BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,002
- 126
But again this has absolutely nothing to what is being discussed, so I fail to see why you continually bring it up.
Also how they refresh is irrelevant to the fact a 60 Hz device can display at most 60 full frames per second. That is universal regardless of the display tech being used.
Considering the article had absolutely nothing to do with 3D glasses, I?m not really sure what you even read.
Do you understand the significance of 120 Hz LCDs and what they bring to the table over 60 Hz?
Hint: it has absolutely nothing to do with 3D glasses or flicker.
Mem
Lifer
- Apr 23, 2000
- 21,476
- 13
- 81
It has when you discuss CRT and LCD and title says undestanding refresh rates ,as to the goggles(glasses),hmm I guess you did not read the end part so I will quote it,Page 11,
I was referring to that statement at the end.
Do you understand we can disagree with you if we want on somethings and some of us don't get that excited over 120Hz( however I'll be happy to game on 120Hz when price is right) even when we do understand,sometimes you come over very aggressive (I guess you don't mean too).
Mem
Lifer
- Apr 23, 2000
- 21,476
- 13
- 81
Btw you guys might find this old review interesting NVIDIA GeForce 3D Vision /Samsung Syncmaster 2233RZ Review .
I have used the Nvidia 3D glasses Extensively now! This is what I have noticed, aka my opinion of this product.
First things first.... THEY WORK, and work well!
Things to know:
1. For games, they do not really pop out of the screen, since 99.9% of all games were never programmed like that...
2. The 3D effect is created using lots and lots of depth, so you are looking into the monitor which looks like the image is closer or farther away from you. It does this well, and really gives off a 3D effect.
3. Games that use a HUD, are usually 2D and right at the front while the whole game is projected in 3D behind it, which is what a HUD should be like. This effect is Awesome! Games like FEAR 2, where there is an onscreen hub on the top and bottom at all times, make it feel like you are wearing the helmet or glasses or whatever facial equipment the character in game is wearing.
4. The downside to the Crosshairs, are that they are usually 2D as well... which is not fun. Using a 2D crosshair on a 3D image does not always work. In FEAR, it happens to work do to how the crosshair is.. while other games such as Crysis, the crosshair is just useless. To remedy this error, if you can turn off crosshairs in the game, do it. The Nvidia 3D glasses drivers/software can produce a 3D crosshair of your choice on screen and it will be at the correct depth where the crosshair should be.
5. Not all games work, yet there is a huge list of games that do work. Check out nvidia's web page for that list, or just google it.
6. Some games perform better then others. FEAR and Deadspace look awesome to me, but have only ratings of "Good" not Excellent on the rating scale. Obviously this is personal choice and how your eyes work. Overall I would say if the game is on the Excellent or Good list, its probably worth your time to try it out and play.
7. Nividia Cards only, unless someone can program a patch...... Also your frame rate will drop 1/2, due to two images being produced on screen instead of one. So get a beefy video card. Currently I am using ONE Nvidia Geforce GTX 275, which will work for most games maxed out perfectly, and odd games like Crysis will be maxed out but play at a lower frame rate of 30fps or less (20-30FPS)
8. It will blow your mind. Its probably a cool thing to play games in single player, multiplayer games you might be effected in performance. So if you really care about your Kill Death ratio in Unreal or CS or whatever... you might not want to use these during multiplayer. On the other hand some people might perform better, who knows!
If you have the money to buy the 3D glasses, its a treat, but expensive.....
You also have to buy 120hz LCD or use some CRT or equivalent DLP TV that will procuce a 120hz. Obviously most people do not have this, thus need to buy the Samsung 2233rz 120hz monitor.... WHICH IS A GOOD INVESTMENT, even if you are not going to use the 3D glasses as the monitor is awesome.
price and games list are the only downside... other then that, this is cool!
all add more later info later,
First things first.... THEY WORK, and work well!
Things to know:
1. For games, they do not really pop out of the screen, since 99.9% of all games were never programmed like that...
2. The 3D effect is created using lots and lots of depth, so you are looking into the monitor which looks like the image is closer or farther away from you. It does this well, and really gives off a 3D effect.
3. Games that use a HUD, are usually 2D and right at the front while the whole game is projected in 3D behind it, which is what a HUD should be like. This effect is Awesome! Games like FEAR 2, where there is an onscreen hub on the top and bottom at all times, make it feel like you are wearing the helmet or glasses or whatever facial equipment the character in game is wearing.
4. The downside to the Crosshairs, are that they are usually 2D as well... which is not fun. Using a 2D crosshair on a 3D image does not always work. In FEAR, it happens to work do to how the crosshair is.. while other games such as Crysis, the crosshair is just useless. To remedy this error, if you can turn off crosshairs in the game, do it. The Nvidia 3D glasses drivers/software can produce a 3D crosshair of your choice on screen and it will be at the correct depth where the crosshair should be.
5. Not all games work, yet there is a huge list of games that do work. Check out nvidia's web page for that list, or just google it.
6. Some games perform better then others. FEAR and Deadspace look awesome to me, but have only ratings of "Good" not Excellent on the rating scale. Obviously this is personal choice and how your eyes work. Overall I would say if the game is on the Excellent or Good list, its probably worth your time to try it out and play.
7. Nividia Cards only, unless someone can program a patch...... Also your frame rate will drop 1/2, due to two images being produced on screen instead of one. So get a beefy video card. Currently I am using ONE Nvidia Geforce GTX 275, which will work for most games maxed out perfectly, and odd games like Crysis will be maxed out but play at a lower frame rate of 30fps or less (20-30FPS)
8. It will blow your mind. Its probably a cool thing to play games in single player, multiplayer games you might be effected in performance. So if you really care about your Kill Death ratio in Unreal or CS or whatever... you might not want to use these during multiplayer. On the other hand some people might perform better, who knows!
If you have the money to buy the 3D glasses, its a treat, but expensive.....
You also have to buy 120hz LCD or use some CRT or equivalent DLP TV that will procuce a 120hz. Obviously most people do not have this, thus need to buy the Samsung 2233rz 120hz monitor.... WHICH IS A GOOD INVESTMENT, even if you are not going to use the 3D glasses as the monitor is awesome.
price and games list are the only downside... other then that, this is cool!
all add more later info later,
Thanks for the update.
Can we finally lay this wives tale to rest? Can we swallow our pride and admit that we have perpetuated this internet folklore on the limitations of the human eye beyond 60fps?
You know what kids, you can also see a differernce between 120hz and 145hz. The eyes ability to interpret motion does not end at 120 fps.
With no particular authority, I hearby grant BFG10K, myself, and who ever else fought this 60fps limit nonsense, "Oracle Status" for being exactly correct in the face of overwhelming ignorance.
Can we finally lay this wives tale to rest? Can we swallow our pride and admit that we have perpetuated this internet folklore on the limitations of the human eye beyond 60fps?
You know what kids, you can also see a differernce between 120hz and 145hz. The eyes ability to interpret motion does not end at 120 fps.
With no particular authority, I hearby grant BFG10K, myself, and who ever else fought this 60fps limit nonsense, "Oracle Status" for being exactly correct in the face of overwhelming ignorance.
cusideabelincoln
Diamond Member
- Aug 3, 2008
- 3,275
- 46
- 91
I can certainly spot the differences over 60 fps. In CS the game behaves differently @ 60 fps than it does @ 100+ fps.
Originally posted by: maxrep12
Thanks for the update.
Can we finally lay this wives tale to rest? Can we swallow our pride and admit that we have perpetuated this internet folklore on the limitations of the human eye beyond 60fps?
You know what kids, you can also see a differernce between 120hz and 145hz. The eyes ability to interpret motion does not end at 120 fps.
With no particular authority, I hearby grant BFG10K, myself, and who ever else fought this 60fps limit nonsense, "Oracle Status" for being exactly correct in the face of overwhelming ignorance.
I disagree. I don't believe that 60fps is the limit. Everyone's eyes are a bit different but not by very much. That said, there's nothing to suggest that anyone could tell the difference between 120fps and 145fps without an fps counter. 60 fps may not be flawless, but it's still enough to enjoy any game. It is flat out ridiculous to say 60fps isn't "enough". It might not be the very best one could see, but it's very close. Anyone who says otherwise either has freakish eyesight and is unable to enjoy any kind of video, or is lying.
If your 60Hz LCD ghosts a lot, it's because you bought one of those expensive but slow panels or an old model LCD, your fault, don't blame the refresh rate or frame rate. TN panels that run at 60Hz make games look great and smooth. TN panels get a lot of hate, but there's nothing wrong with them. Their color isn't quite as good, oh well. A good TN panel is better for gaming than any other kind of LCD. I play games competitively with my 60Hz LCD and it doesn't hurt my aim or precision in any way.
another user here who can see the difference over 60fps. my old crt can only do around 75-85 (cant really remember) setting it above 60 does really improve movement on the screen.
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: maxrep12
Thanks for the update.
Can we finally lay this wives tale to rest? Can we swallow our pride and admit that we have perpetuated this internet folklore on the limitations of the human eye beyond 60fps?
You know what kids, you can also see a differernce between 120hz and 145hz. The eyes ability to interpret motion does not end at 120 fps.
With no particular authority, I hearby grant BFG10K, myself, and who ever else fought this 60fps limit nonsense, "Oracle Status" for being exactly correct in the face of overwhelming ignorance.
there's nothing to suggest that anyone could tell the difference between 120fps and 145fps without an fps counter
What you mean to say is; " I havent actually ever viewed 145fps, or contrasted it against 120fps, but I'll state my armchair speculation as fact despite this vacuum of experience"
I have. Many times. My FW-900 can pull it off.
More user reviews in the coming months will make this point crystal clear. Kids, go back and try the mouse ghosting on the screen excercise I mentioned earlier in this thread. Don't type first, try it first, and avoid marrying an arguement that isn't sustainable.
Dguy, I play competetively, and the refresh rates do matter.
Originally posted by: maxrep12
Originally posted by: dguy6789
Originally posted by: maxrep12
Thanks for the update.
Can we finally lay this wives tale to rest? Can we swallow our pride and admit that we have perpetuated this internet folklore on the limitations of the human eye beyond 60fps?
You know what kids, you can also see a differernce between 120hz and 145hz. The eyes ability to interpret motion does not end at 120 fps.
With no particular authority, I hearby grant BFG10K, myself, and who ever else fought this 60fps limit nonsense, "Oracle Status" for being exactly correct in the face of overwhelming ignorance.
there's nothing to suggest that anyone could tell the difference between 120fps and 145fps without an fps counter
What you mean to say is; " I havent actually ever viewed 145fps, or contrasted it against 120fps, but I'll state my armchair speculation as fact despite this vacuum of experience"
I have. Many times. My FW-900 can pull it off.
More user reviews in the coming months will make this point crystal clear. Kids, go back and try the mouse ghosting on the screen excercise I mentioned earlier in this thread. Don't type first, try it first, and avoid marrying an arguement that isn't sustainable.
Dguy, I play competetively, and the refresh rates do matter.
Please read the thread before questioning my merit with what I am saying. I've already stated previously that I had a top of the line CRT fully capable of doing all of these refresh rates, I have even had a program specifically for comparing the frame rate of two things side by side. I am talking from experience, not from guesswork, unlike most other people in this thread.
Noticing a difference in refresh rate on a CRT does not mean you notice a difference in frame rate. It's much more likely that the difference you see is a reduction in eye strain caused by a faster flashing light, not an increase in video smoothness. I've already covered this.
Set your refresh rate to 160 or whatever. Don't change it. Play a game at 145fps. Then play the game at 120fps. Keep the refresh rate the same and don't change it. You won't see a difference. I've already done it. Differences for me stop being noticeable around the 80-90fps mark. Some people might be a little higher, some a little lower. But saying you can point out a 120fps video versus a 145 one is pretty absurd.
As for your mouse ghosting experiment, it still happens on a CRT that is running at 160Hz or higher. It also happens if you move your hand back and forth and look at it with no screen involved. This argument has already been shot down earlier in the thread.
Your claim, "I've already mentioned that I have owned a top of the line CRT. I understand the strengths and weaknesses of it." conveniently sidesteps the refresh rates it was actually capable of reproducing, which varys drastically between models and manufacturer. My understanding is that the FW-900 is quite unique in its higher refresh capabilities.
I'm sure you can direct me to one of your time stamped posts on a forum somewhere, stating your highend crt model you enjoyed.
The act of your responding to one of my posts does not equate with a point being shot down.
All in good time.... More reviews will be forthcoming. You have already stretched your neck out on the chopping block, and I kind of enjoy revisiting this thread from time to time. No rush, this issue will resolve itself.
I'm sure you can direct me to one of your time stamped posts on a forum somewhere, stating your highend crt model you enjoyed.
The act of your responding to one of my posts does not equate with a point being shot down.
All in good time.... More reviews will be forthcoming. You have already stretched your neck out on the chopping block, and I kind of enjoy revisiting this thread from time to time. No rush, this issue will resolve itself.
03/26/2009 03:43 PM is when the post was made. "<- Used to own an IBM P275 21" CRT. " It could do 1024x768 at 160Hz, 1600x1200 at 100Hz, and 2048x1536 at 75Hz.
Allow me to clarify some of my points and stances.
1. I never said 60fps was the best that anyone could see.
2. I am arguing against the stance that 60Hz is flat out unacceptable and unbearable.
3. 60Hz on an LCD is completely different from 60Hz on a CRT. 60Hz on a CRT is unacceptable because the refresh rate can cause a very high level of eye strain due to flicker. LCDs do not flicker. People are confusing the reason for why 60Hz on a CRT is bad. It's due to flicker and eye strain, not frame rate.
4. I don't believe people who say they have some kind of super vision that can discern between 120fps and 145fps.
5. I don't disagree that higher than 60fps can help, but I do disagree that it is a large difference, and I do think the limit to when the eye can differentiate between two frame rates is not too much higher than 60. In my own personal testing using Quake 3, it was in the 80s.
Have a nice day.
Allow me to clarify some of my points and stances.
1. I never said 60fps was the best that anyone could see.
2. I am arguing against the stance that 60Hz is flat out unacceptable and unbearable.
3. 60Hz on an LCD is completely different from 60Hz on a CRT. 60Hz on a CRT is unacceptable because the refresh rate can cause a very high level of eye strain due to flicker. LCDs do not flicker. People are confusing the reason for why 60Hz on a CRT is bad. It's due to flicker and eye strain, not frame rate.
4. I don't believe people who say they have some kind of super vision that can discern between 120fps and 145fps.
5. I don't disagree that higher than 60fps can help, but I do disagree that it is a large difference, and I do think the limit to when the eye can differentiate between two frame rates is not too much higher than 60. In my own personal testing using Quake 3, it was in the 80s.
Have a nice day.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,002
- 126
No it's not, not when faster alternatives are available. Many games still feel choppy even at a constant 60 FPS.
I was playing one yesterday where the two choices are internally capped at 60 FPS, or vsync?d @ 73 Hz. Even 73 FPS was so much smoother than 60 FPS that it was like night and day.
Actually it's flat out ridiculous to claim otherwise, especially in the face of subjective and objective evidence disproving it:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articl.../samsung-sm2233rz.html
To quote the reviewer:
The LCD crowd has been wrong all these years when they dismissed the idea by using irrelevant arguments about flickering not happening on LCDs, so therefore 60 Hz on these devices is a ?non-issue?. Now we have irrefutable apples vs apples testing that proves them wrong (i.e. the same LCD tested at 60 Hz and 120 Hz), but they continue to harp on about flickering when it?s irrelevant to what is being discussed.
The tested LCD sure as heck didn?t flicker when it was set to 60 Hz, yet the reviewer still noticed a large and obvious difference when moving to 120 Hz. Go figure. The ?LCDs don?t flicker at 60 Hz, so 60 Hz is all you need? argument used by LCD apologists is nothing more than an irrelevant strawman.
Actually it's nothing to do with ghosting and again, I?m not even sure if the 120 Hz detractors even understand what is being discussed here.
Not only that, but the tested panel in the review was TN. He didn't even try any games and he already noticed a difference.
The difference in games can be objectively proven given 120 FPS is smoother than 60 FPS with vsync, and tearing is reduced on 120 Hz compared to 60 Hz if vsync is disabled.
This was all covered many pages ago, so I really can?t understand why I have to keep repeating myself.
Actually no, it's not completely different. Well it is in terms of flickering, but again this is not what?s being discussed!!!
What is being discussed is the fact that 60 Hz device can display at most 60 full frames per second, whether it's a CRT, LCD, projector, or whatever.
What is being discussed is how it's objectively provable that 120 Hz is superior to 60 Hz in terms of displaying content.
Whether 60 Hz flickers or not is irrelevant to the fact that 120 Hz is always better.
Mem
Lifer
- Apr 23, 2000
- 21,476
- 13
- 81
I don't think anybody here would disagree and say more Hz is a bad thing ie 120Hz is better then 60Hz,however there are other factors that people consider when buying a LCD for gaming or general use ie viewing angles now ask yourself this would you rather have 120Hz TN or 60Hz VA/IPS panel right now?..Until 120Hz becomes the standard on IPS/VA panels too(far as I know no 120Hz panels of this type so far) and price comes down you will still see resistance to 120Hz...also lot of gamers are happy with there 60Hz TN/VA or IPS panels,now I make it clear I'm all for 120Hz and progress(more speed is never a bad thing for gamers) ,plus I have no doubt down the road a lot more LCDs will go 120Hz and beyond,however gamers look at other aspects of LCDs too for gaming and right now the choice is very limited,hopefully down the road 120Hz will open up to a greater market .
My point is simple 120Hz LCDs are only in TN panels at the moment,lot of gamers etc prefer their humble 60Hz VA /IPS due to superior color and viewing angles etc... so until 120Hz reaches those I'm not that excited but its still good news,remember there are lot of happy gamers on 60Hz,again 120Hz on VA/IPS would be great for those that require more then 60Hz or 60fps in gaming with better viewing colour/viewing angles then 120Hz TN can offer (again thats down the road I hope).
Speed is important to gamers and 120Hz will give LCDs a boost in this department.
I don't think its a case of right or wrong with LCD crowd,its down to lot of LCD gamers are happy or comfortable with 60Hz on their LCDs at this time(I still play Quake 3 Arena and TA etc on my humble 60Hz VA and TN panels with no serious issues)bit like buying a video card you are happy and don't notice any problems then down the road something superior/faster comes out ,ie 120Hz LCDs in this case,sooner or later we'll jump on the 120Hz bandwagon when price comes down and we get more choices panel wise.As to what is revelant for lot of gamers /users is not just one thing with LCDs..
I would not buy 120Hz right now due to limited choice of panels and price,again I will buy 120Hz when the price and panel choices are reasonable sometime down the road .
It's good news for those that NEED 120Hz right now and don't mind TN panel however.
BFG10K I hope I made it clear (120Hz is good news for gamers,we just need to wait now for price and more choices, I know I keep saying that).
I would be very happy with a 60Hz 24" 16:9 VA or IPS panel (impossible to find at this time), 120Hz would be great.
QueBert
Lifer
- Jan 6, 2002
- 22,940
- 1,135
- 126
FW-900 = 2nd best ever, a top tier NEC a Mitsubishi Diamontron would make the best LCD look like trash. The Sony is still pure goodness there. CRT had short comings, but IQ wise there were none. If there are people on here who have claimed to have seen a GOOD CRT in person and still want to carry on about how their LCD has better image quality. I would nick name them Stevie Wonder, and then probably hit them over the head with one of my 4 22" CRT's to knock some sense into them.
*hugs his CRT*
Really? I want to make sure we're clear on this. You're saying there are games out there that feel choppy even if the frame rate is a constant 60?
Yeah, this doesn't go against anything I said. I never said 60 was perfect or that it was all someone could see or that it couldn't be improved upon, I said it was sufficient, which still stands.
Reduction in tearing is nice, but it has nothing to do with smoothness or game playability.
The subject of flicker on CRTs was brought up because a few people earlier in the thread were using the statement "60Hz on my old CRT was horrible, I'm glad that they are finally coming out with 120Hz LCDs" I was merely informing them that such a stance is invalid, that the reason 60Hz was unbearable to them was because of flicker, and not because of lack of smoothness.
I never said that 120 wasn't better than 60. I never said it wasn't a step forward. What I am arguing against is that it is not necessary, it's just nice.
In short, the difference between 120hz and 60hz to my eyes is LARGE.
Both of my monitors that are right in front of me are TN Panels, and both have very similar specs. The 120hz kills the 60hz monitor. Even my girlfriend who could not care less about this stuff was WOWED while using my 120hz monitor.. and I quote "Its so fast and smooth" from a non tech women web browsing and using the desktop.
There is no point for me to ever buy a 60hz monitor again as they are "almost unusable" in comparison.
Both of my monitors that are right in front of me are TN Panels, and both have very similar specs. The 120hz kills the 60hz monitor. Even my girlfriend who could not care less about this stuff was WOWED while using my 120hz monitor.. and I quote "Its so fast and smooth" from a non tech women web browsing and using the desktop.
There is no point for me to ever buy a 60hz monitor again as they are "almost unusable" in comparison.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,002
- 126
Oh yes, I agree completely. Don?t get me wrong; I?m in no way trying to imply that 120 Hz is the sole factor in terms of buying decisions, and that people should just dump their existing panels just to get these 22? displays.
Also it?s quite possible for a person to be happy with the existing 60 Hz tech, and I fully concede that.
The point I?m making is that the two justifications we?ve been given in the past for 60 Hz (the eye can?t see any more, and that LCDs don?t need to go higher because they don?t flicker) are outright disingenuous, and now we have direct evidence to prove it.
BFG10K
Lifer
- Aug 14, 2000
- 22,709
- 3,002
- 126
Yes, absolutely. I?ll even repeat it to make sure we?re on the same page: ?there are games out there that feel choppy even at a constant 60 FPS?.
Sorry, it?s not sufficient. Well it might be sufficient for you, but to claim this is a universal constant for everyone is just plain false, especially since we have objective and subjective evidence demonstrating this.
I?m not sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying a reduction in tearing has no positive effect on gaming?
Again, I would disagree with this, as would the reviewer, and other people that have tried the tech and find they can?t go back to 60 Hz after using it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter