| Forum Index > Tech Support |
|
2heartless
United States66 Posts
I was wodering if i played on a 240hz LED tv screen would i be able to see/notice above 60fps? I heard somewhere that 60fps is max computer monitors can output. My computer setup is i3-2100, gtx 560ti, 8gb ram and 700 watt psu. My tv is 1080p and about 46 inches across i believe. Thanks! | ||
|
Enotic
Canada59 Posts
User was forum banned for this post. | ||
|
JingleHell
United States11308 Posts
On June 24 2011 12:07 Enotic wrote: Sorry man but the human eye isnt going to allow you to see past 60fps. I think you might be a little confused so my simple answer will be "Dont worry about getting 60+ fps" Post a source. | ||
|
2heartless
United States66 Posts
| ||
|
Aggnog
Bulgaria77 Posts
| ||
|
apm66
Canada943 Posts
 | ||
|
JayDee_
548 Posts
Are you sure your TV produces true 240hz? Most (if not all) TVs on the market, which claim to produce 120 or 240 hz refresh rate, are actually using a concept called interpolation which inserts an "average frame" between two frames. This is not true 120 or 240hz. Your TV likely only produces 60hz of true frames. There are 120z+ flat-screen monitors on the market, but they are quite expensive. A standard CRT will produce high refresh rates at a cheap price. Although they are huge and LANS generally stick with flat-screens. I'm not sure what the relation is between refresh rate limitation and noticeable fps. I thought I'd just let you know that your TV probably isn't capable of what you think it is capable of. Try it out and report back.  | ||
|
manawah
123 Posts
Your eye's will not notice the difference between 60fps and anything higher but you will notice less motion blur and more crisp picture during lots of motion on the screen. Another issue you might want to consider if you use it for games is the response time. Large LCD TV's generally use IPS panels which give true color and improved viewing angle but poor 5-15ms response time which sucks for games. PC LCD's generally use TN panels which provide poor color compared to other panels, less viewing angle but offer amazing response times of 1-5ms which is great for games. Also might want to consider how the large screen displays text if you want to read webpages, might be hard to read. | ||
|
Boblhead
United States2577 Posts
 . If you have a 60hz tv I suggest you watch a blueray or just a HQ 1080p movie and then watch the same movie on the 240hz and you will be able to tell a difference.Yes I have a 52' 240hz visio tv. Yes I can tell the difference between 240 and 60. | ||
|
nalgene
Canada2153 Posts
On June 24 2011 12:07 Enotic wrote: Sorry man but the human eye isnt going to allow you to see past 60fps. I think you might be a little confused so my simple answer will be "Dont worry about getting 60+ fps" User was forum banned for this post. The difference is in the colors... and the refresh rates... it'll feel like it'd have less delay with higher fps... there's still noticeable differences otherwise they wouldn't necessarily make them... pretty much like the above posters said... | ||
|
2heartless
United States66 Posts
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889252136&nm_mc=OTC-Froogle&cm_mmc=OTC-Froogle-_-LED TV-_-Sony-_-89252136 Edit: my bad.. apprently it is 120hz... blame my dad haha | ||
|
k!llua
Australia895 Posts
On June 24 2011 12:07 Enotic wrote: Sorry man but the human eye isnt going to allow you to see past 60fps. I think you might be a little confused so my simple answer will be "Dont worry about getting 60+ fps" User was forum banned for this post. i have troubles streaming because it shits me when my fps drops below 120. (it's usually 200+) and it shits me because i can clearly see the difference. | ||
|
Boblion
France8043 Posts
| ||
|
G_Wen
Canada525 Posts
On June 24 2011 12:51 JayDee_ wrote: Thousands of quake players can be wrong. An appeal to popularity is not proof that there is an actual difference. I come from a Quake background where we consider +120hz and +120 fps to be optimal. Don't believe the hype. The human eye can definitely notice the difference between 60 and 120 hz or fps. Thousands of Quake players can attest. On June 24 2011 12:51 JayDee_ wrote:Are you sure your TV produces true 240hz? Most (if not all) TVs on the market, which claim to produce 120 or 240 hz refresh rate, are actually using a concept called interpolation which inserts an "average frame" between two frames. This is not true 120 or 240hz. Your TV likely only produces 60hz of true frames. There are 120z+ flat-screen monitors on the market, but they are quite expensive. A standard CRT will produce high refresh rates at a cheap price. Although they are huge and LANS generally stick with flat-screens. I'm not sure what the relation is between refresh rate limitation and noticeable fps. I thought I'd just let you know that your TV probably isn't capable of what you think it is capable of. Try it out and report back. The problem is no one has posted a legitimate source for either side of the argument. If anyone has two monitors they could perhaps conduct a blind study to see if there is a noticeable difference. I've read through my Psych textbook (psych in modules 9th edition by David Myers) and the topic of vision and subliminal information was brought up but it didn't mention how fast the refresh rate of the monitor a human is able to notice. | ||
|
Myrmidon
United States9452 Posts
Regardless, the picture may be smoother on the TV because of interpolation and maybe other display processing and smoothing that it is doing. However, all this extra interpolation (which requires buffering the next frame at least) and processing takes time, so what you see on the TV will probably lag behind what you would have seen on your computer monitor. This is even disregarding the slower pixel response time when changing colors, because TVs use non-TN panels, as described earlier. edit: granted, Bnet latency is going to be the larger factor probably, but adding even more latency is not exactly desirable. | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On June 24 2011 14:50 Myrmidon wrote: As mentioned earlier, does your TV accept higher than 60 Hz input? I'm pretty sure it's not getting 240 Hz 1920x1080 over HDMI. Regardless, the picture may be smoother on the TV because of interpolation and maybe other display processing and smoothing that it is doing. However, all this extra interpolation (which requires buffering the next frame at least) and processing takes time, so what you see on the TV will probably lag behind what you would have seen on your computer monitor. This is even disregarding the slower pixel response time when changing colors, because TVs use non-TN panels, as described earlier. Yup just wanted to make sure this is highlighted in most cases TV's that feature 120 240hz unless they are 3D approved they likely wont accept a signal with more then 60fps why say it's 240hz well it produces the same frame 4 times sometimes blending frames in some manner it depends on the manufacture they each have their own thing. So is that useless? Well yes and no it's not new frames but it does produce a slighly crisper picture worth extra price not really imo. Also if you do get such a tv you need the right hdmi cable when shopping for cable buy cheap it's a digial signal as long as it work it works just like any other cable same quality, you wanna get a High Speed HDMI or if you can find it on the box 1.4 1.4a but most only will say high speed. Also in general i want to add in case ppl didn't get the msg, all tv's are bad for games in terms of lag, they are tv's they focus on picture quality they tend to do things with the signal alot more things before showing the imange, you can turn off most of it on some tv's others you cannot. | ||
|
2heartless
United States66 Posts
| ||
|
JayDee_
548 Posts
On June 24 2011 14:39 G_Wen wrote: Thousands of quake players can be wrong. An appeal to popularity is not proof that there is an actual difference. The problem is no one has posted a legitimate source for either side of the argument. If anyone has two monitors they could perhaps conduct a blind study to see if there is a noticeable difference. I've read through my Psych textbook (psych in modules 9th edition by David Myers) and the topic of vision and subliminal information was brought up but it didn't mention how fast the refresh rate of the monitor a human is able to notice. So you're saying hundreds of thousands of FPS players who agree they can tell the difference between 60 and 120 hz are just experiencing a placebo effect? The experiment you proposed has been done by FPS gamers. There is a resounding conclusion that yes, there is a noticeable differences between 60 and 120hz, the latter of which is easier to play with. I'm guessing you have never actually played a FPS at any high degree of intensity. I suggest you try out both frame rates in an online match and then see what you can conclude. FPS players need to see things quickly. That extra 60hz of information is noticeable and improves ones aim significantly. We don't need a Psychology book to tell us what we already can experience. | ||
|
AioncannonzSC2
United States92 Posts
| ||
|
snigor
Norway129 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
WardiTV 2025
ByuN vs Creator
Clem vs Rogue
Scarlett vs Spirit
ShoWTimE vs Cure
OSC
Big Brain Bouts
YoungYakov vs Jumy
TriGGeR vs Spirit
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV 2025
Reynor vs MaxPax
SHIN vs TBD
Solar vs herO
Classic vs TBD
SC Evo League
Ladder Legends
BSL 21
Sziky vs Dewalt
eOnzErG vs Cross
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Ladder Legends
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
