> Sure, if you like motion blur that makes your content look like a slideshow. I personally don’t. It’s embarrassing that I’m still faced with worse motion qualities than I had 30 years ago.
What crappy panels are you buying?
I know 10 years ago, IPS panels were known for having terrible response times, but there are other types of LCD that have pixel response times in the 1 ms range.
Manufacturers quote those response times, but worst-case response times are often at least a full frame, and sometimes multiple frames.
Unlike with CRTs, response time is a factor of what color you're switching to and from, and their intensity, it's highly-variable, and it makes me so sad whenever an otherwise-lovely game happens to put colors together that very obviously smear on my monitors. (Also, see above for my report on the laughably bad color smearing on my Pixel 5a.)
RTNGS usually has more-detailed breakdowns of best and worst-case color transition times for the monitors they test, as well as over- and under-shoot reports... which is a phenomenon that's just as bad as slow transitions between colors.
Exactly zero. I own the highest end panels you can buy, regardless of whether it's OLED or LCD. I have a variety of CRT displays, desktop and broadcast on top of this.
> I know 10 years ago, IPS panels were known for having terrible response times, but there are other types of LCD that have pixel response times in the 1 ms range.
The vast majority of motion blur on todays displays is due to sample and hold, not pixel response times.
You're talking about motion blur created from eye tracking, rather than slow pixel response like I had assumed.
Meh, I don't see it as a problem, really. And as frame rates get higher, it becomes even less of a problem, as the distance an object moves across the screen between each frame is less. I'm already running at 144 fps, and I'll probably be looking for 240 fps in a few years.
You personally might not see it as one, but it objectively is. Whether or not you personally are bothered by it is irrelevant to the reality of sample and hold displays poor motion handling. I am happy to hear it does not bother you, and I wish I could be you, however I am not. Probably a side effect of until not too long ago, having spent my entire life with displays that were not complete garbage in this aspect.
> And as frame rates get higher, it becomes even less of a problem
I have the best hardware today money can buy, but cant reach my 240hz capability now in any relatively modern title. It mostly only helps in esports/far older content. It also ignores the fact that we have decades worth of content that will never exceed 60FPS that looks terrible today on modern displays, and will continue to do so.
> I'll probably be looking for 240 fps in a few years.
240fps has made my usage of modern displays far more tolerable, still cant touch a CRT though. I'll be moving to 480hz OLED soon enough to further improve that. However all of these increased refresh rate displays suffer from the same issue.
Not everything can or will run at the refresh rates required to take advantage of the reduced motion blur, not even with top of the line hardware. This will probably eventually be resolved with software/hardware based framerate amplification, but we aint there today and probably wont be for at least another half decade or more.
What crappy panels are you buying?
I know 10 years ago, IPS panels were known for having terrible response times, but there are other types of LCD that have pixel response times in the 1 ms range.