60hz to 120hz, and my unfortunate experience

DumpALump said:
Ok, I'm not going to argue, since honestly I haven't done a bunch of tests or bothered to do that much research on the subject. I believe you are right, as I don't really notice any blur when gaming on my 120hz. Though, when I'm playing FPS games, blur is the last thing on my mind.

The main reason I thought that it was because of the response time was because of reading of users from different forums talk about how their 60hz monitor didn't have blur vs their new 120hz monitor. Of course they all might not be putting in the right settings. In the case of sample and hold that would mean that their 60hz should obviously display more blur, though that doesn't seem to be the case with some.
Click to expand...

I won't pretend to know for sure why some people don't notice a difference - but considering the variability of the human body (especially of senses experienced through the filter of our highly unreliable mind), it wouldn't surprise me that some people couldn't tell the difference. It also could be that people's computers can't push the frame rates needed to get the most out of a 120 Hz LCD, either.

And for sure, 120 Hz doesn't mean the blur is gone. Sample and hold blur is reduced by half, but is still there. Response times aren't any faster than for the same panel at 60 Hz - but 120 Hz panels are typically the fastest panels out there anyway, so you'd probably see an improvement in response time just by moving to a 120 Hz panel from a non-gaming panel.


XdVeLoPeX said:
if I am running a GTX 570 via DVI to HDMI to a LG 37LE5300 IPS panel can I set it to 120hz in windows? or is this a ''fake'' 120hz monitor like someone else stated?
Click to expand...

It is not a monitor. It is a TV. No TVs take a 120 Hz input and display it at 120 Hz. Your TV only can perform interpolation to reach 120 Hz, just like most other 120/240 Hz TVs (although it may be capable of doing 5:5 pulldown of 24 fps movies). The remainder of fast refresh rate TVs do black frame insertion.
 
Last edited:
DumpALump said:
I'm also saying that 120hz does not automatically mean blur is gone, such as with the OP saying that he still noticed blur and wanted it gone.
Click to expand...

That's been my finding. The blur is less on the VG235HE, but I'm sure that has more to do with the 2ms response vs. the 6ms on my LP2465.

BababooeyHTJ said:
Yes, and an S-PVA panel, especially an older generation S-PVA like the HP LP2465 is a bit famous for ghosting or blur as you call it.
Click to expand...

See that's what I don't understand. I searched for professional reviews, as well as user reviews of the LP2465. Hardly anyone mentioned blur. Most were raving about how fast it was. The only thing I can think, and this is probably the case, is that it was fast given what else was available when the LP2465 first came out. However it is rated at a 6ms response time. Since most non-TN displays today are also rated at 6ms, how could they be reducing blur any more than the LP2465? I'm not saying you're wrong, I genuinely want to know.

As far as reducing blur is concerned, if I could strike a balance somewhere between the VG235HE and the LP2465 I would be ok with that. Its not ideal, but just ok. If the current crop of IPS displays can achieve this then I'll return the VG236HE and get one of those. I do have my eye on one of those Hazro 27" 1440p monitors. :D
 
XdVeLoPeX said:
if I am running a GTX 570 via DVI to HDMI to a LG 37LE5300 IPS panel can I set it to 120hz in windows? or is this a ''fake'' 120hz monitor like someone else stated?
Click to expand...
It is a "fake" 120Hz. It only has a 60Hz input, the 120Hz is due to interpolation.
 
Bladestorm said:
That's been my finding. The blur is less on the VG235HE, but I'm sure that has more to do with the 2ms response vs. the 6ms on my LP2465.



See that's what I don't understand. I searched for professional reviews, as well as user reviews of the LP2465. Hardly anyone mentioned blur. Most were raving about how fast it was. The only thing I can think, and this is probably the case, is that it was fast given what else was available when the LP2465 first came out. However it is rated at a 6ms response time. Since most non-TN displays today are also rated at 6ms, how could they be reducing blur any more than the LP2465? I'm not saying you're wrong, I genuinely want to know.

As far as reducing blur is concerned, if I could strike a balance somewhere between the VG235HE and the LP2465 I would be ok with that. Its not ideal, but just ok. If the current crop of IPS displays can achieve this then I'll return the VG236HE and get one of those. I do have my eye on one of those Hazro 27" 1440p monitors. :D
Click to expand...

It could have been that they were just comparing it to what was available at the time. I've seen other people here mention the issues that I had. Even the guy that I sold it to noticed the same on his other two. The input lag was even mentioned in the Prad review.

Maybe you are seeing overdrive artifacts on your 120hz display.
 
alienate said:
Are there any TVs with a "real" 120Hz refresh rate?
Click to expand...
No. Only monitors have 120Hz inputs.

On a sidenote, 24p on 120Hz HDTV's looks nice because they are all S-IPS or S-PVA. All 120Hz monitors are TN panels so movies don't look good compared to HDTV's.
 
Bladestorm said:
It is set to 120hz in Windows.

I have both monitors hooked up to my GTX 580 in extended desktop mode, and when I move my cursor across both screens I see the same amount of cursor ghosting or trailing. Is that supposed to be completely eliminated with 120hz?

How do I make sure my games don't change the refresh rate back to 60hz?
Click to expand...

the differance between 60 and 120 will not reduce ghosting, it will just simply be smoother. maybe your just looking for the wrong qualities in a 120 hz monitor.

The easiest way to see 60 hz vs 120 hz is to grab a window on the desktop and move it around. its night and day for smoothness.

as has been said before , you need to make sure your desktop is set to 120, your mouse does 120 samples per second or more. if your using an old ps/2 mouse, your getting poor input
 
gmohr said:
Trust you eyes, not the hype. One thing is certain, human perception differs dramatically person to person. If you can't see the advantage in 120hz, there isn't one (for you). This is liberating, because it opens up a lot of other options.
Click to expand...

I totally disagree with this. Human perception is a learned behavior and while some people cannot immediately see the difference they could learn to. Basically your ability to see quickly and react quickly are both skills you can build up. I think he should consider the fastest monitors like the LG W236D or BenQ xl2410t and spend some time with them. Although I personally feel that there is more than likely something wrong with his setup.

Also consider nyquist, everyone says it does not matter if something is the same speed, resolution or depth that you can see. But in reality you need tech that can go faster than you can see in order for you to not see a difference. Nyquist states that this must be 2.3 x the theoretical resolution and you could extend that to other things. Meaning if you can see at 60hz you need a monitor that can refresh at 140hz. I can tell you that I can personally see skipping of the mouse on 120hz monitors and I can see it skipp further on 60hz monitors. So personally I think we need to keep going up in refresh to the point that when a move a mouse fast I only see a blur just like when I quickly move my head in real life.
 
rudy said:
I totally disagree with this. Human perception is a learned behavior and while some people cannot immediately see the difference they could learn to. Basically your ability to see quickly and react quickly are both skills you can build up. I think he should consider the fastest monitors like the LG W236D or BenQ xl2410t and spend some time with them. Although I personally feel that there is more than likely something wrong with his setup.

Also consider nyquist, everyone says it does not matter if something is the same speed, resolution or depth that you can see. But in reality you need tech that can go faster than you can see in order for you to not see a difference. Nyquist states that this must be 2.3 x the theoretical resolution and you could extend that to other things. Meaning if you can see at 60hz you need a monitor that can refresh at 140hz. I can tell you that I can personally see skipping of the mouse on 120hz monitors and I can see it skipp further on 60hz monitors. So personally I think we need to keep going up in refresh to the point that when a move a mouse fast I only see a blur just like when I quickly move my head in real life.
Click to expand...

i believe it may be a learned skill too. as I keep increasing my refresh rate, i keep finding i need more. I used to run 200 hz back in the CRT days and that was still not enough. if they made 300 hz gear, I am sure I would need it despite that i have not seen 300hz in action and feel 200 is pretty good.

it is my belief that the real value needed is around 500hz, at that point i think you could not notice and choppiness.


While 120 hz is acceptable, it is still a slide show to me. MORE!
 
rudy said:
I totally disagree with this. Human perception is a learned behavior and while some people cannot immediately see the difference they could learn to. Basically your ability to see quickly and react quickly are both skills you can build up. I think he should consider the fastest monitors like the LG W236D or BenQ xl2410t and spend some time with them. Although I personally feel that there is more than likely something wrong with his setup.

Also consider nyquist, everyone says it does not matter if something is the same speed, resolution or depth that you can see. But in reality you need tech that can go faster than you can see in order for you to not see a difference. Nyquist states that this must be 2.3 x the theoretical resolution and you could extend that to other things. Meaning if you can see at 60hz you need a monitor that can refresh at 140hz. I can tell you that I can personally see skipping of the mouse on 120hz monitors and I can see it skipp further on 60hz monitors. So personally I think we need to keep going up in refresh to the point that when a move a mouse fast I only see a blur just like when I quickly move my head in real life.
Click to expand...

While I agree that a certain level of human perception is learned, we still all have limits that are different. When you're pushing the limits - as with Lame V0 mp3s vs the original PCM file (except with killer samples), or stargazing and searching for a particularly dim object, some people may very well be able to distinguish and others may not given the same equipment.

However, I do agree with you on the point of monitors. When people are stuck with a certain level of performance and become adapted to its flaws, suddenly fixing those may or may not immediately be noticeable to someone. Plenty of people in NTSC countries never notice judder of movies for example, and likewise few people notice 50 Hz flickering in PAL countries (while I was in Europe it bugged the hell out of me and nobody else could tell).

As for what sort of refresh rate we need for indistinguishable motion - well, it's of course a nebulous answer. Our eyes see afterimages of bright things - the brighter the light, the longer the afterimage. That's why we can see camera flashes that only last 1/1000 of a second or less. I don't know all of the implications of this, but basically until we can track a fast moving bright object across the screen with as little blur as we see by moving a real object that fast across in front of the screen, we won't be quite there yet. Even with non-sample-and-hold displays like FED, that reality may lie somewhere north of 240 Hz. I do not think 480 Hz is entirely out of the question.

Or perhaps in the future we'll have something analogous to vector graphics, where there is no set refresh rate, only maximum rates of change of some sort.
 
600 Hz. It would cover ALL current international refresh/frame rates (except for these retards like James Cameron and Peter Jackson who now want to film in 48 Hz instead of just bumping up to 60.)
 
rudy said:
I totally disagree with this. Human perception is a learned behavior and while some people cannot immediately see the difference they could learn to. Basically your ability to see quickly and react quickly are both skills you can build up. I think he should consider the fastest monitors like the LG W236D or BenQ xl2410t and spend some time with them. Although I personally feel that there is more than likely something wrong with his setup.

Also consider nyquist, everyone says it does not matter if something is the same speed, resolution or depth that you can see. But in reality you need tech that can go faster than you can see in order for you to not see a difference. Nyquist states that this must be 2.3 x the theoretical resolution and you could extend that to other things. Meaning if you can see at 60hz you need a monitor that can refresh at 140hz. I can tell you that I can personally see skipping of the mouse on 120hz monitors and I can see it skipp further on 60hz monitors. So personally I think we need to keep going up in refresh to the point that when a move a mouse fast I only see a blur just like when I quickly move my head in real life.
Click to expand...

Not going to happen. I have a flashlight that uses PWM for dimming in the kHz range and you can still see the discrete flashes if you move the light rapidly side to side infront of your eyes.
You would have to combine the mouse movement graphic with real time motion blur (like a dx11 effect)
 
ramicio said:
600 Hz. It would cover ALL current international refresh/frame rates (except for these retards like James Cameron and Peter Jackson who now want to film in 48 Hz instead of just bumping up to 60.)
Click to expand...

agreed, move to 60 and be done with it. i would say even more, but this would be very impractical for data sizes in the industry.
 
60 Hz would be a huge step for right now and be bearable for today's optical media. I don't understand the obsession with needing to work in a multiples-of-24 workflow. It's not like the end user has to manually calculate between frames and a human time format. Even a bump to 30/1.001 right now would be decent, and synch to displays.
 
rudy said:
I totally disagree with this. Human perception is a learned behavior and while some people cannot immediately see the difference they could learn to. Basically your ability to see quickly and react quickly are both skills you can build up. I think he should consider the fastest monitors like the LG W236D or BenQ xl2410t and spend some time with them. Although I personally feel that there is more than likely something wrong with his setup.
Click to expand...

You are paying for that refresh performance by sacrificing in many other, more easily perceived areas. So with this approach above (even if its true) you are basically suggesting, "teach yourself to become hyper critical of refresh, so you too can hate every monitor technology equally, and find yourself doing something *insane*, like going back to some crappy 20" CRT." Did I get that right?

And did someone really suggest that we need 500 fps solutions in this thread? You are all out of your Vulcan minds. But I love you anyways :)
 
Last edited:
No I am saying you teach yourself to become hyper critical of everything. Lots of people don't seem to notice how crappy the color is on TN panels either, and I am saying both are wrong. I personally do own many CRTs and I have to admit they have better picture quality and speed than almost any LCD I have seen, and my sister has NEC and EIZO professional monitors for photography. So basically I am saying I still want it all and everyone should that is what will push display manufacturers to keep progressing in all areas of a monitor. I have not learned to be hyper critical of only a single characteristic of a display. Currently though I am being forced to move over to LCDs due to it becoming hard to find good CRTs in working condition. And yes it is bad because there are not LCDs which are acceptable in all areas of speed and picture quality never mind just trying to get the coating and other features you want. So I am stuck looking at 2 different LCDs for different uses.
 
I'm going to chime in on this since I just bought an ASUS VG236HE to replace a 60hz LG 23" monitor. To me the difference between 60hz and 120hz is very noticeable, even just moving the mouse cursor on the windows desktop. I do believe some people are more sensitive to detecting changes in refesh rates and the smoothness increase that results from higher refresh rates. I remember in the CRT days, I could tell the difference between 100hz and 150hz.. both were super smooth but 150hz was noticeably smoother. But then some will say that they can't detect any change in anything above 60 hz. Everyone is different.

In many games, using a 60hz monitor yields great results, even using vsync. However, in other games.. you have to choose between massively laggy mouse movement with vsync turned on, or really bad tearing with vsync off. By bad tearing, I mean like 3-4 tears visible on the screen at once.. basically unusable. It just depends on the game engine. Fallout 3 and Oblivion were known for being really laggy with vsync on. Wolfenstein is really bad, too. Bioshock and Crysis however seem less susceptible to this issue.

With this ASUS monitor, I can either run w/o vsync and tearing is greatly reduced, or I can turn on vsync and the lag is reduced by about 95%. Obviously with vsync off there is no lag at all. This alone was worth the 120hz to me. I do hope more screens with 120hz are available, and there is a large enough group of buyers that they don't die out completely. 120hz just feels snappier and faster in every way, and subjectively increases the overall feeling of speed and quickness of your computer (IMO).
 
don't blame lcd. They have to emulate CRTs and the frames get fed how a crt wants it not a LCD. Your complaining about a emulation.
 
How do you figure? The only way a LCD has to "emulate a CRT" is if it is fed an anolog signal through a dsub/vga port. Otherwise the signal is sent digital usually through dvi or hdmi.
 
I appreciate everyone's help here, thank you.

Now, can any of you tell me if the Hazro HZ27WC is any better at gaming than my old HP LP2465? I assume it is, but I'd like to hear it from others.
 
nhtalbot said:
What plasma do you game on?
My dream is that one day there will be plasmas with displayport inputs that can accept and display 120hz signals from a pc.
Click to expand...

Panasonic 42" ST30, the color is amazing. Response is 0.1ms i love it, mostly because its less harsh on my eyes than LCD sample-and-burnoutmyeyes.
 
I decided to return the Asus and go with a Hazro HZ27WC when they come back in stock. I think I'll be happier with it. Truth be told I don't game nearly as much as I used to, and would rather have the increased resolution offered by the HZ27WC.

Trying out a 120hz monitor was an interesting experiment for me, and I'm glad I did it.
 
Now that I actually own a 120hz montior, I can actually agree with you. As far as ghosting or blur goes it isn't any better than my old 60hz display, still better than my HP though.

Motion does feel more fluid and I love 3d vision though.
 
Perceptible motion is kind of the point if 120hz displays for non-3D enthusiasts... response times are what majorly determine blur, but only to a point. Until we have some kinda of passive backlight scanning to nullify sample-n-hold. Sample-n-hold = a permanent 8ms-14ms response time lag... inside your eye.
 
someone needs to explain something to me.

i keep hearing about the term "sample and hold" come up as if it was a bad thing. but simply put, isn't real life vision "sample and hold"
 
In real life the light is always streaming to you so there is no sample and hold. Sample and hold is more like what if someone moved and you had to wait 16 ms to see that movement change, but you always saw them they were just still for 16 ms. I do not think it is fair to relate real life to anything on a computer display. In real life the light does not work in any set increments it is just always coming to you. A CRT is more like seeing people with a strobe light.

It is funny because the LCD manufactures sold everyone on the idea that sample and hold was better because you did not see the flashing you see on a CRT with sample and hold. Now they are spending their days trying to figure out how they can get rid of the sample and hold effect. Oh the irony, but anyhow they got their money out of you.
 
and another good reason for 120 hz or more

what i still dont get is how this sample and hold creates blur. I certainly dont see blur when something moves fast on an LCD the screen, it simply jumps. increased frame rate of course reduces this
 
I went from 60hz Asus to an Acer 120hz and here were my results.

No, the blur will not be totally gone but it should be improved.

A good (layman's) test I found for testing motion blur between monitors. Find a chain link fence or words on a wall/sign, brick wall or just something with a lot of lines. You simply strafe quickly left and right and you should see the difference. On a 60hz LCD I couldn't read the words anymore and the chain link fence became a blobbly mess. On a 120hz the words were still slightly blurry but easily readable. IMHO this improvement will translate into your FPS gaming when your running and trying to gun down an opponent in the distance. Or if your like me and just anal about motion blur a 120hz is worth every penny. ;)

Also I'm under the impression the 120hz Alienware LCD is the best one available.
 
When I first got a 120Hz monitor I had the same issue, and it ended up being the mouse. I had a Logitech M500 mouse (which I paid around $50 for, not some crap mouse) and it didn't work. Must have been capped at 60Hz because it looked the same. Then I got a wired Razer Death Adder and it is night and day. The jump from 60 to 120Hz should be immediately noticeable (with a properly supported system).. While there is still blur, the smoothness of motion is very much improved. Especially on Windows desktop, it looks great. Games benefit too, but to a lesser degree (I think cause many games are created with the assumption of a 60Hz screen). But there is a difference. Try getting the Razer Death Adder. Also, get the Nvidia 3D Vision glasses, they're friggin sick.
 
i think almost every usb mouse defaults to 125 hz. a little odd you would have one sampling so low. serial mice usually where 40hz, and ps/2 mice where usually 40 or 80 i think

i remeber back in the day of ps/2 mice, making sure it was set to 100-200 hz was very important for people with 100+ hz displays.

did not think it was an issue these days

needless to say, having poor input sampling on your IO devices will negate the primary advantage of using 120 hz displays
 
The more I read about LCD's at 120hz the more I think I will stick to my Sony G520 CRT and enjoy 120hz like I have in the past decade. Not to mention the lack of native resolution is something I will always appreciate when jumping randomly from resolution to resolution. Ideally one day a good IPS panel with 120hz and small dot pitch will be release and I will make the jump. Especially now that I don't game so much. And ffs bring back a choice between 16:9 and 4:3 ! I want my square box :)
 
I was considering trying out a 27" 120hz TN early next year from BB so I could return it if I decide its not worth it.
....

__Considerations:___

-- the inflated price on the 27" TN's for 120hz (quite a lot more $, and x3 for eyefinity moreso)

--the fact that they still blur .. ( ~ 1/2 as much perhaps?.. some consider it a subtle improvement that is most apparent if you look hard enough or force situations that make it more obvious... )

--you have to *maintian* 120fps vs the 120hz to get the benefit (might require some major tradeoffs in graphics quality/fx even on a single monitor with considerable gpu horsepower - let alone running three 120hz in eyefinity or nvidia surround).
..
..
 
Before buying a 120hz panel just for the 120hz refresh and to reduce ghosting in 2d mode, or before returning one you've already bought :) check the digitalversus and tftcentral reviews, which often include calibration settings and results.

Some monitor modes can be turned on (or off!) to improve apparent ghosting. Some 120hz monitors have equal or more input lag or ghosting than their 60hz counterparts. Some come with very screwy defaults intended for 3d Vision (max brightness) or someone's idea of a gaming mode which need calibration before you see good results in ordinary 2d game usage.

On the frame rate issue, I'd say you'd see the benefit of 120hz panels any time your frame rate is consistently above 60; you don't need to exceed 120fps to see the benefit. As others pointed out, though, many people's eyes already see 60fps as fluid and won't get as much out of a 120hz panel unless they're using it for 3d.
 
..
..I can see it.. I used a fw900 24" widescreen crt next to a TN for 3 years.. and I had a 34" widescreen sony xbr960 1080i/"720p" hdtv with hdmi input for several years. I still own both crts actually, and I can tell the difference on LCD tv and computer monitors, especially when "I'm not trying to ignore it" / "I'm looking for it" (however you want to define it)... even more obvious when I have my crt's running comparatively.
..
.. The considerations were that there would still be blurring (perhaps half as much), and that in order to get the *full* benefit of 120hz you need to send 120fps .. (even though the LCD panel itself can't update that fast).... and whether it was really worth what some people in this thread describe as a subtle blur reduction in games. I really don't care as far as moving my mouse and windows on desktop are concerned.. only games. I'm getting the feeling that although I'd prob notice a bit of difference - that the reponse time and sample and hold nature of lcd tech really might make it not worth it this generation vs 60hz ips. Like I said, Ill prob still try one out tax return time anyway.
 
Bladestorm said:
I briefly touched on this in another thread, but felt I needed to make my own.

I purchased the Asus VG236HE a week and a half ago purely for the 120hz refresh rate. Well after playing a few different games I honestly cannot tell much of a difference at all in smoothness or reduced blur coming from my old HP LP2465 S-PVA monitor. I would say at best it feels 10-20% smoother, and that's probably being to generous. Certainly the blur is still present, and that's what I was hoping to eliminate by getting this monitor.

If anyone can recommend something for me to try out I'll give the monitor one last go, but otherwise it's going back.
Click to expand...

Are you sure your games are actually running at 120hz, and that your monitor is in a 120hz refresh mode (just having the monitor in 120hz mode is not enough by itself, but it is a pre-req.)?
By default, many games are not running 120hz. Try using FRAPs to confirm it's running at 120hz.
 
elvn said:
in order to get the *full* benefit of 120hz you need to send 120fps .. (even though the LCD panel itself can't update that fast)....
Click to expand...

refresh rate has nothing to do with the pixel response time
lcd panels are all able to update a (basically) unlimited number of times per second
 
dowant120hz said:
refresh rate has nothing to do with the pixel response time
lcd panels are all able to update a (basically) unlimited number of times per second
Click to expand...
..
panels can't really *display* an unlimited number of updates per second since the response time determines how fast the pixels can change. With 1000ms per second, you'd have to figure how many ms your real response time divides into that (7ms each change~might mean something like a max of 142.8 pixel changes per pixel per second for example). Maybe you meant something more along these lines..

quote from another forum
Monitor refresh rate is not tied to in-game frame-rate. Even if your fps dropped to the teens, the pixels on the monitor will still be refreshing 120 times per second (if you have it set at 120 Hz)
Click to expand...

See if this interpretation makes sense..

your panel's real response times(not the grey 2 grey quotes) limits how fast the pixels change from one state to another. If you send more signals per second (120hz) the LCD has to change the pixels faster in order to show those "updates" distinctly if the content is changing. You don't *HAVE* to maintain 120fps for the panel to "update" 120 times per second.. but if you are updating the screen 120 times a second, you might want to send 120 frames per second to get the most out of those updates - otherwise at lower fps you would be showing the same frame through several updates. Also, with content changing that fast potentially.. and considering 16.67 ms is one frame of 60hz, I guess 120hz would be 8.3 ms per frame? Your "beyond-grey-2-grey" response time would have to be really low, staying under 8.3ms in order for the pixel changes to keep up at 120fps.. 60fps should keep the same frame displayed for every two screen updates I think.

.. however there is this related to blur...
Pixel response times need to be below 16.67 milliseconds in order to fully represent the bandwidth of color changes necessary for 60 Hz video. However, even when this response time is achieved or surpassed, motion blur can still occur because of the least understood blur effect: eye tracking. LCDs often have a greater motion blur effect because their pixels remain lit, unlike CRT phosphors that merely flash briefly. Reducing the time an LCD pixel is lit reduces motion blur due to eye tracking by decreasing the time the backlit pixels are on. [2] However, an instant strobe is required to completely eliminate the retinal blurring.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top