Why 1000fps is better than 60fps with 1ms of persistence or any other fps with 1ms of persistence

Summary

Highlights

• Introduces motion clarity and its complexities in display systems. 🎥
• Detailed explanation of the difference between low persistence and high frame rate clarity. 🕵️‍♂️
• Uses examples like UFO tests and Witcher 3 to show effect of frame rates on clarity. ⚔️
• Explains what happens with persistence at various fps rates and why 1000fps is ideal. 💡
• Describes comparing different monitors and the visible differences in motion clarity. 🖥️

Key Takeaways

• Higher frame rates like 1000fps enhance motion clarity beyond what traditional 60fps offers, even with low persistence. 🚀
• Flickering technology alone can't match the smooth motion provided by brute force high frame rates. 🎮
• The importance of non-eye tracked motion clarity highlights the need for fps beyond current standards. 👀
• Displays with higher refresh rates eliminate ghosting-like effects observed at lower frame rates. ✨
• Achieving ultra-high fps is crucial for seamless gaming and display performance, simulating natural vision. 🕹️

Overview

Chapters

• 00:00 - 02:30: Introduction to Motion Clarity In this chapter, the concept of motion clarity is introduced. The speaker hints at the complexity and transformative nature of understanding motion clarity, comparing it to a 'matrix moment,' where one's perception might fundamentally change, similar to Neo's experience in the Matrix films.
• 02:30 - 05:00: Comparison of Frame Rates and Persistence The chapter discusses the topic of frame rates and persistence, with an aim to explore the differences between low frame rates and high frame rates. The speaker expresses a sense of clarity and revelation about these concepts and conveys excitement about unraveling this complexity. The focus is on explaining the significant distinctions and effects of frame rate variance.
• 05:00 - 07:30: Understanding Blur Buster's Law This chapter explains the concept of persistence in display technology, particularly focusing on Blur Buster's Law. The law illustrates how a persistence of 1 millisecond can be achieved through different methods, such as by having a frame visibility time of 1 millisecond at any frames per second (FPS), or by employing a brute force sample and hold method with 1,000 frames per second. The chapter dives into the technical aspects behind achieving such persistence rates, likely discussing both theoretical and practical implications.
• 07:30 - 17:30: Eye Tracking vs. Non-Eye Tracking Clarity The chapter 'Eye Tracking vs. Non-Eye Tracking Clarity' discusses the need for 1,000 frames per second (fps) in eye-tracking technology. It questions the necessity of such a high frame rate, suggesting that traditional methods like display flickering, similar to that used in CRTs, could enhance motion clarity without the need for such high fps.
• 17:30 - 31:30: Conclusion on Motion Clarity and High FPS The chapter discusses the need for more than 1,000 frames per second (FPS) to improve motion clarity. It addresses the common question of whether this high FPS is necessary, aiming to provide an understandable explanation for why it is needed. The speaker acknowledges the challenge in explaining this concept clearly, despite it seeming obvious, and hints at using an example involving a UFO to illustrate the point.

Why 1000fps is better than 60fps with 1ms of persistence or any other fps with 1ms of persistence Transcription

• 00:00 - 00:30 I'm going to finally try my best to explain and to show you the hardest thing about motion clarity. And let me tell you, be careful if you follow me on this one because this might become a matrix moment for you. Red pill, blue pill, okay? you might start seeing things completely different and like Neo right
• 00:30 - 01:00 now I'm feeling like the chosen one and everything is green and messed up but let me tell you this is really one of those things that I've been asking myself about it seems obvious what is the difference so here's the question that we're going to try to expl explain today what is the difference between low
• 01:00 - 01:30 persistence let's say 1 millisecond of persistence 1 millisecond of frame visibility time at any FPS and 1 millisecond of frame visibility time through brute force sample and hold 1,000 frames per second. What is the
• 01:30 - 02:00 difference? Why do we need 1,000 frames per second? Then it just doesn't make any sense. How are we going to get 1,000 fps in our games? And why would we need that? We can just use flickering on the display like CRTs used to do to improve the motion. We don't need that insane high frame rate.
• 02:00 - 02:30 Right or wrong? Okay, we do need 1,000 frames per second plus. And I will explain you why. This is what I'm going to try to explain in this video. So the thing is and the the reason why this seems obvious but it is so hard to to explain is because if you open the UFO
• 02:30 - 03:00 test and you follow the UFO test you have let's lower the the ceiling instead of instead of one millisecond of persistence Let's say we have three 3 milliseconds of persistence and we have that at 120 fps for example. If you look at the UFO test, if you follow it, you're like, "Okay, I see
• 03:00 - 03:30 how that looks like." And now you change and you get 360 fps at 360 hertz, same speed. It's going to look the same. You will not see any difference between same persistence regardless of the FPS. It doesn't matter if you have brute force sample and hold max out FPS for
• 03:30 - 04:00 that persistence or you have a very low frame rate but just flickering technology. So when you see that, you're going to be like, "Man, I wish, you know, CRTs were still here." We only needed 60 FPS and it was amazing. It was like 1 millisecond of persistence or two depending on on the CRT, sometimes even sub 1 millisecond. So you're going to be like,
• 04:00 - 04:30 "Man, that was like alien technology." Amazing input lag, very clear motion. We only needed like 60 fps. I mean, even 100. There are some CRTs with higher refresh rate, but you get the idea. you' be like, it just makes no sense to keep pushing the refresh rate of the of the displays and they're still blurry and not better than CRTs and then
• 04:30 - 05:00 try to, you know, keep pushing more powerful GPU and fake frames so we can get up there to get the same clarity as a CRT, which we already had. that does just it just is a hard thing to compute. Now let me tell you it is better for obvious reasons to have a higher frame rate. Just imagine you get 1,000 frames
• 05:00 - 05:30 per second. Okay, I mean that might be hard to imagine. So let's lower the ceiling. Let's say you get 360 frames per second, which is possible, very, very hard, but it is possible. I have a 360 Hz monitor right here. And I have this LG C1 OLED which at 120 FPS using
• 05:30 - 06:00 flickering, it gets close to this 3 millconds of persistence. It's a little bit higher, but it gets close to the 360 experience. So that allows me to compare to see, okay, what difference do I see between my 360 Hz QLED monitor at 360 frames per second and my LG C1 OLED at 120 frames
• 06:00 - 06:30 per second using the flickering technology which LG calls OLED Motion Pro high. What difference do I see? Because when I open the UFO test, they look very similar because they have close enough uh persistence the frame visibility time. So I will explain the difference. I'm going to try to show you. But before we go
• 06:30 - 07:00 there, I have to explain motion clarity. So if you are not caught up yet, you can get on the same page because this is next level stuff. Okay? This is like the last piece of the puzzle in my opinion. This is this was the last thing that I was able to have an idea on. Okay, I'm not an expert on this, but I think I have a good understanding. So motion clarity based on the blurb
• 07:00 - 07:30 boser's law tells you that the motion clarity of any display regardless of the technology, the tricks, the gimmicks, the features, whatever they do, it doesn't matter. The motion cannot be better than the displays persistence. What is the persistence? The persistence is the
• 07:30 - 08:00 frame visibility time. How long can we see the frame? Doesn't matter how many frames you have. How long can we see the frame? That's going to be the persistence. That will be the ceiling. for motion clarity. It cannot be better than it no matter what. So for example, if we have a sample and hold
• 08:00 - 08:30 display like most of the displays we have today, that frame visibility time that persistence will be limited by the refresh rate of the display. So if we have a 120 Hz display which is very very common I would say it's like bare minimum nowadays most of the TVs are 120 Hz. What is the frame visibility time
• 08:30 - 09:00 each frame? So we have 120 frames per second. That's what the 120 htz means. So if we have 120 frames in 1 second, for how long can we see each frame? That's easy. We divide one by 120 and we get the result and that result in milliseconds will be 8.3 milliseconds. So that is the
• 09:00 - 09:30 persistence that is the frame visibility time that is how long can we see each frame and that based on the blur boss's law means that the motion clarity cannot be better than 8 pixels of motion blur when moving at 1,000 pixels per second. Now, one thing for me that was hard to understand about the blurb busters law
• 09:30 - 10:00 at the beginning was, oh, what does that mean? Moving at 1,000 pixels per second. And it's actually very easy to understand. We have pixels on the screen. So, how many pixels per second is the object moving on the screen? So, let's say we have 4,000 pixels. It's a 4K screen. Horizontally, we have close to 4,000 pixels. We will approximate for simplicity purpose. So, if we have 4,000
• 10:00 - 10:30 pixels left to right horizontally and we are moving at 1,000 pixels per second, how long will it will it take? It's going to take 4 seconds, right? So, we're moving at a 1,000 pixels per second and we have 4,000 pixels. It's going to take 4 seconds to cover the screen width. Now, if we have
• 10:30 - 11:00 a 1440p display, it's going to cover the screen width faster. But the blur buster's law is resolution agnostic. Okay? It explains motion clarity regardless of the resolution. But at the same speed in pixels per second depending on the resolution the object will move faster or slower respect to the screen. So it's going to cover the screen width faster or slower.
• 11:00 - 11:30 And we could explain motion clarity based on the speed when it comes to the screen width. It doesn't matter which unit of measurement you use to describe the speed of the object. Okay. So the thing is we all know that 60 fps it looks blurry. Sample on hold 60 fps you move the camera it looks blurry. And we all know that 120 fps
• 11:30 - 12:00 looks a lot better but still blurry. If you pan the camera still looks kind of blurry. Now I think at 240 fps with a 240 Hz alllet monitor things start to look a little bit clear. Okay. And at that point, many people might think, well, why would you need more than that? Because if you want that to be clear, when you move faster, you need
• 12:00 - 12:30 higher hertz, lower persistence or at any FPS, just lower the persistence. Okay. So the biggest question is what is the difference between 240 fps in a 240 htz or 360 fps on a 360 htz display and the same persistence. So in the case of
• 12:30 - 13:00 240 hertz we have 4 milliseconds of persistence. So you divide 1 divided by 240 multiply by 1,000 to get the results in milliseconds. That gives you 4 milliseconds of persistence. For 360 hertz, same 1 / 360 multiply by 1,000, we get three milliseconds of persistence. So what is the difference? Let's say we have this LGC1 OLED which has a
• 13:00 - 13:30 flickering technology that gets close at 120 fps with this flickering technology it gets close to this 360 Hz all monitor. So, what is the difference between 120 fps on this LG C1 using that flickering technology and 360 fps on this 360 Hz QD OLED? What's the difference is is let's
• 13:30 - 14:00 say we have the same persistence. We don't. The QD OLED is lower, but let's say we have the same persistence. If you open the UFO test, they are going to look very similar. And if they had the same persistence, they will look exactly the same. Like you cannot tell the difference. If you follow the UFO test with your eyes, it's going to look exactly the
• 14:00 - 14:30 same. So for me, I was wondering, it makes sense that a higher FPS is going to be better because we have more frames, right? We have more information. But if I cannot tell the difference when I am I tracking an object, what difference it makes? Why would I why would we need to go just so insane with a frame rate? Go over 360 fps. That sounds crazy. Even to get 360 fps is very hard and we might
• 14:30 - 15:00 need to use frame generation and other fake frame uh tricks. So the difference might be obvious of course higher frame rate you have more more frames more information it's going to look better but if again you eye it track objects let's say you are moving the camera like this and you start eye tracking a specific object for example I'm eye tracking this I'm moving the camera I compare this 120 fps with
• 15:00 - 15:30 flickering compare that with 360 fps 360 Hz the object looks the So, if I'm I'm eye it eye tracking this, it looks the same. So, what is the difference, bro? How can you tell that 360 fps is better than 120 fps with the same persistence using flickering? How can you tell the difference? Let me tell you, the difference is not for eyetracking. So when you're
• 15:30 - 16:00 eyetracking a specific object, you don't see any difference. They look exactly the same. In this case, they don't because this LGC1 doesn't have 3 millconds of persistence. It has a little bit higher persistence, but they're close enough where for me to be able to tell the difference, I would need to have them side by side like I do. So the thing is the difference is not for eye tracking. Every time you ey
• 16:00 - 16:30 it eyetrack an object, it's going to be the same when you have the same persistence regardless of the frame rate. Okay, I think that eye tracking is the most important thing because when you are appreciating the motion, you're going to be eyetracking. See, okay, let's see how clear this looks when I move. Let's say you have a te a text on the screen. You want to follow the text to see if you can read it. You do this. Wow, I can read the test and it looks the same in both displays right
• 16:30 - 17:00 here. But the difference is on things that you are not tracking. So is that important? Yes, it is. If you know how to look at it, what to look for, you will notice the difference, and it will be a matrix moment. I promise you, you're going to
• 17:00 - 17:30 feel like the chosen one. So, here's the thing. Finally, here's the difference. I'm going to show you this. Look in between. So look at the things behind this cage right here. So look at the focus on the things that are in between the cage. Okay? So basically what I'm saying right now is try to look
• 17:30 - 18:00 at the things behind the cage and I will get my phone closer before we end and I will repeat this this test. So I will describe it to you because we are on YouTube 60 fps. I don't think this can come across of course it cannot come across the same way I see it. So I will describe it to you what what's happening and then I will show you that on the 360 QDL at 360 frames per second to
• 18:00 - 18:30 hopefully you can see a little bit of the of the difference. But let me explain it to you. So basically when I move the camera in between the cage when I'm looking at the things behind I can notice something similar to ghosting but this is a Witcher 3 no taa anti-aliasing is completely off. This is
• 18:30 - 19:00 before the update. This is the old Witcher 3 before the update. Zero anti-aliasing. This is 4K. No fake frames, no TAA, no DLSS, no SMAA, nothing. Okay, this is raw pixels right here. So, I should not be able to see any ghosting whatsoever. I should not be able to see any artifacts. This is an OLED. Okay, we don't have ghosting
• 19:00 - 19:30 um due to the gray to gray limitations, the responsiveness of the pixels. We don't have those issues or what I'm seeing right now in between. So the the the things behind the cage, what I'm seeing right now is a result of the lower 120 fps that I'm getting right now. Okay, 120 fps. If I look look at this side, 120 fps. Let me get this closer. You can see this better. Maybe get this very close. Although the
• 19:30 - 20:00 closer I get with the camera, the blurrier it looks on YouTube because I am increasing the pixels per degree of view. But focus on this. When I do this in between here, I can see the lower frame rate. I can see something similar to ghosting. That goes away completely with the
• 20:00 - 20:30 through 360 Hz. No. Well, the thing is, well, I have to keep the the camera farther away so when I move it, it's still on screen. I just noticed that. So, the thing is with the 360 fps, that doesn't happen. So now another way to look at this would be once you see it, once you know what to look for, then you can do
• 20:30 - 21:00 this. I'm going to move the camera and I will focus my eyes on a center point. So when I do that now the background looks the same as this was looking. It's going to look like we don't have enough frames for the clarity that we see and as a consequence it
• 21:00 - 21:30 looks like we don't have enough information to fill the gaps. Basically, you are able to see that the frame rate is lower than the persistence you have that they don't match. Okay? So, as a consequence, things look like like you you're lacking frames. You need more frames. That doesn't happen with a
• 21:30 - 22:00 360. Okay? with a 360 fps 360 htz that doesn't happen. Now I can I can still see the limitations in motion clarity of this monitor definitely if I move the camera faster than 360 pixels per second I can start seeing a little bit of blur. you have two pixels of motion blur if you move at 720 and like so at 720 is still is still good enough
• 22:00 - 22:30 but if you move faster than that then you start definitely start seeing the motion clarity um the blur so I'm not saying 360 fps 360 Hz is perfect not at all we need a lot higher than that but I'm saying for the same motion clarity less frames here look like I can't see it now. So again, all you have to do is first you need to see what I'm talking about. So for example,
• 22:30 - 23:00 this is a Witcher 3. Before the update, you go to the blowout and wine new game. You're going to see this cage right here. Turn off anti-aliasing 120 fps. If you have the C1 or if you have any of these monitors that have backlight strobing, just look at this. Look at things behind this cage. This is just an example. And you will see this thing that looks like ghosting. It is not ghosting. It's this is I'm talking
• 23:00 - 23:30 about. So when you see that now, you focus on the character and you look at the world and you'll see that the same shortcoming exactly the same. So the motion clarity aspect that I'm talking about that doesn't get improved by lowering the persistence is for non eye tracking. Let's say for the things moving in the peripheral view that
• 23:30 - 24:00 you're not focused on. So I'm not focused on the background. I'm looking at the Witcher. The background looks like it is lacking frames. like for the motion CL that we see we are not filling all the gaps with all the frames. Okay. And that might completely change your take on low persistence flickering and you will understand and accept that yes
• 24:00 - 24:30 we need higher frame rate. Yes, we need brute force sample and hold. And yes, the ultimate goal is to get 1,00 FPS plus 1,000 hertz plus to get that amazing motion clarity. Now, let me try to show you this same thing on the 360 QDL. So, before we do that, let me
• 24:30 - 25:00 go again try to show this me have the phone more center. Again, let's focus on that. So again, I can see this here. All the things moving like right here. So on all this, all the things behind the cage, you're going to see the lag, the frame rates lacking that. Look at that as a ghosting right now. And I
• 25:00 - 25:30 will show you the 360 Hz monitor. I'm going to put it farther away, maybe make it easier to see. And then I will show you the 360 Hz monitor. Similar clarity, but you will not see that defect. This looks like ghosting. It is not ghosting. It is the frame rate being lower. You see that? Now I'm going to
• 25:30 - 26:00 change I'm going to change this to my second monitor and I will show you. Now here is the 360 Hz Q monitor. I mean we're dropping like two frames. That's fine. It's very hard to get uh even with a 59 because of the CPU. So you see my 59 is at 75% but my CPU is dropping a little bit but you can still see the difference. So let's go. Now I'm going to move it. Now I'm going to
• 26:00 - 26:30 describe to you what I see in front of me because again 60 fps on YouTube is might not show this difference the same way that I see in front of me. So the difference is that this So what I see behind this cage right here now it looks perfect. It looks perfect. I no longer see that lack of frame rate. I no longer
• 26:30 - 27:00 see that effect similar to ghosting. I don't see that at all. It just looks perfect. like I I am not missing those frames in between to fill the gaps. This was so eyeopening to me. The first time I realized this, I was like, why do I
• 27:00 - 27:30 see any kind of motion problems with this game? If I don't have anti-aliasing at all, anti-aliasing is completely off. I should not be able to see any ghosting. with this kind of motion clarity, it should look perfect and it doesn't on the C1. It doesn't with 120 fps all motion pro high. But here on the 360 Hz QL monitor, it does.
• 27:30 - 28:00 And now, in case you wonder, well, what if you just lower the hertz? Well, I lower the hertz to 300. It's still the same. It looks perfect. Now, it doesn't have the same motion clarity, but what I'm saying is this defect that I was referring to, it doesn't happen. And also, it doesn't happen once I focus on the character and I look at the
• 28:00 - 28:30 background. Now, the background looks perfectly smooth. It doesn't look like I am missing frames. And that is the most important thing because this example right here, you're not going to have this example in many games all the time. So you might think, well, it doesn't matter then. Well, it does matter after you realize after you realize what's going on. It does matter because now I focus in the center of the character and and and then
• 28:30 - 29:00 so I'm looking at the center of the character but I am focusing on the background on my peripheral view and I see the difference now and the difference is huge like this no longer looks shopping it no it no longer looks like I am lacking the frame frame rate. The frame rate is lower. It looks perfect. It looks like So, the description is this
• 29:00 - 29:30 looks like great motion clarity with motion blur. What I'm saying is I'm I'm focusing on the character moving the camera. The background looks like it has per pixel motion blur but it is clear otherwise. So the motion clarity is great. We just added per pixel motion blur. So it is the normal natural motion blur of my
• 29:30 - 30:00 eyesight when I am not focusing on the objects which is what happens in the real world. In real life, you're not focusing at something, it's gonna blur. It's gonna look blurry, but it is clear by itself. And if you, of course, now if I focus on it, if I track the objects now, they look great. They look perfect. No issues
• 30:00 - 30:30 whatsoever. So that is the difference with the C1 120 fps. I move the camera, focus on the center. So look at the center but focus on the peripheral view. It doesn't look like I have motion blur enabled. It looks like I am lacking frames. It looks like I have gaps in between the frames because the frame rate is lower
• 30:30 - 31:00 than what the persistence is basically. So there you go. That is the difference. And I think in in my opinion that's the hardest thing to see and to understand about emotion clarity. But once you see it, you will definitely agree and accept and be excited about very high refresh rate monitors. I mean, we're getting 500 hertz QD OLED this year, and
• 31:00 - 31:30 hopefully next year or two years from now, we will get 1,000 hertz. And we need even more than that. But 1,00 is going to be very, very, very good. So, let me know your thoughts and opinions and if you have any questions.