4k Resolution @ 120hz PC Monitor

Mark Rejhon said:

I don't think those will work on the 4K monitor, but if you find a way to 'force' anything more than 30Hz for 4K into a $1500 display, do let all of us know. People have overclocked 2560x1440 to 120Hz and sometimes even 144Hz and beyond, so doing 4K @ 60Hz is not much beyond that level of overclock. That said, 4K @ 48Hz would be a rather interesting overclock, if you're able to get that far.

ToastyX was able to hack Windows drivers to remove the 400 Mhz dot clock limit. I wonder if the same kind of hacking can be done.

Click to expand...

I was just talking about a hardware limit via display port not what the monitor would actually take and I have gotten the monitor up to 32Hz on windows using reduced timings. Yeah I know... not that much above 30Hz...

Any progress with the controller board for 4K at 120Hz? I'd be just as interested in it for 2D work as for gaming.

Anything cheap going to 60Hz with two inputs would still be a vast improvement.
A triple-input 96Hz capable one would also make sense, multi-monitor gaming works better with three screens at the moment.
And 96Hz like 120Hz would be judder-free multiple of 24fps used in Movies. (unlike 60Hz) It won't work terribly well for non-polarized 3D though.

BTW, it's worth noting that for a sample-and-hold (non-flicker) display, playing a 24fps movie using 24Hz, 48Hz, 72Hz, 96Hz, and 120Hz looks exactly identical to the human eye in terms of motion blur.

There can be other effects such as rolling refresh effect (e.g. skewing during horizontal pans; like a rolling shutter artifact) at lower refresh rates, but the judder-free-ness is exactly the same when using sample-and-hold at 48Hz, 72Hz, 96Hz, and 120Hz.

Sample-and-hold displays continuously shine a refresh. As a result, there's no human-eye difference between a single refresh (displayed for the double amount of time as two repeated refreshes). Movie frames, without interpolation, are always displayed onscreen for a full 1/24sec regardless of 48Hz, 72Hz, 96Hz, and 120Hz.

That said, the motion mechanics do change somewhat if you're using flicker displays instead (e.g. CRT, plasma, LightBoost) which is NOT sample-and-hold. They don't continuously shine a refresh. So extra Hz just repeats the refreshes (or interpolates, if you use interpolation). If interpolation is disabled, there's less motion blur on flicker displays when you lower Hz while watching low-framerate material (e.g. watching 24fps movies on a 48Hz CRT) but you may prefer motion blur because motion blur masks the low framerate. In that case, you would prefer 72Hz or 96Hz or 120Hz on a flicker display (e.g. CRT, plasma) or using flicker free display (e.g. sample and hold LCD).

One could run the SEIKI HDTV at 4K @ 24Hz during watching movies, since SEIKI is refresh-rate multisync. At 24Hz from a computer, you may get some rolling-refresh artifacts (skew during fast pans) but you will not have the judder of a non-divisible refresh rate. Since SEIKI is sample-and-hold (flicker-free), judder at 24Hz will look otherwise exactly the same as playing a movie on a 120Hz monitor without interpolation, just much higher resolution (due to 4K resolution).

96Hz video motion compatibility would be more a matter of convenience, not having to change the screen mode and refresh to 24Hz once you start a video.
120Hz is best for video frequency compatibility. (multiple 30Hz and 24Hz, NTSC and Cinema)
It would only be a side effect of 96Hz being more achievable when addressing the monitor as a triple screen setup, something more common in multi-monitor gaming than 4 monitors.

Benny said:

120Hz is best for video frequency compatibility. (multiple 30Hz and 24Hz, NTSC and Cinema

Click to expand...

True, 120Hz is a major convenience.

Alas...with SEIKI 4K, it's unable to do anything above ~30Hz at 4K (small overclocking margin) unless a motherboard/firmware combo mod comes out. However, it certainly does 24Hz at 4K which is a great compromise if you want to do judder-free 4K movies today on the SEIKI. (If this attribute is more important than being able to do 120Hz for other things)

Actually, I was curious about the smaller non-TV panel from the first page, and how many DP connections it might take to use it at 120Hz. I want to upgrade my video card in the near future, and it's not easy to find ones with 2 or more DP connections as well as others.

Interesting Alex I'm hoping this comes together nicely, I saw your posts over at OCN.
It is something that is really holding gamers back as they don't want to compromise to 1080P resolution for a decent refresh rate.

I'm getting a 39 inch 4K tv in +/- 2 weeks and will then report on picture quality and board standard functions.

Isn't it so that dual-link DVI is only limited by the quality of the cables and interfaces? There are no upper bandwidt(Single link) 3.96 Gbit/s

- (Dual link) Limited only by copper bandwidth limitations, DVI source limitations, and DVI sync limitations.h limit, which is why we can overclock certain LCD displays.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface

I have a Catleap at 120hz and 1440p over a six meter DVI-D cable (not to brag or anything, it is on a monitor arm fastened to my sofa )
http://jooh.no/web/Monitor_arm_on_sofa.jpg

I'd rather not have a packet based standard like DisplayPort.

DarkUltra said:

Isn't it so that dual-link DVI is only limited by the quality of the cables and interfaces? There are no upper bandwidt(Single link) 3.96 Gbit/s

- (Dual link) Limited only by copper bandwidth limitations, DVI source limitations, and DVI sync limitations.h limit, which is why we can overclock certain LCD displays.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface

I have a Catleap at 120hz and 1440p over a six meter DVI-D cable (not to brag or anything, it is on a monitor arm fastened to my sofa )
http://jooh.no/web/Monitor_arm_on_sofa.jpg

I'd rather not have a packet based standard like DisplayPort.

Click to expand...

Considering DisplayPort is superior in just about every single possible way to DVI....that is a strange position.

hz for games has to be fed enough fps. Sweet spot for ~ $1k in gpus is 1080p for more demanding games at high+ to ultra settings. Newer games like tomb raider and bioshock infinite can't even get that kind of high of fps on $1k in gpu power though when maxed. You would need to spend several thousand on gpus so a kickstart campaign thing sounds unlikely to me number of people wise unless many of those people are playing very low settings, very old games, or they don't understand the relationship between hz and fps.
.
120hz is where it's at for sure (fed very high fps), with 1/2 the blur vs 60hz baseline and double the motion tracking - twice as many more recent, unique action "slices" of what's happening in the game world shown (and it's resultant smoothness look, feel, and increased accuracy). http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/60vs120vslb/
.
lightboost/sync'd backlight strobing retinal retention blur elimination would be even better.
.
As far as the comments about huge tv's in front of your face at a desk, I completely disagree with that kind of setup. The only way these setups would make any sense to me (other than sitting far away from them), is if you could define a virtual monitor space in the middle of the huge screen, with all extents being increased FoV. Otherwise you are just making the entire viewport/scene and all objects "JUMBO" and pushing the viewport outside of your focal viewpoint (different size eyefinity arrays with same scene shown). Literally eye bending (and even micro neck bending) to the periphery. LLL eyefinity has the side panels peripheral by design when implemented properly, for more immersion without looking from side to side. more like what I mentioned with the virtual central monitor definition on larger screens / walls of screen. It has its own issues though, and the resolution vs gpu demands for 120fps makes it a *very* expensive option again gpu wise for the more demanding of modern games at high+ to ultra settings.
.
At different points some key monitors I've used are a 37" monitor that was unsuitable at desk distances imo ... fw900's for zero motion blur, 2560x rez 60hz ips, and a 120hz TN . The 120hz TN is not lightboost unfortunately but samsung A750D can do sequential mode to give me a hint of what it's like - with added input lag :/ I typically play 120hz at high fps on it without strobing.
.
I don't think gpu power is sufficient overall to adequately supply 120hz with abundance of new frames for the enthusiast pc gamer past 1080 personally (someone who spends a few grand on their pc ~ $1k or less in gpus..) .. without going to extreme build with two or more thousand on gpus. That's for high+ to max settings on demanding games of course.
.
In the future I personally think that we will have virtual overlays shown via glasses, and after that point screen panels (including TV's , monitors, phones and tablets) will be outdated and primitive by comparison.. (still used like chalk boards in some places though I suppose :b ). That is still quite a ways off though. Google glass is a simpler "hack" / "ghetto version" type of the idea imo and not really the same, but still a step I suppose. There is also the traditional all-enclosed VR type like occulus rift (consumer version supposed to be 1080p.. unfortunately 60hz ..and no lightboost for that matter).