60hz to 120hz, and my unfortunate experience

pixels start to respond the instant they get an electric impulse
stuff like pixel response in relation to frame time is only relevant for stereoscopic 3d
for everything else all that high pixel response does is increase motion blur

higher refresh rates always increase quality even on the slowest panel and even for people whose brain can't process much more than 30fps
the main reason for that is that human vision as well as natural motion are a continuous stream
sample-and-hold will always look fake and unreal until we have quasi-continuous refresh rates (as well as way higher dpi ratios)

why fps/hz higher than a individual humans perception still increase picture quality for him i don't wanna reveal for free
maybe someone here figures it out anyway ;)
edit: i don't mean the slight response time decrease
 
Last edited:
elvn said:
..
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).

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.
Click to expand...


dowant120hz said:
pixels start to respond the instant they get an electric impulse
stuff like pixel response in relation to frame time is only relevant for stereoscopic 3d
for everything else all that high pixel response does is increase motion blur
Click to expand...

Thats what not being able to display an unlimited number of updates and not keeping up means... it will blur ... because the screen won't transition fast enough. Its only capable of displaying the real response time divided into the 1000ms per second, because the response time is how long it takes to change the pixels each time a new frame is sent. 120hz is 8.3ms per hz.., if the real respone time was 7ms, it would be able to do 142.8 pixel transitions per pixel per second vs the 120 updates per second sent. if the real response times (idk what they are vs the g2g quotes on most 120hz panels) are much higher it would be a mess if the content changed every update, because the pixels wouldn't be able to update fast enough.
..
.. As for maintaining 120FPS vs 120hz to get the "most" out of your 120hz panel .. your panel is capable of sending 120 updates per second, so you could send it 120frames per second or more if you wanted to utilize every screen update with a new frame.. however the response time (depending on what the real response time of the panel is) could lag behind the updates, blurring the displayed content. The 120hz panel will always try to update 120 times per second regardless of frame rate in your game of course - but if you were sending 60 frames per second, the content would potentially remain the same for two updates each frame (2hz out the 120hz per each 1/60 fps).. To me that isn't fully utilizing the screen updates to present faster game action.. its taking the same slow frame rate and doubling the frames.. yes it could still appear slightly more fluid vs 60hz screen updates but it wouldn't be presenting action any faster/more precisely. Maybe someday when its 480hz it would make more sense to me to keep the same frame displayed across two screen updates.
..
... So , long story short, to me I'd want to maintain 120fps vs the 120 screen updates per second... and the nature of the tech for various reasons means the screen will still blur some regardless... so I'm not convinced its worth the graphics bells&whistles hit vs maintaining 120fps, the price tag on 27" and the fact that they are TN.
 
tfts will always blur
they're just a slow and cheap tech
even in your example with 7ms/120hz you'd still only get to see a sharp picture for 1ms (which is far from blur-free)
if it would have 9ms/120hz or something you wouldn't really be able to see a difference

on my slow samsung 2333t (50ms/75hz) each frame is being displayed and easily distinguishable
running it on 20hz wouldn't really be a good idea
 
.
..Yes at 120fps or more it (the panel/pixels) would be attempting to transition with new information very fast, once per hz (8.3ms).. at 60fps the screen pixels might not have to change for every 2hz 16.67ms, and anything in between would be some other mix of repeated frames I imagine. So fully utilizing 120hz to get new action information displayed in every update by maintaining 120fps or more could actually make the blurring worse potentially - depending on the real response time which could cause it (the panel/pixels) to be unable to keep up with the high rate of screen updating (when each update is new action). 60fps might theoretically update cleaner if it's only changing the pixels every two hz/ updates, which is pretty much like frame doubling which makes movies and animation appear smoother. This might help aim slightly with 1/2 the blur - but is not making the action more precise for gaming in regard to more current/up-to-date action being displayed like a crt at 120hz would at 120+ fps. Maybe 120fps+ vs the 120hz screen updates on 120hz LCD's would blur worse and/or start missing displaying frames out of the 120fps of action happening. I'd be interested in finding that out, as well as the real response times on the current 120hz monitors.
....The response times and blurring in general seem to be a big problem and are one of the main reasons I have my doubts about getting the most out of 120hz.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top