Xyga wrote:- absence (or quasi-total) of pixel smearing/blur: it IS fucking effective, better clarity period, much less so than what he expects and that's achievebale through other methods but it is anyway, I'm not talking about anything esle so why does he keep bothering me ? I know he's more demanding, I actually am too, but that doesn't make my point wrong at all ffs.
No-one is denying that OLEDs have faster response times and that it can reduce image smearing.
However the reduction in image smearing from faster response times pales in comparison to even a modest reduction in persistence-based motion blur, which is an option on many LCDs now.
Did you not look at the images I posted that showed the amount of motion blur present on two LG OLEDs compared against a Sony LCD? The difference that their response time makes is miniscule.
Yes, the OLED is better when the displays are operating as sample-and-hold, but once you activate the low-persistence mode, the LCD has considerably less motion blur.
It is misleading to say that low response times = low motion blur.
People have wrongly been attributing that to the cause of motion blur on LCDs for years instead of their high persistence, which is the
actual cause of most of their motion blur.
Philips first introduced televisions with a scanning backlight in 2006 to address this problem - it's nothing new.
Persistence = motion blur
Response times = motion smearing/trailing
Motion blur is how "in focus" an object is while it's moving. Motion smearing/trailing is whether that object also leaves a trail behind it as it moves.
Xyga wrote:- TVs with backlight scanning/strobing: I'm talking about gaming-useable of course I know TVs have blur reduction techniques but they're not fit. And those fit for gaming arent a thing of the TV market yet, never were, unlikely they'll be anytime soon because of product segmentation logic, it's fucking true so why does he try to make look like I'm the one not on-topic FFS again ?
Well this topic was about BenQ's Blur Reduction (backlight scanning) and Sony TVs have had the option for "Impulse" driving (now the "Clearness" setting) for about five years now.
Xyga wrote:- flicker-free: ok lol nobody gives a fuck how he translates this himself, it's only his opinion or how only people aware of what they're talking about would within dedicated threads at specialized communities, every manufacturer still refers to flicker-free to designate LED PWM-free backlighting whatever he says, if one keeps refering to flicker-free the way he does that's completely misleading conversations for a fucking massive majority of users and customers.
I really don't understand why you're making such a big deal out of this.
It is the fact that the display is not flickering which is relevant to motion blur.
If your display doesn't flicker - whether that's PWM-flicker or some other type - that means it is a sample-and-hold display.
With a sample-and-hold display, motion blur is directly linked to the framerate, plus your response time on top of that.
Most people understand what you're talking about when you say that a display is "flicker-free" rather than "sample and hold" or "full persistence".
Xyga wrote:And people stop taking fucking everything written on Blurbusters for science that applies to every case in reality, they're spot on right of course, but fucking OFF in regards to reality and the market.
It seems that you're not aware of the fact that there are many displays available which offer low-persistence modes suitable for gaming - though your selection is more limited if you're wanting to play console games.
.
