The world’s first 280Hz monitor has been spotted at a retail site in Taiwan

[erek]

280Hz for that higher K/D Ratio er what?

"Asus is using an in-plane switching (IPS) panel on this monitor. It has a rated 1ms gray-to-gray response time, G-Sync and adaptive sync support, 99 percent coverage of the sRGB color space (which should translate into better image quality than a typical TN panel), and a max brightness of 400 nits. As it pertains to that latter metric, the VG279QM bears the DisplayHDR 400 certification badge for HDR content."


https://www.pcgamer.com/the-worlds-first-280hz-monitor-has-been-spotted-at-a-retail-site-in-taiwan/

 

[Mode13]

280Hz is beyond what I care for, and I have quite a few thousands of hours in the counter-strike games over the decades.

On the other hand, I WOULD like to see a very nice quality IPS screen capable of 144+ hz with the pixel response times truly fast enough to be comparable to their ugly TN counterparts. I still prefer competitive gaming on TN 144hz over VA and IPS counterparts due to ghosting and blur, objects still appear sharper to me in motion on the TN panels.

Have any of these newer high refresh monitors actually caught up with TN in terms of real world smoothness? I don't tend to trust the GTG response times, I had a 144hz 4ms? (frame at this speed should be around 7ms and thus no issues) VA panel that had horrible ghosting and smearing, got rid of it and went back to my old AOC 144hz TN monitor. That was around 2 years ago now.. so maybe things have changed.

 

[erek]

https://www.gizchina.com/2019/12/25...eleased-280hz-refresh-rate-1ms-response-time/

 

[Delicieuxz]

30 hz to 100 hz can be perceived pretty easily, and lots of people can perceive from 100 hz to 144 hz (though some people claim they don't). But will people be able to perceive from 144 hz to 200+ hz? Curious.

 

[Thunderdolt]

At this point, I'm ready to call BS on every refresh claim above 100hz. The monitor makers no longer use a definition of "refresh" that correlates with the image on the screen. Even the junkiest of panels can be driven at 5,000hz. The problem is that if you did that, the previous 4,940+ frames would all still be present on the screen at any given moment.

Heck, I'm reading this on a mere 120hz (claimed) Asus screen. It is true that it can throw a new frame up 120 times every second. Of course, the previous 4 frames will still be present but fading. This, effectively, makes it merely a 24hz screen because that's the maximum rate it can throw out new frames while still having only one frame visible at a time.

 

[Krenum]

Marketing plain and simple.

 

[Mode13]

The human eye can't hear more than 16-bit color anyway

 

[Shadowed]

When Asus released their 240hz, I got their 180hz last gen model for a great deal. Hoping the same happens again. 240hz to 280hz is gonna be interesting to see in person. Not sure if I can tell.

I did get to compare my 180hz to my friend's 240hz side by side and it was quite noticeable.

I do wonder why this is a 27" monitor and not a 24" one.

 

[DejaWiz]

The human eye can't hear more than 16-bit color anyway

16 bit is only 65k colors. Humans can discern around 7M distinct colors.
However, a 32 bit pallette allowing 4.3B colors would allow for things like more accurate fades and gradients, which would greatly reduce or completely eliminate noticable anomalies, like banding.

 

[GoldenTiger]

16 bit is only 65k colors. Humans can discern around 7M distinct colors.
However, a 32 bit pallette allowing 4.3B colors would allow for things like more accurate fades and gradients, which would greatly reduce or completely eliminate noticable anomalies, like banding.

We can't see above 30fps either.

/s think his joke went over your head .

 

[tangoseal]

30 hz to 100 hz can be perceived pretty easily, and lots of people can perceive from 100 hz to 144 hz (though some people claim they don't). But will people be able to perceive from 144 hz to 200+ hz? Curious.

Lol the human eye doesnt function in frames. I'm just gonna end it there. I dont feel like explaining this right now.

Yes anyone can perceive from 1 to thousands of fps because we do not see frames we see in analog and process data in a quantum fashion.

But again in already out of willpower to break out the biology library in my head to break this down.

 

[Dark12]

Lol the human eye doesnt function in frames. I'm just gonna end it there. I dont feel like explaining this right now.

Yes anyone can perceive from 1 to thousands of fps because we do not see frames we see in analog and process data in a quantum fashion.

But again in already out of willpower to break out the biology library in my head to break this down.

???
His thought was completely valid. He didn't mention anything about SEEING frame count difference. He said perceiving. Much of it is the connection between your input and the response on the screen.

Relax bud.

 

[tangoseal]

???
His thought was completely valid. He didn't mention anything about SEEING frame count difference. He said perceiving. Much of it is the connection between your input and the response on the screen.

Relax bud.

I'm not worked up to need to relax.

Seeing? Perceiveing? What's the difference? Dont use a dictionary. Use your mind and explain the philosophical differences?

Asking if you can perceive the difference in frame x and y count is qualitatively suggesting that our eyes see in frames and that is wrong. I'm just stating that fact.

If you could measure real life we see an infinite arrangement of FPS possibilities for each object being perceived as they are presenting thier own unique quantum states in a dynamically fluid universe that does not observe time.

Digitally the higher the fps and lower the input lag the more realistic an object is perceived. We should discuss frame rates in the millions. Technically every thing we see has a lag from it's original time of presentation due to biochemical synaptic release and uptake, action potential thresholds needing overcome, and cognitive bottom-up/top-down processing approaches taking even longer and then subconscious filtering and approval disapproval decisions from the subconscious to the conscious awareness needing to take place it's important to realize the higher we can digitally present in frames per second and the lower the input lag the more realistic our perception is. Is it smoothness? Is it tactility? Is it fluid? Is it realistic? Yes and no. That depends on the presentation.

So to answer in simple terms, yes you will be able to perceive the difference between 100 and 200 and 2000 and 2 mil fps. Because we are approaching the analog the higher fps we present. Sounds backasswards but we have been striving for our cameras to achieve the quality of human color and detail.perception, we have been designing TVs with higher and higher pixel counts to display more realistic imagery, we even have high fps lcds in order to bring smoothness to our perceptions and yet all of it still falls short because we still approach the presentation from a digital perspective. If you ask me old cathode ray monitors were the best presentation of games hands down. There was virtually zero input lag.

So the higher the fps the lower the input lag the more we perceive a presentation of information in a life like manner.

 

[DejaWiz]

We can't see above 30fps either.

/s think his joke went over your head .

Yep...so far over my head I couldn't even see so much as a speck.

 

[Delicieuxz]

I'm not worked up to need to relax.

Asking if you can perceive the difference in frame x and y count is qualitatively suggesting that our eyes see in frames and that is wrong. I'm just stating that fact.

There's nothing about what I said that implies that people's eyesight works in FPS.

The more that FPS are increased and the smoother the presented visualization becomes, the less of a difference we notice when moving to a higher FPS. Many people claim they don't notice a difference between higher hz.

There is a question of whether people, on an individual basis, perceive a difference between x and y frame-count. And there are varying answers for different people. That isn't a matter of our eyesight seeing in FPS just as whether people can perceive a difference of 1000 vs 1100 blades of grass in a square foot isn't a matter of whether people's eyesight is based on numbers of grass-blades.


https://www.dictionary.com/browse/perceive

1. to become aware of, know, or identify by means of the senses

2. to recognize, discern, envision, or understand


People don't perceive an increase in FPS limitlessly and there is a point where it simply appears smooth to a person without any difference from higher frame-rates. Where a person stops noticing or experiencing a change in the smoothness is the limit of what they're able to perceive.

We can behold 1000 FPS, but if we can't discern between 200 FPS and 1000 FPS, then we don't perceive the difference.

The problem is that you aren't taking the word "Perceive" at its actual meaning and reading into its usage something that wasn't really there.

 

[sosab]

I’m still waiting on more 95 hz UWFHD/QHD panels. That’s the sweet spot. 2080 Ti is barely a 100 hz QHD card for instance. I enjoy my 75 hz with pride knowing I’m not bouncing around fidelity because of a 30-140 wide sync range

 

[tangoseal]

The human eye can't hear more than 16-bit color anyway

We dont see in bits, our perception of color is not limited to bits

 

[Dark12]

We dont see in bits, our perception of color is not limited to a bit limited range.

He's trolling bud.

 

[tangoseal]

He's trolling bud.

Yeah I see that now. He said hear but I read too fast and perceived the sentence as a complete rational statement.

Knid of how a preosn can raed tihs whtiuot the ltetres bnieg in poprer odrer

 

[zamardii12]

. But will people be able to perceive from 144 hz to 200+ hz? Curious.

Definitely not.


“Certainly 60 Hz is better than 30 Hz, demonstrably better,” Busey says. So that’s one internet claim quashed. And since we can perceive motion at a higher rate than we can a 60 Hz flickering light source, the level should be higher than that, but he won’t stand by a number. “Whether that plateaus at 120 Hz or whether you get an additional boost up to 180 Hz, I just don’t know.”


“I think typically, once you get up above 200 fps it just looks like regular, real-life motion,” DeLong says. But in more regular terms he feels that the drop-off in people being able to detect changes in smoothness in a screen lies at around 90Hz. “Sure, aficionados might be able to tell teeny tiny differences, but for the rest of us it’s like red wine is red wine.”

Chopin looks at the subject very differently. “It’s clear from the literature that you cannot see anything more than 20 Hz,” he tells me. And while I admit I initially snorted into my coffee, his argument soon began to make a lot more sense.

He explains to me that when we’re searching for and categorising elements as targets in a first person shooter, we’re tracking multiple targets, and detecting motion of small objects. “For example, if you take the motion detection of small object, what is the optimal temporal frequency of an object that you can detect?”

And studies have found that the answer is between 7 and 13 Hz. After that, our sensitivity to movement drops significantly. “When you want to do visual search, or multiple visual tracking or just interpret motion direction, your brain will take only 13 images out of a second of continuous flow, so you will average the other images that are in between into one image.”

Discovered by researcher Rufin vanRullen in 2010, this literally happens in our brains: you can see a steady 13 Hz pulse of activity in an EEG, and it’s further supported by the observation that we can also experience the ‘wagon wheel effect’ you get when you photograph footage of a spinning spoked object. Played back, footage can appear to show the object rotating in the opposite direction. “The brain does the same thing,” says Chopin. “You can see this without a camera. Given all the studies, we’re seeing no difference between 20hz and above. Let’s go to 24hz, which is movie industry standard. But I don’t see any point going above that.”

The important thing here is that Chopin is talking about the brain acquiring visual information which it can process and on which it can act. He’s not saying that we can’t notice a difference between 20 Hz and 60 Hz footage. “Just because you can see the difference, it doesn’t mean you can be better in the game,” he says. “After 24 Hz you won’t get better, but you may have some phenomenological experience that is different.” There’s a difference, therefore, between effectiveness and experience.

And while Busey and DeLong acknowledged the aesthetic appeal of a smooth framerate, none of them felt that framerate is quite the be-all and end-all of gaming technology that we perhaps do. For Chopin, resolution is far more important. “We are very limited in interpreting difference in time, but we have almost no limits in interpreting difference in space,” he says.

For DeLong, resolution is also important, but only to the small, central region of the eye that cares about it, which comprises only a couple of degrees of your field of view. “Some of the most compelling stuff I’ve seen has been with eye-tracking. Why don’t we do full resolution only for the areas of the eye where we actually need it?” But his real focus is on contrast ratios. “When we see really true blacks and bright whites it’s really compelling,” he says.


https://www.pcgamer.com/how-many-frames-per-second-can-the-human-eye-really-see/

 

[Thunderdolt]

I'm not worked up to need to relax.

Seeing? Perceiveing? What's the difference? Dont use a dictionary. Use your mind and explain the philosophical differences?

Asking if you can perceive the difference in frame x and y count is qualitatively suggesting that our eyes see in frames and that is wrong. I'm just stating that fact.

If you could measure real life we see an infinite arrangement of FPS possibilities for each object being perceived as they are presenting thier own unique quantum states in a dynamically fluid universe that does not observe time.

Digitally the higher the fps and lower the input lag the more realistic an object is perceived. We should discuss frame rates in the millions. Technically every thing we see has a lag from it's original time of presentation due to biochemical synaptic release and uptake, action potential thresholds needing overcome, and cognitive bottom-up/top-down processing approaches taking even longer and then subconscious filtering and approval disapproval decisions from the subconscious to the conscious awareness needing to take place it's important to realize the higher we can digitally present in frames per second and the lower the input lag the more realistic our perception is. Is it smoothness? Is it tactility? Is it fluid? Is it realistic? Yes and no. That depends on the presentation.

So to answer in simple terms, yes you will be able to perceive the difference between 100 and 200 and 2000 and 2 mil fps. Because we are approaching the analog the higher fps we present. Sounds backasswards but we have been striving for our cameras to achieve the quality of human color and detail.perception, we have been designing TVs with higher and higher pixel counts to display more realistic imagery, we even have high fps lcds in order to bring smoothness to our perceptions and yet all of it still falls short because we still approach the presentation from a digital perspective. If you ask me old cathode ray monitors were the best presentation of games hands down. There was virtually zero input lag.

So the higher the fps the lower the input lag the more we perceive a presentation of information in a life like manner.

I'm pretty sure I got a contact high just from reading this.

 

[tangoseal]

I'm pretty sure I got a contact high just from reading this.

Biochemistry and psychobiology are wonderful academic adventures! I'm not a psychologist but you study psychology heavily when you pursue neurological biochemistry as a personal love and degree achievements.

 

[Dark12]

Biochemistry and psychobiology are wonderful academic adventures! I'm not a psychologist but you study psychology heavily when you pursue neurological biochemistry as a personal love.

But again in already out of willpower to break out the biology library in my head to break this down.

Yes yes we get it. You are a genius.

 

[tangoseal]

Yes yes we get it. You are a genius.

Not even close to a genius. I just value deep understanding of life and its mysteries. Most people are happy just accepting ignorance and that's a respectfully blissful state of being I guess.

I can just as easily act like the average and say,

Whys the sky blue?
And be like, I duh know, I dun care.

Or I can explain with respect and understanding, the physics principle of Rayleigh Scattering.

But education in the contemporary is shunned as being uncool. You look cooler and you fit in the dumber you are I suppose.

The internet prides itself on consuming the most ignorant and imbecelic behavior and sometimes I feel like any participation in attempting to share real understanding ends in a pit of oblivion. People seem to be offended by knowledge.

 

[Dark12]

Not even close to a genius. I just value deep understanding of life and its mysteries. Most people are happy just accepting ignorance and that's a respectfully blissful state of being I guess.

I can just as easily act like the average and say,

Whys the sky blue?
And be like, I duh know, I dun care.

Or I can explain with respect and understanding, the physics principle of Rayleigh Scattering.

But education in the contemporary is shunned as being uncool. You look cooler and you fit in the dumber you are I suppose.

Maybe. Turn on the TV and you can find enough evidence to prove that point in a few minutes.

I was just busting your balls though.

 

[tangoseal]

Maybe. Turn on the TV and you can find enough evidence to prove that point in a few minutes.

I was just busting your balls though.

You're good Dark

I have a crap ton of posts that are absolutely non academic and offensively stupid, trust me. I'm not a genius and my shit stinks too! I'm not anyone special! Well my dog thinks I'm special because I feed him.

 

[SavageThrash]

I wouldn't mind something over 144hz but I'm not sure it will make me any better, it would just be for my own understanding. I'm running one of the early 144hz panels. Definitely noticable between 60hz and 144hz. I have an easier time tracking at 144 but to some extent I find i can "adjust" to a lower Hz with a little time. That said my best performance is still at 144 without a doubt.

Linus did a pretty good test using proper professionals as well as himself and other more casual players. Hz are important but i think their conclusion was more based on frametime. The sooner you see a new frame the sooner you can begin to react. The double door test in csgo was a bit of a surprise with shroud struggling to land shots at those longer frametimes.

 

[HAL_404]

We can't see above 30fps either.

/s think his joke went over your head .

for those of us now wondering about the eyes and max FPS perception:

How many frames per second can the human eye really see?

 

[cybereality]

This old chestnut again.

 

[memememe]

1080p and IPS

 

[clockdogg]

I waved my hand in front of my face 24 times per second. It looked very blurry. I must be a terrible gamer.

 

[B00nie]

for those of us now wondering about the eyes and max FPS perception:

How many frames per second can the human eye really see?

Chopin is full of it. His methodology is also totally flawed. He should study whether or not people can detect two screens running at different refreshes apart instead of relying on unrelated test data.
I know for a fact that I saw immediately that my daughters 144hz screen was running at 60hz just by moving the mouse on the screen and dragging a window. And this joker is saying we can't see anything past 20hz?

 

[Dark12]

Higher refresh rate does in fact make a difference in some games. 144hz seems to be point of dimishing returns, but that may change as technology evolves.



There really is no more reason to discuss this topic. If you disagree then you probably suck at games too much for it to matter.

 

[Westwood]

Does this mean my 1080 @ 60hz monitor is becoming irrelevant?

 

[Dark12]

Does this mean my 1080 @ 60hz monitor is becoming irrelevant?

Not if you enjoy the experience!