• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

OLED 30 fps vs CRT 30 fps....stutter?

T

tygertrip

Member
I have often read about how 30 fps on OLEDs appear choppy or stuttery, due to the instant pixel response times compared to LCD screens (which even the best ones smear, without BFI turned on). I don't believe people are imagining this, but there is one thing I don't understand. Let me explain. I am an old-ass gen-Xer, and used CRTs until I was around 35. I never noticed 30 fps games being stuttery on CRTs, which, to this day, are unmatched in their response times... they have absolutely perfect motion resolution. Also, it's not like I was some Madden obsessed twit that couldn't tell the difference between 30 fps vs 60 fps, believe you me. The arcade and Saturn versions of Virtua Fighter 2 and the arcade version of Daytona made me a HUGE advocate of 60 fps before some of y'all were even born! However, 30 fps still was a good baseline on CRT. When I switched over to smeary LCDs, I NEVER thought 30 fps looked better on it than CRTs. So why does 30 fps on OLEDs supposedly look so horrid (due to the instant response times) while 30 fps on CRTs looks just fine? The only thing I can think of is the vblank CRTs have. If this is the case, then well-done BFI should theoretically eliminate OLED 30 fps stutter, shouldn't it? BTW, I have never played on an OLED tv, I am just going by what people say. However, I did use to have an OLED Vita, and never noticed 30 fps looking extra-choppy on that. Anyway, can anyone explain this (to me) contradiction regarding 30 fps and instant pixel response times? Especially other old-timers that well remember the CRT days!
Edit: could it be that the people complaining about 30 fps on OLEDs are just really young and consider LCD pixel blur to be the ultimate in motion resolution, due to having grown up with it?
 
Last edited:
Hoddi

Hoddi

Member
I've no idea but my best guess is that it's because the phosphors fade so quickly on a CRT. What looks like a solid picture is literally a 99.99% blank screen outside of those few lines of lit up phosphors. You can see how quickly it fades in this video here where the 'image' is basically just a really bright and really fast moving dot.

OLEDs don't really paint the image the same way even though they also scan downwards. The pixels don't fade away as quickly after being drawn even though BFI obviously helps reducing the effect. I also think display size matters somewhat because your eyes are now tracking motion over a larger surface.

Side note: Many of those 30fps games on CRTs were interlaced which helped improve perceived motion at 60hz. The reason that interlacing was mostly invisible on CRTs is the same as the one above where the displayed lines simply didn't stay on-screen for long enough.
 
Last edited:
LordOfChaos

LordOfChaos

Member
Hoddi said:
I've no idea but my best guess is that it's because the phosphors fade so quickly on a CRT. What looks like a solid picture is literally a 99.99% blank screen outside of those few lines of lit up phosphors. You can see how quickly it fades in this video here where the 'image' is basically just a really bright and really fast moving dot.

OLEDs don't really paint the image the same way even though they also scan downwards. The pixels don't fade away as quickly after being drawn even though BFI obviously helps reducing the effect. I also think display size matters somewhat because your eyes are now tracking motion over a larger surface.

Side note: Many of those 30fps games on CRTs were interlaced which helped improve perceived motion at 60hz. The reason that interlacing was mostly invisible on CRTs is the same as the one above where the displayed lines simply didn't stay on-screen for long enough.
Click to expand...

I think you have it reversed actually. OLED's have very fast pixel response time, which actually hurts low framerate content because then it moves so fast you can see it chopping up. Phosphors on CRTs having a fade time and thus some persistence is what helps things enough that low framerate content didn't look as bad on it.
 
Last edited:
T

tygertrip

Member
Hoddi said:
I've no idea but my best guess is that it's because the phosphors fade so quickly on a CRT. What looks like a solid picture is literally a 99.99% blank screen outside of those few lines of lit up phosphors. You can see how quickly it fades in this video here where the 'image' is basically just a really bright and really fast moving dot.

OLEDs don't really paint the image the same way even though they also scan downwards. The pixels don't fade away as quickly after being drawn even though BFI obviously helps reducing the effect. I also think display size matters somewhat because your eyes are now tracking motion over a larger surface.

Side note: Many of those 30fps games on CRTs were interlaced which helped improve perceived motion at 60hz. The reason that interlacing was mostly invisible on CRTs is the same as the one above where the displayed lines simply didn't stay on-screen for long enough.
Click to expand...
I think you are right. Either it must have something to do with the CRT vblank being so prevalent, modern screen sizes, or a combination of the two. I'm very curious to see this OLED effect myself, I've only read about it, I'm very curious to see this OLED stutter for myself. Outside my old Vita, I've only seen movies on OLEDs. They looked fine to me, and I am assuming the motion blur inherent to filmed sources minimizes the stutter effect. Thanks for your thoughts!
 
T

tygertrip

Member
LordOfChaos said:
I think you have it reversed actually. OLED's have very fast pixel response time, which actually hurts low framerate content because then it moves so fast you can see it chopping up. Phosphors on CRTs having a fade time and thus some persistence is what helps blur things enough that low framerate content didn't look as bad on it.
Click to expand...
You have a point, but the thing is motion on CRTs is, perceptually, razor sharp. I'm not going by memory. We still have a CRT (my son is into retro games), and I have played on it recently. Maybe the phosphor fade is enough to get rid of the stutter, but not enough for the brain to perceive any blur? Thanks for your input!
 
Hoddi

Hoddi

Member
LordOfChaos said:
I think you have it reversed actually. OLED's have very fast pixel response time, which actually hurts low framerate content because then it moves so fast you can see it chopping up. Phosphors on CRTs having a fade time and thus some persistence is what helps blur things enough that low framerate content didn't look as bad on it.
Click to expand...
I'm by no means any authority here. But while OLEDs may have quicker pixel response times (I don't know) then an OLED won't be 99.99% blank like a CRT would be. I'm purely speculating here but I think it's a very interesting question.

tygertrip said:
I think you are right. Either it must have something to do with the CRT vblank being so prevalent, modern screen sizes, or a combination of the two. I'm very curious to see this OLED effect myself, I've only read about it, I'm very curious to see this OLED stutter for myself. Outside my old Vita, I've only seen movies on OLEDs. They looked fine to me, and I am assuming the motion blur inherent to filmed sources minimizes the stutter effect. Thanks for your thoughts!
Click to expand...
Again, I'm not sure what the cause is. But it's very much true that 30fps is far more choppy on OLEDs than on CRTs. I also have a few CRTs for retrogaming (and have an OLED in the living room) and they are worlds apart at 30fps.
 
nkarafo

nkarafo

Member
30fps on CRT is much better because it doesn't look like a moving blur smear like in modern TVs.

60fps on CRT is also much better as well.

Motion is better on CRTs in general, no matter the fps.

Unless you are brute forcing a 240hz monitor running an old game at 240fps... Only then you are reaching CRT quality clarity by hiding the motion blur under the fast frame swap. Not with 120, not with 144... These are also blurry. 240hz/fps is the minimum accepted (source: Me, using a 240hz monitor and a CRT).

tygertrip said:
well-done BFI should theoretically eliminate OLED 30 fps stutter, shouldn't it?
Click to expand...
Define "well-done".

I haven't yet seen an implementation that doesn't completely kill the colors. To the point where this feature should be considered experimental.
 
Last edited:
cireza

cireza

Member
tygertrip said:
they have absolutely perfect motion resolution
Click to expand...
This man speaks the truth.

tygertrip said:
However, 30 fps still was a good baseline on CRT.
Click to expand...
Definitely. It still looks very good.

tygertrip said:
So why does 30 fps on OLEDs supposedly look so horrid (due to the instant response times) while 30 fps on CRTs looks just fine?
Click to expand...
OLED is still the same technology that lights the pixels 100% of the time, and this is basically shit and the reason that CRTs have a number of HUGE advantages over current day technology.

OLED still has motion blur, I verified this several times. Smaller screens tend to mitigate the issue (OLED and LCD). You don't see it as much, and overall, you don't see all the defects as much. That's why Switch Lite is a much better way to play Switch games as long as they are not butchered in handheld format, of course. Vita is the same.
 
Last edited:
NeoIkaruGAF

NeoIkaruGAF

Gold Member
I replayed Banjo-Kazooie on a CRT recently.
The game, of course, stutters. But the way CRTs handle motion make it feel smooth enough to not be bothering, and you don’t get that jerky effect when the camera moves around. Of course you’ll still note some jitteriness in sub-60 fps games, both 2D and 3D. We always did. It was just much less distracting than on sample-and- hold screens. Games were also less sharp, and blurrier, especially in the textures. The cleaner, brighter image of HD games meant for digital displays makes motion problems that much more noticeable. I also booted up Dark Souls 1, the X360 version, on my XSX yesterday on a 55” OLED panel and… yeah, it’s unplayable. You can almost count the frames with your naked eye.

A better comparison would be same screen size, same content with the different techs.
When I first switched from plasma to OLED, I ran several A/B tests. I ran the HD version of FFIX on both TVs. Some of the bigger screens in the game have some scrolling, and there is this screen where the floor tiles jitter like crazy on OLED. And they STILL jitter on plasma, only it’s less evident because of the different tech.

Screen size is very important in the perception of motion issues. We never had CRTs as big as today’s flatscreens, so we’ll never know if 30fps would look that bad on a 65” CRT. But it’s readily observable that on smaller screens (phones, Vita, Switch) the problem almost isn’t there.
I’d be interested in trying out those sub-50” OLEDs to see if I’m that sensitive on smaller screen sizes. At 55”, 30 fps and lower is borderline unwatchable to me.
 
Ulysses 31

Ulysses 31

Member
Some people get bothered by something they quite can't put their finger on it and after some research they can explain what's bothering them.
 
Last edited:
T

tygertrip

Member
moniker said:
This is correct.
nkarafo said:
30fps on CRT is much better because it doesn't look like a moving blur smear like in modern TVs.

60fps on CRT is also much better as well.

Motion is better on CRTs in general, no matter the fps.

Unless you are brute forcing a 240hz monitor running an old game at 240fps... Only then you are reaching CRT quality clarity by hiding the motion blur under the fast frame swap. Not with 120, not with 144... These are also blurry. 240hz/fps is the minimum accepted (source: Me, using a 240hz monitor and a CRT).


Define "well-done".

I haven't yet seen an implementation that doesn't completely kill the colors. To the point where this feature should be considered experimental.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

nkarafo said:
30fps on CRT is much better because it doesn't look like a moving blur smear like in modern TVs.

60fps on CRT is also much better as well.

Motion is better on CRTs in general, no matter the fps.

Unless you are brute forcing a 240hz monitor running an old game at 240fps... Only then you are reaching CRT quality clarity by hiding the motion blur under the fast frame swap. Not with 120, not with 144... These are also blurry. 240hz/fps is the minimum accepted (source: Me, using a 240hz monitor and a CRT).


Define "well-done".

I haven't yet seen an implementation that doesn't completely kill the colors. To the point where this feature should be considered experimental.
Click to expand...
I agree with you about BFI, though it has come a LONG way in the last decade. I have an 82" Samsung Q6FN, and I first tried it's BFI with Metroid Dread. While I was amazed at how it sharpened motion up, with barely adding any latency, it is still too dark and flickery for my tastes. Anyway, by "well-done", I pretty much was just being optimistic for the future.
 
T

tygertrip

Member
GrayFoxPL said:
I see. Interesting.
Click to expand...
It works, but he's right. It's flickery and dark.
cireza said:
This man speaks the truth.


Definitely. It still looks very good.


OLED is still the same technology that lights the pixels 100% of the time, and this is basically shit and the reason that CRTs have a number of HUGE advantages over current day technology.

OLED still has motion blur, I verified this several times. Smaller screens tend to mitigate the issue (OLED and LCD). You don't see it as much, and overall, you don't see all the defects as much. That's why Switch Lite is a much better way to play Switch games as long as they are not butchered in handheld format, of course. Vita is the same.
Click to expand...
I hear you buddy. I hanged on to CRTs for the longest. Still have one, for retro systems.
 
T

tygertrip

Member
rofif said:
It's about the same as on crt.
Oleds are just huge... so see bigger jumps between framerates.
I bet you 100% i oleds were also 17", these would look better than crt.

edit:
EXACTLY
Click to expand...
I'm sure it contributes, but I think the vblank vs sample and hold contributes also.
 
dotnotbot

dotnotbot

Member
ParaSeoul said:
Was playing RDR2 on my C1,wasn't an issue.
Click to expand...

Yep, RDR2 is one of those games where blur is well balanced and 30 FPS feels fine plus the game itself is rather sluggish.

But The Witness for example feels awful in 30 FPS mode, it's an unplayable stuttery mess because there is zero blur combined with bright colorful visuals.

Brightness is also an important factor btw. You'll notice a lot more stutter on objects moving against very bright backrounds.
 
6502

6502

Member
CRT do look great. Still using my wega for retro. I had a 32" samsung slim tube hd tv before my plasma, it looked great but some writing was impossible to read in games (particularly GTA) but was perfect on the plasma.
 
A.Romero

A.Romero

Member
Dream-Knife said:
How many FPS is needed to reach CRT levels?

I really wish they still made CRTs. A 1080p CRT would be perfect.
Click to expand...

I had a 1080i CRT about 15 years ago. I wouldn't trade any of the flat panels I've had since then for it. A matter of taste, I guess.

Personally I notice the choppiness for 30 FPS on OLED (C1) but with their motion stuff is passable. Obviously higher framerates are desirable but not always possible. A fair trade off for all the benefits modern screens have, IMO.
 
rofif

rofif

Can’t Git Gud
Dr_Salt said:
CRT Master race.
Click to expand...

It's not to bad on OLED compared to lcd.
On c1, there is no ghosting/trailing behind moving UFO. the ufo itself at 4k/150 desktop scaling and 960pix/s looks a little blurry but nothing bad like LCD. you can make out the lines in the red ufo.
2nd image is with BFI on c1. Sadly there is no bfi on c2 ?!
Iphone really refuses to take this picture... Keep in mind this is a tiny ufo on a big screen.

k9rBsse.jpg

Bkaeo8S.jpg


I have a crt in the basement :p I will remember to do this next time I get it out
 
T

tygertrip

Member
rofif said:
It's not to bad on OLED compared to lcd.
On c1, there is no ghosting/trailing behind moving UFO. the ufo itself at 4k/150 desktop scaling and 960pix/s looks a little blurry but nothing bad like LCD. you can make out the lines in the red ufo.
2nd image is with BFI on c1. Sadly there is no bfi on c2 ?!
Iphone really refuses to take this picture... Keep in mind this is a tiny ufo on a big screen.

k9rBsse.jpg

Bkaeo8S.jpg


I have a crt in the basement :p I will remember to do this next time I get it out
Click to expand...
Kickass!
Don’t you hate it when they remove features, whether it be drivers, TVs, whatever?
 
01011001

01011001

Banned
Dream-Knife said:
How many FPS is needed to reach CRT levels?
Click to expand...

144fps on a modern OLED is basically indistinguishable from a CRT

this right here is a photo I took with my phone just now, on my 3.5 year old Dell LCD 144hz Monitor.
nkAIQ5E.png


so if my LCD is this sharp already, an OLED screen will be pin sharp at that framerate as OLED screens have way better pixel response time than LCD, and this right here is already really close to CRT especially to the naked eye

you can also of course use black-frame-insertion... and that will be really sharp as well

EDIT:

here the same Monitor at 120hz with black frame insertion (it only supports BFI at 120hz, hence no 144hz here)


basically 100% pin sharp, almost no smear visible. without the shaky camera view, looking at this IRL with your actual eyes, it's literally almost zero discernible blur whatsoever, so basically almost better than a CRT which still has some after after glowing in fast motion

my phone's camera isn't the best anymore, so the blur you see there is almost entirely due to the camera not the screen's pixel response time

and once again, on an OLED this would be even sharper and even less blurry, while it's already basically blur-less with BFI on this LCD
 
Last edited:
Dream-Knife

Dream-Knife

Banned
01011001 said:
144fps on a modern OLED is basically indistinguishable from a CRT

this right here is a photo I took with my phone just now, on my 3.5 year old Dell LCD 144hz Monitor.
nkAIQ5E.png


so if my LCD is this sharp already, an OLED screen will be pin sharp at that framerate as OLED screens have way better pixel response time than LCD, and this right here is already really close to CRT especially to the naked eye

you can also of course use black-frame-insertion... and that will be really sharp as well

EDIT:

here the same Monitor at 120hz with black frame insertion (it only supports BFI at 120hz, hence no 144hz here)


basically 100% pin sharp, almost no smear visible. without the shaky camera view, looking at this IRL with your actual eyes, it's literally almost zero discernible blur whatsoever, so basically almost better than a CRT which still has some after after glowing in fast motion

my phone's camera isn't the best anymore, so the blur you see there is almost entirely due to the camera not the screen's pixel response time

and once again, on an OLED this would be even sharper and even less blurry, while it's already basically blur-less with BFI on this LCD
Click to expand...

Yeah at 170hz on my own monitor I'm not noticing any blur.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MH Wilds TGS PS5 demo: Unstable 30 FPS, low quality texture
Rumor 2 3
134
8K
ArtHands replied
Nintendo Switch on a 22" VGA CRT PC monitor is ridiculous and awesome. (56k warning: images)
38
3K
nkarafo replied
I can't take 30 fps games seriously anymore
Cringe 2 3 4
188
12K
Dorfdad replied
An OLED Panel For The LCD Steam Deck Is Being Made
1
1K
64gigabyteram replied
Best TV for 30 fps Gaming
2
53
5K
Negotiator101 replied
Top Bottom