AMD FX-8350 powering GTX 780 SLI vs GTX 980 SLI at 4K

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

if that's true, then I'm surprised and you would be in the minority of those I've seen have experience with both. In my experience, those who downplay 120Hz generally do so because they don't like the idea of paying so much more for a monitor they might even consider inferior to one they already own (IPS vs. TN), and generally never end up having any experience with it and thus cannot make an honest judgement.

now I'm starting to not believe you actually have any experience with a 120Hz monitor, and if you ahve any experience, its with 120Hz frame interpolation (likely from a TV). A 24fps movie should actually look better on a 120Hz monitor (120 is perfectly divisible by 24fps, 60 is not)

http://www.blurbusters.com/
http://120hz.net/

As someone who actually graduated Film School, I can tell you that you are wrong about 120Hz related to film playback. Quite frankly, it sucks. 120Hz generally completely destroys the aesthetics that the film director was attempting to achieve for the film originally.... It makes films appear glossy and artificial. Nearly everyone who prefers the look of 24p (which is probably 90% of film people), absolutely hate 120Hz. Just as I do.

Unless you are playing first person shooters like 100% of the time -- 120 Hz monitors are practically useless IMO. Again, I'd rather spend the money on a larger monitor with a superior resolution.

This more frames per second is always better mantra is complete nonsense. The majority of audiences hated the Hobbit at 48 fps:
http://gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-48-fps-fails

Which is why movies are still being shot at 24p. 24p looks better to the majority of people than 48..... I actually regret buying the 120 Hz monitor, I should have spent the same money to get the larger 60 Hz monitor instead. But I got some bad advice on Tom's Hardware over the buying decision.

 

[Enigmoid]

As someone who actually graduated Film School, I can tell you that you are wrong about 120Hz related to film playback. Quite frankly, it sucks. 120Hz generally completely destroys the aesthetics that the film director was attempting to achieve for the film originally.... It makes films appear glossy and artificial. Nearly everyone who prefers the look of 24p (which is probably 90% of film people), absolutely hate 120Hz. Just as I do.

Unless you are playing first person shooters like 100% of the time -- 120 Hz monitors are practically useless IMO. Again, I'd rather spend the money on a larger monitor with a superior resolution.

This more frames per second is always better mantra is complete nonsense. The majority of audiences hated the Hobbit at 48 fps:
http://gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-48-fps-fails

Which is why movies are still being shot at 24p. 24p looks better to the majority of people than 48..... I actually regret buying the 120 Hz monitor, I should have spent the same money to get the larger 60 Hz monitor instead. But I got some bad advice on Tom's Hardware over the buying decision.

Really? Personally I absolutely DETEST the blur on the screen when I go to the movies. I'm not sure how I felt about the hobbit but I will say that scene pans at 24 fps are terrible smeary blurs on the screen.

 

[crashtech]

24fps has its ups and downs. Usually I like the look of it and have to disable interpolation on my TV to get the look I want. But at the IMAX, for instance, 24fps pans are nausea inducing. So I'm torn. I'd almost say they need a variable frame rate, what a nightmare that would be, haha.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Really? Personally I absolutely DETEST the blur on the screen when I go to the movies. I'm not sure how I felt about the hobbit but I will say that scene pans at 24 fps are terrible smeary blurs on the screen.

Well, as a film school grad -- I'll always prefer the film blur look. It only actually bothers me on a select few sci-fi/action films -- but I'll take film blur over 48 fps any day of the week. The Hobbit was awful to watch for all 182 minutes -- where film blur only affects poorly done tracking shots or fast action, generally only a few minutes of a film.

....and Crashtech, I really only think IMAX looks bad for films not natively shot with IMAX cameras. Many "afterthough" movies do look truly terrible with film blur (kinda like how PC games based on console ports are usually lousy as well). IMAX cameras themselves are extremely bulky and aren't generally used for the tracking shots usually associated with this blurring.

 

[Ramses]

I gotta say as a layman that'd never heard of 48fps, I just downloaded a 48fps trailer for that Hobbit movie and it looked like something the sci-fi channel put out. That isn't a smack to the sci-fi channel, just saying. In the very least I think makeup and technique would need to be altered some for 48 (or more) to look good. What did they go to a few years ago with digital cameras or something? I remember 28 days or 28 weeks the filming was different, like raindrops were really clear and some other things. I've seen it a few times in different movies since.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

As someone who actually graduated Film School, I can tell you that you are wrong about 120Hz related to film playback. Quite frankly, it sucks. 120Hz generally completely destroys the aesthetics that the film director was attempting to achieve for the film originally.... It makes films appear glossy and artificial. Nearly everyone who prefers the look of 24p (which is probably 90% of film people), absolutely hate 120Hz. Just as I do.

Unless you are playing first person shooters like 100% of the time -- 120 Hz monitors are practically useless IMO. Again, I'd rather spend the money on a larger monitor with a superior resolution.

This more frames per second is always better mantra is complete nonsense. The majority of audiences hated the Hobbit at 48 fps:
http://gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-masterclass-in-why-48-fps-fails

Which is why movies are still being shot at 24p. 24p looks better to the majority of people than 48..... I actually regret buying the 120 Hz monitor, I should have spent the same money to get the larger 60 Hz monitor instead. But I got some bad advice on Tom's Hardware over the buying decision.

film school apparently didn't teach you about the technology and how it works:
http://youtu.be/GF29Q6CFZvM

it seems like you're confusing 120Hz with motion interpolation and ignoring the possibility of 5:5 pulldown

when a monitor is refreshing at 120Hz, it can then display a 24fps video by refreshing and displaying a single frame 5 times before moving to the next frame and refreshing that frame 5 times and so on. Whereas with 60Hz we run into a problem where 24 cannot fit into 60, so we end up with a compromise, showing one frame 2 times, then the next frame 3 times, and alternating. This is known as 3:2 pulldown and introduces judder which can be particularly noticeable on panoramic shots. 120Hz without motion interpolation still looks like 24fps because while it is technically 120fps, we're only seeing 24 unique frames every second. Its an experience closer to what we would see from the projector in the theater, but maybe you're argument all along is that telecine judder is actually desirable?

At any rate, conflating movie fps with video game fps is asinine.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

film school apparently didn't teach you about the technology and how it works:
http://youtu.be/GF29Q6CFZvM

it seems like you're confusing 120Hz with motion interpolation and ignoring the possibility of 5:5 pulldown

At any rate, conflating movie fps with video game fps is asinine.

Negative..... You are making wrong assumptions yet again. I am well aware of pulldown and motion interpolation as having worked as a editor for the past decade -- so let's not even go there.

Just because I have a personal preference opposed to your own -- suddenly I'm ignorant of the technology? Give me break -- I'm not even going to respond to that and I thought insults were prohibited on this board?

120Hz Monitors / HDTV's create "The Soap Opera" effect for films -- and it's well documented.... and I completely hate it..... So just give it up already. I stand by what I said -- I'd much rather spend the same money for a higher resolution monitor than waste it on a lower resolution 120 Hz unit. This is a personal preference.

A lot of HDTV reviewers dislike motion interpolation as well, it's not just me...... But the 24 fps / 48 fps film debate is analogous to your 120 Hz debate. You were making blanket statements that 120 Hz is always better when in fact it is also a personal preference.

....and Sorry, but I think Wired, CNET and USA Today all observing the same nasty look for which I dislike at 120 Hz or even 240 Hz -- trumps your opinion.

http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-the-soap-opera-effect/
http://www.wired.com/2014/08/wtf-just-happened-soap-opera-effect/
http://www.cnet.com/news/the-soap-opera-effect-when-your-tv-tries-to-be-smarter-than-you/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/.../09/tv-soap-opera-effect-surf-report/6010461/

When I watch The Dark Knight or Gladiator -- I don't want my Monitor to make it look like the freaking Days Of Our Lives..... But, hey.... That's just me.

My HDTV in my living room has the best 24p Playback that I've ever found. It is a Pioneer Kuro Plasma, has a 72 Hz refresh, allowing for a perfect 3:3 cadence @ 24 fps. That's as good as I've ever seen and looks considerably better than my 120 Hz monitor for movie playback (yet doing it at a much lower refresh).

 

[master_shake_]

hey middle of the road, do you want him to get off your lawn by chance?

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

hey middle of the road, do you want him to get off your lawn by chance?

Call me crazy, but....
I'm not a fan of people who spread around wrong information or insults.

It does take a lot of moxie to basically state that someone's personal preference is factually incorrect. Next I'll probably get lectured about how my favorite color can't possibly be blue.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Negative..... You are making wrong assumptions yet again. I am well aware of pulldown and motion interpolation as having worked as a editor for the past decade -- so let's not even go there.

so then why do you keep talking about motion interpolation when I'm talking about 5:5 pulldown?

again, 120Hz does not imply motion interpolation

24fps displayed on 120Hz with 5:5 pulldown is going to look exactly the same as 24fps @ 24Hz (at least on an LCD thanks to persistence, i.e. lack of flicker).

5:5 pulldown = 5 refreshes for every one of the 24 frames per second = 120Hz. Its the same frame shown 5 times, nothing new is be created and its still looks like 24fps video even though the screen is refreshing 120 times per second

120Hz motion interpolation is 4 new intermediate frames created between existing frames. This is effectively creating a new 120fps video and it looks a lot smoother, albeit fake (I actually agree with you here that motion interpolation is not desirable)

Just because I have a personal preference opposed to your own -- suddenly I'm ignorant of the technology? Give me break -- I'm not even going to respond to that and I thought insults were prohibited on this board?

when did I ever say motion interpolation is good and desirable? please stop putting words in my mouth, that is insulting, but your ignorance specifically regarding 120Hz and motion interpolation appears to be factual based on many of your posts so far in this thread.

And by ignorant, I mean "lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject" (again, ignorance specifically pertaining to 120Hz and motion interpolation, I'm not generalizing you as an ignorant person), no insult intended, just saying what appears to be so.

120Hz Monitors / HDTV's create "The Soap Opera" effect for films -- and it's well documented.... and I completely hate it..... So just give it up already. I stand by what I said -- I'd much rather spend the same money for a higher resolution monitor than waste it on a lower resolution 120 Hz unit. This is a personal preference.

1. the "soap opera effect" is motion interpolation, and it is not created on all 120Hz monitors (especially PC monitors)

2. I was never talking about this effect, in fact I also do not like it

3. I'm not trying to change your personal preference, I'm just trying to get you on the same page to where we're actually talking about the same thing, otherwise you're effectively just filibustering nonsense

A lot of HDTV reviewers dislike motion interpolation as well, it's not just me......

again, I was never talking about motion interpolation

But the 24 fps / 48 fps film debate is analogous to your 120 Hz debate.

except it is not analogous because film and video games are not analogous - one format shows you a story, the other puts you into that story to control it

You were making blanket statements that 120 Hz is always better when in fact it is also a personal preference.

since 120Hz can be made perfectly compatible with 60, 30 and 24fps content, it is always better save for power consumption.

....and Sorry, but I think Wired, CNET and USA Today all observing the same nasty look for which I completely hate at 120 Hz or even 240 Hz -- trumps your opinion.

again, its not even my opinion, I have never been a proponent of motion interpolation, your ignorance is working against you

When I watch The Dark Knight or Gladiator -- I don't want my Monitor to make it look like the freaking Days Of Our Lives..... But, hey.... That's just me.

video cards and PC monitors do not do motion interpolation unless you use extra software to do it (or have a very rare PC monitor, I think there's an LG model or something floating around out there that can do it)

if you play 24fps video on a 120Hz PC monitor, you will get only 24fps played back on the monitor, no new frames are created, it is effectively "5:5 pulldown"

My HDTV in my living room has the best 24p Playback that I've ever found. It is a Pioneer Kuro Plasma, has a 72 Hz refresh, allowing for a perfect 3:3 cadence @ 24 fps. That's as good as I've ever seen and looks considerably better than my 120 Hz monitor for movie playback (yet doing it at a much lower refresh).

24fps fits into 120Hz perfectly, and is capable of doing exactly what your Pioneer does @ 72Hz with 5:5 instead of 3:3, only its better because you can do the same with 30 (4:4) and also 60fps (2:2) content. Your Pioneer looks better because its a high end plasma vs. what is likely a TN panel, that is if you even have a 120Hz PC monitor (because all the testimony you're providing is sorely off target to reality, again, a 120Hz PC will not interpolate any new frames unless you go out of your way to do so with extra software)

One last time, 120Hz monitors do not automatically imply motion interpolation (this is especially true on the PC), avoiding 120Hz on the PC because you're afraid of motion interpolation is a fear based on ignorance (now you'd be perfectly justified in wanting to avoid 120Hz for video playback on the PC because the majority of 120Hz monitors are TN and provide subpar image quality for watching movies, whereas VA panels would be ideal for video)

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

When did I ever say motion interpolation is good and desirable? please stop putting words in my mouth, that is insulting, but your ignorance specifically regarding 120Hz and motion interpolation appears to be factual based on many of your posts so far in this thread.

And by ignorant, I mean "lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject"

again, its not even my opinion, I have never been a proponent of motion interpolation, your ignorance is working against you

I'm done with this -- I'm reporting you to the moderators. Insults are prohibited on this forum.

You are incapable of having an objective discussion without lobbing insults in every other sentence.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I'm done with this -- I'm reporting you to the moderators. Insults are prohibited on this forum.

You are incapable of having an objective discussion without lobbing insults in every other sentence.

of course you're done, you were wrong and have decided that your best course of action is to appeal to moderators because you were insulted when it was pointed out that you were wrong and ignorant (i.e. unaware/uninformed) of something (not everything), instead of trying to defend your position (which is impossible given the evidence) or to simply admit you were mistaken and then learn from it

proclamation of ignorance pertaining to a specific instance is not an insult, its a statement about a fact. Generalization of ignorance would be an insult and I did no such thing. You have made it pretty clear time and time again that you are sorely misinformed or are unaware (i.e. ignorant) that 120Hz is not the same thing as motion interpolation.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

of course you're done, you were wrong and have decided that your best course of action is to appeal to moderators because you were insulted when it was pointed out that you were wrong and ignorant (i.e. unaware/uninformed) of something (not everything), instead of trying to defend your position (which is impossible given the evidence) or to simply admit you were mistaken and then learn from it

I just find it amazingly hilarious that you are trying to prove my personal preference wrong. Which is impossible. Because it is based on what I like -- and nothing beyond it.

Why don't you go to your local Guitar Center and lecture all those people who buy/prefer vinyl about how ignorant they are not to buy compact discs while you're at it. I've already stated why I don't like 120 Hz explicitly. I don't have to defend how I choose to spend my money.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I just find it amazingly hilarious that you are trying to prove my personal preference wrong. Which is impossible. Because it is based on what I like -- and nothing beyond it.

Why don't you go to your local Guitar Center and lecture all those people who buy/prefer vinyl about how ignorant they are not to buy compact discs while you're at it. I've already stated why I don't like 120 Hz explicitly. I don't have to defend how I choose to spend my money.

personal preference is fine, I have no problem with that, the problem I do have is with willful ignorance; even now you refuse to acknowledge that 120Hz is not the same as motion interpolation, and then you keep on pretending that I was talking about motion interpolation (even though I never was) and even incorrectly inferred my opinion upon it

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

personal preference is fine, I have no problem with that, the problem I do have is with willful ignorance; even now you refuse to acknowledge that 120Hz is not the same as motion interpolation, and then you keep on pretending that I was talking about motion interpolation (even though I never was) and even incorrectly inferred my opinion upon it

If you actually think I care about your opinion, you are sadly mistaken. Respect is a 2 way street..... I clearly have no respect for anything you say and will immediately discount it after a page of insults.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

If you actually think I care about your opinion, you are sadly mistaken. Respect is a 2 way street..... I clearly have no respect for anything you say and will immediately discount it after a page of insults.

opinions are different from facts

opinion: motion interpolation is not desirable (I actually agree with you here)

fact: 120Hz is not the same thing as interpolation (and you apparently disagree with this fact, even after all this time)

which one of us is being unreasonable by complaining about perceived insults instead of providing evidence and sound argument?