viewsonic and samung 120hz monitors, 120hz and understanding refresh rates.

[FatMom]

Originally posted by: CP5670
The best way to see the jerky mouse cursor is to compare it with 75hz on an LCD. Some of the 19" LCDs can do 75hz properly, and the mouse pointer is exactly where you see an immediate improvement over 60hz.

What LCDs do real 120hz at this point? Do they actually support it fully and let you use a 120hz setting in Windows and games? (and not require stereoscopic drivers to work)

Did you even read the thread?

 

[monkeydluffy]

Hey i got a question to you 120hz monitor owners.

I like that tv effect 120hz hdtvs do for some films.
will these true 120hz monitors do the same for me?

i do alot of 2-D gaming, and seeing them on an LCD screen, I can definitely notice the ghosting when compared to a CRT. will these 120hz reduce that ghosting?

I also like to watch HD porn, will it look great on these monitors? (hey I'm sure its a relevant issue for most of us)

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: CP5670

What LCDs do real 120hz at this point? Do they actually support it fully and let you use a 120hz setting in Windows and games? (and not require stereoscopic drivers to work)

Samsung and Viewsonic each have one model that supports nVidia's 3D glasses. From everything I?ve read, I'm fairly certain they?re genuine 120 Hz and can accept & display 120 discrete images per second, like a 120 Hz CRT would.

All stereoscopic does is alternates between blocking each eye to get the 3D effect from 120 FPS onscreen, getting 60 FPS per eye. So the display itself has to be actually capable of 120 Hz.

The main drawback is that they?re only 22? TN panels that top out at a low 1680x1050, and they're quite expensive relative to bigger LCDs.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: monkeydluffy

I like that tv effect 120hz hdtvs do for some films.
will these true 120hz monitors do the same for me?

Possibly, but they?re not the same thing. Most current ?120 Hz? devices aren?t really 120 Hz because they only accept 60 discrete images per second. The ?120 Hz? comes from the fact that they create their own frame between each inputted frame, either black or an interpolated version of two 60 Hz frames.

A true 120 Hz display accepting and displaying 120 discrete frames per second should be superior to any pseudo-120 Hz display.

i do alot of 2-D gaming, and seeing them on an LCD screen, I can definitely notice the ghosting when compared to a CRT. will these 120hz reduce that ghosting?

Possibly, but again refresh rate is different to ghosting.

Ghosting is tied to the pixel response of an LCD (the time it takes for a pixel to change from one color to another), while 120 Hz refers to the amount of discrete frames the display can accept and output. In theory 120 Hz should be better here too, as long as the pixel response time is low enough to take advantage of it.

For 120 Hz you should be looking at somewhere around 8 ms or less, but since there?s no standard for this measurement, go as low as possible.

I also like to watch HD porn, will it look great on these monitors? (hey I'm sure its a relevant issue for most of us)

As mentioned earlier by other posters, in theory movies should have less jittering due to the pulldown having more frames to interpolate across on a 120 Hz display.

But again, most of this is a theory (aside from 3D gaming where 120 FPS is measurable advantage over 60 FPS), so it pays to try the display in a store before deciding. You might not even notice a difference.

 

[maxrep12]

X-bit labs;

"Frankly speaking, I had not expected the difference between the refresh rate of 60Hz and 120Hz to be so conspicuous. It is indeed clear to a naked eye and is always in favor of the higher value. Smoother motion and the lack of RTC artifacts leave a highly positive impression, making you unwilling to return to 60Hz"


Internet folklore can be quite persistent. Baby steps - slowly, through a method of spoon feeding, those who once believed that the human eye was limited to 60 fps, are having their equipment world view shaken up a bit, but in a good way.

It should not be long before 120hz monitors take their rightful place in the pecking order of display devices.

 

[FatMom]

The problem is solved anyway, I bought I used FW900 I and coulnt be more happy.

 

[maxrep12]

Originally posted by: FatMom
The problem is solved anyway, I bought I used FW900 I and coulnt be more happy.

Max chokes back a tear, congrats bro!

You can turn on some custom resolutions with some high refresh rates. 16:9 resolutions can go pretty high, like 1600x900@125hz

 

[Ileader36]

When they have completely eliminated Motion blurring from LCD displays, then they will have
something worthwhile to brag about.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Ileader36

When they have completely eliminated Motion blurring from LCD displays, then they will have something worthwhile to brag about.

That probably won't happen until they move to OLED. The best LCDs are about 2 ms while OLED's response time is less than 0.01 ms.

Also that 2 ms is because of RTC, but OLED won?t even need that.

A 120 Hz OLED with high resolutions would be awesome. :thumbsup:

 

[FatMom]

yeah, until then, crt 4 lyfe

 

[XuXo]

I dont speak english very well, sorry about my english, but i want to buy a 120hz monitor for gaming, i saw good reviews about Viewsonic (3ms response), but this is my question about the resolution:
Can i play 640x480 at 120hz in those monitors?? cuz i play CS 1.6, 640x480 at 100Hz in my 17"CRT, the problem is my CRT is big and heavy 🙁 and i want to replace it. I was reading some replys and one guy said he can't play at 120hz in low resolutions.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: XuXo

Can i play 640x480 at 120hz in those monitors??

Yes, 120 Hz should be usable at any resolution your system supports.

Note however that LCDs will need to scale that resolution or it'll be too small.

But really, there?s absolutely no reason to be using such a horrendously low resolution in such an old game.

 

[Hiredg00n]

I signed up just to post in this thread. I own the Samsung 2233rz monitor which is a "True 120hz" display. Not only that, but I have a dual screen setup with my New Samsung, and an older 60hz Samsung LCD, for side by side comparison.

First, I have to start by saying 2/3rds of the people who are posting here don't know what their are talking about as they just don't understand what a "True 120hz" display is. This has nothing to do with 120hz HDTV's, as they do not accept 120hz input, thus can not take full advantage of 120hz in those terms. No more talk about 120hz HDTV's or AMP or anything like that, as we are talking about a monitor that can receive 120hz and display 120hz!

Second, The Samsung monitor has a full HUD or OSD, and can be tweaked just like any other LCD on the market, while the Viewsonic on the other hand is useless as it has minimal controls. Both monitor will allow you to change the Hertz in Windows or Nvidia Control Panel or ATI's Contril Panel up to 120hz. Its like hitting the off/on button between ugly and awesome performance, its that big of a difference.

Third, the difference between the 120hz LCD vs a 60hz LCD is NIGHT AND DAY! The blurring is gone, the ghosting is reduced so low that I can't tell if its there or not, and the image on screen is clean and clear. Like other have said in this thread, if anyone of you sat down in front of the monitor and starting even using Windows at the desktop or gaming, they would be floored at the speed and performance of this 120hz monitor. Even the mouse movements are quick and responsive and feel more accurate.

Games greatly benefit from this, as they get the same boost in clarity with no blurring, not ghosting, no ugly crap on screen reducing your game atmosphere. This LCD monitor is on a whole new level and really should not be compared to 60hz monitors, as they have no chance in comparison. I can not speak more highly about this monitor, once again a Night and Day difference as everything is improved from desktop experience to games.

Finally, to end it all off, I will never ever go back to using a 60hz LCD display as my main monitor. In fact, if I did not want to use a dual screen setup, I would stab my old 60hz monitor with a knife, if I had no control, as its now obsolete.

 

[BFG10K]

Welcome to the forum, Hiredg00n. :thumbsup:

I'm glad to see yet another individual squashing the constantly repeated misinformation that 60 Hz is all LCDs need.

As the market starts getting proliferated with real 120 Hz displays, the LCD crowd will start waking up to the crap they?ve been using, something die-hard CRT aficionados like myself have known for years.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: dguy6789
Times like this I wish I didn't delete this one program I had several years back. It showed two sets of rotating blocks, split screen. And on each screen you could pick the frame rate. Perfect for showing someone the difference between two sets of fps. I have looked for somewhere to redownload this program for years, still have not found it. It didn't have a memorable name.

Maxrep12, there is unfortunately one major flaw with your first post. This is thinking that the big difference noticed between running a CRT at 60hz and then at 160hz is from in game frame rate increase. That is extremely unlikely. CRTs operate by flashing their light on and off rapidly.(An LCD has a back light that never turns off) It is quite irritating on the eyes to look at a CRT when it runs at 60hz in the first place. Not so much at a significantly higher refresh rate.(Obviously a light that is flashing on and off fast enough looks like it is constantly on) A 60hz CRT appears to be flickering while a 60hz LCD does not. The massive difference people notice is not from an increase in game fluidity, but a severe reduction in eye strain. People would still go "wow the difference is amazing" even if your fps was locked at 30 and you switched your refresh rate from 60hz to 160hz.

<- Used to own an IBM P275 21" CRT.

That is not to say I think people can only see at 60fps. I personally have been able to notice a difference up to 80 or so using the aforementioned program.

I wish more people relize refresh rate in CRT and LCD is not exactly the samething,LCDs pixels are either off or on, with CRTs it does not work the same way thats why you see flicker at 60hz with CRT which you don't with LCD,see below.

This taken from Bit-Tech website,

60Hz, 100Hz, Vsync... how do all these terms inter-relate?

On a CRT, the refresh rate is how many times, per second, the display is drawn - i.e. how many times the electron guns are told to fire by the video source. The refresh rate on a monitor is limited by how fast the guns can fire - more expensive guns can obviously fire faster. The refresh rate is also limited by the resolution, because the higher the number of vertical lines to refresh, the longer it takes the guns to refresh them all.

We all know from experience that a higher refresh rate makes for a better image that has less flicker, but do we know why? The phosphors in a CRT illuminate when hit with electrons, but begin to fade as soon as the energy from the electron is used up. To keep the phosphor illuminated requires a constant stream of electrons. If they're not coming in fast enough, the phospor will visbly fade then light up again - causing that horrendous 60Hz flicker we all know and love, which is especially visible on high resolution screens with lots of vertical lines to scan. 60Hz is more tolerable on a lower resolution screen where there are less lines to scan.

On a CRT monitor with a resolution of 1600x1200 or above, 100Hz is ideal to keep all the lines supplied with enough electrons to stop the phosphors fading and flicker occurring.



Refresh and Response on LCDs
All of this doesn't really apply to LCDs. The pixels and subpixels in LCD panels don't fade as phosphor does, since the light from the backlight is constant and the current from the electrodes is constant, meaning that light is passed from the pixels for as long as the display controller tells it to. However, LCDs are nominally set up to report a 60Hz refresh back to the video controller, which often requires at least some value to work to.

What does matter on a LCD, however, is the response time. This is not the same as a refresh rate. Refresh rate time is the measurement of how many frames can be displayed per second. For an LCD, response time refers to how quickly a liquid crystal can twist, then untwist to either pass or block the light of each pixel. The faster the crystals can react, the faster the motion that can be displayed on screen.

This is why a low response time is essential for applications like movies and games to be watchable without ghosting. Ghosting is the remnants of the old frame image 'below' the new frame image due to the fact that not all the crystals have updated with the new frame in time to display it.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Originally posted by: Hiredg00n
I signed up just to post in this thread. I own the Samsung 2233rz monitor which is a "True 120hz" display. Not only that, but I have a dual screen setup with my New Samsung, and an older 60hz Samsung LCD, for side by side comparison.

First, I have to start by saying 2/3rds of the people who are posting here don't know what their are talking about as they just don't understand what a "True 120hz" display is. This has nothing to do with 120hz HDTV's, as they do not accept 120hz input, thus can not take full advantage of 120hz in those terms. No more talk about 120hz HDTV's or AMP or anything like that, as we are talking about a monitor that can receive 120hz and display 120hz!

Second, The Samsung monitor has a full HUD or OSD, and can be tweaked just like any other LCD on the market, while the Viewsonic on the other hand is useless as it has minimal controls. Both monitor will allow you to change the Hertz in Windows or Nvidia Control Panel or ATI's Contril Panel up to 120hz. Its like hitting the off/on button between ugly and awesome performance, its that big of a difference.

Third, the difference between the 120hz LCD vs a 60hz LCD is NIGHT AND DAY! The blurring is gone, the ghosting is reduced so low that I can't tell if its there or not, and the image on screen is clean and clear. Like other have said in this thread, if anyone of you sat down in front of the monitor and starting even using Windows at the desktop or gaming, they would be floored at the speed and performance of this 120hz monitor. Even the mouse movements are quick and responsive and feel more accurate.

Games greatly benefit from this, as they get the same boost in clarity with no blurring, not ghosting, no ugly crap on screen reducing your game atmosphere. This LCD monitor is on a whole new level and really should not be compared to 60hz monitors, as they have no chance in comparison. I can not speak more highly about this monitor, once again a Night and Day difference as everything is improved from desktop experience to games.

Finally, to end it all off, I will never ever go back to using a 60hz LCD display as my main monitor. In fact, if I did not want to use a dual screen setup, I would stab my old 60hz monitor with a knife, if I had no control, as its now obsolete.

THANK YOU! I hate the LCD blurring issue. It's incredibly bad on the 8ms response time monitor I have and I would rather use a crappy 5 year old CRT (but I'm too lazy to move one).

On a side note, a question: Is blurring a form of ghosting? Ghosting is thrown around and I understand what people mean by the terminology, but I really haven't witnessed it myself. So it's quite possible I view ghosting as blurring.

 

[Hiredg00n]

Ghosting and blurring, practically the same if I am not mistaken. Now that I think about it in depth, if you were to describe both I would say its the same thing just different terminology.

I hate the blurring on my old 60hz LCD as it impacts my gameplay. I can't see the blurring that I hate about the older LCD monitors on this new monitor. It may or may not be there to an extent, but I can't see it.

I have played portal, left 4 dead, crysis, fear 2 and all these games were silky smooth without the usual distractions that I hate from the old 60hz monitors. I got the monitor so I could game on it, and it has lived up to my expectations. Best gaming monitor on the market right now.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Yes, if I were to guess ghosting is probably a more extreme version of blurring. The way Mem described the nature of LCDs, blurring is just the pixels not responding fast enough.

Have you got your hands on any of the low response time monitors (<2ms)? How do they compare with the 120hz monitors? Do the pixels in 120hz monitors refresh faster than low-response-time 60hz monitors?

 

[shangshang]

for those who would get a 24" CRT over an LCD... is your room a freakin warehouse??! LOL as far as I'm, and most computer user out there, including gamers, are concerned... we'd be crazy to dump our LCDs to buy a big & heavy CRT. I think Y2k has passed, and most people have come to accept LCDs despite their shortcomings.

sometimes I can see some lags on my LCD, but ya know what, my brain have adapt and even acquire a new ability to compensate for a missing frame or two by filling in the blank, that is to say, my brain can actually project what the next picture frame would look like, so in the end, I perceive 100% smoothness. Don't ask me how, but apparently my brain has adapted to LCD motion. 🙂

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: Mem

I wish more people relize refresh rate in CRT and LCD is not exactly the samething,LCDs pixels are either off or on, with CRTs it does not work the same way thats why you see flicker at 60hz with CRT which you don't with LCD,see below.

We aren?t talking about flicker, so I don?t know why you keep repeating this. Flicker is irrelevant to the point being made.

We?re talking about the fact that a 60 Hz device can at most display 60 full frames per second, regardless of whether it flickers or not. Did you read this thread and take note of the comments relating framerate to refresh rate?

For that matter, did you even read the XBit article I linked to?

It was proven objectively that RTC errors were reduced four-fold with 120 Hz. Furthermore, the reviewer commented that even dragging windows around the desktop was much better. There?s absolutely no room to argue about this any more given we have irrefutable objective proof.

60 Hz blows chunks, and not even LCD apologists can hide this fact any more given we now have LCDs that can actually do 120 Hz, so we can compare them side by side to the 60 Hz manure that is being shoveled into the industry.

 

[BFG10K]

Originally posted by: shangshang

we'd be crazy to dump our LCDs to buy a big & heavy CRT.

So how often do you lift and/or move your monitor?

sometimes I can see some lags on my LCD, but ya know what, my brain have adapt and even acquire a new ability to compensate for a missing frame or two by filling in the blank, that is to say, my brain can actually project what the next picture frame would look like, so in the end, I perceive 100% smoothness. Don't ask me how, but apparently my brain has adapted to LCD motion. 🙂

:music::music: Lalalalala! The lag isn't real! I can't see any lag! My brain is adapting! Lalalalala! :music::music:

It?s called denial. 😛

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: Mem

I wish more people relize refresh rate in CRT and LCD is not exactly the samething,LCDs pixels are either off or on, with CRTs it does not work the same way thats why you see flicker at 60hz with CRT which you don't with LCD,see below.

We aren?t talking about flicker, so I don?t know why you keep repeating this. Flicker is irrelevant to the point being made.

We?re talking about the fact that a 60 Hz device can at most display 60 full frames per second, regardless of whether it flickers or not. Did you read this thread and take note of the comments relating framerate to refresh rate?

For that matter, did you even read the XBit article I linked to?

It was proven objectively that RTC errors were reduced four-fold with 120 Hz. Furthermore, the reviewer commented that even dragging windows around the desktop was much better. There?s absolutely no room to argue about this any more given we have irrefutable objective proof.

60 Hz blows chunks, and not even LCD apologists can hide this fact any more given we now have LCDs that can actually do 120 Hz, so we can compare them side by side to the 60 Hz manure that is being shoveled into the industry.

Its quite simple I was trying to point out how LCD refresh rate and CRTs refresh are different in the way they act(flicker@60HZ on CRT to compared to 60HZ on LCD was a good example) ,getting back on topic yes I did read XBIT article ,I'm not keen on the goggles part(GeForce 3D Vision stereoscopic glasses) to be honest.

60 Hz blows chunks, and not even LCD apologists can hide this fact any more given we now have LCDs that can actually do 120 Hz, so we can compare them side by side to the 60 Hz manure that is being shoveled into the industry.

[/quote]

Its called progress,you think we will stop at 120Hz down the road or pixel response times won't be faster ?..you know technology does not stop for anybody so I don't know what you was trying to say with that statement,end of the day there are a lot of happy 60Hz LCD gamers(like myself) that are happy and welcome any improvements down the road,same will goes for 120Hz when thats replaced or any other hardware like video card,cpu etc.

 

[Nathelion]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: shangshang

we'd be crazy to dump our LCDs to buy a big & heavy CRT.

So how often do you lift and/or move your monitor?

sometimes I can see some lags on my LCD, but ya know what, my brain have adapt and even acquire a new ability to compensate for a missing frame or two by filling in the blank, that is to say, my brain can actually project what the next picture frame would look like, so in the end, I perceive 100% smoothness. Don't ask me how, but apparently my brain has adapted to LCD motion. 🙂

:music::music: Lalalalala! The lag isn't real! I can't see any lag! My brain is adapting! Lalalalala! :music::music:

It?s called denial. 😛

Three times a year for LAN parties and once or twice a year to get the accumulated dust off my desk. Lugging a 19" CRT around that often was a major chore back in the day. The situation is much improved with my 24" LCD.

How about you?

 

[Hiredg00n]

Originally posted by: cusideabelincoln
Yes, if I were to guess ghosting is probably a more extreme version of blurring. The way Mem described the nature of LCDs, blurring is just the pixels not responding fast enough.

Have you got your hands on any of the low response time monitors (<2ms)? How do they compare with the 120hz monitors? Do the pixels in 120hz monitors refresh faster than low-response-time 60hz monitors?

The previous LCD Samsung monitor I own, is a 22" SyncMaster 225bw, with a 5ms response time. This was fast enough to get the job done, but when it was time for games, it was kind of depressing to see a bit of blurring, still playable though.

Anyway, long story short, I kept with that monitor until I could purchase something that was similar, but nullified the blurring. This is where the Samsung SyncMaster 2233rz comes in. Its rated at 3ms I believe, which to my eye is fast enough to game on. Like I said before, its a Night and Day difference when you set the monitor to 120hz compared to 60hz on a similar monitor.

Now my old 225bw looks like complete garbage in comparison.

 

[shangshang]

Originally posted by: BFG10K

Originally posted by: shangshang

we'd be crazy to dump our LCDs to buy a big & heavy CRT.

So how often do you lift and/or move your monitor?

sometimes I can see some lags on my LCD, but ya know what, my brain have adapt and even acquire a new ability to compensate for a missing frame or two by filling in the blank, that is to say, my brain can actually project what the next picture frame would look like, so in the end, I perceive 100% smoothness. Don't ask me how, but apparently my brain has adapted to LCD motion. 🙂

:music::music: Lalalalala! The lag isn't real! I can't see any lag! My brain is adapting! Lalalalala! :music::music:

It?s called denial. 😛

hehe at first I thought it was denial too,.. but ya know what, your mind is an amazing organism.. it'll adapt! Seriously I don't notice any lag in any of the game I've played, and I've pretty much played all of the current games (although I haven't managed to finish any of them because they're crap, but that's for another thread). I don't know, maybe my brain just isn't bother by any of this lag some people are experiencing. I can't believe people in post-Y2K are still upping the value of a friggin Sony CRT! If Sony saw this coming, the would have produced a stockpile of Trinitrons for post-CRT apocalyptic era!!!

But back to your questions, I move my monitor a few times a year to clean my table, and ever since I've switched to LCD, I find myself more willing to LAN party (less back strain), and I tilt my monitor quite a bit when I was using a 24" Trinitron because some junk objects would fall behind or under the damn CRT and I needed to tilt it or swing the tube to run my hands underneath. With a 24" LCD, my desk is so much more organized now. Sure my LCDs have some limitations when compared to a Sony FW900 CRT beast, but I don't ever see these limitations... ever!... so far in my computing life so far!!

Probably the biggest factor why i use an LCD is for onscreen text. Sorry folks, gaming is a hobby to me, not a a lifestyle. Now if I had a warehouse of a living room and with deep walls where I can flush-mount a CRT, then maybe.. maybe.. and one more thing.. during the summer, I don't feel like I'm sitting in front of a parabolic space-heater anymore when I turn on my monitor!!