Oled game ad question

[Viscous]

I saw this ad while browsing YouTube today and The limited knowledge J have about OLED’s doesn’t tell me about their response time at all. Do they really have better response times? If not is this ad disingenuous?

[podkall]

let this screenshot tell you: (I guess not?)

 

 

 

EDIT: source is from 2016 things might have improved for OLED idk

 

also according to google OLED is better than IPS in terms of response time

 

(though TN might be still better than OLED in terms of response time)

Edited January 14, 2022 by podkall
whoops too fast

[Bombastinator]

1 hour ago, Viscous said:

I saw this ad while browsing YouTube today and The limited knowledge J have about OLED’s doesn’t tell me about their response time at all. Do they really have better response times? If not is this ad disingenuous?

It’s disengenuous in my opinion as it implies such a thing is actually needed to make a game work.  I don’t know how fast oled is but it’s not as fast as crt, probably by a couple orders of magnitude, and it’s pretty easy to find LED monitors below 5ms.  OLED wasn’t even considered a good monitor for gaming at all in the past because of burn in, and for older OLED monitors this is still true.  I can’t call it completely false, because I understand some gaming oled monitors have recently come out, but I want to.  I think it runs suspiciously close to lawsuit material, but I don’t think they would have put it out if they thought they could be sued over it.  I’d kind of like to see a lawsuit though.

[Heliian]

Everything to do with gaming is mostly marketing hogwash. 

 

Doubly so with displays.

 

The technology is fantastic and "innovation" is great. 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

id assume the multiple google sources claiming sub 1ms are right

 

 

[tikker]

They do have faster response times. See e.g RTINGS: https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/motion/motion-blur-and-response-time

They found a response time of ~0.2 ms for 80% and ~2-3 ms for 100% on the best models. Comparatively the non-OLEDs on that list are around ~2-3 ms for 80% and around 10 ms or more for 100%.

12 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

I don’t know how fast oled is but it’s not as fast as crt, probably by a couple orders of magnitude

I was curious as well. The motion picture response time (MPRT, how long a pixel is visible for) of OLED seems to be around 6.7 ms for 120 Hz OLEDs, according to this paper. CRTs are apparently around 1.5 ms according to them or ~4 ms according to this one, so we still have a factor 2-4 to go in terms of motion blur. The acclaimed 10 us pixel response time could rival some phosphor decay times from a quick look at Wikipedia, but it seems we may for now be more limited by refresh rate and the way we display images on non-CRT displays like sample-and-hold than by pixel response times.

13 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

 I can’t call it completely false, because I understand some gaming oled monitors have recently come out, but I want to.  I think it runs suspiciously close to lawsuit material, but I don’t think they would have put it out if they thought they could be sued over it.  I’d kind of like to see a lawsuit though.

It's of course some exagerrated marketing, but I'd say a factor 10 improvement (based on RTINGS' tests) doesn't make this lawsuit material. Even if it was only a factor 2, what would you sue them for? They're not lying that OLED is faster and the implication that it makes you enjor gaming more is probably the same as the implication that a carbon fiber hockey stick makes you more efficient because it's light.

[Bombastinator]

2 hours ago, tikker said:

They do have faster response times. See e.g RTINGS: https://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/motion/motion-blur-and-response-time

They found a response time of ~0.2 ms for 80% and ~2-3 ms for 100% on the best models. Comparatively the non-OLEDs on that list are around ~2-3 ms for 80% and around 10 ms or more for 100%.

I was curious as well. The motion picture response time (MPRT, how long a pixel is visible for) of OLED seems to be around 6.7 ms for 120 Hz OLEDs, according to this paper. CRTs are apparently around 1.5 ms according to them or ~4 ms according to this one, so we still have a factor 2-4 to go in terms of motion blur. The acclaimed 10 us pixel response time could rival some phosphor decay times from a quick look at Wikipedia, but it seems we may for now be more limited by refresh rate and the way we display images on non-CRT displays like sample-and-hold than by pixel response times.

It's of course some exagerrated marketing, but I'd say a factor 10 improvement (based on RTINGS' tests) doesn't make this lawsuit material. Even if it was only a factor 2, what would you sue them for? They're not lying that OLED is faster and the implication that it makes you enjor gaming more is probably the same as the implication that a carbon fiber hockey stick makes you more efficient because it's light.

The thing I read said CRTs were closer to one quarter of a microsecond or lower.  Scales and testing systems may be different. Ips used to be nearer 15ms. I understand that recently that number is nearer 5.  There at least used to be a thing where old players playing such games as Mario bros. Would have trouble because their muscle memory was to hit the button later than they did because of it and would buy CRTs to make their stuff work again.  I saw this tested in a video once.  It could be a cherry-picking of numbers thing.  That’s how Columbus got funding.  No one at the time was sure how big the earth was and people disagreed.  So he picked size of the world from the large earth believers and picked small earth distances between Europe and the new world from small earth believers to get a better number. 

Edited January 15, 2022 by Bombastinator

[LogicalDrm]

-> Moved to Displays

[GoodBytes]

What is unclear is response time based on screen brightness. On phones with OLED screen, this is an issue, dimmer the screen, the slower the response time. Granted a desktop/laptop display brightness won't go as dim as a phone OLED screen to probably notice, and probably doesn't have aggressive power saving system due to being wall powered or be used with a large battery, but is something to note, worth looking into.

 

That aside, OLED does have a faster response time than LCD panel. LCD response time issue comes down to: how fast the liquid can spin from 1 state to another.

 

CRT response time is limited to how much the phosphor layer can let go of the colored light it last retained over another one (or on to off), and how fast the cathode can go drawing the screen. (Phosphor layer also can't react too fast, else the display will flicker, despite the high refresh rate).

 

OLED comes down to the "warm" up or "cool" down time of the OLED subpixel from one state to another (dark red to bright red, for example), which in reality, is in the micro second range, if not faster.

 

OLED biggest issue right now, beside costs, is its life span and brightness. Brightness improves over time with new OLED manufacturing processes and sometimes tricks (example: White subpixel added to RGB one). But aside from this, brighter the image, the more you wear out the OLED panel, which results in the OLED sub pixels to dim more and more over time.

 

The results: you have the "burn-in" effect. I hate the term of "burn-in", I think we should all stop using it, as it suggest that, like plasma panel which had this term used, it can be fixed. It cannot be fixed. You are not burning in anything, you are WEARING OUT the subpixel. All you can do, is wear the rest of the display sub pixels to try and match the more wared out sub pixels, to even things out. Think of it as each sub pixel is a block of wood, and every time you use them, you use a sand paper on them. So if you have a red image, you sand the wood block representing the color red. Brighter the red, the faster you sand. Not a perfect analogy by any means, but it can be seen this way. You are literary waring out each individual sub pixel (red, green and blue) as you use each of them.

 

This is how OLED looks over time (picture from the web)

 

The phone, in this case, was set to have a uniform gray full screen image. We can see that the navigation button bar is lighter than the rest, because this is normally black, making that part of the area have little to no wear, showing you the gray color how it should be. The rest is dimmer and can even have an  offset in the color as those sub pixels have been warn more. Being gray, it is using the same value of red, green and blue, so if the screen displayed more red and green on the upper area, for example, the gray in that used area would tilt more in the blue's making the gray look more blue'ish than what is is supposed to be. The reason why you see the Android navigation buttons above so dark, is because those are normally white, and remain on screen all or most of the time, making those show the darkest, as all 3 subpixel in that area have the been worn out evenly (white uses red, green and blue, of course) and the most as the button are always there (beside when you watch a video or game full screen).

Another example of sub pixel being worn out more than the rest:

 

Because the red sub pixel was used the most where the CNN banner is (which is in red), the pink color appears purple on those areas, as the red sub pixel is notably dimmer than the green and blue subpixels of each pixel that showed the red banner.

 

There is no fix to this, all one can do, is build an exact inverse an image of what typically appears on the screen, making what used to be black's white, and so on, basically, and display it for hours on end, days in and days out, to wear out the less used parts, all to match better the rest and hope for the best... or have a display feature like what Linus showed with his LG display, which keeps track of the wear of each subpixels, and has a special mode which overdrives the OLED sub pixels to wear the less worn out one to somewhat even level with the most used ones, permanently dimming the screen at the expense of having everything match things closer together, hiding the "burn- in"

 

Now, OLED have evolved a lot since it's appearance to the consumer market, they do last a VERY long time compared to several years ago. The Switch OLED display, for example, is showing to be very promising to last many years without visible wear. Also, we can see on premium phones also their displays, last longer. Same for OLED TVs. We are doing progress on that front (not to mention, we are also making them faster and also brighter).

 

That said, the problem isn't solved. It's last long enough that for most people using a premium phone with an OLED screen, they will typically not see wear of the OLED like the phone image above after 3 years of usage, or just starting to (visible if you seek for it, but nothing that will actually bug you while using the phone)... but typically, most premium phone buyer replace their phone by then. So, you see less people complaining about this issue. That said, typically, in the PC space, especially desktop space, people don't tend to buy a new monitor every 3 years. Same for TV's. It doesn't help the fact that OLED displays are expensive, really expensive.

 

Like the CNN banner on the TV, desktop has a lot of static content. We have the task bar, start button, pinned task bar icons, running programs showing on the task bar, tend to have our window at the center as this is our focus point when working with windows. Clock, system tray icons, desktop icons, and so on. Plus you have games with static content like health bars, and other stats, and so on. Things will be visible real fast. It's one thing being able to replace a monitor every 3 years due its low cost (ignoring environmental impact), and another spending the current price on them, for the same 

 

There is a lot more work that needs to be done, that is for sure. But we are getting there. Perhaps a few more years, this will be much less an issue.

 

[IPD]

I am so tired of panel MFG's lying their asses off.

[Bombastinator]

31 minutes ago, IPD said:

I am so tired of panel MFG's lying their asses off.

*doesn’t know what “panel MFGs” are*

https://www.acronymfinder.com/MFG.html

[jones177]

On 1/14/2022 at 7:11 PM, Bombastinator said:

OLED wasn’t even considered a good monitor for gaming at all in the past because of burn in, and for older OLED monitors this is still true.  

I started using OLEDs for gaming when LTT started doing videos on them back in 2019. The one I used as a monitor did burn in but it was not a bright logo that burnt in, it was Chrome. 

It was the sort of think found in this video.

 

The OLED I used for just gaming and movies did not burn in at all yet. 

To get around the burn in issue I put a computer I used on a bench in a case and bought a 49" 120hz 4k IPS TV for it.

 

I have no plans to stop using OLEDs for gaming but I do plan on replacing them every 3 to 5 years.  

 

[Stahlmann]

On 1/15/2022 at 1:11 AM, Bombastinator said:

and it’s pretty easy to find LED monitors below 5ms.

Sure when you look for specs you can find lots. Thing is, only the best of the best actually come in around 4-5ms.

 

Yes, OLED realistically has 1ms and better response times, which makes it better than any current LCD technology - by a long shot. A 120Hz OLED display can rival even 240Hz LCD displays when it comes to motion clarity just because of the faster pixel transitions.

 

LCD displays need to "wait" on physical liquid crystals to spin around, whereas OLED pixels literally just turn on and off with no physical movement. When you look at it this way, it's pretty easy to imagine why it's faster by default. For LCDs to get as fast as they are today you need to introduce overdrive, which basically increases the voltage going to the crystals, making them turn faster. But this also introduces overshoot, which makes the pixels transition beyond the needed color. With OLED you don't need any overdrive for the reasons i mentioned above.

 

I do have a high-end VA monitor and an OLED TV myself and i have to agree with the ad in the way that OLED is just plain better. Motion clarity, contrast, input latency is just way better. Especially in the occational 60fps locked game the OLED TV completely mops the floor with my monitor because response times are as good as they're at 120Hz. With monitors they typically drop a lot, resulting in worse performance the lower you in terms of fps.

[Bombastinator]

6 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Sure when you look for specs you can find lots. Thing is, only the best of the best actually come in around 4-5ms.

 

Yes, OLED realistically has 1ms and better response times, which makes it better than any current LCD technology - by a long shot. A 120Hz OLED display can rival even 240Hz LCD displays when it comes to motion clarity just because of the faster pixel transitions.

 

LCD displays need to "wait" on physical liquid crystals to spin around, whereas OLED pixels literally just turn on and off with no physical movement. When you look at it this way, it's pretty easy to imagine why it's faster by default. For LCDs to get as fast as they are today you need to introduce overdrive, which basically increases the voltage going to the crystals, making them turn faster. But this also introduces overshoot, which makes the pixels transition beyond the needed color. With OLED you don't need any overdrive for the reasons i mentioned above.

 

I do have a high-end VA monitor and an OLED TV myself and i have to agree with the ad in the way that OLED is just plain better. Motion clarity, contrast, input latency is just way better. Especially in the occational 60fps locked game the OLED TV completely mops the floor with my monitor because response times are as good as they're at 120Hz. With monitors they typically drop a lot, resulting in worse performance the lower you in terms of fps.

I’m not debating that oled is low latency.  I’m saying that crt is faster, and the implication that LCDs are uselessly slow is false.