+60Hz monitors. Myth or Reality ?

[driver66]

Send this to Myth Busters

 

[ctrain]

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...

Film has motion blur, that's why it doesn't look like choppy shit at 24hz.

 

[Horrux]

i play quake live and it is an immense difference between 60 and 120Hz (samsung 2233RZ), the game feels way smoother, and when you are aiming moving in game, you can clearly see the difference, also it is way easier on the eyes.

I also have the Samsung 2233rz and I must say, 120hz refresh rate is a completely different ball game from 60hz. I will NEVER go back to a 60hz display for gaming. N-E-V-E-R. Yes, the difference is major.

 

[qubit]

Film has motion blur, that's why it doesn't look like choppy shit at 24hz.

I agree that the blur smooths it out a fair amount, but it still there, especially on panning shots. They really should get away from this format and make movies at a high frame rate.

I also have the Samsung 2233rz and I must say, 120hz refresh rate is a completely different ball game from 60hz. I will NEVER go back to a 60hz display for gaming. N-E-V-E-R. Yes, the difference is major.

Yeah, you noticed too. I used to have one of those monitors. And if the computer drops a few frames, it's not half as noticeable, is it?

 

[Mussels]

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 ?

humans can see well over 300FPS. the reason you dont see much of a difference is the source material - a 120Hz screen means squat if you run a movie at 24FPS (with added blur to smooth it out)



also, people see '200' and '240'Hz HDTV's and think "well that doesnt look any better" because again, 60Hz inputs (at most)



summary: god yes it looks ton better, IF you actually use it fully.

 

[Bjorn_Of_Iceland]

Recently just switched to a Asus VG236H 120hz. Was playing a bunch of games lately.. I was first skeptical about the smoothness.. At first I was like 'meh.. looks the same'.. But then I forgot to set the refresh rate to 120hz in the advanced video settings. Booted up Guildwars and was amazed.. it just like playing it on a crt way back when I had it 06' lol!

You can really see and define the textures when you move the camera.

 

[seronx]

Recently just switched to a Asus VG236H 120hz. Was playing a bunch of games lately.. I was first skeptical about the smoothness.. At first I was like 'meh.. looks the same'.. But then I forgot to set the refresh rate to 120hz in the advanced video settings. Booted up Guildwars and was amazed.. it just like playing it on a crt way back when I had it 06' lol!

You can really see and define the textures when you move the camera.

You are making me want to buy a 120Hz monitor

 

[qubit]

humans can see well over 300FPS. the reason you dont see much of a difference is the source material - a 120Hz screen means squat if you run a movie at 24FPS (with added blur to smooth it out)



also, people see '200' and '240'Hz HDTV's and think "well that doesnt look any better" because again, 60Hz inputs (at most)



summary: god yes it looks ton better, IF you actually use it fully.

Absolutely, +1.

If a TV has good frame interpolation technology, then it can help somewhat - someone here posted a link to a video demonstrating this (spinning tennis racket with interpolated frames inserted). However, we still have the same Nyquist sampling limit present as the original source was only ever sampled 24Hz, 30Hz or whatever. And of course, interpolation brings with it its own arrtefacts, too. I haven't seen a TV with it yet that doesn't mess up the picture at times with judders and odd artefacts appearing in the picture.

Nyquist frequency

Nyquist rate

Yes, they're different - take a look!

 

[Horrux]

I agree that the blur smooths it out a fair amount, but it still there, especially on panning shots. They really should get away from this format and make movies at a high frame rate.



Yeah, you noticed too. I used to have one of those monitors. And if the computer drops a few frames, it's not half as noticeable, is it?

I agree on both counts, the movies really make my eyes go "WHAT?" on panning shots or fast action scenes. And about my 120hz monitor, I am often content with 90fps that I can SEE, especially at super quality settings, and I notice that I am often unsatisfied and start looking to diminish my quality settings when things slow down to... About 60 fps.

I certainly am looking forward to enjoying BF3 and Skyrim at 100+fps silky smoothness.

Oh, another thing I noticed: My wife games on the 40" HDTV downstairs (yes my wife is a gamer, be jealous) and 60fps looks good. But then again, that's seeing it from a much further distance than we generally look at our monitors from, so I guess that also makes a difference, and some sense if you think of it as the visual distance between frames. At the movies it is often simply too huge, no matter that you sit far away from the screen, due to its size, and so in my living room a compromise is made, but in front of a monitor, it's another ball game entirely. Hopefully this last paragraph makes some sense....

 

[Bjorn_Of_Iceland]

You are making me want to buy a 120Hz monitor

But it really depends on how many frames youd get in a game.. Its glorious in apps that go 100fps+.. old games like Guildwars or older engines like Valve's Source (L4D2 looks awesome) or console titles.

But say that you wont go above 60fps, it feels just the same with your standard 60hz monitor. Basically switching to a 120hz monitor requires you to have a meaty machine as well.

 

[Mussels]

But it really depends on how many frames youd get in a game.. Its glorious in apps that go 100fps+.. old games like Guildwars or older engines like Valve's Source (L4D2 looks awesome) or console titles.

But say that you wont go above 60fps, it feels just the same with your standard 60hz monitor. Basically switching to a 120hz monitor requires you to have a meaty machine as well.

twice as fast, literally.


thankfully, if you're ok with a mix of medium/high settings, most modern games double your FPS just by dropping a few key settings (AA/useless shaders/tesselation)

 

[LAN_deRf_HA]

The "600 hz" of a plasma may be bull but the smoothness is real. I'm not really sure what exactly is responsible for it but motion on my plasma looks incredibly slick compared to LCD displays.

In general I don't think it's all about refresh and frame rates. I think sync is a big factor. Say the eye can only see 300 fps, yet you can still see an improvement at 1200 fps. The frequency that your eye and the display are updating at might be the same but out of sync. By going several times higher you overcome that polling variance. For natural real world viewing there is no frame rate on the "display" side; it's practically infinite. To really get a display that provides a life-like image you need the fastest refresh and response times possible. CRT response at 1200 HZ might be ideal but I don't know of any display tech on the horizon that could do that.

 

[qubit]

The "600 hz" of a plasma may be bull but the smoothness is real. I'm not really sure what exactly is responsible for it but motion on my plasma looks incredibly slick compared to LCD displays.

No, you're not imagining it. LCDs have inherent motion blur and judder that cannot be completely removed. CRTs and plasmas don't have this problem, so animation looks nice and smooth. The fact that your plasma interpolates frames to show more per second makes it even smoother, as you've noticed.

In general I don't think it's all about refresh and frame rates. I think sync is a big factor. Say the eye can only see 300 fps, yet you can still see an improvement at 1200 fps. The frequency that your eye and the display are updating at might be the same but out of sync. By going several times higher you overcome that polling variance. For natural real world viewing there is no frame rate on the "display" side; it's practically infinite. To really get a display that provides a life-like image you need the fastest refresh and response times possible. CRT response at 1200 HZ might be ideal but I don't know of any display tech on the horizon that could do that.

I think you're confused here. The human eye and brain don't have a refresh rate. There's no "polling" going on inside you. It's just one smooth motion (with motion blur).

 

[Millennium]

This just makes me want to get a 46" 3d full hd plasma. I mean, why not

Still I would have to drop about £600 pounds into it. But a decent size and spec 120hz monitor is at least half that. I know it would only show 60 fps but lag-free CRT quality 60 fps would be so cool

and i could watch movies too! yep im sold.

 

[ivicagmc]

IPS+120Hz, that is what I want to see... 120Hz is probably way smother, than 60Hz, but picture quality comes first. I would never change my Dell IPS for some TN 120Hz...

 

[qubit]

IPS+120Hz, that is what I want to see... 120Hz is probably way smother, than 60Hz, but picture quality comes first. I would never change my Dell IPS for some TN 120Hz...

I'll bet the technology is out there, but it's just not possible to produce it at a low enough price.

 

[Horrux]

I'll bet the technology is out there, but it's just not possible to produce it at a low enough price.

The refresh rate of IPS is painfully slow, I don't think they will EVER produce 120hz IPS. Not with OLED around the corner with 1200hz and RGB^2 color gamut.

 

[qubit]

The refresh rate of IPS is painfully slow, I don't think they will EVER produce 120hz IPS. Not with OLED around the corner with 1200hz and RGB^2 color gamut.

You're probably right about it not ever being made. And OLED is indeed vastly superior if they can get the panel lifetime up to reasonable levels and keep the cost down. Heck, it might even be better than plasma, but that remains to be seen.

 

[ivicagmc]

Not with OLED around the corner with 1200hz and RGB^2 color gamut.

Just a minute... IPS refers to matrix(panel) of monitor, not the background lightening... There are LED IPS panels (LG IPS236V), and OLED is background lightening, or I'm wrong? Than I see no problem in making OLED IPS...

 

[Millennium]

OLED is not background lighting, it's individual LEDs for each pixel with their own brightness. and it's 100x better then LCD / "LED"

 

[MilkyWay]

RGB LED IPS monitors do exist im sure.
IPS monitors are always getting faster with every revision, you can pick one up and use it for gaming without the major problems associated with IPS.

Movies dont run at 24hz they run at film standard 24fps or 23.333... im sure? AS you can get 24p compatible blu ray players and tvs like my tv. The refresh rate is not changed, it can still run at 60hz or 50hz.

 

[Horrux]

RGB LED IPS monitors do exist im sure.
IPS monitors are always getting faster with every revision, you can pick one up and use it for gaming without the major problems associated with IPS.

Movies dont run at 24hz they run at film standard 24fps or 23.333... im sure? AS you can get 24p compatible blu ray players and tvs like my tv. The refresh rate is not changed, it can still run at 60hz or 50hz.

It's 23.976hz. You can call it 24.

 

[Mussels]

and it works because the screens double it to roughly 50Hz/FPS, which is what people miss out on when they make the argument '24fps is enough'