Will there ever be a point where display technology can effectively do what it did 20+ years ago?turn back ye who know not this cognitohazard, for ye can still be saved
>>106759387How far away are we? I'm picking up an oled monitor today, kinda curious how it will compare to my memory.
>>106759387Look, I simply don't care. It's just a screen, it displays information, that's perfectly sufficient for meWhy choose this hill to die on? Is there nothing more important you could be crusading for?
>>106759387>Will there ever be a point where display technology can effectively do what it did 20+ years ago?You fail to realize that today's technology does a couple of things that were impossible back in the day. It's a tradeoff. Live with it.
>>106759387Yeshttps://youtu.be/O4SFsKPrhoY?si=iCQYHokZep-LuAO2We don't even need 1000hz either
>>106759387You mean throbbing? My monitor has that feature. It works well. The compromise is lower brightness.
>>106759865I mean strobing. Most monitors have that nowadays but most gamers don't know about it.
>>106759506If you've ever fired up your old desktop tube from 20 years ago you'll realize that not having proper motion clarity is actually quite devastating for your sanity. Flat panels are just not fun compared to them. Laggy and blurry as shit.
CRT displays, unlike modern digital displays, offered near-instantaneous pixel response and operated on a "sample-and-hold" system with a strobe-like effect, leading to exceptional motion clarity that modern displays haven't quite replicated due to their built-in display latency from buffering and sequential image display, though OLED and high refresh rate LCDs are closing the gap. Modern displays use frame interpolation and display very high frame rates, but they still have inherent output latency that CRTs lack. Why CRT displays had superior motion clarity:>Sample-and-hold (LCD) vs. Strobe Effect (CRT):Modern displays use a "sample-and-hold" method where an image is held on the screen for a fraction of a second, which causes motion blur. CRTs, conversely, functioned more like a strobing light, rapidly displaying the image and then turning off, creating a more seamless perception of fluid motion by showing a pure image that quickly disappears. >Instantaneous Response Time:CRTs have virtually zero input lag and pixel response time, as they do not store image data before display. This allows for a direct and immediate rendering of the image. >No Display Buffering:Unlike modern displays that process and buffer image data, CRTs display the image information as it's received. This lack of processing time contributes to their superior motion clarity and low input latency
Why modern displays still struggle to match CRTs in this area:>Inherent Display Latency:Modern LCDs and OLEDs inherently have a certain amount of display latency because they need to store and process image data. This processing time leads to a slight delay in the image appearing on screen compared to a CRT. >Sample-and-Hold Blur:The "sample-and-hold" nature of modern digital displays creates an inherent motion blur that is different from the blur created by the eye's own tracking. >High Frame Rates vs. Pure Image:While high refresh rates and frame rates on modern monitors greatly improve motion smoothness and appearance, they are not the same as the perceived clarity of a CRT's pure, strobe-like image. >The current and future landscape:Emerging Technologies: OLED technology with its extremely fast pixel response times and very high refresh rates (some already exceeding 720Hz) is rapidly narrowing the gap. >Gaming Improvements:High refresh rate LCDs with very low input lag (e.g., 1ms input delay, 2-3ms grey-to-grey) now offer excellent motion performance for gaming. >Lossless Frame Interpolation:The advancement of frame interpolation technology in gaming allows for higher frame rates on modern displays, further improving the perception of motion.
>>106759865>throbbingfreudian slip
>>106759901Well get a good monitor. A 120hz gets you motion clarity and if your game is 60hz enable strobing. I've used CRT for years and I get your point with old flat panels but newer ones do a good job.
>>106759387This was already figured out a while back. Turns out the motion blur of LCDs has fuck all to do with the tech itself and is instead caused by your brains being shit at interpreting moving images. The solution is to just render less of the image at a time just like CRTs did, and the less image you render the better it looks.Comparing camera shots of the UFO test is meaningless since it's all about optical illusions.
>>106759932It was more of a phone fagging, Google "correcting", and don't check slip.
>>106759938My AOC 24G2ZE/BK which I got before firing up my Hyundai ImageQuest still doesn't come close, in fact it feels like it has free motion blur intrinsic to all LCD monitors but merely smoother. But it is an older IPS monitor from 2020. Playing games like Quake is especially offensive at 240Hz. Meanwhile, the tests I've done on OLED screens I've seen in public and on phones get closer, but are still visible blurry. Meanwhile, the old tube has literally none.So the difference is as dramatic as "there is blur" and "there is no blur".
>>106759969>bros i totally do hear a difference with that golden cable im not a schizook. meds tho
>>106759957>Comparing camera shots of the UFO test is meaninglessAnd yet the result is still the same whether you look with your eyes or the camera... almost like it actually is meaningful and representative of what is being displayed on screen.
>>106759996>has to invent some weird cope for his sour grapes when real photos prove there is a difference
I love that little nigga like you wouldn't believe.
The main things I miss about CRT are no native resolution and no need for antialiasing. These benefits are many orders of magnitude beyond what current display tech offers. What we need are super high rez and refresh rate OLED's. They can exceed CRT in many ways making one forget what was lost.
The fact of the matter is we traded motion clarity for size, resolution, and brightness.Honestly not a bad trade off since those 3 attributes are far more noticeable than motion clarity in most cases.
>>106759387>ignoranceI knew from the very first day I laid eyes on an LCD that something was wrong.
>>106759957>Comparing camera shots of the UFO test is meaningless since it's all about optical illusions.that's why there's sync patterns on screen to ensure your pursuit camera is configured correctly regarding exposure time and pursuit speed, so it matches how you see it with your eyes.some people who don't understand the test take a photo with a camera that isn't moving and with automatic exposure, that is meaningless.the reason why lcd's appear to blur while a crt doesn't when looking at a moving object while a still camera photo looks sharp on both is because of how your eyes track motion. on both kinds of displays, motion is done by displaying discrete images that move in steps, that is they just appear in a different position on screen each frame rather than moving like a real life object does. your eyes on the other hand follow the object smoothly as it would a real object. because an lcd holds each frame until the next frame, your eye is moving over a still image, blurring it. on a crt, the display is black everywhere it isn't currently drawing, so the previous image remains undisturbed in your eyes (persistence of vision) until it arrives at the next anticipated position, where the new frame is drawn right on top of the persisted image, resulting in no blur
>>106765228>>106759957forgot pic
>>106759387mini-led if it wasn't vaporware
>>106759387With the "sell swords not to your common man but only to your fellow kings so the kings can sell the peasants protection" mentality I doubt we will see good things in the future ever again.
>>106763529>size, resolution, and brightness.Brightness is a total gimmick. Resolution, not really, we had 4k CRTs way before 4k LCDs. Size is the big one, and even that is a joke. For 20 years, the standard was 24", and before that the standard was 20" 4:3 CRT. Even today, most new panels are 27" or 32" garbage. Nobody is making sensibly sized 4k monitors, which start at 40 inches, you have to buy a TV if you don't want a laptop screen (27" 4k is 13.5" 1080p equivalent, 32" is 16").We're also probably never going to see 6k monitors, which are the desktop sweetspot between 4k and 8k.
>>106759473If it's a 480Hz OLED it can get pretty close:https://blurbusters.com/crt-simulation-in-a-gpu-shader-looks-better-than-bfi/
>>106759387CRTs were objectively shit a massive number of use cases. Only contrarian hipsters of NuCRT-fags are putting them a pedestal. >Actual CRT-fag who live and use them in their heyday
>>106759957Both CRTs and sample-hold displays rely on the limitations of human visual cortex. The illusion is dispelled once you understand this.>>106761972You don't understand what aliasing is. CRTs did need anti-aliasing as well if care about smooth edges.
