Are there monitors that display crystal clear the UFO test?

[Hi P]

I'm talking about this test:

https://www.testufo.com/framerates#count=3&background=none&pps=1200

 

Are there monitors that perfectly display this test? No blur at all

 

Just wondering out of curiosity

[Levent]

I don’t see a reason why there wouldn’t be one? Higher refresh rate and panel type is the key here.

[manikyath]

depends where you put your treshold, "perfection" is impossible.

 

also - any display capable of, for example, perfectly accurately switching pixels at 60Hz, is most likely also capable of running at MUCH higher framerates while staying within acceptable limits.

 

the thing about a "perfect" UFO test result, is that it is largely irrelevant to reach perfection if a less perfect higher framerate looks smoother without noticeable ghosting in real world scenarios.

[OhYou_]

yes, look up CRT

[Stahlmann]

Any monitor with a good BFI feature will display the UFO close to perfect. For example the Viewsonic XG2431 is an example of a very good BFI implementation.

 

Photo of the Ufo from Optimum Tech:

 

Photo from RTINGS.com with their own test:

 

[Doobeedoo]

No. It'a a reference picture, like a still, aka perfect motion clarity. I want to see 1000Hz OLED with BFI though. That will be amazing.

[SolarNova]

Yes and no.

 

The thing is, all current monitors use 'sample and hold'. As such persistence blur is present on ALL displays regardless of their refresh speed and pixel response.

The only way to reduce/remove persistence blur is to flicker the image, aka Black frame insertion (BFi).

 

On LCDs this is done by flickering the backlight. This however can cause strobe crosstalk as seen in the image above (the duplication of the moving image). This is a result of the backlight strobing and pixel refresh speed not being perfectly in sync. This is also why BFI and VRR is almost always exclusive, one or the other. Only a handful of manufacturers have bothered to implement synced BFi e.g.Asus 'ELMB Sync' in 'some' of their models.

 

On OLEDs BFI is effectively turning of the pixels entirely for a given duration at the end of a frames duration. The almost instant pixel response leaves plenty of room for the BFi interval, unlike on LCD..

 

So can you get close enough to the reference image to consider it 'perfect' ? ..yes its theoretically possible and there have been 1 or 2 displays that have got damn close.

But to do so would require a combination of technologies and techniques that simply put ..manufacturers havnt been bothered to do for one reason or another.

 

For example there is zero reason what so ever that an OLED display cant have VRR + BFI and 240hz. It would obliterate all when it comes to moving image resolution.In fact it would likely result in the reference image.

However BFI cuts brightness in half. and OLED already struggles to get super bright. HDR is a big marketing tool, using VRR+BFI as a selling point would work directly against HDR marketing. This is why BFI has been all but removed from LG OLED TVs ..it used to have 120hz BFI with optional levels of strength (pulse width) ...however current and last gen models now only have 60hz BFI which sucks. Why nerf BFI ? .. brightness.

[Stahlmann]

20 hours ago, Doobeedoo said:

No. It'a a reference picture, like a still, aka perfect motion clarity. I want to see 1000Hz OLED with BFI though. That will be amazing.

A 1000Hz OLED will have the same motion clarity as a 60Hz OLED when both use BFI. Higher Hz only improves motion clarity when not using any kind of backlight strobing of black frame insertion on monitors without a backlight. 1000Hz will still feel more responsive though. At that point all the higher Hz does is reduce latency.

[Stahlmann]

15 hours ago, SolarNova said:

For example there is zero reason what so ever that an OLED display cant have VRR + BFI and 240hz. It would obliterate all when it comes to moving image resolution.In fact it would likely result in the reference image.

However BFI cuts brightness in half. and OLED already struggles to get super bright. HDR is a big marketing tool, using VRR+BFI as a selling point would work directly against HDR marketing. This is why BFI has been all but removed from LG OLED TVs ..it used to have 120hz BFI with optional levels of strength (pulse width) ...however current and last gen models now only have 60hz BFI which sucks. Why nerf BFI ? .. brightness.

Yeah it sucks that LG nerfs their OLED dispalys with lacking BFI support. Why not just make it so using HDR automatically disables BFI like they did in the CX and C1 series? Maybe they just want to keep some features reserved for the next gen? Who knows.

[Doobeedoo]

3 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

A 1000Hz OLED will have the same motion clarity as a 60Hz OLED when both use BFI. Higher Hz only improves motion clarity when not using any kind of backlight strobing of black frame insertion on monitors without a backlight. 1000Hz will still feel more responsive though. At that point all the higher Hz does is reduce latency.

No it's definitely still blurry at 60Hz, 120Hz starts to look decent. At 60Hz it also flickers. So higher Hz still gives improvement though. So it's not just higher latency but it's obviously more frames which is obviously important. Also like 60Hz wtf is that these days even. Even 120Hz OLED BFI or not can seem choppy per say being how each frame is clear vs LCD so it exposes lower Hz even more. Even with current 240Hz OLEDs while they're great, they're not highest Hz and 360Hz can feel better. Even fast 240Hz with strobe, some better than 360Hz. It can depend on game too which can be preferable. So more frames but blurry or less frames but clear, but also Hz aside, being perceived more choppy due to how frames are clear. 

[Stahlmann]

Just now, Doobeedoo said:

No it's definitely still blurry at 60Hz, 120Hz starts to look decent. At 60Hz it also flickers. So higher Hz still gives improvement though.

The only reason why 60 Hz is still blurry on OLED is persistence blur, which is completely eliminated by using BFI. But like you said at 60Hz the flickering occurs on such a low frequency that it becomes visible to our eyes, introducing another problem. But my argument about motion clarity stands.

 

Higher Hz does also decrease persistence blur, but won't get rid of it. It's the way our eyes see the image. We need to trick our eyes using BFI to completely get rid of persistence blur. With BFI being used in all situations, higher refresh rates decrease latency and make the image look less stuttery, but it will not result in better motion clarity.

 

Just now, Doobeedoo said:

So it's not just higher latency but it's obviously more frames which is obviously important. Also like 60Hz wtf is that these days even. Even 120Hz OLED BFI or not can seem choppy per say being how each frame is clear vs LCD so it exposes lower Hz even more. Even with current 240Hz OLEDs while they're great, they're not highest Hz and 360Hz can feel better. Even fast 240Hz with strobe, some better than 360Hz. It can depend on game too which can be preferable. So more frames but blurry or less frames but clear, but also Hz aside, being perceived more choppy due to how frames are clear. 

You need to differentiate clarity, smoothness and lag if you really want to get down to what does what in a monitor. Refresh rate impacts all of them but isn't solely responsible for any of these factors. I was merely using the 60Hz to make that example.

 

Generally a higher refresh rate means better clarity. However, once a good BFI implementation is used, refresh rate doesn't impact clarity anymore, as persistence blur is out of the equasion. It still impacts smoothness and lag though.

 

And the feel was never part of my argument. My argument was merely that high refresh rates aren't needed when just talking about clarity. What you need is good pixel response times and a good BFI implementations, both of which are very possible on OLED.

[dilpickle]

On 2/28/2023 at 5:30 PM, Hi P said:

I'm talking about this test:

https://www.testufo.com/framerates#count=3&background=none&pps=1200

 

Are there monitors that perfectly display this test? No blur at all

 

Just wondering out of curiosity

No because according to the makers of the test blur won't be eliminated until 1000hz.

[Doobeedoo]

1 hour ago, Stahlmann said:

The only reason why 60 Hz is still blurry on OLED is persistence blur, which is completely eliminated by using BFI. But like you said at 60Hz the flickering occurs on such a low frequency that it becomes visible to our eyes, introducing another problem. But my argument about motion clarity stands.

 

Higher Hz does also decrease persistence blur, but won't get rid of it. It's the way our eyes see the image. We need to trick our eyes using BFI to completely get rid of persistence blur. With BFI being used in all situations, higher refresh rates decrease latency and make the image look less stuttery, but it will not result in better motion clarity.

 

You need to differentiate clarity, smoothness and lag if you really want to get down to what does what in a monitor. Refresh rate impacts all of them but isn't solely responsible for any of these factors. I was merely using the 60Hz to make that example.

 

Generally a higher refresh rate means better clarity. However, once a good BFI implementation is used, refresh rate doesn't impact clarity anymore, as persistence blur is out of the equasion. It still impacts smoothness and lag though.

 

And the feel was never part of my argument. My argument was merely that high refresh rates aren't needed when just talking about clarity. What you need is good pixel response times and a good BFI implementations, both of which are very possible on OLED.

Yes but also another part in that is still higher Hz that is wanted and needed, because no point having a single thing in isolation dictate clarity in a still image. You always needed and want higher Hz 120Hz+ to have a good motion resolution regardless of panel tech. It's simply more frames aka information. 

Sample-and-hold is a by-product of todays displays so yeah, need stuff like BFI for best options. I get what you're saying, but nobody will use say 60Hz or 120Hz OLED vs 240Hz LCD for shooters for example. I know I wouldn't. Because in the end it's not 'better' because it's only one side of the picture.

 

But at least we're moving to 240Hz in general being a standard for gaming monitors so that's good. Just hopefully OLEDs start having BFI because no reason no to as option.

 

Thing is, many displays don't have strobe/BFI and not everyone that has option uses it. You'd still want a certain amount of Hz as bare minimum regardless for competitive play. So really also depends from which angle you're viewing clarity, just in testing scenario or also in game scenario where you may prefer X over Y at times. Like I mentioned before, a fast 240Hz even without strobe would be better choice vs 120Hz OLED with or without BFI for many.

 

I know what you were trying to argument, but in isolation it's not really cut and dry though, like UFO test vs game. So really when you move away from just UFO image, to a game, yeah higher Hz definitely plays a huge part in overall clarity, how the game feels/moves vs each frame how clear it may be. 

Yeah OLED already naturally has by far better response time vs LCD and BFI as option should be there for on/off on new monitors. But 1000Hz is already possible for it, only reason I can see for them no releasing it now is to get to it step by step to sell monitors before, maybe reduce price and I've hear certain electronics controllers need work.