Everyone go look at a 60Hz monitor then compare it to a 120Hz monitor. There is a clear difference, at least for cable television. No source, but look for yourself and you will see the difference.
I just upgraded to a 120Hz and the difference is easy to see. I'm not sure how this applies to gaming, but for watching TV its a pretty big difference.
On June 25 2011 03:57 AioncannonzSC2 wrote: it's tough to notice the actual smoothness of the image above 60hz, because the brain actually is pretty good at tricking you into seeing a constant image even as low as 30 fps, but it has a real effect on your reaction time. Also since many games are very fast-paced, you essentially have more frames to react than your opponent. Maybe not as drastic as the difference between 60 and 120 APM, but it changes play performance in a similar way. So if you're looking for an obvious visual difference between 60 and 120, there isn't one unless you use 3D glasses. But there is an indisputable passive effect on your gaming performance.
When playing a game, the most desirable thing to have from a monitor is consistency. With consistency you can effectively train your muscle memory. Fluctuations in FPS are what will screw you up. Try to find the most consistent FPS that your video card can support. You will most likely be comfortable at around 72FPS. If you can support a higher frame rate, go ahead and use it.
As far as the refresh rate of your monitor goes, it is not as important as people are making it out to be. The majority of today's 120hz LCD panels are an artificial inflation of frame rates in an attempt to solve the problem of stuttering in slow panning video. It will replicate an individual frame and display the same image around 4 times per frame.
Concentrate on consistency. Get your frame rate steady, get a monitor with a low response time, and don't worry too much about refresh rates.
On June 24 2011 12:51 JayDee_ wrote: 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.
Thousands of quake players can be wrong. An appeal to popularity is not proof that there is an actual difference.
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.
What you'd be saying is similar to " you can't hear any differences between an 128 kb/s MP3 and LPCM " except that is wrong... and there is a difference just as there's a noticeable difference between 240hz vs 60hz
I doubt that you'd be able to maintain 240ish FPS to make the most of it. Plus most TVs have horrendous input lag and ghosting issues in comparison with monitors.
On June 24 2011 12:51 JayDee_ wrote: 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.
Thousands of quake players can be wrong. An appeal to popularity is not proof that there is an actual difference.
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.
Wrong, if you can tell there is a difference, there is a difference. I'm sorry but, it's not hard to figure it out and no major studies need to be done. You CAN tell the difference between 60 and 120, but past 120 its kind of hard to tell much of a difference for me.
I am able to detect when a CRT monitor is on a refresh rate of 60Hz. It flickers/Hurts my eyes. When it is set at or above 75Hz I cannot really tell the difference.
If I sit down at a CRT with a 60Hz refresh rate the first thing I do is Windows Key+D, Right click properties and fix that shiz.
My laptop is set at a rate of 60Hz and cannot be adjusted, so I cannot tell you if it would flicker less at a higher refresh rate.
On June 24 2011 12:51 JayDee_ wrote: 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.
Thousands of quake players can be wrong. An appeal to popularity is not proof that there is an actual difference.
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.
All i can say to this is "LOL"
I have a 60 and a 120 hz monitors side by side right now, and I'll tell you theres a huge difference between the two, even in starcraft. As for the 240hz TV, Jaydee is right. The only LCD screens that are able to perform at true 120hz+ are the 3D Monitors like the Asus VG236.The only other way is going CRT.
On June 25 2011 12:32 stanik wrote: I am able to detect when a CRT monitor is on a refresh rate of 60Hz. It flickers/Hurts my eyes. When it is set at or above 75Hz I cannot really tell the difference.
If I sit down at a CRT with a 60Hz refresh rate the first thing I do is Windows Key+D, Right click properties and fix that shiz.
My laptop is set at a rate of 60Hz and cannot be adjusted, so I cannot tell you if it would flicker less at a higher refresh rate.
LCDs dont flicker at low refresh rates because they don't actually draw the image with a beam
It's amazing how many people have bad information or really haven't looked into it too much.
Basically the human eye sees motion differently than a camera or a set fps would. What happens in film is at around 24 frames per second the blur that is natural with motion makes the film appear to be smooth.
In video games this doesn't happen as each frame is drawn with no blur so even at 60fps things don't appear to be smooth because the human eye is able to pick up no movements really just different placing of items. What happens as you approach 120fps or hrz on a monitor is that the refresh rate is so fast the human eye picks it up as motion and not things simply jumping positions thus creating a smooth effect, that's why quake players want 120+fps and 120hrz screens.
Tv's are a bit different, most of the time tv's only accept input of 60hrz and the when they produce a 120hrz or 240hrz picture it simply helps the tv get rid of the blur between frames that is not the same as real motion blur. Blu-Ray discs for example only output at 60hrz but the motion looks smooth because of the blurring effects in the movie, the 240hrz tv is only helping keep the picture looking as natural as possible. This helps with games too and is why people swear 120hrz or 240hrz is required to play certain games as the screen will be almost impossible to see under fast motion in some games because of the way the tv is refreshing at 60hrz compared to 240hrz where everything is crisp and clear because there is no ghosting.
Don't forget that most monitors have less input lag which helps reduce ghosting as well. The amount of ghosting on an 8 or 12ms 120hrz tv compared to a 2ms 60hrz monitor is actually pretty similar.
Basically it boils down to this.
120hrz Monitor taking a 120fps signal is ideal. 120hrz+ tv taking a 60fps signal is good. 60hrz monitor taking a 60fps signal is still pretty good in all honesty.
using 120hz you will definetly notice a difference. but not in sc2 or any rts or alike. in my opinion the picture seems more "real", like looking through a window instead of looking at your screen. but it will not give you a comptitive advantage in games outside of cs1.6 and quake.
EPT
