When will we have a display with: >0 nits black depth >1,000

>>55639734
when you get off your ass and make one

>>55639734
>240hz
But why

>>55639734
When the next gen vr headsets are released

I don't know any of those terms
What /g/ has become?

>>55639734
>>sub-1ms pixel response time in all transitions
Effective persistence is more important than response time. Sub-1ms response time doesn't mean shit if you're going to do 60Hz sample-and-hold. To get less that 1ms persistence, you need either a proper >1000Hz refresh rate or some sort of strobing or scanning. The latter is the more sane option by a long shot.
>>240Hz refresh rate
Not necessary. If you're strobing it, the higher refresh rate doesn't provide any additional motion clarity. 120Hz is well above the flicker fusion threshold, and works well with 24Hz/30Hz/60Hz content. No reason to go higher.

Some of your other picks belie some ignorance on the subject, but not really worth the time. As for when we'll get good monitors/TVs: never, because people would rather have MOAR PIXELS, high brightness, and a red push.

>>55640143
>No reason to go higher

http://www.lrc.rpi.edu/programs/solidstate/assist/pdf/AR-Flicker.pdf

>>55641025
I'm going to assume that's something on stroboscopic effects, and respond that while that's very important for lighting, it's nearly completely irrelevant for monitors and TVs.

If I'm wrong about the subject, let me know and I'll give the link a read.

>>55639734
Seriously. Probably in 20 years.

>>55641097
It's a paper which shows that humans can perceive flickering artifacts well into the tens of thousands. 240Hz is nowhere near the plateau for human visual acuity.

>>55639896
infested with redditors like you it seems

>1000 nits
Upcoming standards for broadcast reference displays will be at 4000 nits.

>>55641166
>Flicker Parameters for Reducing Stroboscopic Effects from Solid-state Lighting Systems
So it's exactly what I supposed it to be. If you needed me to explain further, you could have just asked. Say you have a light flickering at 120Hz. If you're looking directly at it, you can't perceive any flickering at all. Just seems like it's on. Now try waving your hand in front of it with fingers spread. You know that weird trailing effect moving things have under a strobe light? You'll notice something like that. Now, for lighting, that's an issue. There's all sorts of scenarios where you'll be viewing moving objects under its illumination. Even if the objects are stationary, moving your eyes briefly manifests the visual distortion. But with a display, you're directly viewing the light. The interaction between the light and illuminated objects doesn't apply. The moving of your eyes does, but it's very minor at best, even down at 85Hz. So unless you're a retard taking photos/videos of your computer screen, no, stroboscopic effects aren't pertinent to this discussion.

>>55641468
Then I guess the old logic of fighter pilots being able to recognize flashes of light at intervals are brief as 1/300th of a second applies here, making 300Hz the rough plateau for worthwhile refresh rate.

>>55639734
>180° viewing angle

When the laws of light start behaving differently.

>tfw i just want all led backlighting to go away because it gives me headaches and eye strain after minutes

Newer (expensive) LED backlit tv's aren't so bad though i have a sony bravia that's not so harsh on my eyes.

My guess is this is because of the PWM and the spectrum LEDs tend to have ie more blue light etc.

I seem to be fine with OLEDs though. When will OLED become common already

>>55642568
The problem is you're using PWM displays

Newer LCD monitors are DCM

Check tftcentral.co.uk to make sure the monitor you're buying isn't PWM

>>55639734
>0 nits black
OLED
>1000 nits brightness
This is worded badly and if it's referring to pure white then you're retarded
>6,504k white point
Why anything other than sunlight?
>240hz refresh rate
This requires other hardware to catch up
>100% CIE1931 coverage
This exceeds human cone receptors most of the time.
>sub-1ms response time
Under 5ms isn't even noticeable
>less than 1.0 DeltaE
This would be useful for professional applications, not really good for the general consumer.
>0% pixel overshoot
This has also been reduced to imperceptible levels on most displays today.
>at least 50,000:1 static contrast ratio
This wouldn't be beneficial.
>180° viewing angle
This is just impossible.