Yes, it uses the same principle -- like spinning LED bike wheels -- or Nipikow wheels (mechanical TVs).
I'm probably the first person to successfully implement this in pure HTML5 for onscreen demos, powered directly off a monitor's refresh rate. You'll notice that the "wide pixels" that show up at 60Hz, and the resolution doubles every time you double refresh rate. In fact when you change line separation, the pixel size stays the same for different motion speeds.
Line Separation 16
Line Separation 32
Line Separation 64
Notice that the pixellated horizontal resolution of the underlying image remains constant, regardless of separation between vertical lines? (Assuming Hz and motionspeed remains the same).
(It's much harder to track eyes at Separation 64, so I set motionspeed to 1920 pixels/second. Go into full screen mode or maximize your browser window. 60Hz is *extremely* limiting for this type of test.)
You'll notice that the "resolution" of the image that shows up for a specific motion speed and refresh rate, stays the same, regardless of the separation between vertical lines. The "resolution" of the image that shows up is much more dependant on the refresh rate of the display. I also was able to test on an experimental 480 Hz display (shhhhh....) and it still provided noticeable improvement over 240 Hz in this type of occulsion test.
When you reboot to Windows, please test this test again at 120Hz -- you'll see the image become half as pixellated as at 60Hz.
Just like a real Nipikow mechanical TV -- the higher the Hz you can flicker a bulb (neon lamp in the 1920s, or single LED for modern Nipikow wheel reproductions) -- the higher the resolution of the mechanically-generated image. Same for spinning-LED-rod displays/clocks/wheels/etc.
This TestUFO test, powered directly off the monitor's refresh rate, also reliably doubles in resolution (for a specific motion speed) at double the Hz.
Real world applications: Playing FPS games while looking through dense bush or cracks or fence slats. Or trying to peek through a very tiny crack in a door in a FPS game (millimeter-league cracks that are only a single or two pixels on screen) via turn/strafing left-right to "rapidly scan through the crack". (Admit it, you might even scan-peek through the crack of a bathroom stall door sometimes to check if a toilet stall is occupied!). In real FPS games the cracks are much bigger but let's assume a much tinier crack that are only a few pixels wide, and you're wanting to "scan" faster. The rapid occulsion-deocculsion effects look better the higher the refresh rate you go. This is increasingly important the closer in humankind, that we try to approach Holodeck realism during virtual reality situations. Fixing occulsion-effects limitations fully will require multi-thousand-Hertz to make things look analog-motion even in these types of occlusion scenarios (which are not interpolatable), and pass the "Holodeck Turing Test" in the "Wow, I didn't know I was wearing a VR headset instead of wearing a transparent ski goggles" type of blind-testing that would definitely require ultrahigh-Hz retina-resolution headsets... While it's nitpicking right now, it still underscores the need for ultra-high-Hz to approach Holodeck-quality analog motion with no visible side effects...
Also, set thickness to 1 and separation to 16, and watch how sharp the vertical edges are even at 60Hz:
Line Separation 16
Even on an IPS LCD, vertical edges are sharper than http://www.testufo.com/photo
The sharpness of the vertical edges is actually directly dependant on the LCD GtG. On LCDs where GtG is a tiny fraction of a refresh cycle, the vertical edges are extremely crisp and sharp. (And the faster the GtG, the squares at http://www.testufo.com/eyetracking will also be crisper/sharper have little or no ghosting). So, this TestUFO test is one unexpected way to visualize LCD GtG directly to the human eyes, almost completely separately of persistence. Basically, this TestUFO test eliminates persistence motion blur from GtG motion blur. Displays with approximately 4ms GtG on a 16ms refresh cycle, will show approximately 25% motion blurring on the vertical lines.
So I've accidentally discovered that this type of test is a way to human-eye-visualize LCD GtG independently of LCD persistence. Whenever GtG is far less than persistence, the vertical edges will be much sharper than http://www.testufo.com/photo .... On an old 33ms LCD display (I have a 20 year LCD monitor here too...) there's almost no reduction in motion blur.
So, this type of motion test allows you to subtract persistence-related motion blurring from GtG-related motion blurring.
The low-resolution-looking (at lower Hz) "pixels" at http://www.testufo.com/displaymotionblur?thickness=1 have vertical edges that are almost CRT motion clarity on 1ms TN LCDs. Without needing strobing, since the 1pixel thick lines versus 15pixel blackness, gives you essentially the equivalent of 15:1 ratio black frame insertion (your eye tracking creates the needed strobing effect). Vertical edges during horizontal panning motion -- on non-strobed displays -- have over a 90% reduction of motion blur in this TestUFO animation --
compared to http://www.testufo.com/photo at the same motionspeed.
Very interesting side effect I've discovered. Vertical edges are almost razor sharp despite fast-panning non-strobed motion.
