Motion artifacts on 240-Hz OLED stereoscopic 3D displays

Abstract

-Temporal multiplexing is a popular approach for presenting different images to the two eyes in stereoscopic 3D (S3D) displays. We examined the visibility of flicker and motion artifacts-judder, motion blur, and edge banding-on a 240-Hz temporally multiplexed S3D OLED display. Traditionally, a frame rate of 120 Hz (60 Hz per eye) is used to avoid visible flicker, but there is evidence that higher frame rates provide visible benefits. In a series of psychophysical experiments, we measured the visibility of artifacts on the OLED display using temporal multiplexing and those of a 60-Hz S3D LCD using spatial multiplexing. We determined the relative contributions of the frame rate of the content, update rate of the display, duty cycle, and number of flashes. We found that short duty cycles and low flash numbers reduce the visibility of motion artifacts, while long duty cycles and high flash numbers reduce flicker visibility.

Temporal Requirements for VR Displays to Create a More Comfortable and Immersive Visual Experience

“…This locking becomes increasingly challenging for raised display rates and in some cases the rendering clock may be decoupled from the display clock. (Issues with judder and edge banding are beyond the scope of this paper; see Johnson 2014 8 and Watson 2013 9 …”

Visible Artifacts and Limitations in Stereoscopic 3D Displays

“…Temporal interlacing is prone to temporal artifacts such as flicker and unsmooth motion appearance. 3,7 These artifacts can be best understood by an analysis in the spatiotemporal frequency domain using the concept of the window of visibility. 15,16 The window represents the range of spatial and temporal frequencies that are visible to a typical viewer.…”

“…For this reason, temporal inter-lacing is prone to artifacts in time such as flicker and judder and spatial interlacing to artifacts in space such as spatial aliasing and pixelization. 3,6,10 Hoffman et al 3 and Johnson et al 7 carried out a series of psychophysical experiments to quantify the determinants of the temporal artifacts associated with temporal interlacing. The artifacts include judder (jerky or unsmooth motion appearance), motion blur (apparent smearing in the direction of stimulus motion), and banding (appearance of multiple edges in the direction of stimulus motion).…”

“…The researchers observed that the primary determinants of motion artifacts are capture rate (the number of unique images presented per unit time) and the speed of a moving object: artifacts become more visible with decreasing capture rate and increasing speed. 3,7 Motion artifacts occurred at higher capture rates and lower stimulus speeds with temporal interlacing than with spatial interlacing because the former requires two sub-frames to present the two images while the latter requires only one. These results were well predicted by the spatiotemporal frequencies created by the two stereoscopic protocols and the degree to which those frequencies fall within the window of visibility.…”

“…3. 3,7 Information Display 1/17 13 Fig. 1: Temporal interlacing is shown at left and spatial interlacing at right.…”