|
|
|
|
|
by crazygringo
535 days ago
|
|
> Flicker is a workaround to mitigate this problem. Isn't motion blur the best workaround to mitigate this problem? As long as we're dealing with low frame rates, the motion blur in movies looks entirely natural. The lack of motion blur in a flicker situation looks extremely unnatural. Which is why a lot of 3D games intentionally try to simulate motion blur. And even if you're emulating an old 2D game designed for CRT's, I don't see why you'd prefer flicker over sample-and-hold. The link you provided explains how sample-and-hold "causes the frame to be blurred across your retinas" -- but this seems entirely desirable to me, since that's what happens with real objects in normal light. We expect motion blur. Real objects don't strobe/flicker. (I mean, I can get you might want flicker for historical CRT authenticity, but I don't see how it could be a desirable property of displays generally.) |
|
Motion blur in real life reacts to eye movement. When you watch a smoothly moving object, your eye accurately tracks it ("smooth pursuit") so that the image of that object is stationary on your retina, eliminating motion blur. If there are multiple objects moving in different directions you can only track one of them. You can choose where you want the motion blur just by focusing your attention. If you bake the motion blur into the video you loose this ability.