Motion Blur Solutions Don't Work Says Study (High-Def Digest)

Source

Excellent study in the Displaymate source link, Charles.

It's nice to see scientific studies that convince me to spend less money.

I would assume this is for LCD monitors as well as TVs...an LCD is an LCD. Interesting. I'd like to see more on how they tested, and if some of the study people considered themselves susceptible to seeing motion blur.

I may have missed it, as I read the report fairly quick, but I did not see where they mention 24 fps film sources or discuss the psychological Sample and Hold Effect that affects some folks more than others. The study looks geared specifically towards 60 fps video, which will always appear “smoother” than film. They also avoided projectors and LCOS / Dila variant LCD technologies. Sony’s dark frame insertion is unique to anything else on the market, and the majority of user reports for this process are favorable as it directly relates to SHE.

A year ago I had no idea what motion blur was, why it existed, and if I was sensitive to it. I was in a clueless state of bliss with my LCD projector. Then I started reading about it and now I’m sensitive to it…….. But now that I know it does exist, and why, I’m screwed. I see it all the time and it drives me nuts. I will most likely move to DLP and do my best to convince myself that rainbows don’t bother me.

In the source material they are more specific that they are talking only about the response time of the LCDs themselves and not the 24 fps up-conversion induced problems.

I can say w/o a doubt the 24fps issue is real. Perhaps some people are more effected than other and I must be one of the. Watching 2001 on my new projector there are a couple of scenes where moving spaceships show motion judder as they move across the screen. Also while watching Aeon Flux there are several pans across close up objects the blur. By turning the frame creation mode up to 2 both the judder and blurring completely disappeared w/ limited effect on the PQ in only a few scenes. So anyone who says that the 24fps thing isn’t real I’m throwing the BS flag. Thankfully I don’t see rainbows on my DLP.

The 24fps thing isn't real, at least on the Pioneer Kuro plasmas. When fed a 24 fps signal, they go into 72 fps mode and display each frame 3 times, for a solid film-like appearance.

I’ve always like the pictures on plasmas. Got a line on any 134” diagonals for near $3,000.

Seriously I did look at getting a BMFP (Big somethin somethin Plasma) because it’s a straight shot in through my garage to my screen position. Unfortunately it would have cost almost as much as my house.

Here's a costs-as-much-as-a-house plasma. It's also only 103", but I like that it runs on 230 Volt, and ends up requiring 1550 Watts. I'm sure it's illegal or own or operate in the State of California.

A couple of years ago, there was a survey of delivered vertical resolution in which plasma was consistantly the best. I seem to remember that LCD was all over the place.

I ended up with RP as a compromise because it delivered excellent colour, resolution and minimal motion blur at a cost of thickness.

I wish they would hurry up already and figure out this OLED tech. before I need a new display.

Just $99,995 and it's yours.

I came to the same conclusion and got a RP. But I must admit that LCDs have come a long way in PQ and would put them on par with DLP. However, I still prefer plasma. Funny the best looking TV for black levels, contrast, and colour was a 16x9 Sony CRT but it was only something like 43” diagonal and weighed a lot.

I had a 46" 4:3 Sony CRT. Great colors and contrast, made even better once I got access to the service menu. But weighed 275 lbs, with another 75 for the stand. I would have said "great picture", but I don't like how hard it is to get a stable picture on a CRT; it grows and shrinks depending on the over-all picture level, and the rest of the analog nightmare. Give me individually addressed pixels.

Once plasma's came WAY down in price (like, when you no longer had to take out a car loan in order to purchase a 40 inch model) I really wanted to get one. But when I went down to my local HH Gregg electronics store to shop for my next screen, I couldn't help but notice how much darker their picture is next to an LCD. They have all the tv's right next to each other, and it wasn't a few of them, or even the majority of them... ALL OF THEM had a much darker picture than the LCD's sitting right next to them.

They did have a silky quality to them that I really liked, but I really did prefer the crisp, bright picture of the LCD's over the plasma models. If I would have had to spend a few extra bucks to get an LCD I probably would have, but the fact that the 65 inch LCD I got cost almost 2 thousand dollars less than the lowest priced 63 inch plasma (never could find a 65 inch plasma back then), it made the decision that much easier! Now the subject at hand, motion blur... they had the two Sharp 65 inch LCD's (60 hz and 120 hz) sitting right next to each other for direct comparison. And with a football game playing, I personally felt the 120 hz version did deliver a smoother experience. But it wasn't a $2000 dollar difference like the pricetags suggested it was. The 60 hz version (the one I took home) cost $2700 dollars. The 120 hz model was just shy of 5 grand!

Had the price disparity been a couple hundred dollars I might have went for it. But there was no way in hell I was going to pay almost twice as much for such a small difference. I knew once I got the tv home and away from the 120 hz model I would never notice the difference. And to be honest, I can't rightly recall there ever being a time while watching a movie, tv show or sports program where I noticed any motion blur. So for me anyway, it's a non issue.

I'm sure also once you got it home and calibrated the brightness was cut way back from the "torch mode" used on the showroom floor.