Honestly, at normal play speeds you're not going to be able to see the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz or anything higher than 60... Anyone that says they can is lying to you. Most of the time, it's the same as it is with gamers that have boners from being able to play Crisis at 300 frames per second... that's great, but your eyes cannot physically DETECT 300 frames per second, let alone 80 or even 75. It's all marketing..
Honestly, at normal play speeds you're not going to be able to see the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz or anything higher than 60... Anyone that says they can is lying to you. Most of the time, it's the same as it is with gamers that have boners from being able to play Crisis at 300 frames per second... that's great, but your eyes cannot physically DETECT 300 frames per second, let alone 80 or even 75. It's all marketing..
I've been arguing this since tv's started to come out with 120hz or more; however, someone pointed me to an article that some people can see above 60hz, but I still don't buy it...
This will be primarily for console gaming (I know) so I won't be running any benchmarks to make my pants tight...or brag about...
I will say that on our other tv, you can actually see the ball "track" better with baseball and football but I'm not sure if that's due to the high refresh rate or just the processor itself...dunno.
More of an audio guy myself so all this is a bit greek to me.
Anyone know anything about TV refresh rates (more than the average consumer)?
Looking into a TV (that I don't need) but want to get more info on 60 vs 120hz. We got a 3d TV a while back and my bro keeps telling me that gaming (at least on MW2 and games alike) appear to have input lag more so than the 60hz (tv is 240hz). He doesn't notice it with battlefield but does with other games.
Anyway, since PS3 only plays at 60hz, it it worth getting the 120hz? Our 3d tv makes scenes looks fake at times and not sure I care for that "auto motion" crap anyway, simply looking for a bigger tv than the 40 I already have.
In theory, you really shouldn't need anything much faster than 30hz. That's about the threshold where the brain makes the distinction between looking at a bunch of individual still pictures, and motion.
Video games are a little different, because you're interacting with the motion. There's added issues of latency and consistency that can really mess with how things 'feel'. The refresh rate of the display is going just about nothing to do with it though (provided it's at least 30 hz). How the game is programmed and the content it's trying to display is really what effects all that.
Basically, I would be extremely skeptical that anything above 60hz has any meaningful, perceivable effect.
That said, I've never sat down and looked at a 60hz and 120hz TV side-by-side.
In theory, you really shouldn't need anything much faster than 30hz. That's about the threshold where the brain makes the distinction between looking at a bunch of individual still pictures, and motion.
Video games are a little different, because you're interacting with the motion. There's added issues of latency and consistency that can really mess with how things 'feel'. The refresh rate of the display is going just about nothing to do with it though (provided it's at least 30 hz). How the game is programmed and the content it's trying to display is really what effects all that.
Basically, I would be extremely skeptical that anything above 60hz has any meaningful, perceivable effect.
That said, I've never sat down and looked at a 60hz and 120hz TV side-by-side.
Ahhh, interesting; I'm going to have to setup the PS3 on the 240hz tv and see if I can actually "feel" the difference. As far as seeing the difference, there is one, however, I do not like (it was cool, at first) how things start to look artificial on the 120hz or higher tv's.
that is learning. half of your adult life you'll have to b.s. your way through things.
A while back my supervisor tried to write me up. I handed him my written response and he looked at me and said, "that was really well written". Then he dropped the write up.
You guys see confusing FPS and hz the brain can only process about 30 fps any over that is waste. How that translates to screen refresh rate is beyond me though.
__________________
2010 YZF-R6 Blue Street Cruiser
In theory, you really shouldn't need anything much faster than 30hz. That's about the threshold where the brain makes the distinction between looking at a bunch of individual still pictures, and motion.
Video games are a little different, because you're interacting with the motion. There's added issues of latency and consistency that can really mess with how things 'feel'. The refresh rate of the display is going just about nothing to do with it though (provided it's at least 30 hz). How the game is programmed and the content it's trying to display is really what effects all that.
Basically, I would be extremely skeptical that anything above 60hz has any meaningful, perceivable effect.
That said, I've never sat down and looked at a 60hz and 120hz TV side-by-side.
I have... Side by side, watching the same thing, especially in faster motions in video games and sports(like ball travel), you can see a smoother transition due to the higher processor speed. Now, what I've always told customers, and anyone buying a TV is, you won't have a wall of TV's at home, to compare whatever you buy to. So choose what best fits your price range and enjoy. A faster processor like your 120hz+ are insanely fast. Me personally, I see no reason to go anywhere above 120hz, even that is practically overkill. But as I said, you won't tell a difference when it is the only TV in the room.
Side by side comparisons are quite different. As usual, you get what you pay for. If you will use your TV EVERY day for hours at a time for gaming, watching sports, movies, etc, why not spring for a bit nicer set-up? If you feel you won't use is as much as would warrant the cost, why pay more?
A while back my supervisor tried to write me up. I handed him my written response and he looked at me and said, "that was really well written". Then he dropped the write up.
You guys see confusing FPS and hz the brain can only process about 30 fps any over that is waste. How that translates to screen refresh rate is beyond me though.
The refresh rate on a display is essentially the hard-wired "frames per second" of the display hardware. If a display is running at 30 hz, every 33 milliseconds, it's going to take whatever is in video memory, and show it on the screen. (It's actually a little more complicated than that, but for our purposes, it's a reasonable enough definition.)
FPS is essentially the rate at which you're updating video memory. For TV, or DVDs and such, this is also essentially hard-wired, either on the disc/DVD decoding or in the broadcast standard. If your 'fps' doesn't match your devices refresh rate - you'll either be displaying some frames twice (no big deal), or if the display is slower than the source, you'll end up with dropped frames, which is no good and things will start to look jumpy. There's plenty of movies shot at 24p because that's an old standard from mechanical cameras that a lot of directors think feels more 'cinematic'. I don't really understand the logic of 240hz TVs when a lot of your source material only changes at 24 hz.
For video games, it's different because the FPS isn't locked to an update time. Every frame takes a different amount of time to draw, depending on what's going on in-game. You're also sampling input, and effecting the 'world' based on that. Ideally, you want to be running at greater than 30fps, so everything looks like smooth motion, but you also don't want huge discrepancies in the time it takes to draw any given frame, or things start to feel really janky, input feels really inconsistent, etc.
Linear Mode
