120 Hz

elvn said:
(at 1920x1200~85hz usually)
Click to expand...
try 1920x1200 96Hz :rolleyes:

it's better for games and 4x24Hz so judder-free movie playback and imho much less flickering (it may not be noticeable at first but try to use monitor for few hours...)

funny thing is that I also use this monitor for internet/desktop kind of stuff most of the time because it have this classic unreproducible colors and feeling to it :D
also it's just ridiculously sharp at even such high framerates (CRTs tend to blur in higher refresh rates) even though it's 2001 monitor :cool:
When I bought it friends said CRT aren't sharp and bad for eyes but after seeing it for their own eyes they don't say such silly things no more ;)

ps. I game mostly on 1600x1000@110Hz, much better framerates on GTX460 :rolleyes:
 
I also personally feel that LCD are more then adequate for gmaing purposes, I have used quite a few of them, my current 2 are ACER P223W and Samsung 2570HD, the HD is my primary monitor, it may not be uber fast as some CRT, but at the same time its colors, responce, clarity are good enough for me, not to mention it does not weigh 5 tons and as well, it does not have a hum or any noise really, last CRT I had was a really nice dell CRT 24", it weighed so bloody much, always had a constant low volume but high pitch hum, and chewed up at least 2 maybe 3x what both my current monitors chew up together.

Also, as far as the concept that OLED are garbage, I disagree, the tech used to make them currently may be, however, I think it is a very cool idea, they just do not quite have the tech yet to make them as large or comparable, tech changes so fast, LCD/LED were a new beginning if you will in certain apsects, but they are far from being the best they can do, some of the newer tech coming out(once they can mass produce it/make it afforable) will make LCD/LED/Plasma and in alot of ways CRT crappy in compairson.

All promising tech is just that, promising, but until we are using it, what we have is better for now :p

P.S I know alot of CRT and Plasma tend to give me headaches or weird sensations after prolonged viewing, this is not something I like to experience, I have heard older and even some newer plasma as well as tons of CRT tend to have bad radiation associated with them, one from well being a very high voltage charged particle, the other from using a very high amplitude ray tube striking the display might have something to do with it, might just be me, but the less crap I have trying to throw stuff at my eyes/brain the better :O
 
I don't see images flickering at me, gamma rays and x-rays shooting at me, an excessive use of power, an excessive amount of heat given off, being sometimes noisy, and a weight of a human adult to be of any benefit. They're dead.

As for OLEDs being good. No, they are not. Conventional, semiconductor LEDs have outperformed what OLEDs will ever do, when they were in their infancy. When they say LEDs will last a lifetime, this doesn't apply to OLEDs. Their whole concept is cheapness, and to be disposable. When you rely on chemicals and phosphors to change the color of the light you are emitting, you are going right back into CRT-like territory, and it screams immediate obsolescence. Semiconductor LEDs make colors depending on what semiconductor was used. Only white LEDs use phosphors, but some use an RGB array. I could care less what OLEDs promise. I don't want to roll up my TV into a poster, or fold it up and carry it in my pocket. They have a place, and that is in the portable market. For home use, they should be focusing on real LEDs for displays.
 
I aso heard at least from LED prespective, they just cannot make them as large as we want them currently. That is part of the reason they want to use "garbage" OLED as you put it, easier to scale the panel size larger.

highest res panel I have seen, is one that is in prototype phase for production, it is OLED based, but called something else as it is an advanced process, responce of less then 1ms actual, contrast of in the 1m to 1 ratio, the actual reso if I recall was 5k by 3k or something like that and they can make it as small as 14inch all the way up to 260 inch currently.
 
Bullshit. Have you seen these crazy high wattage LEDs that need heat sinks? Those dies are huge! Yes, it would be expensive to make a panel with a few million tiny little LED dies, but it won't ever get cheaper if they never work on it.

OLEDs are garbage, throwaway tech. Once something like this makes it into anything consumer, you get misinformed people gawking that they want more of it, because they really know nothing about it, and then you get a demand for it. People want their shit to run based on concept anymore, not actual research.
 
I guess on this everyone will have thier opinion as with everything else, but to term it "garbage" is very narrow minded, I believe AMOLED is the one I was thinking of earlier.

This other forum may say a few things http://www.avforums.com/forums/oled-flcd-tvs/992893-led-vs-oled.html

I guess just because of the fact that OLED typically do not have the same lifespan as LED makes the less desireable, but also do not forget, plasma, ion cannon, LCD, LED were all "garbagE" tech, untill they became desirable.

I think in a general sence, as long as it produces good colors, lasts long enough, doesnt use much power, and most importantly, has the visual quality we need, thats all that matters. I think I kind of like the fact that we have a variety of tech available for our viewing pleasure, the more there is, the less of a strangehold some manufacturers have, LCD are a prime example of this, all it takes is for one manufacturer to have problems in the mix sort of speak to affect tons of us users, I would much rather have choice, then to be truly locked into using one source that can have major production/sourcing issues.

That and I suppose the fact the LED and LCD tend to use some crazy production process/chemicals wereas even though in your words OLED are "garbage" at least as far as the term -Organic Light Emitting Diode I like the sound of more, that is unless they are chopping some really rare flowers down to make the colors that we want :p
 
I could care less about the process in things are made and the chemicals used. Organic LEDs are garbage, period. They have their place, and it's not in TVs. Just because it has the word organic in it doesn't mean it is "green". It's not a vegetable.
 
grimster said:
I could care less about the process in things are made and the chemicals used. Organic LEDs are garbage, period. They have their place, and it's not in TVs. Just because it has the word organic in it doesn't mean it is "green". It's not a vegetable.
Click to expand...

WTF are you on.

"They have their place?"

They are small now because the tech has not advanced yet... if thats your problem? Can you explain?

There is no evidence to support the idea that they will not eventually replace all existing display technologies.
 
WTF are you on? If displays turn OLED I guess I will stop watching the things I enjoy, because I won't drink that Kool-Aid. Semiconductors are solid state, and where the future lies. But the future will be ruined because we have too many liberal yuppie douchebags who see the word "organic" and instantly think that this is something amazing and needs to be made a trend and that there need to be laws that force their idiotic views on everyone else.
 
You're going to have to explain more than that. I've yet to hear this semiconductor theory for display superiority whether its durability or quality, and a brief Google search brings up nothing.

I feel like im being trolled by the guy with the 27 day account, who is calling me an "iPhone" like consumer at the same time.

I like what OLED has shown to bring, which is superior image quality, faster response times etc.
 
If you want to act so smart, but don't understand the difference between an OLED and an LED, I can't help you. They have no advantages over traditional LEDs other than being able to bend (whoop-dee-doo.) If you feel like the "insult" (but rather a general, but harsh observation) I said was directed at you, and fits you, then that's on you.
 
Working without a backlight is a pretty big difference between OLED and LED.
 
All I know is that I like gaming MUCH better at 120 Hz particularly when frame rates can lock in at 120 FPS with v-synch on.
 
Also, as far as I have understood, the ability to light each pixel without the need for a mask, can result in a more natural image appearence to standard LED and is bar none superior to LCD in every regard. This in itself is a vast improvement in regards to clarity, color, saturation, reduced eye strain and many other things.

If the blooming, blurring, contrast, brightness etc are all better, what does it matter what tech it uses??

Everything gets better in time, if solid state truly is the wave of the future, why is it that alot of researchers and designers are looking to go pure to optical impulse, or light driven(laser like) if solid state is better? or better yet, compounds that are able to change state very rapidly with a very small amount of energy while still retaining thier physical or other properties, I think OLED fits into this category very well. It is an advancing field, semi conductor technology is as well, but is starting to also truly show its limitations, hence the "need" to look for better tech. At very least, the one thing that truly seperates OLED from LED, LCD and such, is they do not need to have "masks" or filters to attain certain brightness levels, or certain colors, they can easily do this with the right compunds or electrical impulses, hence more "natural" looking.

I do not know if this has any bearing on it, but think along the lines of a solid state amplifier, or an old tube amp, one may be higher tech and do all kind of fancy tricks, but the other simply is more "natural" sounding, has more warmth, and has the ability to blend things together that the other one has to "emulate" to achieve, I dare say there is a huge difference here.

This thread is/has been informative, but it should be less about "personal opinions" and more on facts.

Just because one person does not like another persons personal likes/dislikes does not make it invalid at all, I think that is "garbage"
 
Last edited:
There are a lot of us who would still use a CRT if it was not such a crap shoot.

Even 3 years ago, I was buying every Sony CRT I could find on Craigslist trying to get a few that were in good shape and it was a losing battle.

It's nice to hear that a few people still use them, but you guys are now in the same category of people who look for analog tube amplifiers of a certain vintage.

As imperfect as LCDs are, I find the better TN panels to be adequate for gaming and I am probably going to get the new 27" 120hz ASUS and be even happier.
 
Well people who use tubes for audio are snobs about having a less accurate sound. That's fine, but don't preach that the technology is better, just say you prefer that sound, not that it is a superiour representation over solid state. I slightly understand the merits of a CRT, but the size and weight factor make them obsolete outside a niche mental few.
 
If there wasn't blur-out I would agree.. the "few" are those lucky enough to know better and lucky enough to be able to get their hands on a fw900 professional widescreen crt. Its not "mental" to prefer a display that has no fast FoV movement blurring including washing out the most modern game's extreme texture detail and "3d" depth via bumpmapping on fast FoV movement. The desire to eliminate that blur is why 120hz lcd's are so popular now - because that's the best an LCD can do for motion at the moment - so any screen capable of even blur REDUCTION is jumped on by a lot of gamers. Blur is so undesirable that people are even swapping from superior ppi high resolution IPS panels to lower ppi TN panels just to reduce the blur somewhat . There are large tradeoffs on any screen tech (TN, IPS, CRT), and crt's tradeoffs are valid, but sitting in front of a screen playing a game, it is the only display that does not blur out on fast FoV movement to date that I am aware of. There is nothing wrong with making people aware that no blur is better than blurring. There is plenty of preaching to go around these threads from varied topics and viewpoints.. some more like hate speeches than preaching unfortunately.
.
What makes them obsolete (for pc gaming) and used by a niche few is that they aren't produced anymore, LCD marketing "propaganda", and that yes LCD's are easier, lighter, slimmer. Easier and cheaper doesn't always mean better.. (for example, fast food lol). Once you set up your monitor, the weight should not really enter into it. I don't move my monitor once its set up properly. The size is definitely a more considerable tradeoff though, especially if you are trying to cram your desk against a wall like a bookshelf , but well worth having no blur imo if you game regularly.
 
Last edited:
I did not read the whole thread but one reason no one talks about 120hz for movies is because 120hz on most displays we use is on TN panels which look bad anyway. So movie buffs are unlikely to want to watch a movie with bad color, bad viewing angles and so on just to smooth it out. Gamers on the other hand need things as fast as possible, and are used to making a choice between image quality and speed and or finding a compromise they can live with. The 120hz panel I bought is good for games but bad for text but I do not think all of them are like this. I think movie buffs gravitate toward plasmas as the best compromise now all they need to do is keep burn in in check which is not hard for people who are not absent minded or watch only a single channel with stock tickers all day.

BTW after going through a couple 120hz panels and keeping one but moving it off to a second computer I went on a mission to find a good CRT I now sport a pair of FW900s. I have almost every thing in my house plasma, LCD, 60/120hz and access to multi thousand dollar IPS panels for photoediting in my family. And no nothing can touch the FW900 for games and color once they warm up. It will be a sad day when these bad boys kick the bucket, because I bet any money they still will not have solved the problems with LCD tech by that time or moved on to better tech.
 
Last edited:
I also wanted to mention I believe that one of the reasons that FPS games as a whole have become much slower is because of LCDs. Remember LCDs really started showing up right around the time realistic shooters started exploding in popularity. Now I cannot prove it, I can only notice the correlation. But it is an awefully convienient correlation that in the early days of FPS gaming everyone seemed to want fast paced twitchy shooters when everyone had a CRT and they could set the refresh up into the 100s and track everything. When 60hz LCDs really started to take over that seemed to be the explosion of much slower games like COD/BF.

I personally hypothesize it was the very fact that shit was blurry and slow on these monitors that made fast paced games seem unmanageable. People with LCDs gravitated toward modern warefare as a reaction.

I know some will hate on this idea but it makes alot of sense as far as the timing is concerned.
 
rudy said:
I also wanted to mention I believe that one of the reasons that FPS games as a whole have become much slower is because of LCDs. Remember LCDs really started showing up right around the time realistic shooters started exploding in popularity. Now I cannot prove it, I can only notice the correlation. But it is an awefully convienient correlation that in the early days of FPS gaming everyone seemed to want fast paced twitchy shooters when everyone had a CRT and they could set the refresh up into the 100s and track everything. When 60hz LCDs really started to take over that seemed to be the explosion of much slower games like COD/BF.

I personally hypothesize it was the very fact that shit was blurry and slow on these monitors that made fast paced games seem unmanageable. People with LCDs gravitated toward modern warefare as a reaction.

I know some will hate on this idea but it makes alot of sense as far as the timing is concerned.
Click to expand...


I dont buy the timing thing but otherwise you are correct. Playing twitch shooters of old on slower panels like IPS and especially *VA is such a pain...
 
As far as the color, viewing angles and such being real bad on TN panels, you are correct, text is usually harder to read, not because of the 120HZ or the TN panel or what have you, but possibly from the pixel pitch or the resolution attached to it, we have the ability to adjust fonts DPI for a reason :)

I use my computer monitors for everything from gaming, to watching TV, to watching movies, using media player, I have no problem at all with the way it looks or how fast it is. 60Hz 1920x1080 colors are quite good once I tinkered with them some. Samsung HD2570
 
Adjusting fonts won't help if you want the font to be relatively small - there won't be a large enough number of pixels per inch to render it crisply. So on a low ppi screen up close at a desk things tend to look a little jumbo/oversized. A 23" 120hz would have a better ppi and less shift than a 27" 1080p, (and cost $400 - $460 rather than $750 - $800). I own a 23" and 22" 1080p lcd at different locations. They are not 120hz, but I am familiar with the ppi at around 1.5' viewing distance (95.78ppi on the 23", and 100.132 ppi on the 22"). It is way better than the 27.5" 1920x1200 hannspree I had which was 82.33ppi. A 27" 1080p would be worse than even that at 81.59 ppi.
.
. Some people are fine with blurring screens on games, bad blacklevels+detail in blacks for tv and movies. substandard colors, and even horrible input lag on some tv's for console games for that matter (and some input lag increase on pc monitors with scalers). Some people use TV speakers too instead of even a modest surround system, even a "home theatre in a box" one which is magnitudes better than tv speakers. That doesn't mean that these things "don't suck" and aren't drastically inferior.
..
... Motion Blur :For me the extreme textures on the most demanding games being washed out has become too obnoxious and I'm going back to my fw900 crt for those games. On lower detail games I can try to ignore it more, but I love my extreme detail games and can't stomach the eye wrenching texture washouts anymore. If my fw900 dies or I otherwise was someone without access to one, I'd have to shoot for a 120hz pc monitor since thats the best motion manufactured currently.
.
....BlackLevels+Detail-in-Blacks: I'd never watch movies on a TN, I'd get a VA or plasma tv for real black levels+detail-in-blacks. (I have a 46" VA glossy tv in my living room). If I absolutely had to watch movies at my desk I'd prob get a refurb/floor model 32" VA to put next to my desktop monitor. (or use my fw900 crt while it lasts)
.
....PPI+Resolution+Color: For desktop and application use I'm sticking with my 2560x1440 ips which I just paid off. Outside of the highest textured games I mentioned on fast FoV movement., it is superior in many ways with gorgeous imagery, high dpi (108.8ppi), size, and a lot of desktop real-estate with its rez. I have a 19" TN sideways (portrait mode) on each side of my IPS at the moment, for even more/extra desk space. The color difference is very noticeable on the TNs. I angled them perfectly to avoid shift , but with shift unavodable on a bigger (27") panel, the "shadowing" would make things worse.
...........
. So as I used a 27.5" 1920x1200 TN next to my FW900 for several years, it seems like I will have to continue using at least two different monitors to get "the best of both worlds" or at least spread the tradeoffs around.. now a 27" ips along with the fw900. I'm prob going to have to mod my desk or build a new one so I can have the fw900 1/2way below the main desk surface. I wouldn't want a monitor "overhead".

.
 
Last edited:
What are they using in the TVs that are 120 Hz? If they're TN, they can't be too bad. This thread was started to be about TVs being 120 Hz but not allowing that as an input, then people turned it into a monitor technology pissing match. Mods should just end this thread if it can't stick to being about TVs.
 
rudy said:
I also wanted to mention I believe that one of the reasons that FPS games as a whole have become much slower is because of LCDs. Remember LCDs really started showing up right around the time realistic shooters started exploding in popularity. Now I cannot prove it, I can only notice the correlation. But it is an awefully convienient correlation that in the early days of FPS gaming everyone seemed to want fast paced twitchy shooters when everyone had a CRT and they could set the refresh up into the 100s and track everything. When 60hz LCDs really started to take over that seemed to be the explosion of much slower games like COD/BF.

I personally hypothesize it was the very fact that shit was blurry and slow on these monitors that made fast paced games seem unmanageable. People with LCDs gravitated toward modern warefare as a reaction.

I know some will hate on this idea but it makes alot of sense as far as the timing is concerned.
Click to expand...

As soon as a display stops being real-time, a lot of subtle but important effects can be manifested. Your theory is entirely possible.

I know this from music, when I play notes on the keyboard directly through the Windows mixer there is a delay of maybe no more than 10-12 ms, but enough that it significantly throws off whatever sense of tempo and rhythm you have and greatly impacts your creativity and ability to play melodies as they come to you.

When I went to Linux it was night and day, it felt like the notes were playing before I pressed the keys, as if the program was reading my mind, compared to Windows. ASIO comes fairly close to this but it is still not as responsive as I have found it to be on Linux.

Considering the input lag and response times of LCD's, there seems to be an even greater gap between when things happen and when we see them, and who knows how that is affecting people psychologically.
 
grimster said:
What are they using in the TVs that are 120 Hz? If they're TN, they can't be too bad. This thread was started to be about TVs being 120 Hz but not allowing that as an input.
Click to expand...

Nope they aren't limited to TN. TN has bad blacklevels and a bad shift/shading uniformity issue which is worsened the larger the display. TV's use frame interpolation, basically software blending "hacks" to make smoother motion by generating new frames created by blending a few frames together. No TV's have a true 120hz input, the input is 60hz. My samsung 46" led-backlit tv is 120hz and its a VA panel. I believe the panasonic viera series are all IPS panels too.
.
A common postulation is that 3D works on tvs "so they have to be real 120hz", but I'm pretty sure hdmi 1.4 is limited to 24hz per eye at 1080p when displaying 3D signal.
.
This quote from an avsforum thread might also clear some things up:
no, a 120Hz TV refresh rate is not the same as a 120Hz input signal. The TV is doing the work to create the extra frame(s). The source does not provide any additional data (or information) to the sink no matter what the sink does with the signal.

If all you are looking for is a signal like in the stores then send it a good quality 1080p signal and let the TV do its job. So, I guess the answer to your last question is, "yes, the TV does take a 60Hz 1080p HDMI signal and double the frames."

You might check the "owner's thread" for the TV model you are interested in. I'm sure the owners of the TV will have some opinions about how the doubling (or quadrupling) looks. I've never like it for watching movies since it makes film look too video-like.
Click to expand...
.
A better forum for TV information and thread discussions in my opinion is www.avsforum.com , but they can be very technical there at times, and sometimes an overwhelming number of posts in popular threads/tv model threads . Its still a great resource.
---
http://reviews.cnet.com/240hz-lcd-tvs-what-you-need-to-know/

------
And from another 2011 article:
240Hz stands for the refresh rate of a 240Hz LCD HDTV. One of the disadvantages of LCD TVs is the perception of motion blur if the video footage includes very fast moving objects. This happens a lot while viewing sports. The standard LCD TV uses 60Hz. Which means the TV refreshes 60 times per second. To reduce the amount of motion blur on LCD TVs, manufactures came out with 120Hz LCD TVs.

These new 120Hz LCD TVs use something called interpolation. Which means it creates a new frame in between the actual frames in order to “smooth out” the video. It use special processing to take its best guess as what that middle frame would look like by analyzing the frame on both sides. They call this type of interpolation MEMC (motion estimation-motion compensation).

So what’s the difference between 120Hz and 240Hz?

The new 240Hz television models that have just been announced are supposed to go even on step further. Two groups of TV makers have chosen two different ways on how to do this. Sony and Samsung s use MEMC to add 2 more interpolated frames for a total of 3 interpolated frames for very real frame. Sony calls this the 240Hz Motionflow algorithm.

The other method is called “scanning backlight” technology. After bumping the frame rate up to 120Hz with MEMC, it flashes a backlight on and off to bump up to the 240 Hz refresh rate. This method is currently from Vizio, LG, and Toshiba.

How much of a difference is 240Hz from 120Hz? Well, part of that is in the eye of the beholder.
Click to expand...

----
http://lcdtvbuyingguide.com/lcdtv/120hz-240hz-60hz.html
 
Last edited:
Lazy angry troll.

...
It would require HDMI 1.4a for the bandwidth.. I know there are a couple of TVs that *will* accept a 120hz signal from a computer, but what they do is ignore half the frames, and actually re-build interpolated frames to send to the panel.

so it goes:
120hz->logic board ignores half the frames and interpolates from the other half of the frames back to 120hz->panel gets 120hz signal

It seems rediculous to say that there would be much additional cost to have it just accept the full bandwidth signal and pass it along to the panel.

Edit: When I say "I know" there are a couple of tvs that will accept a 120hz signal, what I mean is that I've read on several forums that people who have purchased new TVs with HDMI 1.4a ports have been told that it "accepts 120hz signal". But it turns out that while it would *accept* the signal, it wouldn't actually pass it along to the panel, it would instead downgrade it to 60hz, then interpolate it back up to 120hz.
Click to expand...

------------------

In fast moving scenes (turning in an fps game with high sensitivity for example), most pixels will never reach their target colour before the next frame is received. This problem is alleviated somewhat by the fact that at 120fps, adjoining frames will have very similar colours. Overdrive also helps compensate but the problem of constant flux remains. This is one of the reasons no TFT will ever reach CRT levels of motion clarity. Sad, but true.
Click to expand...
-----
 
You can't even send 120 Hz over HDMI. It's not supported ANYWHERE in the standard, so that theory is completely useless, and means NO, there are NO TVs that accept 120 Hz as an input. You wouldn't even be able to select 1080p120 as a display mode.

You think I don't know what frame interpolation is? Interpolating already-blurred crap is half of why it looks terrible. Being fake frames and not a true capture is why the motion looks too much like "video". Maybe you should just stay the fuck out of this thread, because anything I bring up you obviously misread and can't comprehend, and everything ignorantly relates back to CRTs with you and how LCDs are such piles of shit. Why don't you just start your own thread about that and keep your bullshit out of this one?

Nowhere did I say I want a TV to accept 120 Hz through HDMI. I said at least once that it would be nice if these TVs had a dual-link DVI input. They are limited to 60 Hz on HDMI because that is all the damn standard allows. HDMI has plenty of bandwidth to stream a 1080p120 signal, but I guess they feel no one wants it, so they just write in ridiculous resolutions that will never look much better because the source will still be blurry, 24 Hz crap.
 
elvn said:
A common postulation is that 3D works on tvs "so they have to be real 120hz", but I'm pretty sure hdmi 1.4 is limited to 24hz per eye at 1080p when displaying 3D signal.
Click to expand...


If they would be limited to 24hz per eye you wouldnt see 3D, you would see a flickering mess. From what I understand the panels itself really are updated 120 times per second for the shutter technology to work in the first place. How it works with input limited to 60hz is beyond me. Two different 24hz signals where the TV picks up which one to show for which eye perhaps? No idea.
 
Where is it said that these TVs can do 60 Hz per eye? They're limited to 24 Hz per eye, per HDMI standard. There's not even 1080p30 per eye written into the standard. It doesn't matter if the input is limited to 60 Hz, as 24 x 2 = 48. I'd imagine it sucks, because you then are introducing some sort of 3:2 pattern again. HDMI does include 720p60 per eye, however. I just don't see why the display controllers in TV can't refresh the panels at whatever speed they want. Really, how difficult would this be?
 
well back to the why don't tv's accept 120hz... if the cable allows it raw bandwidth wise (see below) the logic board would prob then have to be changed since it does the handshaking/uses the standard (on both ends if using a standalone video player to tv rather than a htpc/video card), and yes it shouldn't be that hard but there is probably very little demand for it.
.
. They are showing your 120 frames or more per second on tv's now, but its by using frame doubling and in some cases combined with backlight strobing (some of the 240hz). So you actually are seeing 120frames or more, just out of the tv processor to screen, not fed into the tv at the display input cable port. A true 120hz input would let you send 120frames from your video output device instead, but would be a more drastic upgrade for gaming imo - although that would be limited to another slim niche segment of pc gamers who game on their tv, since consoles of today output 60hz (and usually 30fps max at under 1280x720p no less).

yes 120hz in would be better. Interpolation can be fishy looking, and straight out doubling 60hz w/o interpolation could still cause uneven motion to be visible, but they prob see no demand for it. 27" 120hz pc monitor is prob the best you can do atm.. I just fine tune my quasi 120hz VA tv to where motion issues are less obnoxious, but I still see them along with blurring and just try to ignore it as much as I can.

This poster's info might come in handy for a data sheet in these discussions, regarding video bandwidth ..
evilsofa said:
Copying, pasting, and editing from posts I have made previously:

1680x1050 = 1,764,000 pixels
1,764,000 x 60Hz = 105,840,000 pixels per second
105,840,000 x 24 color bits per pixel = 2,540,160,000 bits per second, or 2.54 Gbits/sec
To get values for 120Hz, merely double the 60Hz values. So:

1680x1050@60Hz = 2.54 Gbits/sec
1920x1080@60Hz = 2.99 Gbits/sec
1920x1200@60Hz = 3.32 Gbits/sec
Single-link DVI effective data rate: 3.96 Gbits/sec
1680x1050@120Hz = 5.08 Gbits/sec
2560x1440@60Hz = 5.31 Gbits/sec
2560x1600@60Hz = 5.90 Gbits/sec
1920x1080@120Hz = 5.97 Gbits/sec
1920x1200@120Hz = 6.64 Gbits/sec
Dual-link DVI effective data rate = 7.92 Gbits/sec
HDMI 1.3/1.4 effective data rate = 8.16 Gbits/sec
DisplayPort 1.0/1.1 effective data rate = 8.64 Gbits/sec
2560x1440@120Hz = 10.62 Gbits/sec
2560x1600@120Hz = 11.80 Gbits/sec
Displayport 1.2 effective data rate = 17.28 Gbits/sec
HDMI Type B effective data rate = 20.40 Gbits/sec

If I have made any errors, let me know. I am not 100% certain about some of the maximum speeds for the cables - I have read that effective data rates are 80% of symbol rates, and I only want to list effective data rates.

I have read that AMD video cards started using Displayport 1.2 with the 6000 series, and that Nvidia cards generally don't use Displayport and those few that do are still at 1.1. HDMI B has not been seen on consumer devices.

Going by my list, 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 should be possible on Dual-Link DVI, HDMI 1.3 and Displayport 1.0 and up.

Edit:
ToastyX said:
Those values don't include blanking.

1920x1080 @ 60 Hz is typically 2200x1125 @ 60 Hz = 3.564 Gbps or 148.5 MHz pixel clock
1920x1200 @ 60 Hz CVT-RB would be 2080x1235 @ 59.95 Hz = 3.696 Gbps or 154 MHz pixel clock
1920x1200 @ 120 Hz would need to be 2080x1271 @ 120 Hz = 7.614 Gbps or 317.25 MHz pixel clock

That should still fit within dual-link DVI, which is 2 x 165 MHz links = 330 MHz.
Click to expand...


Thanks ToastyX, blanking and pixel clocks are totally beyond me. As long as we know dual-link DVI could do 1920x1200@120Hz, and HDMI 1.3/1.4 and Displayport 1.0/1.1 are a bit faster, that's what's important here.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
grimster said:
Where is it said that these TVs can do 60 Hz per eye? They're limited to 24 Hz per eye, per HDMI standard. There's not even 1080p30 per eye written into the standard. It doesn't matter if the input is limited to 60 Hz, as 24 x 2 = 48. I'd imagine it sucks, because you then are introducing some sort of 3:2 pattern again. HDMI does include 720p60 per eye, however. I just don't see why the display controllers in TV can't refresh the panels at whatever speed they want. Really, how difficult would this be?
Click to expand...



I did some reading and found out I was quite close with my guess. 3D in bluray does run at 24fps, but it uses thing called framepacking. Two frames are sent at once (stacked on top of each other, resolution 1920x2025 if I understood correctly) and TV decides which part, top or bottom, is shown to which eye 120 times per second. Requires less bandwidth than actual 1080p/60 even though HDMI 1.4 should theoretically be able to handle it.

So again, panel is running at 120hz even if the input isnt, propably because manufacturers/developers are just lazy... *edit* and as elvn said, because it really only serves a niche market of hardcore PC gamers.
 
Again, you're posting assuming I don't know why the TV can't accept a 120 Hz source, when I've said over and over again that:

1. HDMI has the bandwidth, but not the spec.
2. Dual-link DVI can do it
3. The board controlling the panel is the limiting factor.

Interesting bit on the 3D stacking stuff. That makes more sense to me than them doing a whacky rate.

A 120 Hz input would not be for niche gamers. It would allow a person to input 24 Hz without any image processing. Even their non-interpolating "5:5 pulldown" is considered processing, and adds lag.
 
yeah it would be better for sure. 24hz multiple clean. I said could be more drastic on gaming on a tv (either pc or some theoretical next gen 120hz output console) because there is already quasi 120hz on tv's - its just sloppy ~ a "hack". I doubt they see the market for 120hz input any time soon as tv boxes and consoles output 60hz afaik. Not sure how many tv boxes and brplayers allow 24hz out ( I know ps3 does though maybe br players typically do). HTPC is a niche too but I use one and would enjoy 120hz input. Maybe some larger than 27" 120hz input gaming monitor (or gaming projector?) could come out someday or something (not that I've heard anything like that) :p.. too bad it would prob still be TN (blacklevels, gamma shift, etc) but the motion would be cleaner.
.
Again the market is forcing an inferior display tech/system on you and profiting from the mostly uninformed or uncaring masses. I still have a 34" widescreen crt tv I used to use as my main set, and I still use for console games at times (no input lag) - but once VA blacklevels+detail-in-blacks on tv's got good enough I switched over for the size factor to a 46 inch 120hz" VA tv for hdtv and movies. I see the motion problems on it as well as ordinary lcd blur but its a tradeoff I'm living with.
 
Last edited:
I dug this up about verizon dvr boxes, which I wasn't aware of.. so more reason to want 120hz input I guess..
The new Verizon Cisco HD DVR boxes support both MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 channels. Also the new Cisco boxes support 1080P at both 24fps and 30fps. The Blu-ray format is limited to 24fps for 1080P. In the future possible in 2-3 years Verizon most likely will start offering channels in MPEG-4 quality and some new 1080p/24 video on demand channels in true 1080p/24 quality. All the existing Verizon MPEG-2 channels are bit for bit the same as the original MPEG-2 master broadcast source. Verizon in the future most likely will be taking the original MPEG-4 master broadcast source and sending it to the Cisco boxes at the exact same original MPEG-4 bit rate offered from the program provider. Currently since most the Verizon network is still using MPEG-2 Motorola boxes they are converting MPEG-4 satellite source material to MPEG-2 at a high bit rate. Maybe in 2-3+ years the new Cisco boxes might become a requirement in order to receive all the HD and SD channels.
Click to expand...
 
They're not forcing anything on anyone. No one is going to buy a 100 Lb. glass behemoth that's more than a foot deep when they can buy some 20-30 Lb. panel they can hang on their wall. I don't see how HTPCs are niche, either. It's not like they are expensive, whatsoever. I see plenty of people who have no idea how to do much on computers doing the HTPC thing. There are plenty of Blu-ray players that allow 24 Hz output, for the TVs that do the "5:5" crap. My plasma accepts a 24p input, and it will either do 3:2 or change the panel to 48 Hz, which is gay and flickers like hell.
 
I was referring more to the lack of 120hz input being forced on you, and also echoing back to lcd blurring when other less "cheap" technologies could have been pushed forward or researched/invented sooner perhaps rather than milking lcd longer. I wasn't suggesting going "back" to crt for tv usage, I mentioned my crt to show that I thought lcd tv had come along far enough that I could put up with its tradeoffs (including motion issues) in general for tv and movie viewing and retire the crt tv to occasional console game use for no blurring and no input lag on some titles.
.
.. I'd be interested to see the numbers on how many htpc users there actually are, but that would be pretty hard to tally and would prob just be a guess. I don't know that it would be a major consideration for tv mfgs like br and consoles (or even 3d movies) at this point. In tech forums and chat I know plenty of people , but in everyday life very few.. not that my sample means anything nationally or globally. On the other hand there is some pc-like functionality built into tvs now, and streaming/netflix, etc on consoles and such , as well as some dummy-box htpc stuff like apple-tv which works a lot like streaming to consoles.. so the line is blurred somewhat. Maybe all lumped together they would be a larger consideration.
 
Last edited:
This is why I opted for plasma. Maybe they will get their game together and improve their refresh rate, because they can. It's only a matter of if. It's only a matter of the HDMI people adding a new refresh rate into the standard. Then the TV makers would have to follow it. It seems more like a bureaucratic decision than one of an engineering standpoint. I don't even use all that Netflix and Pandora crap that came loaded on my TV. I don't use streaming for anything except youtube.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top