Sorry that you fall into the minority and seem to have major issues with flickering. As someone who also suffers from migraines I totally get it. I left a job because they changed to different lighting that was a major trigger and have viewed some plasmas that have had a similar affect on me. However, not all PDPs were created equal and I've owned late model Pioneers/Panasonics for years without having issues.
Yeah, it sucks. I have issues with a lot of LED lighting too - especially cheap LED lighting, which tends to use PWM dimming.
It's not an issue with any specific model of plasma though - it's how they fundamentally draw an image that is the problem.
Even if the phosphors all had identical response times, which would solve
the color breakup problem, they're still drawing the image using sub-frames instead of refreshing once per frame.
Blur, however, continues to be a persistent issue with every LCD/OLED. And I'm a home theater installer so you name it, and I'm eyes-on with it on a regular basis.
Several LCDs and even some OLEDs now have backlight scanning or BFI options which greatly reduces motion blur if it's refreshing at the same rate as the framerate.
The main problem arises when the refresh rate is higher than the source framerate, since you get clear double-images in place of the motion blur.
With film only being 24 FPS, and manufacturers refusing to strobe at a rate lower than 60Hz, the only solution is interpolation, or some combination of interpolation plus strobing.
Aren't most movies on TV using 3:2 pulldown or something similar?
I'd rather fake fluid that jerky panning shots.
3:2 pulldown means that they extract the original 24 FPS frames from a 60Hz source.
Five 1080i60 fields gives you two 1080p24 frames with 3:2 pulldown - or even 480i60 to 480p24 with DVDs in certain players.
This eliminates the judder caused by an uneven 3:2 cadence from fitting 24 frames into 60 refreshes, but does nothing for the jerky appearance of low framerate motion on a flicker-free display.
The Avatar sequels are being shot at 48fps HFR, last we heard.
Filmmakers really need to drop the idea that there is something magical about the number 24.
If it was shot at 60 FPS, it could display in HFR on virtually every television ever produced. (at least in NTSC regions)
Almost nothing supports 48Hz inputs.
If they are going to pick a framerate that nothing currently supports, they should have gone with something like 120 FPS.
Push for something even higher than that and keep theaters one step ahead of consumer displays, even.
I lost this argument for years at friends houses and just gave up.
"It looks more real"
They're not wrong.
24 FPS looks very unnatural the way that 99% of displays out there show it.
It's just that cinephiles somehow
like that awful stuttering motion and the screen becoming a blur if anything moves.