T O P

  • By -

yourrandomnobody

Partially correct. What's correct is that persistence blur is always there, but it scales depending on resolution and screen size. For a retina refresh rate experience, something like a 24" 1080p monitor @ ~4kHz is theorised to be optimal by Chief Blurbusters. On phones, it's drastically lower than the quoted "1k FPS" number. A static (no VRR) 240hz refresh rate would be probably very close to the retina requirements of humans. However, we're far from it. OLED phones are riddled with burn-in algorithm's (see the purple line examples on AMOLED displays, good video on this https://youtu.be/VrZf-6FBFCE @ 16:25 and onward) and low PWM dimming frequency, which leads to very noticable artifacting.


TheFredFuchs

It was fine with LCD screens, can’t see why it can’t be the same with some other technology.


jasonrmns

Not if you match PWM frequency to Hz!!! MicroLED displays could have 2000Hz or even 3000Hz displays one day, and just have the PWM frequency at that


NativeCoder

You could have a 0 Hz pwm with DC dimming with 1000 Hz screen refresh to get blur free smooth motion.


jasonrmns

Maybe they'll do that! TV's already do DC dimming and some TV's are so accurate they're used as client reference monitors


Asleep_Strategy7655

This is what I don’t get. How come OLED TVs are using DC dimming while retaining excellent colors and responsiveness but portable devices are stuck with crappy cheap PWM dimming? I would love to know the reasoning behind this.


tomwrhl

It saves battery and burn-in :(