cybereality
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,789
So what if I said 4K was placebo? The human eye can't possibly see more than 1080P. That is just as ridiculous as this placebo argument.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
240hz is best Quantitatively
- Thread starter tangoseal
- Start date
Depending on viewing distance, it is for many people. Most people have their 4K TVs so far from their couch that they are barely in the 1080p visible difference zone, let alone the 4K visible difference zone, but they probably rushed out to buy a cheap 4K TV upgrade, because 4K is more, and "more is automatically better".
It's exactly in line with analogy to the audio situation I presented as well.
There are many practical limits to human perception, and many people will just assume more of something is always better and perceivable, when it isn't.
Until it is actually tested in a controlled blind experiment, it is nothing more than relating anecdotes, and you gets decades of those from audiophiles and they are all complete rubbish.
Also note that I am not saying that it is placebo.
Just that until it is somewhat rigorously tested, we really can't say.
You need to put it to the test, not rely on notoriously bad self reporting of individual perception.
Last edited:
cybereality
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2008
- Messages
- 8,789
Okay, I see what you are saying.
It's just that the difference seems clear to me, but I agree it is difficult to say for sure.
It's just that the difference seems clear to me, but I agree it is difficult to say for sure.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,325
Well I won't re-post the entirety my previous reply but it spells it out clearly and is shown tested with pursuit cameras.
240fps at 240hz is a "haze".. much less sample and hold blur during movement than "fuzzy"/"soften blurred" ~ 120fps (at 120hz and higher) and "smearing" wash at 60fps (at 60hz and higher).
This goes way beyond a single simple bitmap ufo and applies to the entire viewport movement of the game world relative to you during movement-keying, mouse-looking, and controller panning. This includes texture detail , depth via bump mapping, other effects, and text detail lost during panning at speed.
I have used 60hz screens right next to 120hz and higher ones (at high frame rates), experimented with different lightboost amounts, as well as having used 60hz screens next to a graphics professional "zero blur" fw900 crt.. I can definitely tell the difference between bad sample and hold blur and better, and "zero" sample and hold blur while moving the game world around at speed relative to me in 1st/3rd person games.
Always remember that you have to fill those hz with new frames though. Saying you don't notice a difference when you aren't running 240fps on a 240hz monitor is irrelevant.
The third UFO pursuit camera shot down in the list is the 240fps at 240Hz example in this quoted picture from blurbusters.com. Extrapolate each UFO to the entire game world moving around relative to you during viewport movement at speed.
240fps at 240hz is a "haze".. much less sample and hold blur during movement than "fuzzy"/"soften blurred" ~ 120fps (at 120hz and higher) and "smearing" wash at 60fps (at 60hz and higher).
This goes way beyond a single simple bitmap ufo and applies to the entire viewport movement of the game world relative to you during movement-keying, mouse-looking, and controller panning. This includes texture detail , depth via bump mapping, other effects, and text detail lost during panning at speed.
I have used 60hz screens right next to 120hz and higher ones (at high frame rates), experimented with different lightboost amounts, as well as having used 60hz screens next to a graphics professional "zero blur" fw900 crt.. I can definitely tell the difference between bad sample and hold blur and better, and "zero" sample and hold blur while moving the game world around at speed relative to me in 1st/3rd person games.
Always remember that you have to fill those hz with new frames though. Saying you don't notice a difference when you aren't running 240fps on a 240hz monitor is irrelevant.
The third UFO pursuit camera shot down in the list is the 240fps at 240Hz example in this quoted picture from blurbusters.com. Extrapolate each UFO to the entire game world moving around relative to you during viewport movement at speed.
Last edited:
Missing the point. No one is arguing that equipment can't find a difference.
It's whether that difference is detectable in a semi-rigorous human perception test (preferably double blinded).
And given the context of the importance in game playing, that difference should be detectable in games, not some kind of specific artifact inducing program.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,325
I stated that I have had 60hz smearing blur, a 120hz 1080p and later greater monitors.. and professional crt "zero" blur ... the 60hz and the crt are completely opposite and obvious to perception. The 120fps at 120hz is also an obivous improvement vs 60hz, while not as good as "zero" sample and hold crt.
This is obvious when moving the viewport at speed because the whole game world goes to smearing, to visibly less bluring, or zero blur crystal clear on crt.
I don't need a pursuit camera to see this, it is just a good way to show people without the hardware to see it for themselves.
It also makes obvious that the closer you get the zero blur of 1000fps at 1000Hz the better, and as the equipment shows, higher hz at higher fps makes gains back toward that "zero" blur goal.
Your frame rate is a huge factor though, especially since people try to squeeze the highest settings generally, and they straddle a large frame rate range. So in that case it muddies the results in actual gameplay for a lot of people. That's why I kept reiterating that you have to fill the Hz with new frames to get the improvements. Playing watered down frame rate average roller coasters on a 240hz monitor in common usage scenarios would be more in line with what you are claiming. Going from 120fps at 120hz to 240fps at 240hz is an incremental tightening down of the sample and hold blur from a fuzzy soften blur to a light haze so to speak, so isn't as drastic as 60fps at 60hz and higher's smearing blur to half of that at 120fps 120hz+, or as drastic as going from sample and hold blur to "zero" blur on a crt.
If you are running a variable frame rate graph +/- 30fps of your "frame" rate in both scenarios you aren't going to be as definitive about things It might not be quite as obvious running 90 - 120 - 150 vs 190 - 210 - 240 ranged averages as running 120fps solid vs 240fps solid that is, but it will still be improvement. 120fps solid at 120hz+ cuts the blur 50%, 240fps solid at 240Hz+ cuts it down 75%.. incremental but appreciable. Whether it's worth the frame rates that would be required is another matter. Running lower fps ranges on a higher hz ranged monitor is again irrelevant.
This is obvious when moving the viewport at speed because the whole game world goes to smearing, to visibly less bluring, or zero blur crystal clear on crt.
I don't need a pursuit camera to see this, it is just a good way to show people without the hardware to see it for themselves.
It also makes obvious that the closer you get the zero blur of 1000fps at 1000Hz the better, and as the equipment shows, higher hz at higher fps makes gains back toward that "zero" blur goal.
Your frame rate is a huge factor though, especially since people try to squeeze the highest settings generally, and they straddle a large frame rate range. So in that case it muddies the results in actual gameplay for a lot of people. That's why I kept reiterating that you have to fill the Hz with new frames to get the improvements. Playing watered down frame rate average roller coasters on a 240hz monitor in common usage scenarios would be more in line with what you are claiming. Going from 120fps at 120hz to 240fps at 240hz is an incremental tightening down of the sample and hold blur from a fuzzy soften blur to a light haze so to speak, so isn't as drastic as 60fps at 60hz and higher's smearing blur to half of that at 120fps 120hz+, or as drastic as going from sample and hold blur to "zero" blur on a crt.
If you are running a variable frame rate graph +/- 30fps of your "frame" rate in both scenarios you aren't going to be as definitive about things It might not be quite as obvious running 90 - 120 - 150 vs 190 - 210 - 240 ranged averages as running 120fps solid vs 240fps solid that is, but it will still be improvement. 120fps solid at 120hz+ cuts the blur 50%, 240fps solid at 240Hz+ cuts it down 75%.. incremental but appreciable. Whether it's worth the frame rates that would be required is another matter. Running lower fps ranges on a higher hz ranged monitor is again irrelevant.
Last edited:
I agree. I have a hard time telling a perceived difference between 120 Hz and 144 Hz on my display but the display is marked at 60-100 and still noticeable from 100 to 120. But honestly we are very good at adapting so after playing a while at any refresh rate you tend to just ignore it and concentrate on the game, in the same way that watching a 3D movie in the theater the 3D aspect becomes less noticeable about 15 minutes in.
Since reducing motion blur by increasing refresh rate and framerates to match is a tough performance challenge for both display and GPU I wish there was more effort put into making ULMB type tech better. I get by far the least blurry visuals running 120 Hz ULMB. I've even tried locked 60 fps games like Dark Souls with this and gotten better results. The primary issue with ULMB is lower brightness but at least for me it's a non-issue because I run my PG278Q normally at something like 22 brightness setting so going to ULMB at 100 brightness is about the same but obviously it's going to be a problem if you need more brightness and have nowhere to go. It's a shame that the HDR monitors that would have the possibility for higher brightness don't include ULMB at all.
The only thing new in this area seems to be the ASUS "ELMB" which combines VRR with strobing backlight. I hope that becomes a thing and works as expected. Having that in their upcoming XG438Q would be awesome but that's probably not going to happen.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,325
For reference, a reply from the thread about that monitor you are talking about .. why the current incarnations of strobing are not for me.