Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
-
- Posts: 873
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 3:37 pm
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
The idea that no progress has been made in bringing lower cost high contrast displays to market is simply not true.
Manufacturers have been tweaking their tech (including LCD) to improve contrast for years. You can now buy a 55" OLED for $1500, which is affordable for all but the poorest people. A few years ago, OLEDs were $10,000.
There was a time when 30,000:1 contrast was reserved for the most expensive tech. In the last 5 years (or more) we have seen that on near entry level LCD home theater projectors from mediocre brands like Epson.
It helps to do a little research on what the specs actually mean. There is a difference between static and dynamic contrast. Measuring full on / full off contrast doesn't always tell you how a display will perform with regular content. Plus, you can't judge contrast in isolation of brightness. For example, the blacks you perceive with a 3500:1 contrast 7500 lumen projector is drastically different to a 3500:1 contrast 1000 lumen projector. The way our eyes perceive blacks is all relative to brightness.
Pc / gaming displays often have specs with a greater focus on brightness than pure black-levels because most of us game and use PCs in fully lit rooms. And, computer graphics are not generally what suffers most from poor contrast. They generally look nice on a bright display. It's dark movie scenes where it matters the most. That applies double to old film-based sources.
If the complaint is "I can't find the best displays for $400 at Walmart" then nobody can help. You get what you pay for. Always have, always will. Buy a nice used display. If you have to have OLED and can't wait, then pony up and make room for the 55".
Manufacturers have been tweaking their tech (including LCD) to improve contrast for years. You can now buy a 55" OLED for $1500, which is affordable for all but the poorest people. A few years ago, OLEDs were $10,000.
There was a time when 30,000:1 contrast was reserved for the most expensive tech. In the last 5 years (or more) we have seen that on near entry level LCD home theater projectors from mediocre brands like Epson.
It helps to do a little research on what the specs actually mean. There is a difference between static and dynamic contrast. Measuring full on / full off contrast doesn't always tell you how a display will perform with regular content. Plus, you can't judge contrast in isolation of brightness. For example, the blacks you perceive with a 3500:1 contrast 7500 lumen projector is drastically different to a 3500:1 contrast 1000 lumen projector. The way our eyes perceive blacks is all relative to brightness.
Pc / gaming displays often have specs with a greater focus on brightness than pure black-levels because most of us game and use PCs in fully lit rooms. And, computer graphics are not generally what suffers most from poor contrast. They generally look nice on a bright display. It's dark movie scenes where it matters the most. That applies double to old film-based sources.
If the complaint is "I can't find the best displays for $400 at Walmart" then nobody can help. You get what you pay for. Always have, always will. Buy a nice used display. If you have to have OLED and can't wait, then pony up and make room for the 55".
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
For TVs and such *plenty* of progress has been made, that's for sure. Just none of that has really found its way into PC monitors where we're stuck with the same ~1:1000 contrast with minor improvements since forever. And don't worry, I don't need any buying advice. Once upon a time I tried to find a PC monitor with TV-like black levels and contrast. I now know that this does not exist outside of a few very expensive special models and I've just given up on the idea. I just use my TV for games & movies and my monitor for productivity, problem solvedClassicgamer wrote:The idea that no progress has been made in bringing lower cost high contrast displays to market is simply not true.
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
VA monitors on average are around 3000:1, some can break beyond 4000:1 and even flirt with 5000:1, actually beating a massive number of TVs, and you'd have to be hilariously dishonest to call anything washed out on these.
Plus while VAs are slower in general the ones featured in monitors benefit from better adjustable acceleration, which TV all lack leaving the response to a safer slow level.
What do you call progress for LCD TVs - which are basically slower monitors - the expensive and imperfect FALD implementations? HDR that's only fully supported by flagship models and only makes sense for compatible contents? Well, okay, in practice they do increase contrast and blacks.
Or what, higher refresh rates? Monitors have been doing that for ages, including VAs.
Variable refresh? monitors again way before TVs where it's just appearing now.
Lag? it took TVs many years to catch up to monitors, and they still overall have more dealy than monitors.
I'd give only to plasma TVs to have combined many desirable aspects along with much better motion, way ahead of anything else,
and current TVs still suck at motion where monitors even if they still suck a bit too have again been ahead in the discipline of blur reduction (which TVs barely begin to implement at bearable lag levels)
But besides the case of plasma, until OLED entered the market slowly making its way to mainstream setting new standards for the entire world of displays, monitors have always been ahead of TVs.
Plus while VAs are slower in general the ones featured in monitors benefit from better adjustable acceleration, which TV all lack leaving the response to a safer slow level.
What do you call progress for LCD TVs - which are basically slower monitors - the expensive and imperfect FALD implementations? HDR that's only fully supported by flagship models and only makes sense for compatible contents? Well, okay, in practice they do increase contrast and blacks.
Or what, higher refresh rates? Monitors have been doing that for ages, including VAs.
Variable refresh? monitors again way before TVs where it's just appearing now.
Lag? it took TVs many years to catch up to monitors, and they still overall have more dealy than monitors.
I'd give only to plasma TVs to have combined many desirable aspects along with much better motion, way ahead of anything else,
and current TVs still suck at motion where monitors even if they still suck a bit too have again been ahead in the discipline of blur reduction (which TVs barely begin to implement at bearable lag levels)
But besides the case of plasma, until OLED entered the market slowly making its way to mainstream setting new standards for the entire world of displays, monitors have always been ahead of TVs.
Strikers1945guy wrote:"Do we....eat chicken balls?!"
-
FinalBaton
- Posts: 4461
- Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:38 pm
- Location: Québec City
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
I can wait a bit which is why I'm eyeing this upcoming 48" OLED. Q4 2019, or even after the january CES 2020 show or even spring 2020, I'm fine with.Classicgamer wrote:If you have to have OLED and can't wait, then pony up and make room for the 55".
Forgot to say : It's pretty cool that my next purchase will support this, these are nice additions. I just checked a vid on the LG C9 OLEDs to better grasp this. and there's no reason why the 48" model can't also boast the same upgrades, in theory.energizerfellow wrote:The 2018 LG OLEDs added black frame insertion and the 2019 models added a new graphics processor, along with HDMI 2.1 that supports both VRR and 120 hz refresh rate.
-FM Synth & Black Metal-
-
- Posts: 873
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 3:37 pm
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
One thing I learned about displays, and I believe this to universally true, you can not make any meaningful judgement from manufacturer's specs. You have to see them in person.
There is no standard for how specs are calculated or stated or any real way to know if you are comparing like with like. It is not unusual for entry level specs to look almost identical to the most expensive models but that does not mean they have similar performance.
Anyway, it is not true to say that technical improvements have not found their way to computer or gaming monitors. You can get (almost) whatever you want if you are willing to pay for it.
The biggest factor is the market demand and there are very few people who will pay for the best performance possible on a PC monitor. Dell released an OLED gaming monitor but it sold like moldy bread because people usually only invest in their main living room display.
When you look at all the displays in person, there is no meaningful difference in perceived quality between PC monitors and TV's of the same tech, size and price point. They all use panels made by the same small number of manufacturers. Even Sony doesn't make their own TVs anymore.
Try comparing a $300 pc monitor to a $300 tv and see which is better. I'd put money on it being the PC monitor.
There is no standard for how specs are calculated or stated or any real way to know if you are comparing like with like. It is not unusual for entry level specs to look almost identical to the most expensive models but that does not mean they have similar performance.
Anyway, it is not true to say that technical improvements have not found their way to computer or gaming monitors. You can get (almost) whatever you want if you are willing to pay for it.
The biggest factor is the market demand and there are very few people who will pay for the best performance possible on a PC monitor. Dell released an OLED gaming monitor but it sold like moldy bread because people usually only invest in their main living room display.
When you look at all the displays in person, there is no meaningful difference in perceived quality between PC monitors and TV's of the same tech, size and price point. They all use panels made by the same small number of manufacturers. Even Sony doesn't make their own TVs anymore.
Try comparing a $300 pc monitor to a $300 tv and see which is better. I'd put money on it being the PC monitor.
-
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 4:08 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
How is the LG black-frame insertion on the OLEDs, in practice? On my LCD, it lowers the overall brightness so drastically that it's not really a practical option.
-
- Posts: 100
- Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2010 9:55 pm
- Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
BFI on the 2018 OLEDs suffers from flicker and loss of brightness. Will supposedly improve in 2019 models, with 100hz/120hz and shorter black frame cycles.
-
- Posts: 873
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 3:37 pm
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
Out of interest, why would you want black frame insertion while gaming?
I used it once to play 240p games at 120hz on a monitor that was 31khz only. Is there another reason?
I used it once to play 240p games at 120hz on a monitor that was 31khz only. Is there another reason?
-
maxtherabbit
- Posts: 1763
- Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:03 pm
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
it's used (ostensibly) to reduce motion blurClassicgamer wrote:Out of interest, why would you want black frame insertion while gaming?
I used it once to play 240p games at 120hz on a monitor that was 31khz only. Is there another reason?
-
- Posts: 873
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 3:37 pm
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
Seems like it would have the opposite effect. Frame interpolation or "frame smoothing" reduces motion blur by increasing the frame rate but the extra frames are duplicates or approximation of the frames before and after. It's not as good as actually increasing the real frame rate but the effect is noticable.
How does adding black frames reduce blur?
How does adding black frames reduce blur?
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
Watch this one:Classicgamer wrote:Seems like it would have the opposite effect. Frame interpolation or "frame smoothing" reduces motion blur by increasing the frame rate but the extra frames are duplicates or approximation of the frames before and after. It's not as good as actually increasing the real frame rate but the effect is noticable.
How does adding black frames reduce blur?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BJU2drrtCM
That's what new display tech is up against.
I won't bother trying to describe the scan out. No doubt, some cheeky fucker will find a reason to argue.
Just watch how it works.
We apologise for the inconvenience
-
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 4:08 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
Read up on eye-tracking motion smear due to sample-and-hold technology. Basically, the black frames break up an otherwise persistent image so it no longer "drags" across your retinal field as you move your eyeball.Classicgamer wrote: How does adding black frames reduce blur?
I can attest it works incredibly well, as far as eliminating blur. Problem is - as above - that on implementations I've seen it has a severe penalty as far as image brightness.
-
- Posts: 873
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 3:37 pm
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
There is nothing in there that explains why black frame insertion is a good idea to fix motion blur instead of increasing the actual frame rate or using frame interpolation. It's just a generic video on how TVs work which I already knew.orange808 wrote:Watch this one:Classicgamer wrote:Seems like it would have the opposite effect. Frame interpolation or "frame smoothing" reduces motion blur by increasing the frame rate but the extra frames are duplicates or approximation of the frames before and after. It's not as good as actually increasing the real frame rate but the effect is noticable.
How does adding black frames reduce blur?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BJU2drrtCM
That's what new display tech is up against.
I won't bother trying to describe the scan out. No doubt, some cheeky fucker will find a reason to argue.
Just watch how it works.
-
- Posts: 873
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 3:37 pm
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
Which is why tv's use frame interpolation to reduce blur, not black frame insertion. Obviously making every other frame completely black would make the image look darker as less light is getting to your eyes in the same time period....bigbadboaz wrote:Read up on eye-tracking motion smear due to sample-and-hold technology. Basically, the black frames break up an otherwise persistent image so it no longer "drags" across your retinal field as you move your eyeball.Classicgamer wrote: How does adding black frames reduce blur?
I can attest it works incredibly well, as far as eliminating blur. Problem is - as above - that on implementations I've seen it has a severe penalty as far as image brightness.
The frame rate has always had an effect on clarity and motion. Blur occurs in video during fast moving scenes but in video games, the effect is deliberately added in. Some people (myself included sometimes) think it should not be corrected as it is meant to be there. I.e. Frame interpolation removes the snappy camera effects in movies and lets you see things you shouldn't like stunt doubles and blatant cgi.
I tried watching Star Wars episode 2 with frame interpolation on once. It makes the cgi look terrible.
Anyway, for gaming, I am going to continue to assume that increasing the actual frame rate is the way to go to reduce unwanted blur and to make motion smooth as interpolation adds lag and black frame insertion doesn't make sense to me.
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
A black frame removes from a brief moment what your brain does not need to see (the persistence)
Mid-to-high end TVs can feature a mix of interpolation and BFI.
Some day we will have fully adjustable blur reduction over 1000Hz panels, like, you can manually compose the upscan multiplier, interpolation, and bfi at will, while adjusting the timings to the source with a knob, all that without added lag...
But we will be old men, or dust by then.
Mid-to-high end TVs can feature a mix of interpolation and BFI.
Some day we will have fully adjustable blur reduction over 1000Hz panels, like, you can manually compose the upscan multiplier, interpolation, and bfi at will, while adjusting the timings to the source with a knob, all that without added lag...
But we will be old men, or dust by then.
Strikers1945guy wrote:"Do we....eat chicken balls?!"
-
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 4:08 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
The game's frame rate has nothing to do with the blur effect induced by the way modern panels display images.Classicgamer wrote:I am going to continue to assume that increasing the actual frame rate is the way to go to reduce unwanted blur and to make motion smooth as interpolation adds lag and black frame insertion doesn't make sense to me.
Again: sample-and-hold. You either looked into it and understood it, or didn't. It is the reason both frame interpolation and black frame insertion reduce blur - different methods with different drawbacks. The longer a frame is held in place, the longer that image "smears" across your retina as visual perspective changes. If you add frames, that smearing time is reduced proportionately but those frames are not part of the source material and you get the "soap opera effect". If you insert black, the smearing time is also reduced, this time with no artificial picture data but at the cost of brightness.
We'd all love to see high frame rates on everything, but even perfect 60fps gaming will continue to suffer from blur on current display technology. As hardware evolves, we need panels to evolve alongside it.
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
I like turtles.Classicgamer wrote:There is nothing in there that explains why black frame insertion is a good idea to fix motion blur instead of increasing the actual frame rate or using frame interpolation. It's just a generic video on how TVs work which I already knew.orange808 wrote:Watch this one:Classicgamer wrote:Seems like it would have the opposite effect. Frame interpolation or "frame smoothing" reduces motion blur by increasing the frame rate but the extra frames are duplicates or approximation of the frames before and after. It's not as good as actually increasing the real frame rate but the effect is noticable.
How does adding black frames reduce blur?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BJU2drrtCM
That's what new display tech is up against.
I won't bother trying to describe the scan out. No doubt, some cheeky fucker will find a reason to argue.
Just watch how it works.
We apologise for the inconvenience
-
- Posts: 873
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 3:37 pm
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
Saying that frame rate has not relavence to blur is simply not true.
Frame interpolation is adding more frames (I.e. Increasing the frame rate). It is necesarry for the display to manufacture those frames from the ones before and after on materials that can't natively increase the frame rate, like movies. Movies are shot with 24 frames per second so that is all they have. So the display makes more by repeating them or averaging the one before and after (depending on the algorithm). Either way, it reduces blur regardless if the display is high end or cheap.
On video games, PCs can natively increase the frame rate so interpolation is not necessary. A higher FPS will reduce blur that is not meant to be there. It won't eliminate blur effects added in to make games look more realistic. And it shouldn't.
Blur will not and should not ever be completely eliminated. There is blur in real life when things move too fast for our eyes so it is meant to be there in some cases. When you render frames in Maya, you can specifically choose to add in blur effects.
It doesn't sound like anyone here actually understands why black frame insertion is a better solution for blur. People that really understand things are usually able to explain them without getting defensive or directing people to YouTube.
I like turtles too btw.
Frame interpolation is adding more frames (I.e. Increasing the frame rate). It is necesarry for the display to manufacture those frames from the ones before and after on materials that can't natively increase the frame rate, like movies. Movies are shot with 24 frames per second so that is all they have. So the display makes more by repeating them or averaging the one before and after (depending on the algorithm). Either way, it reduces blur regardless if the display is high end or cheap.
On video games, PCs can natively increase the frame rate so interpolation is not necessary. A higher FPS will reduce blur that is not meant to be there. It won't eliminate blur effects added in to make games look more realistic. And it shouldn't.
Blur will not and should not ever be completely eliminated. There is blur in real life when things move too fast for our eyes so it is meant to be there in some cases. When you render frames in Maya, you can specifically choose to add in blur effects.
It doesn't sound like anyone here actually understands why black frame insertion is a better solution for blur. People that really understand things are usually able to explain them without getting defensive or directing people to YouTube.
I like turtles too btw.
-
- Posts: 873
- Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 3:37 pm
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
This article explains it and it's all just as I thought:
https://www.cnet.com/news/black-frame-i ... o-lcd-tvs/
Note where it mentions that plasma TVs don't suffer the blur issue because they use 600hz panels. Which means a higher frame rate.
It also states that BFI did not catch on because of the darkening effect and the flicker it introduces. Instead, tv manufacturers favor frame interpolation as it's a superior method.
https://www.cnet.com/news/black-frame-i ... o-lcd-tvs/
Note where it mentions that plasma TVs don't suffer the blur issue because they use 600hz panels. Which means a higher frame rate.
It also states that BFI did not catch on because of the darkening effect and the flicker it introduces. Instead, tv manufacturers favor frame interpolation as it's a superior method.
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
Frame interpolation adds lag and artifacts. The superior method (for sources that are stuck at a fixed frame rate) is mimicking CRTs in the way they refresh the picture, i.e. employing a rolling scan. Unfortunately this method isn't widely adopted as of yet.
Sample-and-hold blur, double-image effect for 60fps@120Hz and similar topics have been discussed several times already, people might find it aggravating to explain them in detail every time someone is too lazy to look it up for himself, or too conceited to wrap his head around new concepts.
Sample-and-hold blur, double-image effect for 60fps@120Hz and similar topics have been discussed several times already, people might find it aggravating to explain them in detail every time someone is too lazy to look it up for himself, or too conceited to wrap his head around new concepts.
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
Want useful explanation and real insight on motion blur? Can you read? Will you take the time (and invest the effort) to learn?
If you answered "yes" to those three questions, click below. If you answered "no", please go back to neogaf or gbatemp (where you probably belong).
Linky: https://www.blurbusters.com/faq/motion-blur-reduction/
Good day.
If you answered "yes" to those three questions, click below. If you answered "no", please go back to neogaf or gbatemp (where you probably belong).
Linky: https://www.blurbusters.com/faq/motion-blur-reduction/
Good day.
We apologise for the inconvenience
-
FinalBaton
- Posts: 4461
- Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:38 pm
- Location: Québec City
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
Yep, it's a welcomed addition on the 2019 models to have 3 choices for the length of the black frames. Doesn't make things perfect, but it's a nice QOL tweak at the least. I'll take itikaruga007 wrote:BFI on the 2018 OLEDs suffers from flicker and loss of brightness. Will supposedly improve in 2019 models, with 100hz/120hz and shorter black frame cycles.
That along with HDMI 2.1(a bit of future proofing) is nice
-FM Synth & Black Metal-
-
FinalBaton
- Posts: 4461
- Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:38 pm
- Location: Québec City
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
Plasmas' image doesn't appear fully constructed like that of a sample-and-hold LCD. They bloom in place and dim back to almost black with every pulse (the cells on a plasma are not continuously excited : they are excited in pulses, which is what "600Hz" refers to in this case : cells are excited 600 times per second. And it doesn't mess with the video cadence, it's an independant phenomenom. Your video cadence is still 60Hz)Classicgamer wrote:plasma TVs don't suffer the blur issue because they use 600hz panels.
Yes they reconstruct the image many, many times per second, but while it helps, it's not the main reason why motion is so tight on these. It's because it dims down to dark between pulses (which BFI tries to emulate, although plasma does it more "organically"), which reduces image persistence and helps your eye track moving objects better
So you can see that BFI is not a crazy idea at all, it does make sense to try and implement it. It has potential
-FM Synth & Black Metal-
-
maxtherabbit
- Posts: 1763
- Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:03 pm
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
Correct. Plasma is still the bestFinalBaton wrote:Plasmas' image doesn't appear fully constructed like that of a sample-and-hold LCD. They bloom in place and dim back to almost black with every pulse (the cells on a plasma are not continuously excited : they are excited in pulses, which is what "600Hz" refers to in this case : cells are excited 600 times per second. And it doesn't mess with the video cadence, it's an independant phenomenom. Your video cadence is still 60Hz)Classicgamer wrote:plasma TVs don't suffer the blur issue because they use 600hz panels.
Yes they reconstruct the image many, many times per second, but while it helps, it's not the main reason why motion is so tight on these. It's because it dims down to dark between pulses (which BFI tries to emulate, although plasma does it more "organically"), which reduces image persistence and helps your eye track moving objects better
So you can see that BFI is not a crazy idea at all, it does make sense to try and implement it. It has potential
-
- Posts: 2183
- Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2017 8:34 pm
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
Yep, on plasma the picture pulsates intermittently. CRTs intermittently scans the picture across the screen. The black/emptiness in between the pulses/scans serves to "cleanse" our dumb eyes from the frame that they were seeing a tiny instant earlier. We didn't know what we had back then with CRT and plasma, until we lost it.
-
bobrocks95
- Posts: 3471
- Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:27 am
- Location: Kentucky
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
I would guess a rolling scan would have less flickering and brightness loss than 60Hz BFI? Maybe not a big enough improvement on both over existing BFI for manufacturers to put the effort in?Xer Xian wrote:Frame interpolation adds lag and artifacts. The superior method (for sources that are stuck at a fixed frame rate) is mimicking CRTs in the way they refresh the picture, i.e. employing a rolling scan. Unfortunately this method isn't widely adopted as of yet.
Sample-and-hold blur, double-image effect for 60fps@120Hz and similar topics have been discussed several times already, people might find it aggravating to explain them in detail every time someone is too lazy to look it up for himself, or too conceited to wrap his head around new concepts.
PS1 Disc-Based Game ID BIOS patch for MemCard Pro and SD2PSX automatic VMC switching.
-
- Posts: 1135
- Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 4:08 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
Than 60Hz BFI, for sure. The "600Hz" nature of plasma referenced above is why you don't get a massive hit to brightness even though the screen dims down between every pulse. Unfortunately, rolling scan means they'd have to do R&D for an entirely new way of updating images on their panels, and I see precious little motivating them to do so.
Of course, hard to imagine any of the manufacturers doing what it takes to crank refresh rates up to approach ye olde plasmas either...
Of course, hard to imagine any of the manufacturers doing what it takes to crank refresh rates up to approach ye olde plasmas either...
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
IIRC fudoh said something like it's better but still flickers enough that it will bother some.bobrocks95 wrote:I would guess a rolling scan would have less flickering and brightness loss than 60Hz BFI? Maybe not a big enough improvement on both over existing BFI for manufacturers to put the effort in?
In any case I can't see anything that implies black frames/strobing as working for everyone without much, much multiplied frequencies and brightness, and whatever it is it must be adaptive or fine-adjustable in several areas.
Strikers1945guy wrote:"Do we....eat chicken balls?!"
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
Remember when some people said that they find 60Hz strobing on LCDs to cause more eye strain than actual 60Hz on a CRT? While I don't see a huge difference, a rolling scan takes the display closer to what a CRT does, both in terms of objective behaviour and subjective flicker. IMO it's perfectly fine, if you're still used to see CRTs in action, but if you haven't used a CRT for years, it can be tough.IIRC fudoh said something like it's better but still flickers enough that it will bother some.
Re: Smaller (48") OLED TV coming soon
Ah yes I remember now. Bizarrely I'm not disturbed with 60Hz CRT flicker at all, but I cannot stand 60Hz strobe on LCD...so I dunno what to think, anyway I have never witnessed rolling scan directly myself for comparison. ^^
Strikers1945guy wrote:"Do we....eat chicken balls?!"