I think I was the one who mentioned it being related to size. The motion blur is more visible when the object moves a larger distance on your retina, so a larger screen close to your eyes will display more motion blur.
Your eyes can't really adjust to it, but I suppose you can get used to it. Sample and hold motion blur is just a property of LCD panels. Technically it's a caused by your brain and eyes (the screen doesn't actually turn blurry when things are in motion, that's just how we perceive it). There's an interesting trick you can do to confirm this: Keep your eyes locked on the static part of the screen while something moves. The moving object won't blur unless you start tracking it.
Probably about to become way too much info, but here's what you optimally want to see when something moves (time on horizontal, position on vertical). This would be a continuous motion with no individual frames.
Note that I couldn't make it to the same horizontal scale as the others because the \ is too steep, but it should be a more gradual slope to match the other diagrams.
Here's what you see on a sample and hold (LCD) panel:
The image stays on screen until the next image is ready and replaces it. It creates a stair-step pattern that confuses your brain's motion tracking (the ball was stationary for 16ms, then it jumped to the next position, your eyes fail to track the motion and it looks blurry).
If you were using a CRT you'd see this instead (we call this impulse):
What happens here is that the image is flashed once, the screen goes dark for the rest of the frame time, and then it flashes again. From the diagram you can see that this time you have a straight diagonal line which is more like the "real world" example than the stair-step pattern. If the impulse rate is matched to the frame rendering rate then this will produce very low motion blur.
In this situation the "ball" is still jumping from place to place, but it's no longer breaking the laws of physics from your perspective by teleporting. It's completely off screen for the time it would take to travel the distance, so your eyes can continue to track where they THINK it should be. When it reappears it will be exactly where you expected it to be, as though you're watching the moving object through a series of vertical fence posts.
The problem with the CRT technique is that flickering displays, especially at a rate as slow as 60hz, cause tons of eye strain. Apple actualy goes out of their way to not even use PWM (high freqency flicker) dimming for its LCDs because even those higher frequencies can cause eye strain. When you have an impulse display the individual exposures have to be much brighter to create the illusion of an even, moderate brightness, and whether you can see it or not many people report this irritating their eyes over long periods of use.
If you're math-oriented you can see that what we want is a continuous function which has a defined, non-zero derivative everywhere (or as close as possible since that's not something you can actually achieve). The derivative dy/dt is the time rate of change of the position of the object, and for smooth motion this value should never be zero or "infinity" because this means the object will appear to be stopping and then jumping instantly to a new position.
The optimal solution is not impulse drive, it's simply more frames per second. Managed to build something close to what I mean as a comparison to diagram 2.
The motion blur length is determined by the time each frame remains on screen. That's 16ms for a 60hz display, but go to 120hz and it gets cut in half. If you ever try a 120hz monitor (don't be confused by "120hz" TVs) on a computer that can handle the 120hz output and rendering 120 frames per second you'll see that motion blur is significantly reduced, to the point where you can clearly read text that's scrolling fairly quickly. Of course current monitor tech means that you have to trade color accuracy for increased refresh rate (and the GPU/CPU work harder to produce twice as may frames).
TL;DR
It's a motion perception issue with display tech, nothing anyone can easily solve today, looks worse when the screen is taking up more of your vision, I clearly have too much time for writing long forum posts.
