30fps gaming at 60hz and the effects of frame doubling? - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 72 Old 11-02-2012, 07:26 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

It's a shame. When James Cameron and Peter Jackson are trying to eliminate strobing, they start adding it OLED, before big OLED TVs are a reasonable price range. Hopefully there will still be an option to turn the strobing off.
Congratulations on not reading or understanding any of this.

If you display moving video - even at 60fps - without any kind of strobing, image persistence in the human visual system causes the image to blur.
Increasing film framerates from 24 to 48 fps drastically reduces judder.
Chronoptimist is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 72 Old 11-02-2012, 10:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Rejhon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 8,124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

It's a shame. When James Cameron and Peter Jackson are trying to eliminate strobing, they start adding it OLED, before big OLED TVs are a reasonable price range. Hopefully there will still be an option to turn the strobing off.
Congratulations on not reading or understanding any of this.
If you display moving video - even at 60fps - without any kind of strobing, image persistence in the human visual system causes the image to blur.
Increasing film framerates from 24 to 48 fps drastically reduces judder.
Some comments (to both of you). Cinema is often seen in a darkened theater where flicker is less visible. Also, most digital projectors now behave as sample-and-hold, so there's no more strobing in many digital projectors. It's the higher framerate that leads to more motion fluidity in this situation, not the strobing. Most projectors in big multiplexes in big North America cities are now all digital, it seems. (I know, this isn't always the case for smaller theaters and smaller towns yet, but those aren't the theaters likely to show the 48fps films anyway.)

Also, TV's are usually seen in brighter environments, where flicker of strobing is more visible. So, an understandable option to turn off strobing may be useful here, at the cost of increased motion blur. If you're just doing static images, photo slideshows, simple web browsing, sensitivity to flicker (if your eyes burn badly under office fluorescent lights), etc.

All academic off-topic comments, all over the map, but they need to be commented here -- just to cover all bases.
wink.gif

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon

www.BlurBusters.com

BlurBusters Blog -- Eliminating Motion Blur by 90%+ on LCD for games and computers

Rooting for upcoming low-persistence rolling-scan OLEDs too!

Mark Rejhon is offline  
post #63 of 72 Old 11-03-2012, 09:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Congratulations on not reading or understanding any of this.
If you display moving video - even at 60fps - without any kind of strobing, image persistence in the human visual system causes the image to blur.
Increasing film framerates from 24 to 48 fps drastically reduces judder.
The moving portions of the image will blur. The answer to that is to increase frame rates. Strobing is the opposite of what is seen by the eyes in real life.
Quote:
Congratulations on not reading or understanding any of this.
Congratulations on being wrong about.

So you currently have the option of a slight blur in the moving portions of video (with the rest of the screen looking excellent), or the whole TV picture constantly strobing/flickering. As long as people can choose between them, or have a varying degree of one or the other (interpolation is another option) that's okay.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #64 of 72 Old 11-03-2012, 10:29 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Rejhon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 8,124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Attention, attention, this is a VIDEO GAME THREAD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

The moving portions of the image will blur. The answer to that is to increase frame rates. Strobing is the opposite of what is seen by the eyes in real life.
I agree with you! However, we must be pragmatic and realistic about how to realistically increase motion resolution in things such as computers and games, whenever the situation warrants. Video games are artificial renderings of real life, and we have played video games on CRT's for many years, and many games play so much better on CRT.

Video Game Arguments
  1. Insignificant input lag. Motion interpolation are not good for video games and computer. Advantage is obvious; no flicker, no strobing. However, there is no scientific way to do really good motion interpolation without adding input latency; those requires quite a significant amount of lookahead and lookbehind logic, which means multiple frames are buffered to do good motion interpolation. Which adds input lag. (I'm not even talking about interpolation artifacts here) Interpolation is not the answer.
  2. Video game 120fps is not the final frontier. Tests have shown that there are still further improvements to motion blur at higher framerates. See Science & References. It is well known that 60fps@60Hz on a CRT still remains much better looking than 120fps native on an LCD. Also, gamers still see the improvement when they enable interpolation to 240fps, and wish that didn't come with the dreadful input lag cost. Some gamers wish they can get that CRT "feel" without the lag disadvantages. And 240fps (or equivalent 'honest' measured motion rating) isn't EVEN the final frontier either. It's closer to about 1000fps@1000Hz (sample-and-hold) to equal the motion fluidity of a typical CRT (about 1ms phosphor decay -- essentially one 1ms strobe per spatial display point per frame). Staying at 120Hz is not the answer.
  3. High native non-interpolated refresh rates requires more GPU power. Imagine if you had a 240Hz native refresh. You will need a GPU that can do 240fps to keep up. Ouch. And 240fps is not the final frontier either. Ouch. More native framerate is not the answer.

You'll get the Video Game Nobel Peace Prize, if you can solve all the above problems simultaneously.

Presently, I am designing a self-made scanning backlight that more scientifically accurates CRT strobing on a millisecond timescale. I will be modifying an Asus VG278H or Samsung S23A700D (or even both) -- 23" 120Hz computer monitors, essentially getting rid of its casing and creating my own (blog of my progress here). It aims to solve the following:
- Strobes as short as CRT (requires 1ms strobes or shorter) -- I can support 0.1ms strobes
- Strobes as bright as CRT (requires 150 watts of LED's per square feet)
- LCD persistence no longer limiting factor (3D panels solved this; persistence less than 1 frame)
- Image remains bright even with short strobes (over 20,000 lumens OF LED's).
- Honest motion rating of well over "1000" -- (ala equivalence to 1000fps@1000Hz on sample-and-hold)
- Flicker free (by running at 120Hz). This limit my GPU requirement to 120fps (while achieving 1000fps+ equivalence in motion resolution -- CRT motion equivalence). In a dimmed room, I can even lower it to 85Hz (and still not see flicker), and then only need GPU 85fps to keep CRT-fluid motion equivalence.

Presently, I've already spent $500 towards this project -- most of the cost in LED's. (blog)

Again, again, this is a VIDEO GAME thread. Input lag and GPU problems apply!
I do agree with you in theory! However, we must be pragmatic and realistic about how to realistically increase motion resolution in things such as computers and games.

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon

www.BlurBusters.com

BlurBusters Blog -- Eliminating Motion Blur by 90%+ on LCD for games and computers

Rooting for upcoming low-persistence rolling-scan OLEDs too!

Mark Rejhon is offline  
post #65 of 72 Old 11-03-2012, 10:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Yes I can see it's a video game thread in the Flat Panel display section. No amount of with adding strobing/flickering in the display will really solve the problem of 30 fps games. Since you can get games that are 60 fps or limited only by your PC/graphics card//display/connection, surely that's the real answer (getting the best system + games that can take advantage of it) if you want gaming with the best motion etc.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #66 of 72 Old 11-03-2012, 11:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Yes I can see it's a video game thread in the Flat Panel display section. No amount of with adding strobing/flickering in the display will really solve the problem of 30 fps games. Since you can get games that are 60 fps or limited only by your PC/graphics card//display/connection, surely that's the real answer (getting the best system + games that can take advantage of it) if you want gaming with the best motion etc.
Even 120fps blurs without any kind of backlight scanning. (and is very demanding to render)
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #67 of 72 Old 11-03-2012, 11:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Rejhon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 8,124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

Yes I can see it's a video game thread in the Flat Panel display section. No amount of with adding strobing/flickering in the display will really solve the problem of 30 fps games. Since you can get games that are 60 fps or limited only by your PC/graphics card//display/connection, surely that's the real answer (getting the best system + games that can take advantage of it) if you want gaming with the best motion etc.
Ok -- fair comment!
Not even a scanning backlight can solve the 30fps@60Hz conundrum, and that part is certainly on-topic.
(My scanning backlight display is targetted at computer and computer games -- more control over frame rate this way by getting a better GPU, while it's impossible to raise motion resolution in a 30fps game in a console without a double frame effect and without motion interpolation. But alas, some great games such as Halo series are console-only!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Even 120fps blurs without any kind of backlight scanning. (and is very demanding to render)
Yes, that's right. The sweet spot for a scanning backlight (tweaked towards maximum motion resolution) is "high enough Hz to stop flickering" but "low enough Hz to require less GPU". The sweet spot for my monitor modification, could very easily be 75Hz or 85Hz in a darkened room. (Though 120Hz will be ideal if the game rendering engine and GPU power is there). I'll keep it adjustable.

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon

www.BlurBusters.com

BlurBusters Blog -- Eliminating Motion Blur by 90%+ on LCD for games and computers

Rooting for upcoming low-persistence rolling-scan OLEDs too!

Mark Rejhon is offline  
post #68 of 72 Old 11-03-2012, 12:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 110 Post(s)
Liked: 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Even 120fps blurs without any kind of backlight scanning. (and is very demanding to render)
And with backlight scanning it will strobe/flicker.

Here's what wikipedia says about blurring in the frame rate section:
Quote:
Without realistic motion blurring, video games and computer animations do not look as fluid as film, even with a higher frame rate. When a fast moving object is present on two consecutive frames, a gap between the images on the two frames contributes to a noticeable separation of the object and its afterimage in the eye. Motion blurring mitigates this effect, since it tends to reduce the image gap when the two frames are strung together. The effect of motion blurring is essentially superimposing multiple images of the fast-moving object on a single frame. Motion blurring makes the motion more fluid for some people, even as the image of the object becomes blurry on each individual frame.

I know proper motion blur isn't the same as blur from the display, but wikipedia still makes a valid point (though I don't think it's totally correct - especially on the first sentence - since they can look more fluid than 24 fps film with a 180 degree shutter). But a bit of blur (when the frame/display rate isn't high enough not to use any without strobing) will allow for more realistic/smoother looking motion - including in games.

Like I said, you should be able choose between it adding strobing/flicker and it not doing. You should be able to choose between the amount of blur and the amount strobing/flickering. And use the best system, capable of the highest frame rates with games that take advantage of them.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #69 of 72 Old 11-03-2012, 06:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Rejhon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 8,124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post

And with backlight scanning it will strobe/flicker.
Yes, if it's below flicker fusion threshold. So it will always remain a problem for 60Hz sources. (Which is not applicable to my computer-specific scanning backlight project which will always run above 60Hz native, unless you're one of the people sensitive to 120Hz flicker, which some people indeed are.)
Quote:
Here's what wikipedia says about blurring in the frame rate section:
I know proper motion blur isn't the same as blur from the display, but wikipedia still makes a valid point (though I don't think it's totally correct - especially on the first sentence - since they can look more fluid than 24 fps film with a 180 degree shutter). But a bit of blur (when the frame/display rate isn't high enough not to use any without strobing) will allow for more realistic/smoother looking motion - including in games.
Yes, but keep in mind that it depends on context of what is "natural". Natural motion blur is motion blur that the eyes does itself; not the display doing it for you, unless it's for a good reason intended by the situation, etc. There are many situations, especially video games and computer use, that you want to let the eyes add motion blur for you instead. Real life has no frames per second (you could technically consider it infinite frames per second). So there's no motion blur except what the human brain adds for you. That's 100% natural. So it would posist, to not let the display force blur upon you (e.g. by display limitation such as LCD) for the specific *situations* that warrants it -- e.g. first-person 3D shooter games, scrolling/parallax games (Nintendo style motion, including nogastilistic and modern variants), etc.

For games you don't need artifical GPU motion blur unless it's for dramatic effect (Fortunately, it is often a setting that can be turned off) -- sometimes it's only there to help make the motion look more natural in low framerate situations, but inappropriate for many other situations when your system is powerful enough. Yes, GPU motion blur can benefit 30fps@60Hz situations, by lessening the double-image effect. Other times it's artistic for certain moments for drama effect, like motion blur that only shows up in superspeed mode or when you're injured in a video game. That's a fun use of software-controlled motion blur. By eliminating motion blur from the display -- then the complete control over motion blur is left to both the source (software control; video game director intent) and destination (human vision system and how it adds blur for you), leaving the blur away from the display equation, eliminating the display from being the weak link in director intent and user intent. Of course, it's fair to let the display be configurable for motion blur (as you say) by the various interpolation/scanning modes.

Also, the intent can depend on the director.
Some directors intended film to have the "24fps" look; with built in motion blur.
Other directors intend to have the fast live action look (e.g. red bull air races, soccer, NASCAR, etc.)
So it all depends on what the intent is. Etc.

Also, Einstien says, it's all relative -- what defines "natural"? Natural real life has no frames per second. For motion, the concept of "frames" and "frame-rate" is an artifical invention since the zoetrope's of the mid 19th century, and the first film experiments in the late 1880's and early 1890's. There's as of right now, no practical way to convey motion without the artifical invention of "frames per second". There's no practical method of media in the last 150 years that gives you infinite frames per second (to eliminate the artifical invention of frame rate). Motion being added to the display, for you, is also artifical too -- there are certain material (and situations) where I prefer to let the human vision system do all the motion blur, rather than the display forcing motion blur upon you. Again, it depends on the material and conditions. The lack of display-forced motion blur makes FPS adventures much more immersive and natural for SOME people for SOME games. There are some videogame afficanados who stick to CRT, for precisely the reason of immersiveness. You've got natural human-eye-provided motion blur, with zero motion blur forced upon you by the display itself. Often this is the lesser of evil and more natural (when at a sufficiently high refresh rate), the strobe effect (Which disappears if you adjust to the point above flicker fusion threshold). Of course, not all gamers like it that way -- some prefers the flicker-free feel of a display, just like some people a super-sensitive to DLP rainbows, while others are not. What's more natural for you: The lack of display-forced motion blur?? The lack of strobe effect?? The lack of motion interpolation?? The lack of latency?? Pick your poision... It's all relative.

But yes, I agree with you. It's often natural to add motion blur. But it's not always natural in all situations. All depends on the material and what the director intended, etc. Natural is all relative. There's no possible global world-agreed definition of "natural" for video in a "one size fits all" for all purposes, because there's no such thing as a infinite-framerate perfect-holodeck holographic recording of real life indistinguishable from real life, etc.

Now, back to context of the original topic, "how do we make 30fps look more natural at 60Hz". (Despite fps and Hz being an artifical way of delivering images to human eyes). Adding more artificial motion blur can help mask the double frame effect, yes (unless you hate blur). Adding motion interpolation, can help, yes (unless you hate interpolation and/or input lag). Avoiding 30fps@60Hz, if you have the game available at full frame rate on another platform such as PC too, can help, yes (unless you don't have the platform, or can't afford platform). Quite a choice of options; which method is most natural -- many with separate 'unnatural' disadvantages -- it's all relative here, too.

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon

www.BlurBusters.com

BlurBusters Blog -- Eliminating Motion Blur by 90%+ on LCD for games and computers

Rooting for upcoming low-persistence rolling-scan OLEDs too!

Mark Rejhon is offline  
post #70 of 72 Old 07-04-2013, 03:52 AM
Newbie
 
imist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I recently purchased a Panasonic ST50 50" and while playing Bioshock Infinite on PS3 also noticed this doubling image. If i stand still then the image looks great but as soon as i pan the camera it just becomes a blurry mess, moreso on the horizontal strangely..

Like others have stated games running at 60FPS like any of the COD's are silky smooth with no blurring/doubling..

I did try turning on the Intelligent frame creation feature of my TV which had an interesting result, motion was clearly smoother but not consistent enough to be of use and it added latency.

So how can we get better image quality short of buying a new LCD set..
imist is offline  
post #71 of 72 Old 07-04-2013, 05:57 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,559
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by imist View Post

So how can we get better image quality short of buying a new LCD set..
Switch to PC with a graphics card capable of running everything at 60fps. There's really no other solution.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #72 of 72 Old 07-04-2013, 08:05 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Mark Rejhon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: North America
Posts: 8,124
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 96
(Not directly related to above reply, but to followup on my older posts in this thread)

BTW, there's a new development since I wrote my messages in this thread.
All my messages in this thread are quite prophetic -- before LightBoost became popular.

120Hz computer monitors with the LightBoost feature (strobe backlight) has become quite popular among high-end enthusiast PC gamers who purchase a 120Hz computer monitor -- When using LightBoost, combined with powerful GPU's capable of 120 frames per second, they are finally able to produce CRT-quality sharp motion with no motion blur. See 60Hz vs 120Hz vs LightBoost, the rave reviews, and the media coverage (ArsTechnica, AnandTech, TFTCentral, etc). Note, you do NOT get CRT quality color/blacks, but you DO get the CRT quality motion LCD with zero motion blur -- and the motion resolution outperforms even the best plasmas (during 120fps@120Hz).

That said, you still get the frame-doubling problem for 60fps@120Hz on LightBoost monitors (just like you do on 120Hz CRT). So you are back at square one, unless you're using a Geforce Titan or 780, or if you're playing older games that can stay at 120 frames per second. Also, there are currently no consoles available capable of 120Hz output, so this is only computer monitor territory.

Thanks,
Mark Rejhon

www.BlurBusters.com

BlurBusters Blog -- Eliminating Motion Blur by 90%+ on LCD for games and computers

Rooting for upcoming low-persistence rolling-scan OLEDs too!

Mark Rejhon is offline  
Reply Flat Panels General and OLED Technology

Tags
Plasma Hdtv , Lcd Hdtv , Displays , Sony 32 Bravia Lcd Hdtv Kdl 32ll150 , Xbox 360 250gb Console With Kinect
Gear in this thread

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off