• 600 Hz TVs?
    95 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Ajacks;18620019]The reason 120hz TV's look more fluid it [b]removes motion blur[/b], which often can ruin the cinematic feeling of a movie, but improves things like sports and animation.[/QUOTE] Only if it's being filmed at 120 FPS. You won't see a difference between 60 FPS @ 60 Hz and 60 FPS @ 120 Hz. [editline]06:42PM[/editline] [QUOTE=pebkac;18621314]The problem here is, even if you have a 600hz tv, no video connector supports framerates that high, so a lot of frames are going to be dropped anyway. I think all those extra frames are generated on the TV from a lower framerate input.[/QUOTE] What the hell are you talking about? There's no limit to the frame rate on any connector.
[QUOTE=Odellus;18628572]Only if it's being filmed at 120 FPS. You won't see a difference between 60 FPS @ 60 Hz and 60 FPS @ 120 Hz. [editline]06:42PM[/editline] What the hell are you talking about? There's no limit to the frame rate on any connector.[/QUOTE] Okay, so all the motion clarity differences I've seen between 60hz and 120hz TV's is just a placebo effect caused by the number on the product tag? Thanks for clearing that up for me, will save my wallet some hard earned cash.
[QUOTE=Dj-J3;18616871]You wouldn't see a difference from 60Hz and 600 Hz[/QUOTE] Actually you would, it's called subconciousness.
[QUOTE=Ajacks;18628702]Okay, so all the motion clarity differences I've seen between 60hz and 120hz TV's is just a placebo effect caused by the number on the product tag? Thanks for clearing that up for me, will save my wallet some hard earned cash.[/QUOTE] Wherever you're going is playing the same thing at a higher framerate (120 FPS) on the 120 Hz TV.
There's no content save video games that go above 60fps, perhaps excepted 1080i/60 with each field being it's own slice of time, though I'm not sure anything is produced like that. Even the "superhdtv" thingie with 22 uselessly excessive channels of surround sound doesn't go above that. Though that doesn't stop poor glitchy motion interpolation circuits from creating these intermediary frames. I've seen that in stores too and it looks like arse tbh, I'd much rather just want the original content properly played back. If you do it right even 24p will appear surprisingly smooth. Experimenting with super low settings for super high framerates on my old 85hz crt I can indeed confirm there is visible smoothness of motion to come for above 60fps. But with some good motion blur 60fps will appear as smooth anyways. Remember this was a game with no such thing. And without motion blur you just need higher framerates to complete the illusion of motion. The CRT was a pretty good example actually. In 60hz mode it would still visibly flicker, but at 85 my eyes couldn't keep up anymore, even in the extra motion sensitive periphery. I suspect this is related to the added smoothness of higher framerates. The afterimage will not fade fast enough for you to be able to notice anything beyond 85 at least that won't appear as mere motion blur. While you would still be able to notice at least marginally the frame changes of 60. I'd like to add that TV programming filmed at 50hz/25fps interlaced with 50 timeslices represented that I've seen pretty much mimics the smoothness of the "120hz" store tvs and aforementioned 85hz adventures. Presumably because of motion blur.
[QUOTE=Odellus;18629308]Wherever you're going is playing the same thing at a higher framerate (120 FPS) on the 120 Hz TV.[/QUOTE] Since when does Pixar record their films at 120fps?
[QUOTE=Dj-J3;18616871]You wouldn't see a difference from 60Hz and 600 Hz[/QUOTE] My monitor only supports up to 60hz at full resolution, but can go up to 75 at a reduced resolution. I can tell a significant improvement with 75hz over 60. I can also indirectly see fluorescent flicker (which is 60hz). No, the human mind isn't capped at 30/60/any set "fps". [editline]07:31PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Ugly;18619644]Yes! [editline]04:49PM[/editline] "Though animated media works on distinct frames sampled at discrete points in time, there is evidence that the maximum FPS the human eye can see is around 60 to 70 FPS." Maximum FPS - I know for a fact I don't see above 50 FPS. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate#How_many_frames_per_second_can_the_human_eye_see.3F[/url][/QUOTE] no citation - probably some kid pulling numbers out of his ass
[QUOTE=and;18629603]My monitor only supports up to 60hz at full resolution, but can go up to 75 at a reduced resolution. I can tell a significant improvement with 75hz over 60. I can also indirectly see fluorescent flicker (which is 60hz). No, the human mind isn't capped at 30/60/any set "fps". [editline]07:31PM[/editline] no citation - probably some kid pulling numbers out of his ass[/QUOTE] I think you might be confused. The human [b]brain[/b] processes visual data at about 32-50 fps (or whatever the statistics are, around that area) the human [b]eye[/b] is just an instrument of the brain, it sees at a virtually limitless fps (similar to a camera lens). So fps that exceed the human brain's processing capacity (which is actually just a measure of how often the "brain" sends a full picture to the thalamus, realistically its a never ending stream of information) do have an effect on the image you see, no longer would games need this "motion blur" effect, because at high fps the motion blur would be natural.
When are people going to stop spouting out fabricated numbers about how fast the brain process information that they have gathered from careful scientific Garry's Mod experiments with Net_graph_1 enabled.
[QUOTE=Ajacks;18629995]When are people going to stop spouting out fabricated numbers about how fast the brain process information that they have gathered from careful scientific Garry's Mod experiments with Net_graph_1 enabled.[/QUOTE] Funny, but I learned this from a college professor I had. The numbers given are constantly disputed by the scientific community because there can be no actual "fps" on a stream of information (the brain doesn't really operate in intervals), the fps are just widely accepted measurements for practical purposes.
Like everything else it probably pretty much depends on whatever. I know sometimes I can't tell 25fps from 8, and other times I can pick out every slice of motion in a 60fps shooter.
[url]http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm[/url] I think that page describes it a bit better, there's no simple number since it's not a simple question.
[QUOTE=Howe;18629757]I think you might be confused. The human [b]brain[/b] processes visual data at about 32-50 fps (or whatever the statistics are, around that area) the human [b]eye[/b] is just an instrument of the brain, it sees at a virtually limitless fps (similar to a camera lens). So fps that exceed the human brain's processing capacity (which is actually just a measure of how often the "brain" sends a full picture to the thalamus, realistically its a never ending stream of information) do have an effect on the image you see, no longer would games need this "motion blur" effect, because at high fps the motion blur would be natural.[/QUOTE] no, your brain does not see in fps, and there is no way to quantify it, so stop giving numbers because there is no limit
[QUOTE=and;18633112]no, your brain does not see in fps, and there is no way to quantify it, so stop giving numbers because there is no limit[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Howe;18630163]Funny, but I learned this from a college professor I had. The numbers given are constantly disputed by the scientific community because there can be [b]no actual "fps" on a stream of information[/b] (the brain doesn't really operate in intervals), the [b]fps are just widely accepted measurements for [i]practical purposes[/i].[/b][/QUOTE] Read. I don't go off of my own opinion alone, I go off of the opinion of a lot of educated people, unlike yourself who probably knows very little about neuroscience. If you read my post, you'd realize I didn't say the brain sees in fps, but fps are overlain as a standard for measurement for things like the OP's topic. [QUOTE=TheDecryptor;18631004][url]http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm[/url] I think that page describes it a bit better, there's no simple number since it's not a simple question.[/QUOTE] The point that site makes is the exact same as the point I was talking about in my post. Is the forum font too small for you to read? Honestly I'm confused.
get a 60hz TV next to a 120hz TV with a moderately fast ticker running on both come back and tell me that 120hz is a marketing gimmick
The only reason 25fps can look fine is because they add slight motion blur to it.
That isn't something that is added btw, that is a result of shutter speed.
[QUOTE=Odellus;18628572]Only if it's being filmed at 120 FPS. You won't see a difference between 60 FPS @ 60 Hz and 60 FPS @ 120 Hz. [editline]06:42PM[/editline] What the hell are you talking about? There's no limit to the frame rate on any connector.[/QUOTE] There is no frame rate limit on any connectors, but there is certainly a bandwidth limitation. As far as I know, DVI tops out at 2560x1600 @ 60Hz, at this point a higher refresh rate requires you to lower the resolution, there's simply no way to send more information over this connector standard. [editline]02:36PM[/editline] [quote] * Example display modes (single link): o HDTV (1920 × 1080) @ 60 Hz with CVT-RB blanking (139 MHz) o UXGA (1600 × 1200) @ 60 Hz with GTF blanking (161 MHz) o WUXGA (1920 × 1200) @ 60 Hz with CVT-RB blanking (154 MHz) o SXGA (1280 × 1024) @ 85 Hz with GTF blanking (159 MHz) o WXGA+ (1440 x 900) @ 60 Hz (107 MHz) o WQUXGA (3840 × 2400) @ 17 Hz (164 MHz) * Example display modes (dual link): o QXGA (2048 × 1536) @ 75 Hz with GTF blanking (2 × 170 MHz) o HDTV (1920 × 1080) @ 85 Hz with GTF blanking (2 × 126 MHz) o WUXGA (1920 x 1200) @ 120 Hz with GTF (2 x 154 MHz) o WQXGA (2560 × 1600) @ 60 Hz with GTF blanking (2 × 174 MHz) (30-inch (762 mm) Apple, Dell, Gateway, HP, NEC, Quinux, and Samsung LCDs) o WQXGA (2560 × 1600) @ 60 Hz with CVT-RB blanking (2 × 135 MHz) (30-inch (762 mm) Apple, Dell, Gateway, HP, NEC, Quinux, and Samsung LCDs) o WQUXGA (3840 × 2400) @ 33 Hz with GTF blanking (2 × 159 MHz) [/quote] As confirmed by Wikipedia.
I favorite is that plasmas have been around 500hz since they were first made. They operate much faster than lcds for the fact that they turn of completely to get blacks. If you had only 60 hz for a plasma it would look like crap.
[QUOTE=Java Llama;18613142]Ive noticed all of a sudden tons of 600 Hz tvs. At first i thought it was manufacturers trying to gyp uninformed customer. Then i noticed just about all TVs had that on it. So if someone could explain what technological breakthrough happened and slipped by me it would be appreciated.[/QUOTE] not all of a sudden, and not tons. Plasmas. and only plasmas. Because of the way they get the picture on the screen. it's not really 600Hz, it's just the method in how they do it, so don't expect a 600FPS limit or anything like that. the actual refresh rate is 60 Hz. [editline]01:18PM[/editline] [QUOTE=sbradford26;18648710]I favorite is that plasmas have been around 500hz since they were first made. They operate much faster than lcds for the fact that they turn of completely to get blacks. If you had only 60 hz for a plasma it would look like crap.[/QUOTE] plasmas don't actually operate that fast, and the refresh rate has nothing to do with blackness. [editline]01:25PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Ajacks;18620019]The reason 120hz TV's look more fluid it [b]removes motion blur[/b], which often can ruin the cinematic feeling of a movie, but improves things like sports and animation.[/QUOTE] 100% correct. there's technically no such thing as a consumer level 120Hz TV. both plasma and LCD use software which theoretically doubles the refresh rate because of the method they use to smooth out the video, but the refresh rate displayed on the screen and the refresh rate you will be seeing is still 60Hz at the most. with DLP, some are marked 120Hz, and for an entirely different purpose. DLPs technically only show half of the image at once, and due to wobulation (a mirror or lens flips back and forth between the left and the right side of the screen), it sort of flickers between the two sides. DLPs do not use smoothing, and that 120Hz is there so you can get an effective 60Hz. they literally can operate at 120Hz, but only so that you can see 60Hz/60FPS. you still see a full 1920x1080 image, but if you were to slow it down enough you'd see one 960x1080 image at a time. [editline]01:27PM[/editline] 120Hz LCD monitors not marked 120Hz for smoothing are also still technically 60Hz. they're marked at 120Hz for 3D purposes, so that you can see 60 frames per second in 3D. currently you can get one from Samsung.
[QUOTE=BmB;18639232]That isn't something that is added btw, that is a result of shutter speed.[/QUOTE] Ho can people not know this? Seriously, when i go outside and film some shit, i don't "add" motion blur to it.
There is a difference between 60hz and 120hz on an object in motion. There are much lower returns the higher you go. The main points of a high refresh rate are to improve the clarity of objects in motion and to avoid interpolation in movie content. A movie is 24fps so you want a number that divides evenly into it to prevent any interpolation. A CRT is still better for motion. It also has no input delay. I just wish they didn't turn green as they aged. [img]http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/7849/screenshotpixperanallcowj0.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=M_B;18648754]not all of a sudden, and not tons. Plasmas. and only plasmas. Because of the way they get the picture on the screen. it's not really 600Hz, it's just the method in how they do it, so don't expect a 600FPS limit or anything like that. the actual refresh rate is 60 Hz. [editline]01:18PM[/editline] plasmas don't actually operate that fast, and the refresh rate has nothing to do with blackness. [editline]01:25PM[/editline] 100% correct. there's technically no such thing as a consumer level 120Hz TV. both plasma and LCD use software which theoretically doubles the refresh rate because of the method they use to smooth out the video, but the refresh rate displayed on the screen and the refresh rate you will be seeing is still 60Hz at the most. with DLP, some are marked 120Hz, and for an entirely different purpose. DLPs technically only show half of the image at once, and due to wobulation (a mirror or lens flips back and forth between the left and the right side of the screen), it sort of flickers between the two sides. DLPs do not use smoothing, and that 120Hz is there so you can get an effective 60Hz. they literally can operate at 120Hz, but only so that you can see 60Hz/60FPS. you still see a full 1920x1080 image, but if you were to slow it down enough you'd see one 960x1080 image at a time. [editline]01:27PM[/editline] [/quote] Image rate and blacks have nothing to do with lcds but plasmas are completely different. For the fact that a black screen the screen is off. That is the way plasmas get blacks. So if they had a low frame rate you would notice the black images but with a higher frame rate you don't see them.
[QUOTE=4RT1LL3RY;18649629]There is a difference between 60hz and 120hz on an object in motion. There are much lower returns the higher you go. The main points of a high refresh rate are to improve the clarity of objects in motion and to avoid interpolation in movie content. A movie is 24fps so you want a number that divides evenly into it to prevent any interpolation. A CRT is still better for motion. It also has no input delay. I just wish they didn't turn green as they aged. [img]http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/7849/screenshotpixperanallcowj0.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Must be a really crappy LCD screen if it looks like that.
It's like when you buy an amplifier, they multiply the watts with the number of speaker ports.
my friend says you can't see a difference between 22 and 42 FPS. Laugh at him naow.
What is it with people confusing Hz and FPS in this thread. A 60Hz monitor redraws the screen 60 times per second or once every ~17ms regardless of the framerate of whatever is being displayed, although the framerate cannot exceed the refresh rate, so in this case 60FPS is the maximum. Refresh rates range from about 48-120Hz depending on the aplication, 60Hz is the most common for monitors, some people notice some flicker at around 60Hz or below which can cause eye strain, so higher refresh rates generally reduce eye strain although above about 90Hz any flicker is completely undetectable by the eye. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refresh_rate[/url]
[QUOTE=paul simon;18616849]Why not? :p I want to see how fluid it'll look, it'd be kinda interesting[/QUOTE] Fluid as in no frame tearing? Or fluid as in more frames? because there is a certain point where it doesn't matter how many more frames you add in a second.
[QUOTE=Squad;18685107]Fluid as in no frame tearing? Or fluid as in more frames? because there is a certain point where it doesn't matter how many more frames you add in a second.[/QUOTE] That "certain point" is different depending on what you're looking at.
[QUOTE=taipan;18624351]1: Differrent colours are being processed at differrent framerates in your eyes (Tough eyes don't work with framerates but this is one way of explaining it) [/QUOTE] [img]http://i62.photobucket.com/albums/h91/Chilapox3/tougheyes.png?t=1259719505[/img]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.