I don’t think so. This has to do with the wiring used to control each pixel. Because it’s not feasible to wire each pixel separately, the wiring is generally a matrix (grid) of horizontal and vertical wires (rows and columns). To switch one pixel, the two wires corresponding to its row and column are activated. Conversely, this means that only a single pixel can be controlled at any given time (because if you’d activate two rows and columns at the same time, their intersections would ambiguously match four pixels). Refreshing the display thus means activating each pixel individually one after the other, line by line and column by column. This process necessarily introduces a time delay between updating the first to the last pixel.
The only way to counteract this is to increase the refresh speed, but that is costly (tighter tolerances on everything) and consumes more energy. It’s probably hardly perceptible on 240 Hz TVs and monitors.
until some far-off display technology comes about
Oh, it's coming.
Seems silly to wait for it in darkness, eh?![]()
Okay but now you have to share the name of this technology...I am familiar with OLED, microLED and more recently PHOLED. Are these refreshed in a different enough way that they wouldn't have this issue or is it a whole other technology beyond those?
How is it possible that I would be able to definitively prognosticate a "some far-off display technology"?
If I were to time-travel to 1817, it wouldn't matter to anyone (including me) that a BMW would release the i3 in 2013.
It's not my purview to share something not already envisioned (no matter how unlikely that vision may be).
It was not so long ago (at least on my timeline) that OLED tech was not even a remote conception.
You don't have to trust me, but newer display tech will be introduced in the furtre![]()
You certainly know more about these technologies than I do