+60Hz monitors. Myth or Reality ?

[FordGT90Concept]

LCDs (the liquid crystals, specifically) can't do 120 Hz. They can't even literally do 60 Hz. The hertz is the signalling rate from the graphics card to the monitor. In other words, 120 Hz means the graphics card is sending twice as much data to the monitor as it would at 60 Hz. Whether or not that even displays depends on the monitor and whether or not you can see a difference depends on the individual. In short, the higher the hertz, the better but don't expect miracles.

 

[qubit]

LCDs (the liquid crystals, specifically) can't do 120 Hz. They can't even literally do 60 Hz. The hertz is the signalling rate from the graphics card to the monitor. In other words, 120 Hz means the graphics card is sending twice as much data to the monitor as it would at 60 Hz. Whether or not that even displays depends on the monitor and whether or not you can see a difference depends on the individual. In short, the higher the hertz, the better but don't expect miracles.

Surely a 120Hz monitor's pixels must be able to react at 120Hz, or it would look no better than 60Hz and likely would just smear badly? My Samsung 2233RZ monitor definitely showed motion better at 120Hz, that was no illusion.

 

[Laurijan]

I love refresh rates as high as possible, goes back to my quake days. My 21" CRT used to do 100hz in some resolutions and it looked really good. So I say don't believe the hype, at least upto 100hz more hertz is better.

I had a Nokia CRT that did 120Hz at 1600x1200 and I was very proud of back in the days.
Played Wolfenstein Enemy Territory at 120Hz, V-Sync on and 1000Hz Mouse USB polling rate and I could swear I fragged more than with 60Hz

 

[Shihab]

There is no framerate. Light flows in your eyes at the speed of light....far faster than anything else, and as such, our eyes must distinguish and process light at the speed it enters our eyes. Becuase our nerves react constantly, and a "frame" has a distinct beginning, and an end, but light more often than not does not, it's impossible to actually correlate the two.

In a second, your eye processes a 186000 miles worth of light. When you can translate that into a "frame", let me know.

I think the only way to define this "frame" would be by looking at the weakest link. That would be our brain's processing capability. I don't mean the brains capability to render (or whatever is equivalent in our brains) the image, but our ability to understand these images we see. And I believe that differs from one to another, but it would still be much MUCH higher than a measly 100 frames per second. assuming that IS what a "frame" would translate into our bodies' language.

Heck, I managed to get 144Hz at 800x600 on one of my CRTs and a static picture literally looked stuck on the screen. Hard to really get across, but an amazing effect. I actually did this to try out 3D Vision on it, which surprisingly worked fine, since it's designed for 120Hz. Note that the static picture I'm talking about was a 2D one without the glasses.

On LCD monitors, you increase the temporal resolution and reduce the inherent and significant motion blur in LCD displays. There is no loss of sharpness though, especially with a digital connection and running at native resolution.

The eye is particularly sensitive to dropped rendering frames though (eg game animation) which reveals itself as unpleasant stutters and double images. However, if you lose a few frames at 120Hz, the effect is much less noticeable.

I have a CRT rated for up to 160Hz refresh rate. Best I could do with it was 100Hz@800*600 though (Damned Horizontal frequency limit :shadedshu ).
I agree that the jerkiness that occurs when the fps drops is noticeable, I think you could say that's a proof that the eye can differentiate between frame rates higher than 60fps. Though I think most people don't notice because their brains are busy looking for noobs to frag.

LCDs (the liquid crystals, specifically) can't do 120 Hz. They can't even literally do 60 Hz. The hertz is the signalling rate from the graphics card to the monitor.

I'm not sure I'm following

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It's one thing to send/receive a 120 Hz signal and another to actually display it.

 

[seronx]

It's one thing to send/receive a 120 Hz signal and another to actually display it.

Not sure if this will help you or not

There are more on youtube but this is one of the few that has freeze frames and slow motion

 

[qubit]

Not sure if this will help you or not

There are more on youtube but this is one of the few that has freeze frames and slow motion

Nice find. Ironically, the song is the best part.

The YouTube poster is right, that video doesn't do 120Hz animation justice and a 120Hz seriously makes a difference. Also, the freeze frames revealed the interlaced nature of the video, which really obscured the 120Hz improvement.

I've got various CRT's knocking around the house (a geek like me would ) and I've got the graphics card to drive them at 120Hz and then some, so I' think I'll get doin'.

 

[Batou1986]

I don't see how you can review 120hz equipment using at best 60fps cameras unless im confusing something fps equates directly to hz cause that what vsync locks.
So by my reasoning you would need a camera capable of doing 120fps or better to truly see what it looks like in person since the camera is dropping frames so to speak.

 

[qubit]

I don't see how you can review 120hz equipment using at best 60fps cameras unless im confusing something fps equates directly to hz cause that what vsync locks.
So by my reasoning you would need a camera capable of doing 120fps or better to truly see what it looks like in person since the camera is dropping frames so to speak.

No, you're absolutely right, you can't show it. And what frame rate is the YouTube video itself running at? Usually at 30Hz, although I can't tell if that was the case here, because Fraps wouldn't display on the video. EDIT: Got fraps running: the video frame rate was wobbling around 35Hz. Useless for showing the improvement of a 120Hz monitor.

Also, I forgot to specifically point this out in my comment above. It would have also helped to have Fraps running to prove the frame rate being rendered. Now I think about it, I suspect that the game was actually rendering at 60Hz, because that's the lowest common denominator, as in my TV example earlier. Fraps really should have been running...

 

[seronx]

I say Reality on this

120Hz is a lot better than 60Hz
and most games allow 120Hz as the refresh rate

I'm going to wait for S-IPS or OLED 120Hz though

 

[Jetster]

You can buy LCDs at 240Mhz and 480MHz

 

[seronx]

You can buy LCDs at 240Mhz and 480MHz

240Hz and 480Hz....
and there are Plasmas that 600Hz

But there is a reason those aren't good, I'll let someone else explain this

 

[Shihab]

240Hz and 480Hz....
and there are Plasmas that 600Hz

But there is a reason those aren't good, I'll let someone else explain this

Ridiculous pricetags and no gain in performance ? I read an article a while back that 240Hz LCDs are basically "overclocked" 120Hz monitors While they did give a true 240Hz frequencies, there was no notable increase in smoothness. Though the writer did say that this has to do more with the LCD not being able to handle such high frequencies.

It's one thing to send/receive a 120 Hz signal and another to actually display it.

So you're saying the "Hz" only define the data rate between the GPU and the monitor ? So what do you call the maximum frame rate the monitor can display ?

 

[exodusprime1337]

So the human eye (or brain?) can see faster than 60 frames per second. Interesting ! But to what extent ? And How many frames would it make a difference for an average human ? I mean, it's clearly impossible to tell the difference between 55fps and 60fps (with the little percentage of our brain's processing power we are using at least), so what's the minimum fps difference can our eyes (brains?) notice ? I can tell you can notice small differences at small frame rates (i.e 3fps vs 7fps).

There isn't much good testing done to determine what exactly our "refresh rate" is because everyone can be different. i honestly think that we can see well about 500 fps if not more. It seems our eyes are so able to see high frame rates that we can easily percieve the subtle changes in frame rate such as going from 55 to 60 or 60 to 120. those are small jumps in the grand scheme of refresh rates. and if the human eye can see and image flashed at 1/220th of a second does that mean we percieved the whole image as the artical states, or are we missing most of the images depth and color because we were unable to see the whole image.. mysteries oooooo

 

[FordGT90Concept]

So you're saying the "Hz" only define the data rate between the GPU and the monitor ? So what do you call the maximum frame rate the monitor can display ?

Hertz. The keyword is "maximum."

 

[seronx]

There isn't much good testing done to determine what exactly our "refresh rate" is because everyone can be different. i honestly think that we can see well about 500 fps if not more. It seems our eyes are so able to see high frame rates that we can easily percieve the subtle changes in frame rate such as going from 55 to 60 or 60 to 120. those are small jumps in the grand scheme of refresh rates. and if the human eye can see and image flashed at 1/220th of a second does that mean we percieved the whole image as the artical states, or are we missing most of the images depth and color because we were unable to see the whole image.. mysteries oooooo

Eyes can see ∞ of FPS/Refresh Rate
Brain operates at 1680~ GHz if it is compared to a Pentium III but that is an average amount of GHz 100–500 trillion Brain ALUs and AGUs exist in adult brains
How much the brain or a person perceives is practically near ∞.

The person has to be conditioned to notice the difference because if that person isn't conditioned that person won't notice the difference
(How you condition a person is you show them 120 fps then 60 fps when motion is more well perceived only then can you see the difference between 120Hz and 60Hz)
((The source also has to be captured at 120Hz and 60Hz then displayed at 120Hz and 60Hz...you won't notice the difference if your monitor is 120Hz and you are only getting 60 fps)

It is like frogs(Is this the correct animal?)...If you place them in warm water they won't notice you boiling them alive, they won't even notice being boiling alive at all if you increase the water temperature

 

[FordGT90Concept]

The eyes are the problem and they literally have a framerate (still upside-down images in rapid succession). What the framerate is of the eye is unknown, partially because it isn't absolute. This website goes into details:
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Keep in mind that just being tired can cause the framerate to drop to virtually zero (gazing).

 

[Jetster]

It is like frogs(Is this the correct animal?)...If you place them in warm water they won't notice you boiling them alive, they won't even notice being boiling alive at all if you increase the water temperature

I think its an analogy and yes its a frog. I dont think someone actually boiled a frog

The point I believe is if you go from 60hz to 120 you may notice the difference but not if you change it slowly

 

[Solaris17]

this is honestly all perception. lets take a quick snippet.

someone mentioned a 120hz display looked smoother when moving their mouse.

See what baffels me is that everyone calls everyone liers in these types of arguments. What people seem to fail to look at. is what your doing.

Lets take this mouse example. at 60hz you move the mouse fast. at 120hz you notice it seems move fluid. This makes sense the screen is refreshing faster. However lets take these 2 monitors. now lets move the mouse slower lets say a few Millimeters in the span of like 15seconds. steadily, This has no affect on either. the mouse is moving slow enough for refreshrate not to matter.

Now in a gaming perspective we see the same behaviour. neverwinter nights. Will look the same on both monitors. call of duty may not. Its a fast paced game and if your card is good enough your already pushing FPS over your refresh rate. in this instance it looks better because you are getting that many more frames shown to you. more detail and the game looks smoother. However do you really notice the diffirence? You are getting a few extra frames and you see more of the flames and coolness, that cant be disputed. but thats also like a movie being played at normal speed vs a movie being played in slow motion. you can be fast forwarding at 30fps and the movie plays normally at 30fps but one looks better then the other. at that point can you really say you notice a diffirence? Their is also the argument of high FPS and noticing drops. people genreally say that when a game is played at 25fps vs 30 the diffirence is noticable. This is true and I also agree. However the same logic can be used on the other side of the spectrum. We have all noticed going from 130fps to 70 in half a second seems laggy to us. but in its right mind still on the plane of "fluidity". What i think we should be focusing on is the science behind what the eye can physically process in a 1 second intervals. Because while comparing FPS and fluidity is nice. This doesnt really end this argument. because that is based on what we perceive. not what can physically be done by our eyes.

my 2c

 

[seronx]

The point I believe is if you go from 60hz to 120 you may notice the difference but not if you change it slowly

You won't notice the change going up

However you will notice the change going backwards

*Now if this image didn't have text telling you and instead had 10 seconds .5Hz then 10 seconds of 1Hz then 10 of 2Hz you wouldn't notice the difference same goes with backwards some ways but it is easier to show the difference when going backward than forward*

You don't know you lost something till you lose it.

The Hobbit(2012) watch it @ 48Hz then watch it @ 24Hz then watch it again @ 48Hz

 

[Shihab]

Keep in mind that just being tired can cause the framerate to drop to virtually zero (gazing).

Framrate doesn't drop, it's just your perception of the scene you're eyes are looking at drops. Your eyes don't stop sending the image to your brain. And your brain doesn't stop processing the image. It's just that your concentration is pointed somewhere else.

You won't notice the change going up

However you will notice the change going backwards

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/FrequencyAnimation.gif
*Now if this image didn't have text telling you and instead had 10 seconds .5Hz then 10 seconds of 1Hz then 10 of 2Hz you wouldn't notice the difference same goes with backwards some ways but it is easier to show the difference when going backward than forward*

You don't know you lost something till you lose it.

The Hobbit(2012) watch it @ 48Hz then watch it @ 24Hz then watch it again @ 48Hz

So you're saying one can notice increased stutter/judder/lag easier than the increase in smoothness/fluidity ? True I guess. But then it all depends on the range of the rate you're working with. If you consider a difference within 10~20 frames from an average of -say- 30 fps, It wouldn't be difficult noticing the difference both ways (frame rate jumping to 40 or dropping to 20).

 

[TheMailMan78]

Just as the title says, do games or programs or any other form of motion picture play/run smoother at a framerate higher than 60fps ? Or is the the popular opinion that says the human eye can't notice any difference in framerates higher than 60fps is tactually a fact ?

Fact 1: Yes higher frames per second means smoother movement.

Fact 2: The human eye can see well over 120 frames per second. How high varies but studies have show some people can pick up over 500 frames per second.

 

[seronx]

So you're saying one can notice increased stutter/judder/lag easier than the increase in smoothness/fluidity ? True I guess. But then it all depends on the range of the rate you're working with. If you consider a difference within 10~20 frames from an average of -say- 30 fps, It wouldn't be difficult noticing the difference both ways (frame rate jumping to 40 or dropping to 20).

If input is 30Hz and output is 30Hz and you watched one clip
then
If input is 60Hz and output is 60Hz and you watched the same clip
Unless, you were told their was a difference you wouldn't notice it

But when it is reversed
If input is 60Hz and output is 60Hz and you watched one clip
then
If input is 30Hz and output is 30Hz and you watched one clip
You will notice it because your brain just saw 60Hz then the data inputted into the brain became 30Hz

30Hz to 60Hz
Brain is conditioned to see 30Hz when increased to 60Hz the Brain is conditioned to see 60Hz

You wouldn't actual be able to tell the difference
60Hz to 30Hz
Brain is conditioned to see 60Hz when it sees 30Hz it's expecting 30 extra data points to be received

But, in most scenarios this doesn't happen....

When you get a 120Hz monitor you expect a change so going from your 60Hz monitor to a 120Hz monitor your brain is expecting the change as it was conditioned so with the numbers and letters "120Hz"

But, I am probably confusing everyone

Just remember 24Hz is considered "Fluid" enough obviously that isn't the case as the brain evolution works with Fibonacci numbers(Something that has lasted since the 1920~ probably isn't "Fluid" enough anymore)((Also, Brains operate much like CPUs aka look at what CPUs do when they are idle..or if the workloads are not that "heavy"(Before Turbo core came about)))

 

[ctrain]

I own a 120hz monitor. 60hz is smooth, 120hz is obviously more so. The fluidity is obvious in just moving windows around. More than just visual is the feedback, there's less input lag with a high framerate.

240Hz and 480Hz....
and there are Plasmas that 600Hz

But there is a reason those aren't good, I'll let someone else explain this

The reason is that their refresh rate is still only 60hz... like when people connect them thinking they are going to be a supremely hot shit monitor only to find there's no mega refresh rates to be found.

 

[Prima.Vera]

Is a long debate here. It seems that human EYE perceive fluid motion from ~25fps, and cannot "record" more than ~65-74fps. However, the human BRAIN is far more capable, and can take and process up to several hundred fps. Imagine like this. If you would have some high speed cameras instead of your eyes, you wouldn't see the trail made by a fast moving laser for example, and see just the fast moving dot...