6 ms·

Very interesting article. The writing style of author Laura Peters stands out to me, it is informative, filled with many short background explanations suited fo

Very interesting article. The writing style of author Laura Peters stands out to me, it is informative, filled with many short background explanations suited for laymen, to the point, factual, entertaining. The possible leap in responsiveness cannot be overstated, such displays will probably solve latency issues plaguing alternative display technologies for good. I cannot wait to have 1000+ Hz ultra responsive screens in any imaginable format.

giuliomagnifico 5y ago
Yes! I posted it for this, it’s nice to understand how a new (quite) technology is going to mass production.
beebeepka 5y ago
OLED is plenty fast. It's everything else that is holding us back. It took the TV companies decades to move, reluctantly, beyond the silly 60hz cap I am all for 1000fps games but by that time I won't be able to play them due to old age.
- skybrian 5y ago
  I don't understand why you care? 60hz seems plenty fast enough and there are a lot of things slower than that. We are usually waiting on networks, not displays.
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    Games can push more than 60 FPS easily, but a lot of TVs (I’d assume most) are not used for that and manufacturers can extract extra profit from premium models that enable that (even if the panels and electronics are identical because it’s cheaper to manufacture that way). For me, personally, the benefit of an HDR panel would be much higher than faster frame rates.
  - Dylan16807 5y ago
    When you're interactively controlling something, you're best off getting new frames in a small number of milliseconds end to end. Lots of the delays in the pipeline are measured in multiples of frames. There are serious improvements in the ability to click on things up to 200-300Hz, and going above that is less important but still not bad. For something that can toggle as fast as an LED, might as well go for 500/1000 and minimize jitter.
    - skybrian 5y ago
      If the rendering pipeline adds multiple frames of latency, it seems like that's a separate problem that should be fixed and it would help a lot without raising the frame rate.
      - Dylan16807 5y ago
        You pretty much have to buffer a couple frames because that's how rendering works. You can do work to reduce extras, but it only gets you so far. And screens tend to want to buffer at least a frame too, and it's hard to convince them not to. You also need quite high framerates to make rendered motion come out reasonably smooth. Especially for something you're trying to follow across the screen with your eye. Fake motion blur only partially helps and has its own problems.
        skybrian 5y ago
        I wonder if it makes sense to render at 120hz internally but skip every other frame? That should have a similar improvement on latency as actual 120hz. I agree that following things across the screen is a use case for higher rendering rates.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        That helps, as does triple buffering at very high framerates, and various techniques to try to align rendering exactly with when a frame is needed. But it's still significantly better if you put that 120+Hz output onto a 120+Hz screen, and it's not super hard to make them.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  TVs have longer lifetimes than phone or laptop displays, so it’s safe to assume manufacturers would be more cautious. As for TVs, there’s not enough 60+ Hz content to justify much of a hurry. I’d be surprised if there were a significant amount of content above 24Hz.

giuliomagnifico 5y ago

Yes! I posted it for this, it’s nice to understand how a new (quite) technology is going to mass production.

beebeepka 5y ago

OLED is plenty fast. It's everything else that is holding us back. It took the TV companies decades to move, reluctantly, beyond the silly 60hz cap I am all for 1000fps games but by that time I won't be able to play them due to old age.

skybrian 5y ago
I don't understand why you care? 60hz seems plenty fast enough and there are a lot of things slower than that. We are usually waiting on networks, not displays.
- rbanffy 5y ago
  Games can push more than 60 FPS easily, but a lot of TVs (I’d assume most) are not used for that and manufacturers can extract extra profit from premium models that enable that (even if the panels and electronics are identical because it’s cheaper to manufacture that way). For me, personally, the benefit of an HDR panel would be much higher than faster frame rates.
- Dylan16807 5y ago
  When you're interactively controlling something, you're best off getting new frames in a small number of milliseconds end to end. Lots of the delays in the pipeline are measured in multiples of frames. There are serious improvements in the ability to click on things up to 200-300Hz, and going above that is less important but still not bad. For something that can toggle as fast as an LED, might as well go for 500/1000 and minimize jitter.
  - skybrian 5y ago
    If the rendering pipeline adds multiple frames of latency, it seems like that's a separate problem that should be fixed and it would help a lot without raising the frame rate.
    - Dylan16807 5y ago
      You pretty much have to buffer a couple frames because that's how rendering works. You can do work to reduce extras, but it only gets you so far. And screens tend to want to buffer at least a frame too, and it's hard to convince them not to. You also need quite high framerates to make rendered motion come out reasonably smooth. Especially for something you're trying to follow across the screen with your eye. Fake motion blur only partially helps and has its own problems.
      - skybrian 5y ago
        I wonder if it makes sense to render at 120hz internally but skip every other frame? That should have a similar improvement on latency as actual 120hz. I agree that following things across the screen is a use case for higher rendering rates.
        Dylan16807 5y ago
        That helps, as does triple buffering at very high framerates, and various techniques to try to align rendering exactly with when a frame is needed. But it's still significantly better if you put that 120+Hz output onto a 120+Hz screen, and it's not super hard to make them.
rbanffy 5y ago
TVs have longer lifetimes than phone or laptop displays, so it’s safe to assume manufacturers would be more cautious. As for TVs, there’s not enough 60+ Hz content to justify much of a hurry. I’d be surprised if there were a significant amount of content above 24Hz.