• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

120Hz LCD Info Thread

I dont see any reason why they would focus so much on 240hz technology. By the time they perfect 120hz to the point of $200 displays, OLED will probably making its debut in the monitor panel arena, and then it wouldn't make much sense.
 
I want OLEDs as much as anyone, but it will be quite a while until they are cheap. 240Hz LCDs could certainly fill the budget area of the "240Hz monitor market" so to speak.
 
Kaldskryke said:
I want OLEDs as much as anyone, but it will be quite a while until they are cheap. 240Hz LCDs could certainly fill the budget area of the "240Hz monitor market" so to speak.
Click to expand...

Are you speaking for a manufacturer? :confused:

240Hz LCDs are pointless.
 
DarkUltra said:
I'd say, 240hz in the monitor itself. With half of them being black. That way we get rid of the sample-and-hold smearing, right? The CRTs phosphor "glow" for a while, so if a LCDs pixels go half-way to off (untwist) we might get sharper movements like a CRT.

GORANKAR: im pretty sure 120hz monitors are fast. Look at digitalversus' reviews, they measure frames blurred. And bit-tech I think measures each gradient twist time.

120Hz_LCD_vs_CRT_comparison.jpg
Click to expand...

You're right on here. People tend to forget the sample and hold effect. I'm sticking with CRT as long as I can, but I'm keeping a close eye on the 120hz displays. The difference between 60hz and 120hz is huge. CRT's are still better than 120hz displays, but the 120hz isn't half bad. Running the panel at 240hz with every other frame black would be nice, but not likely to happen, and that would cut brightness in half which would be an issue for 3D use.
 
What am i looking at exactly in those pictures?
Are they photographs or screenshots?
 
The BenQ just showed up on NC1X, but it's effing expensive ($450). Canadian prices I know, but the Asus is $375, Acer is $360. The BenQ isn't showing in stock yet but they have all the product info. It's a BUTT ugly stand though.
 
Petey1013 said:
The BenQ just showed up on NC1X, but it's effing expensive ($450). Canadian prices I know, but the Asus is $375, Acer is $360. The BenQ isn't showing in stock yet but they have all the product info. It's a BUTT ugly stand though.
Click to expand...

Actually the monitor itself isn't the prettiest thing in the world but then you're probably not going to buy it for looks.
 
Inu said:
What am i looking at exactly in those pictures?
Are they photographs or screenshots?
Click to expand...
Neither. If I remember correctly, they are a single screenshot that has been blurred with photoshop to "simulate" what sample-and-hold does to a sequence of images in fast motion. I thought it was pretty useless when I first saw that image... I can't remember the source.

Either way, the blurred HUD is a dead give away. The HUD would not be moving and so it's not really affected.
 
Petey1013 said:
The BenQ just showed up on NC1X, but it's effing expensive ($450). Canadian prices I know, but the Asus is $375, Acer is $360. The BenQ isn't showing in stock yet but they have all the product info. It's a BUTT ugly stand though.
Click to expand...

Canadian dollar is currently above par with USD. I kind of wish that meant I could price match against newegg.com :p
 
Kaldskryke said:
Neither. If I remember correctly, they are a single screenshot that has been blurred with photoshop to "simulate" what sample-and-hold does to a sequence of images in fast motion. I thought it was pretty useless when I first saw that image... I can't remember the source.
Click to expand...

Having had a CRT @ 120hz, TFT @ 120hz and TFT @ 60hz side by side I can say that image comes very close to what you see during fast moving scenes. It's the main reason I sold my Samsung 2233rz and have gone back to using the CRT for fps games.
 
Now that the LG, Benq and Viewsonic 120hz monitors are becoming available, how do they compare to the Alienware and Asus? The LG seems to have received good reviews, but I don't see much direct feedback.
 
Dunno where they're based out of, but buying from Planar shows $450 for the monitor. Dunno if it's 23" or 23.6" either.
 
human eyes can't perceive more than 50 frames per second. Heck, movies are only about 30 frames per second, so how come 120Hz or 240Hz makes any difference at all?
 
dan_panner said:
human eyes can't perceive more than 50 frames per second. Heck, movies are only about 30 frames per second, so how come 120Hz or 240Hz makes any difference at all?
Click to expand...

Our 5 day user needs to google to learn himself some more.
 
dan_panner said:
human eyes can't perceive more than 50 frames per second. Heck, movies are only about 30 frames per second, so how come 120Hz or 240Hz makes any difference at all?
Click to expand...

Stereoscopic 3D, makes a difference there, that's why most PC users buy these monitors at the moment since they are all TN panels.
 
dan_panner said:
human eyes can't perceive more than 50 frames per second. Heck, movies are only about 30 frames per second, so how come 120Hz or 240Hz makes any difference at all?
Click to expand...

try playing cod / quakelive with com_maxfps set to125 ( or even cs with fps_max "100" ) and vsync off on a 60hz monitor and then on a 120hz one, if you can't feel/see the difference then you're freaking retarded, no offense.
 
I have a 120hz lcd TV and it's a gimmick imo. I got it a few years back (bravia XBR-4) and I always thought it looked like wannabe 3d w/o glasses.

JMO
 
JAGX said:
I have a 120hz lcd TV and it's a gimmick imo. I got it a few years back (bravia XBR-4) and I always thought it looked like wannabe 3d w/o glasses.

JMO
Click to expand...
60hz lcd tvs look like crap during motion in comparison. everything is just much smoother on the 120hz sets. 120hz is not a gimmick by any means.
 
cannondale06 said:
60hz lcd tvs look like crap during motion in comparison. everything is just much smoother on the 120hz sets. 120hz is not a gimmick by any means.
Click to expand...

It IS a gimick. The TV itself is just running an interpolation of the frames to make it appear to run smoother, and it's not even true 120Hz. All this is doing is adding a delay to the image and disrupting the source material.
 
DarkAngel_ZERO said:
It IS a gimick. The TV itself is just running an interpolation of the frames to make it appear to run smoother, and it's not even true 120Hz. All this is doing is adding a delay to the image and disrupting the source material.
Click to expand...
okay you can buy a TV with 60Hz and get shitty looking picture during action or you can get a 120Hz tv and its smoother. the technology may be gimmicky but the results speak for themselves especially when watching sports.
 
DarkAngel_ZERO said:
It IS a gimick. The TV itself is just running an interpolation of the frames to make it appear to run smoother, and it's not even true 120Hz. All this is doing is adding a delay to the image and disrupting the source material.
Click to expand...

It might be but watching sports is much better on 120Hz tvs than on 60 Hz ones.
 
GORANKAR said:
I question whether we really need 240Hz. Outside of a tiny, tiny, minority of hardcore, competitive, twitch shooter players I fail to see the need.
....
In short, to me, 240Hz falls under the same gimmicky marketing scheme as 10gigazillion : 1 contrast ratios. You end up having to reduce your brightness to near zero, thus reducing contrast ratios, to prevent from burning you retinas to ash.
Click to expand...

nah, 240hz would honestly be the sweet spot IMO

Think of it this way. You're playing a first person shooter and start getting shot at from behind. You quickly turn around to look, assuming it takes you roughly a tenth of a second (maybe more, maybe less, depends on mouse sensitivity and a persons reaction speed too) to move your mouse, you're only going to see 6 frames of information @ 60hz. At 120hz you'll see 12 frames in that same amount on time while a 240hz would give you 24 frames. Those extra frames of information do make a pretty big difference in your ability to identify your target and react.

And then there is the benefit you'd get from 3D too. Playing a game in 3D @ 120hz per eye would be a much more enjoyable experience than @ 60hz per eye.

Now, that's assuming that anyone would have the power to run a game at 240fps lol That would take quite a bit of muscle
 
No way do you get any competitive edge in 3d. It makes you play worse more than anything. It's just eye candy.
 
dr.stevil said:
nah, 240hz would honestly be the sweet spot IMO

Think of it this way. You're playing a first person shooter and start getting shot at from behind. You quickly turn around to look, assuming it takes you roughly a tenth of a second (maybe more, maybe less, depends on mouse sensitivity and a persons reaction speed too) to move your mouse, you're only going to see 6 frames of information @ 60hz. At 120hz you'll see 12 frames in that same amount on time while a 240hz would give you 24 frames. Those extra frames of information do make a pretty big difference in your ability to identify your target and react.

And then there is the benefit you'd get from 3D too. Playing a game in 3D @ 120hz per eye would be a much more enjoyable experience than @ 60hz per eye.

Now, that's assuming that anyone would have the power to run a game at 240fps lol That would take quite a bit of muscle
Click to expand...

I merely question if there are more than a tiny, tiny handful of people that can really tell the difference between 120Hz and 240Hz. 60Hz to 120Hz, yeah huge difference. Taking my CRT to 180Hz from 120Hz, none I could perceive. Not saying we should not go there, just not altogether sure what the point would be when there are so many other areas they could be spending R&D $$$ on that would improve the image quality of LCDs.
 
cannondale06 said:
60hz lcd tvs look like crap during motion in comparison. everything is just much smoother on the 120hz sets. 120hz is not a gimmick by any means.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I own a top brand with the 120hz feature and I never set it to that because it looks like the moving characters are trying to jump off the screen (like 3d in a bad way).

I've been gaming and watching sports for years and I honestly don't find any benefit (I haven't sat side-by-side with 60 vs 120, but if you need to do that then it isn't very significant).

But like I said, that's just me. I wouldn't worry about this feature.
 
JAGX said:
I disagree, I own a top brand with the 120hz feature and I never set it to that because it looks like the moving characters are trying to jump off the screen (like 3d in a bad way).

I've been gaming and watching sports for years and I honestly don't find any benefit (I haven't sat side-by-side with 60 vs 120, but if you need to do that then it isn't very significant).

But like I said, that's just me. I wouldn't worry about this feature.
Click to expand...
well I have seen it side by side and there is no comparison. the first time I checked it out I had no idea there would even be a noticeable difference so it wasn't like I was expecting one. once I saw it in motion and then switched back to 60hz there was no way I could watch 60hz it for anything that was fast moving. even my crazy blind parents who sat in front of a CRT pc monitor for years at 60Hz without noticing flickering could clearly detect how much smoother their new tv was in 120hz compared to 60hz.
 
I've gotta ask, for those in favor of the "120Hz" TVs, which brands do you own?

Also, have you guys ever done a side by side between a good "120Hz" TV and a Plasma?
 
DarkAngel_ZERO said:
It IS a gimick. The TV itself is just running an interpolation of the frames to make it appear to run smoother, and it's not even true 120Hz. All this is doing is adding a delay to the image and disrupting the source material.
Click to expand...

I always thought the definition of a advertising gimmick was "a feature that increases the perceived value of the product while not actually adding any tangible value". You are right that interpolated motion is not as good as having 120Hz source material, but I feel that motion interpolation is better than nothing. Heck, dejudder alone is worth the price premium. I just wouldn't buy a set where I couldn't have just dejudder without motion interpolation for watching film. Sometimes film just looks better at low framerates.
 
Vega said:
No way do you get any competitive edge in 3d. It makes you play worse more than anything. It's just eye candy.
Click to expand...

I don't see how depth cues could possibly do more harm than good. Maybe you're concerned about reduced brightness?
 
Vega said:
No way do you get any competitive edge in 3d. It makes you play worse more than anything. It's just eye candy.
Click to expand...

that depends.

in COD, for instance, using 3D does actually give a pretty good advantage when it comes to lobbing grenades, using a grenade launcher attachment and other weapons like that. The percieved depth can help quite a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top