That HP reference is from 1970; CRTs did improve over time. The references I gave show that the intensity drops to below 10-15% within about a millisecond. The difference with LCD/OLED displays is that the latter are sample-and-hold, meaning that they show the image at full brightness for the duration of the whole frame. Their pixel response time may be faster than CRT phosphor persistence, but that is less relevant. The problem with LCD/OLED is that they hold the picture for the duration of the frame, which means that a depicted moving object that is supposed to move smoothly during the duration of a frame, is shown as not moving for that duration, which the eye perceives as motion blur. That motion blur is significantly reduced on CRTs, because they show the object only for a fraction of the frame duration at high brightness, as if under a stroboscope, which makes it easier for the eye (or brain) to interpolate the intervening positions of the object.
> Genuine question: why do you think CRTs are better?
CRTs are worse in most aspects than modern displays, but they are better in motion clarity. As to why I think that: I used both in parallel for many years. The experience for moving objects is very different. It is a well-known drawback of sample-and-hold display technologies. And it is supported by the more systematic analyses done by the likes of Blur Busters.
