> It actually might even use less power than strobing a backlight.

LightBoost monitors only use about 20 watts, far less power than a CRT (electron gun is less efficient)
Yes, we should encourage all technologies including OLED.


>> Ever hear of OLED? The very definition says they emit light. Not everything is an LCD
> nowadays... My idea (however power hungry) hasn't been done, but certainly CAN be
> done (regardless of where the light is coming from).

OLED is great but unfortunately, sample-and-hold OLED has motion blur. It is scientifically known(click the Microsoft Research paper) that even instant pixel response (0ms) can have lots of motion blur due to the sample-and-hold problem - which is what you get if you don't find a way to shorten the amount of time a frame is actually VISIBLE for (either via higher Hz or via black periods between refreshes).

Sample-and-hold means the frame is continuously shining for the whole refresh. Your eyes are continuously moving while tracking moving objects. Your eyes are in a different position at the beginning of a refresh than the at the end of a refresh; this causes the frame to be blurred across your retinas. All the research papers (Microsoft, Sharp, Nokia, Universities) have confirmed the motion blurring issue caused by eye tracking on sample-and-hold displays.


(From Microsoft Research)

The PS Vita has motion blur during fast scrolling because it does not strobe the OLED pixels.

Only impulse-driven OLED's have zero motion blur.
Strobing needs extra brightness to compensate for the dark periods, they are still working on OLED brightness. Thankfully, some strobe OLED's was shown at CES in Las Vegas; they looked amazing!
But they cost many thousands of dollars...

For some scientific study to help people understand why impulse driving is better for motion blur (sample-and-hold also explains why CRT 60fps@60Hz still has much clearer motion than regular LCD 120fps@120Hz).

Quote:

---

“Temporal Rate Conversion” (Microsoft Research)
Information about frame rate conversion, that also explains how eye tracking produces perceived motion blur on a sample-and-hold display, including explanatory diagrams.

“Correlation between perceived motion blur and MPRT measurement”
by J. Someya (SID’05 Digest, pp. 1018–1021, 2005.)
Covers the relationship between human perceived motion blur versus Motion Picture Response Time (MPRT) of the display. This also accounts for motion blur caused by eye tracking on a sample-and-hold display, a separate factor than pixel persistence.

“What is needed in LCD panels to achieve CRT-like motion portrayal?”
by A. A. S. Sluyterman (Journal of the SID 14/8, pp. 681-686, 2006.)
This is an older 2006 paper that explains how scanning backlight can help bypass much of an LCD panel’s pixel persistence.

“Frame Rate conversion in the HD Era”
by Oliver Erdler (Stuttgart Technology Center, EuTEC, Sony Germany, 2008)
Page 4 has very useful motion blur diagrams, comparing sample-and-hold versus impulse-driven displays.

“Perceptually-motivated Real-time Temporal Upsampling of 3D Content for High-refresh-rate Displays”
by Piotr Didyk, Elmar Eisemann, Tobias Ritschel, Karol Myszkowski, Hans-Peter Seidel
(EUROGRAPHICS 2010 by guest editors T. Akenine-Möller and M. Zwicker)
Section “3. Perception of Displays” (and Figure 1) explains how LCD pixel response blur can be separate from hold-type (eye-tracking) motion blur.

“Display-induced motion artifacts”
by Johan Bergquist (Display and Optics Research, Nokia-Japan, 2007)
Many excellent graphics and diagrams of motion blur, including impulse-driven and sample-and-hold examples.