Ah, okay. You may be right about the dark lines interfering with motion clarity on an LCD, that's something I haven't really considered, but it makes sense, at least if the scanlines are opposite the direction that the game scrolls (ie, horizontal lines with vertical scrolling or vice versa).Xyga wrote: Well that's my point; I precisely don't believe they both work the same. From my experiments I've concluded that what gets the most in the way of motion perception and brightness with the strict limitations of LCDs, is essentially the amount of surface/pixels dedicated to these dark lines.
IMO, however, 240p content looks best with 1:1 scanlines, and it's what I strive for. The bold scanlines you get with a BVM or 31kHz monitor are one of the main reasons why 240p content looks so incredible on such displays. So, I try to keep the scanlines as bold as possible while still maintaining adequate brightness and motion clarity.
IPS panels are better with viewing angles but have worse input lag.
What? no, IPSes don't have more lag I don't know where you read that, whatever the panel technology in displays is definitely not what's responible for input lag.
It's not that the technology itself is inherently worse when it comes to input lag, it's just that the best displays for input lag usually happen to be TN panels. At least, this was true last time I researched this a couple years ago when I bought an ASUS VG248QE. Things may have changed since then.Response-wise (switching topics slightly here) there's good reasons why IPS is the preferred LCD tech for gaming displays these days, the fastest ones perform very close to the best TNs, in particular at 120Hz and up where you could say they're practically on par. So with the benefit of the good angles and colors both manufacturers and gamers have made their choice.
They're still not good-enough for the ideal BFI/strobing though, where response needs to be practically perfect.
I hear you on the display size/distance thing, but for different reasons; 240p content in particular was meant to be viewed on smaller displays than our giant hulking 50" flat panels. Even the average laptop screen at normal viewing distance is bigger than the ideal for 240p content. The cognitive low-pass filter goes a long way toward making the jaggies appear smooth, but it only works at the right viewing distance. I'm not sure how it would affect the perception of motion clarity, but there may be a similar cognitive thing going on related to viewing distance/display size.I understand that, motion resolution on LCDs will never be fixed in a satisfying-enough fashion. Earlier when I implied even the 60Hz can be decent enough under certain conditions, I should have added two more:
- they shouldn't be too big
- or you have to keep certain distance (which is further than people like to sit...)
I think BFI @ 120Hz in emulators, with a bit of lightboost, essentially solves the motion clarity issue on LCDs, but then you don't have enough brightness for full 1:1 scanlines. If the burn-in issue with OLED is solved, which they'll need to do for gaming displays, then I think OLED could definitely be the thing to fully replace CRTs for 240p content in the future. We'll also need to get scanline beam racing implemented in emulators to achieve 0 input lag. I guess I'm somewhat more optimistic about the future of digital displays, but It'll probably still be a while before I'm ready to give up my CRTs.In any case if we have hopes for good motion the likes of CRT and plasma in the future, it'll only be possible on OLED or whatever similar panel tech to come.
It's not the panel technologies I'm worried about, rather I find motion reduction R&D and adoption are too damn slow, like even in 20 years from now whatever is accomplished and becomes available will still be below our expectations...