    - Michael Abrash of Valve Software: Down the VR Rabbit Hole (he comments on 1000fps)
    - Why We Need 1000fps @ 1000Hz This Century
    - Understanding Persistence: Strobed & non-strobed, CRT vs LCD
    - Educational Animations: www.testufo.com/eyetracking and www.testufo.com/blackframes
     
    For example, popular strobe backlights (e.g. LightBoost, ULMB, BENQ Blur Reduction, Turbo240 etc) flash the backlight for as little as 1-2ms, once per refresh cycle.  The only way to match that low amount of motion blur is to fill all timeslots (2ms persistence would require 500fps@500Hz to be completely flickerfree/strobefree, and 1ms persistence would require 1000fps@1000Hz to be completely flickerfree/strobefree).
     
    Conclusion: Stop spreading the myth that there is no benefit beyond 120Hz.
    People like Oculus, John Carmack, Michael Abrash, Valve Softare, and myself of Blur Busters, all unamiously agree persistence is important, and we all recognize that the engineering challenge of 100% strobe-free low-persistence unavoidably requires ultrahigh frame rates.   So that's why all current low-persistence displays are light-modulated in some way (e.g. phosphor, flicker, black frames, strobing, etc).
     
    NOTE: GtG (transition/movement state) is different from persistence (static/visible state)
  4. Like
    mdrejhon got a reaction from Dmon in 3D 120Hz 1440p & 4K monitors - WHEN??? Any news?   
    It makes strobe-free CRT motion clarity possible.   e.g. CRT clarity without the CRT flicker.
    1ms persistence translates to 1ms of motion blur during 1000 pixels/second (e.g. panning/strafing/turning).
    Frames are static, while eyes are continuously moving. As you track moving objects on a screen, your eyes are in a different position at the beginning of a visible refresh, than at the end of a visible refresh.  That creates motion blur as the static frame gets smeared across your retinas.  The shorter the persistence, the less motion blur, as persistence-based motion blur is like a camera shutter (60Hz sample-and-hold = 1/60sec of motion blurring = like panning a camera at 1/60sec shutter speed).  Sports photographs at 1/250sec, 1/500sec, and 1/1000sec camera shutter speeds are noticeable apart if the motionspeed is fast enough, and likewise, the same also applies to displays as well -- 120Hz is not the final frontier and not even 500Hz is, either.   Good educational animations include www.testufo.com/eyetracking and www.testufo.com/blackframes for those who want to understand persistence better.
     
    You can either flash for 1ms (120Hz flashed 1ms each, with black gaps in between).  CRT phosphor, strobe backlight, light modulation.
    Or you can have 1ms frames with no gaps between frames.  Completely strobe free, flicker free.  That automatically requires 1000fps (either real or via interpolation)
    Both methods would have the same amount of motion blur.
     
    It makes it easier to pass a theoretical holodeck turing test, "Wow I didn't know I was standing in Holodeck", because finite frame rates have side effects (stroboscopic effect, mousedropping effect, wagonwheel effect, motion blur, flicker versus motionblur tradeoff, etc) and going to true 1000fps@1000Hz would pretty much make low persistence possible without needing strobing.
     
    Currently, all low-persistence displays all require light modulation (phosphor, light modulation, strobe backlight, etc), because there's no way to get 1ms persistence without light modulation at the time (unless you fill all 1ms timeslots -- aka 1000fps@1000Hz).
     
    Some useful reading:
    - Michael Abrash of Valve Software: Down the VR Rabbit Hole (he comments on 1000fps)
    - Why We Need 1000fps @ 1000Hz This Century
    - Understanding Persistence: Strobed & non-strobed, CRT vs LCD
    - Educational Animations: www.testufo.com/eyetracking and www.testufo.com/blackframes
     
    For example, popular strobe backlights (e.g. LightBoost, ULMB, BENQ Blur Reduction, Turbo240 etc) flash the backlight for as little as 1-2ms, once per refresh cycle.  The only way to match that low amount of motion blur is to fill all timeslots (2ms persistence would require 500fps@500Hz to be completely flickerfree/strobefree, and 1ms persistence would require 1000fps@1000Hz to be completely flickerfree/strobefree).
     
    Conclusion: Stop spreading the myth that there is no benefit beyond 120Hz.
    People like Oculus, John Carmack, Michael Abrash, Valve Softare, and myself of Blur Busters, all unamiously agree persistence is important, and we all recognize that the engineering challenge of 100% strobe-free low-persistence unavoidably requires ultrahigh frame rates.   So that's why all current low-persistence displays are light-modulated in some way (e.g. phosphor, flicker, black frames, strobing, etc).
     
    NOTE: GtG (transition/movement state) is different from persistence (static/visible state)
  5. Like
    mdrejhon got a reaction from ZmanFTW in Which type of display would you choose?   
    Don't forget motion clarity.  If you want CRT motion clarity on an LCD panel, you want one of the strobed backlights (e.g. LightBoost, EIZO Turbo240, BENQ XL2420Z Blur Reduction, and upcoming G-SYNC's optional strobe mode).
     
    Generally:
    60Hz -- baseline
    120Hz -- 50% less motion blur than 60Hz (QNIX, etc)
    strobed -- ~80-95% less motion blur than 60Hz (Turbo240, LightBoost, XL2420Z, etc).
     
    If motion clarity is more important than pixels, and being able to see perfectly sharp fast panning, with zero motion blur, then strobed is the only way to go, currently (without putting a plasma/CRT on your desk).
  6. Like
    mdrejhon got a reaction from Kuzma in My friend bet me his computer that his TV can display 600 fps.   
    600 Hz does NOT mean 600 fps.
  7. Like
    mdrejhon got a reaction from flibberdipper in My friend bet me his computer that his TV can display 600 fps.   
    600 Hz does NOT mean 600 fps.
  8. Like
    mdrejhon got a reaction from flibberdipper in My friend bet me his computer that his TV can display 600 fps.   
    Not with older games.  Some people can play 300fps in Half Life 2 on a single Titan.  Double that up, and it should easily be able to do 600fps. 
     
    The problem is a display that can display 600fps natively, in full, with no interpolation and with no frame dropping.  Almost no displays can natively do that yet, only a few vendors such as vpixx.com has a 500fps @ 500Hz capable projector for vision science researchers, but it's monochrome.
  9. Like
    mdrejhon got a reaction from bradscoolio in Is this 144hz monitor worth it?   
    The ASUS VG248QE is a great choice for purchasing today, for two huge reasons:
     
    1. It has LightBoost.
    2. It is upgradeable to G-SYNC.
  10. Like
    mdrejhon got a reaction from Kuzma in CONFIRMED: G-SYNC includes LightBoost sequel. (nVidia sanctioned, no hack)   
    For those living under a rock, LightBoost (for 2D) is a strobe backlight that eliminates motion blur in a CRT-style fashion.  It eliminates crosstalk for 3D, but also eliminates motion blur (For 2D too).  LightBoost is now more popular for 2D.  Just google "lightboost".   See the "It's like a CRT" testimonials, the LightBoost media coverage (AnandTech, ArsTechnica, TFTCentral, etc), the improved Battlefield 3 scores from LightBoost, the photos of 60Hz vs 120Hz vs LightBoost, the science behind strobe backlights, and the LightBoost instructions for existing LightBoost-compatible 120Hz monitors.   It is truly an amazing technology that allows LCD to have less motion blur than plasma/CRT.  John Carmack uses a LightBoost monitor since December 2012 (Blur Busters broke the news before John did, though!), and Valve Software talked about strobing solutions too.  Now you're no longer living under a rock!
  11. Like
    mdrejhon got a reaction from felixbearpig in CONFIRMED: G-SYNC includes LightBoost sequel. (nVidia sanctioned, no hack)   
    For those living under a rock, LightBoost (for 2D) is a strobe backlight that eliminates motion blur in a CRT-style fashion.  It eliminates crosstalk for 3D, but also eliminates motion blur (For 2D too).  LightBoost is now more popular for 2D.  Just google "lightboost".   See the "It's like a CRT" testimonials, the LightBoost media coverage (AnandTech, ArsTechnica, TFTCentral, etc), the improved Battlefield 3 scores from LightBoost, the photos of 60Hz vs 120Hz vs LightBoost, the science behind strobe backlights, and the LightBoost instructions for existing LightBoost-compatible 120Hz monitors.   It is truly an amazing technology that allows LCD to have less motion blur than plasma/CRT.  John Carmack uses a LightBoost monitor since December 2012 (Blur Busters broke the news before John did, though!), and Valve Software talked about strobing solutions too.  Now you're no longer living under a rock!
  12. Like
    mdrejhon got a reaction from Kuzma in CONFIRMED: G-SYNC includes LightBoost sequel. (nVidia sanctioned, no hack)   
    When Andy of nVidia was asked whether LightBoost could be combined with G-GSYNC, AndyBNV of nVidia confirmed on NeoGaf:
     


    “We have a superior, low-persistence mode that should outperform that unofficial [LightBoost] implementation, and importantly, it will be available on every  G-SYNC  monitor. Details will be available at a later date.”.
     
    This scientifically confirms strobing is used, because of the law of vision physics — there is no other way to do LightBoost-matching low-persistence modes without ultrahigh refresh rates (e.g. 1000fps@1000Hz) or frame interpolation (e.g. 200fps->1000fps). Since both are unlikely with nVidia G-SYNC, this officially confirms backlight strobing. In addition, John Carmack confirmed on twitter that a better backlight strobe driver is included:
     


    John Carmack (@ID_AA_Carmack) tweeted:
    “@GuerillaDawg the didn’t talk about it, but this includes an improved lightboost driver, but it is currently a choice — gsync or flashed.”

    Both statements by Andy and John, are confirmations that official backlight strobing (LightBoost) is part of G-SYNC, a 2D motion blur elimination, finally officially sanctioned by nVidia.  The question becomes: Can both be combined into adaptive-rate backlight strobing?
     
    UPDATE: Your existing ASUS VG248QE monitor is already upgradeable to G-SYNC!
     
    ______________
     
    For those not aware: Strobe backlights eliminate motion blur on LCD's The backlight is turned off while waiting for pixel transitions (unseen by human eyes), and the backlight is strobed only on fully-refreshed LCD frames (seen by human eyes). The strobes can be shorter than pixel transitions, breaking the pixel transition speed barrier! This allows LCD to have motion as clear as a CRT.
    Since GtG (pixel transitions) is now shorter than persistence (pixel staticness), most motion blur today is now caused by persistence, as demoed by www.testufo.com/eyetracking
  13. Like
    mdrejhon got a reaction from Vitalius in CONFIRMED: G-SYNC includes LightBoost sequel. (nVidia sanctioned, no hack)   
    When Andy of nVidia was asked whether LightBoost could be combined with G-GSYNC, AndyBNV of nVidia confirmed on NeoGaf:
     


    “We have a superior, low-persistence mode that should outperform that unofficial [LightBoost] implementation, and importantly, it will be available on every  G-SYNC  monitor. Details will be available at a later date.”.
     
    This scientifically confirms strobing is used, because of the law of vision physics — there is no other way to do LightBoost-matching low-persistence modes without ultrahigh refresh rates (e.g. 1000fps@1000Hz) or frame interpolation (e.g. 200fps->1000fps). Since both are unlikely with nVidia G-SYNC, this officially confirms backlight strobing. In addition, John Carmack confirmed on twitter that a better backlight strobe driver is included:
     


    John Carmack (@ID_AA_Carmack) tweeted:
    “@GuerillaDawg the didn’t talk about it, but this includes an improved lightboost driver, but it is currently a choice — gsync or flashed.”

    Both statements by Andy and John, are confirmations that official backlight strobing (LightBoost) is part of G-SYNC, a 2D motion blur elimination, finally officially sanctioned by nVidia.  The question becomes: Can both be combined into adaptive-rate backlight strobing?
     
    UPDATE: Your existing ASUS VG248QE monitor is already upgradeable to G-SYNC!
     
    ______________
     
    For those not aware: Strobe backlights eliminate motion blur on LCD's The backlight is turned off while waiting for pixel transitions (unseen by human eyes), and the backlight is strobed only on fully-refreshed LCD frames (seen by human eyes). The strobes can be shorter than pixel transitions, breaking the pixel transition speed barrier! This allows LCD to have motion as clear as a CRT.
    Since GtG (pixel transitions) is now shorter than persistence (pixel staticness), most motion blur today is now caused by persistence, as demoed by www.testufo.com/eyetracking
  14. Like
    mdrejhon got a reaction from Ashratt in I think I found a 120Hz IPS display   
    I talked to Peter April, the CEO of Vpixx, who's in Canada, where I live.  They are located in Quebec, and I'm in an adjacent province (Ontario) within driving distance.
     
    These Viewpixx monitors cost 5 figures and are aimed towards scientists and vision researchers.
    The non-3D Viewpixx uses an IPS panel, and the 3D Viewpixx uses a TN panel.  So both panel types are used in the Viewpixx monitor, depending on the model.
     
    I also should point out, presently in the last two years, miraculously VA is already at 240Hz than IPS right now, since 240Hz VA has been around for two years in HDTV's (example: expensive high end Sony HDTV's).  Yes, fake frames (interpolation) is done, but that's not the point, the pixels are being refreshed at 240Hz.  At the larger panel sizes, high-refresh-rate VA performs better than high-refresh-rate IPS for 3D stereoscopic (frames are cleaned up better before the next frame; less 3D crosstalk).  Despite the complicated pixel driving techniques of VA, television manufacturers apparently managed to make VA refresh cleaner/faster by spending lots of engineering money on some rather advanced pixel driving techniques.
     
    Unfortunately, computer monitor manufacturers and laptop manufacturers generally use previous-generation panels, while premium HDTV manufacturers (especially $3000 models) can afford to use the very latest in LCD manufacturing, more profits spent on R&D.
  15. Like
    mdrejhon got a reaction from OneGun in Should I get; one 144Hz monitor, one 120Hz monitor, or three 60Hz monitors?   
    Make sure you also test LightBoost ON/OFF while viewing www.testufo.com/photo (Use a 120Hz-friendly browser such as Chrome)
     
    Most video games can't achieve that kind of motion fluidity unless you have lots of GPU, a great 1000Hz mouse, and a very good game engine.   LightBoost usually won't benefit you if your framerate isn't in the triple digits. Also, it doesn't benefit everyone (while it clearly benefits others) -- people who just stare stationary at the crosshairs in the middle of the screen won't benefit, while people who track eyes all over the place (circle strafing, high speed helicoptor low flybys) will see a major benefit.  Temporarily test an older Source Engine game, e.g. Counter Strike, Team Fortress 2, Half Life 2 series, Portal series, etc.  Adjust game details such as FXAA instead of FSAA.  People who don't recognize the zero motion blur "CRT effect", won't see the "LightBoost effect" either.  There are now many gamers today who have never seen a video game running on a CRT.
  16. Like
    mdrejhon reacted to GoodBytes in LightBoost; say good bye to your CRT   
    I got a better idea... OLED.
    while they have a "turn off" phasing out, technology advancement can reduce it.
    It's already known that OLED can theoretically have less than 0.01ms response time, if memory serve correct.
    While you might say, that in order to reach such speed you need to have some really high refresh rate. Getting TRUE <=8ms response time is possible, and algorithms can be made so that, if the next frame is the pixel is black, for a certain pixel, it can turn it off, reaching 0.01ms for color -> black response time, and possibly other tricks for bright to dark. And possibly other tricks with algorithms, which could give 8ms worst case response time, and 0.01ms at best.
    ~8ms response time, is 120Hz if I am not mistaken (I think it's 8. something ms). That is incredible, and is faster than all LCD panels. And no flickering!
    Also, anything is possible. Remember when they designed the 32-bit CPU. "4GB of RAM? AHHAAHA we will never reach such ludicrous amount of memory! And even if we do have it, nothing will use more than it, even if you try!" (not actual quote, obviously). Well... someone was wrong.
  17. Like
    mdrejhon got a reaction from KaareKanin in LightBoost; say good bye to your CRT   
    Buddy, I know what you're saying. But, we're both correct -- you misunderstood me.    
    It's not for visuals; it's for more accurately photographically comparing motion between different displays in a format that's *closer* to what the human eye saw, *than* a static photograph.  As in motion blur, motion artifacts, etc.   Here are example pursuit camera photographs, that more properly demonstrates the purpose of pursuit camera photographs:
    During motion of framerate matching refresh rate, the below photos are of www.testufo.com/ghosting -- View that webpage in a VSYNC-capable web browser (make sure it runs at full framerate), and see the remarkable similiarity of what you saw with your human eyes, to the photos below, as an example.     60 Hz LCD      120Hz LCD -- 50% less motion blur than 60Hz      LightBoost    A great example is running ToastyX Strobelight Utility (a new easy LightBoost utility) on a LightBoost LCD, and then turning ON/OFF LightBoost (Control+Alt+Plus and Control+Alt+Minus) while in the middle of viewing www.testufo.com/ghosting in a stable/fluid web browser -- every human who did this, says the photos agree quite accurately with what they saw.  Some minor variances between monitors (e.g. IPS vs TN vs VA) but always nearest-matched the correct photo of one of the above, since the sample-and-hold effect is the dominant factor of motion blur in today's monitors.  People sensitive to motion blur have confirmed that they see the same benefits in their game (especially when the game is running at framerate matching refreshrate). Obviously, you nee framerate matching refresh rates, to have the maximum possible fluidity on the display (best case scenario).  
     
    No disagreement there.  But you missed the point, again.
     
    Scientists already know why motion blur happens with flickerfree displays -- it's called the sample-and-hold effect.  When your eyes are tracking moving objects on a flickerfree display, the static frames means your eyes are in a different position at the beginning of a refresh than at the end of a refresh.  That means the frames are blurred across your retinas.   The amount of motion blur is directly proportonal to the length of the visible part of the refresh.   Mathematically, 1ms of persistence translates to 1 pixel of tracking-based motion blur for 1000 pixels/sec motion (1 pixel per millisecond).   The only way to reduce this type of motion blur is to either add flicker (CRT / plasma / black frames / strobe backlight) or to add extra intermediate frames (interpolation or genuine frames).  Both methods shorten the static period of a frame.  
     
    The Average User doesn't understand how the "sample-and-hold effect" works (the educational motion tests at www.testufo.com/eyetracking and www.testufo.com/blackframes does help to an extent).  However, it's all well-established science and explains how it interacts with vision.  Here are scientific references that show the well-known vision science of sample-and-hold:
     
    List of Science Papers
     
    What is needed in LCD panels to achieve CRT-like motion portrayal?
    by A. A. S. Sluyterman (Journal of the SID 14/8, pp. 681-686, 2006.)
    This is an older 2006 paper that explains how scanning backlight can help bypass the "hold effect". 
     
    Temporal Rate Conversion (Microsoft Research)
    Information about frame rate conversion, that also explains how eye tracking produces perceived motion blur on a sample-and-hold display, including explanatory diagrams.

    Correlation between perceived motion blur and MPRT measurement
    by J. Someya (SID05 Digest, pp. 10181021, 2005.)
    Covers the relationship between human perceived motion blur versus Motion Picture Response Time (MPRT) of the display. This also accounts for motion blur caused by eye tracking on a sample-and-hold display, a separate factor than pixel persistence.

    Frame Rate conversion in the HD Era
    by Oliver Erdler (Stuttgart Technology Center, EuTEC, Sony Germany, 2008)
    Page 4 has very useful motion blur diagrams, comparing sample-and-hold versus impulse-driven displays.

    Perceptually-motivated Real-time Temporal Upsampling of 3D Content for High-refresh-rate Displays
    by Piotr Didyk, Elmar Eisemann, Tobias Ritschel, Karol Myszkowski, Hans-Peter Seidel
    (EUROGRAPHICS 2010 by guest editors T. Akenine-Mller and M. Zwicker)
    Section 3. Perception of Displays (and Figure 1) explains how LCD pixel response blur can be separate from hold-type (eye-tracking) motion blur.

    Display-induced motion artifacts
    by Johan Bergquist (Display and Optics Research, Nokia-Japan, 2007)
    Many excellent graphics and diagrams of motion blur, including impulse-driven and sample-and-hold examples.
     
     
    ....Anyway it is kind of nonsensical for you to say that I am wrong when I'm just quoting facts, all from pre-established vision research.  It may be a matter of "diminishing points of returns" (Certainly a legitimate wallet concern ), but I'm certainly not scientifically wrong here -- you were saying "while we sometimes can't put our finger on it to pin point what is wrong with what we are seeing", you didn't realize that there are already established science papers over this matter that explains a lot of sample-and-hold already.
     
    In fact, speaking of "wallets", it's already very profitable for ASUS (an ASUS rep mentions its popularity in their NewEgg YouTube).  The VG248QE is one of ASUS' better selling monitors, and very few monitors have over 100 Amazon reviews.  Hit Control+F while viewing that page, and search for word "LightBoost"; you'll see numerous users acclaim about it for themselves in those customer reviews.   Now Sony(click) and Eizo(click) are following suit with strobe backlights similar to LightBoost, and making them easier to turn on than nVidia's own LightBoost (nVidia originally force-bundled the LightBoost strobe backlight feature for 3D vision, and made it hard to enable without a 3D vision kit).   Blur Busters does get lots of visitors a week now (tens of thousands).  Motion-blur sensitive people exist in numbers big enough to create such demand.   Certainly not "millions of people" demand, but certainly big enough for quite a number of parties who want to get closer to the Holodeck experience. 
     
    Sincerely,
    Mark Rejhon
    Owner of Blur Busters / TestUFO 
    (Frequent collaborator with review sites including Adam of pcmonitors, Simon of TFTCentral, etc).
×