It's probably just limitation of LCD. I remeber using laptop in 90s and refresh rate was so bad that if you moved a mouse it was not visible (the motion blur special effect for the mouse pointer in early Windows helped a bit with this, I was also wondering if maybe that was the reason it existed).
Since then LCD studios made huge progress, but maybe still can't compare with CRT.
OLED magnitude faster than LCD, I'm wondering how these compare.
Many models now include "smart" features that do things like motion blur, contrast adjustment, etc that probably do make the picture look better (i.e., "more cinematic") when used normally. These features just clash with niche uses, like vision research and competitive gaming, that would prefer pixel-accurate, predictable updates.
It's surprisingly hard to figure which consumer monitors have what features. There are "research" displays that don't have these features, are calibrated, update in a predictable way, etc, but they're eye-wateringly expensive.
In some sense, we were spoiled with CRTs, which were too dumb to do anything but sweep from top to bottom, left to right, over and over. Of course, it was much harder to generate dynamic stimuli back then too, so it's a mixed bag.
Sounds like the difference between passive and active matrix LCDs. Passive vs. Active screen was a big differentiator in cost and screen quality in early to mid 1990s laptops.
Comments
It's probably just limitation of LCD. I remeber using laptop in 90s and refresh rate was so bad that if you moved a mouse it was not visible (the motion blur special effect for the mouse pointer in early Windows helped a bit with this, I was also wondering if maybe that was the reason it existed).
Since then LCD studios made huge progress, but maybe still can't compare with CRT.
OLED magnitude faster than LCD, I'm wondering how these compare.
Nah, our displays aren't that old.
Many models now include "smart" features that do things like motion blur, contrast adjustment, etc that probably do make the picture look better (i.e., "more cinematic") when used normally. These features just clash with niche uses, like vision research and competitive gaming, that would prefer pixel-accurate, predictable updates.
It's surprisingly hard to figure which consumer monitors have what features. There are "research" displays that don't have these features, are calibrated, update in a predictable way, etc, but they're eye-wateringly expensive.
In some sense, we were spoiled with CRTs, which were too dumb to do anything but sweep from top to bottom, left to right, over and over. Of course, it was much harder to generate dynamic stimuli back then too, so it's a mixed bag.
Sounds like a DSTN screen, as used on early ThinkPads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_Scan
I don't remember much, but it might be a thinkpad, it had the nub instead of touch pad or track pad.
Sounds like the difference between passive and active matrix LCDs. Passive vs. Active screen was a big differentiator in cost and screen quality in early to mid 1990s laptops.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_matrix_addressing