lol dude, you live in the stone age. They haven't made an LCD that still ghosts in the last 5+ years.
Well I was going to post in this thread this morning but I didn't. While I wouldn't go so far as to word it like this .. I don't know what the OP was using for a monitor besides it was an Asus... how old it .. the model it was etc
I know for work (we run a business out of the house and all we do is custom textures, animations etc) I personally use two monitors.
Just to make it short, one is a Samsung 22" with a 2ms response time and the other is a Dell 23" with a 5ms response time.
From work to videos to gaming I have never had any ghosting etc on either of these monitors. The only issue I have ever seen is taking certain videos from their native playback size and stretching them to full screen.
Videos etc in situations that natively support the full ress 1920x1080 (wide) as an example on the dell never show any issue. This is still never ghosting tho.. when you stretch some videos you will get more of a blotchy effect but that's just due to what you did to a video that wasn't intended to be done. video play back in games or "native" playback mode always look fine. Not sure I explain this well but overall just take it as meaning I don't have any issue with either of these monitors.
I have seen issues on LCD's when people changed certain settings in display settings that aren't supported by LCD's... oddly enough on some LCD's if you actually change the refresh rate in your vid settings to higher than 60hz eventually you will have issues. I'm not sure I can explain why.. its just something i have actually seen to the point that some monitors would actually exhibit burn in of images... and that hasn't been a problem with monitors for a very long time.
However, if you think you are seeing something... that's just how its going to work for your personally.. and you are going to have to find a solution you are comfortable with.
i have the same problem with LCDs, i've been tempted to go back to my 21inch crt for a while. its not the refresh rate that bothers you (and me), its the ms rating. all LCDs have high ms rates compaired to crts and even plasmas. it causes the "ghosting" effect thats ruining our eyes. when objects pan or move side to side they start to blur. alot of ppl dont even notice or care. but obviously some can and do:) i stopped playing fps when i got my first lcd and haven't really gone back since. i can't stand the bluring. i can't wait for oleds, heard those should be near perfect. and i don't think lcds can improve beyond what they are b4 they become oleds. i wont buy another monitor unless its well under 1ms. like .02ms responce time:P
lol dude, you live in the stone age. They haven't made an LCD that still ghosts in the last 5+ years.
like i said, alot of ppl dont even notice or care.
i grew up with crts, started my fps with wolfenstien3d (caveman? sure i guess. how old are you, dude? 12? proud?). i used to compete in quake tournaments. Thresh is still my hero. responce times mean alot to me.
maybe ghosting was the wrong term and i should have just stayed with blurring or said streaking maybe. try to read text as it moves side to side either in a game or while moving a window. lcds can't display a moving object without losing crispness and or detail. they kick ass with displaying stationary objects tho
whats the lowest ms time of an lcd? 4ms? 2ms? i have a syncmaster 275t, it's response time is 6ms. plasmas and crts are nearly none-existant; 0.02ms as an example.
6 or 4 or even 2ms compaired to 0.02ms, makes a difference. to some ppl atleast.
Originally posted by whozthisguy like i said, alot of ppl dont even notice or care. i grew up with crts, started my fps with wolfenstien3d (caveman? sure i guess. how old are you, dude? 12? proud?). i used to compete in quake tournaments. Thresh is still my hero. responce times mean alot to me. maybe ghosting was the wrong term and i should have just stayed with blurring or said streaking maybe. try to read text as it moves side to side either in a game or while moving a window. lcds can't display a moving object without losing crispness and or detail. they kick ass with displaying stationary objects tho whats the lowest ms time of an lcd? 4ms? 2ms? i have a syncmaster 275t, it's response time is 6ms. plasmas and crts are nearly none-existant; 0.02ms as an example. 6 or 4 or even 2ms compaired to 0.02ms, makes a difference. to some ppl atleast.
I bet you are the person who can notice the difference between 30 and 100 FPS too.
like i said, alot of ppl dont even notice or care.
i grew up with crts, started my fps with wolfenstien3d (caveman? sure i guess. how old are you, dude? 12? proud?). i used to compete in quake tournaments. Thresh is still my hero. responce times mean alot to me.
maybe ghosting was the wrong term and i should have just stayed with blurring or said streaking maybe. try to read text as it moves side to side either in a game or while moving a window. lcds can't display a moving object without losing crispness and or detail. they kick ass with displaying stationary objects tho
whats the lowest ms time of an lcd? 4ms? 2ms? i have a syncmaster 275t, it's response time is 6ms. plasmas and crts are nearly none-existant; 0.02ms as an example.
6 or 4 or even 2ms compaired to 0.02ms, makes a difference. to some ppl atleast.
I bet you are the person who can notice the difference between 30 and 100 FPS too.
You would have to be blind to not notice the difference between 30 and 100 fps.
Please don't tell me you believe that old "the eyes can't detect over 30 fps" trope. Because it's flat wrong.
Edit: whozthisguy, the Syncmaster 275t is a massive monitor from a few years ago. I'm willing to bet that if you got an LCD monitor today (possibly at a somewhat smaller size) you wouldn't have the issues you're having. I can read moving text quite clearly on my LCD monitor.
You would have to be blind to not notice the difference between 30 and 100 fps.
No, you would need to be some kind of cyborg to consciously register more than 24 FPS...
It's flat truth.
While the human brain only registers 24 frames per second, it is found that up to 60 frames a second can improve visuals because it reduces the chance of the eye catching refresh shots between the frames.
Despite this, if you are getting fps over 60 then you are overdoing it because the brain will not see the difference as any benefit is lost after this point.
For reference: Cartoons run at 24fps, cinema at 50fps, and television at 60fps. (some slightly different)
You would have to be blind to not notice the difference between 30 and 100 fps.
No, you would need to be some kind of cyborg to consciously register more than 24 FPS...
It's flat truth.
While the human brain only registers 24 frames per second, it is found that up to 60 frames a second can improve visuals because it reduces the chance of the eye catching refresh shots between the frames.
Despite this, if you are getting fps over 60 then you are overdoing it because the brain will not see the difference as any benefit is lost after this point.
There is no functional limit on the framerate that the brain can register because neither the brain nor the eye works in frames. It is a purely technological concept.
You would have to be blind to not notice the difference between 30 and 100 fps.
No, you would need to be some kind of cyborg to consciously register more than 24 FPS...
It's flat truth.
While the human brain only registers 24 frames per second, it is found that up to 60 frames a second can improve visuals because it reduces the chance of the eye catching refresh shots between the frames.
Despite this, if you are getting fps over 60 then you are overdoing it because the brain will not see the difference as any benefit is lost after this point.
There is no functional limit on the framerate that the brain can register because neither the brain nor the eye works in frames. It is a purely technological concept.
At the very least, read the two links I posted.
the brain constructs images using multiple images from different views... it does this refresh rate of multiple images at 24 fps... this is why cartoons run at this speed, because it is simply a waste of time to make more frames.
And yes I read the links... neither more reliable than the stack of science magazines and 4 years of a bachelor of science.
You would have to be blind to not notice the difference between 30 and 100 fps.
No, you would need to be some kind of cyborg to consciously register more than 24 FPS...
It's flat truth.
While the human brain only registers 24 frames per second, it is found that up to 60 frames a second can improve visuals because it reduces the chance of the eye catching refresh shots between the frames.
Despite this, if you are getting fps over 60 then you are overdoing it because the brain will not see the difference as any benefit is lost after this point.
There is no functional limit on the framerate that the brain can register because neither the brain nor the eye works in frames. It is a purely technological concept.
At the very least, read the two links I posted.
the brain constructs images using multiple images from different views... it does this refresh rate of multiple images at 24 fps... this is why cartoons run at this speed, because it is simply a waste of time to make more frames.
And yes I read the links... neither more reliable than the stack of science magazines and 4 years of a bachelor of science.
You are simply wrong, and it's sad that you state it so confidently.
Edit: You do realize that part of HDTV's quality is the fact that it runs at a higher framerate?
You do realize that the frame rate that cartoons run it has everything to do with the animation standards and absolutely nothing to do with human physiology?
Please scan me some of those science magazines with the information you claim to be true.
I better go get my biology text books out and look through the thousand pages to find the mistakes... because your random internet searches must be more reliable than a university text book.
If you read any of your searches you would find all relate to the motion blur effect to artificially trick the mind... not how many frames the brain sees
I better go get my biology text books out and look through the thousand pages to find the mistakes... because your random internet searches must be more reliable than a university text book.
If you read any of your searches you would find all relate to the motion blur effect to artificially trick the mind... not how many frames the brain sees
Oh hey super you read the first few sentences. Good for you.
Now continue reading to learn why that motion blur effect is used.
Is it really this hard to comprehend that the eye and brain do not process information in frames, and, thus, are not limited to some arbitrary processing limit in regards to them?
Originally posted by haratu While the human brain only registers 24 frames per second
No, human brain does register higher FPS but you won't notice it visualy as movement.
That is the reason why people got headache from looking at CRT. While you were unable to visualy see the flickering of the screen, the brain register the flickering causing you headache.
While the human brain only registers 24 frames per second
No, human brain does register higher FPS but you won't notice it visualy as movement.
That is the reason why people got headache from looking at CRT. While you were unable to visualy see the flickering of the screen, the brain register the flickering causing you headache.
Actually the headache is similar to car/sea sickness ( brain is confused about movement)... as well as eye problems due to focussing difficulties.
I never get headaches even after many hours infront of CRT or low refresh LCDs because I make sure to have something behind the screen to excersize my eyes. And personally i do not get motion sickness.
Doesn't really matter what frame rates you get on a LCD because the refresh rate is usually 60Hz so anything higher isn't even displayed. So you CAN'T tell the difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS on a 60Hz monitor.
In fact, I see a negative effect on my LCD on FPS higher then 70. I get like this weird distortion in the bottom left of my monitor on FPS higher then 70 or so.
Core i7 920 @ 3.8GHz MSI X58 Platinum SLI G.Skill PI Black 3x2GB DDR3-1600 Western Digital CB 500GBx3 Riad-5 VisionTek HD 4870 X2 Corsair 1000HX
Doesn't really matter what frame rates you get on a LCD because the refresh rate is usually 60Hz so anything higher isn't even displayed. So you CAN'T tell the difference between 60 FPS and 120 FPS on a 60Hz monitor.
In fact, I see a negative effect on my LCD on FPS higher then 70. I get like this weird distortion in the bottom left of my monitor on FPS higher then 70 or so.
This, at least, is true, in the case of 60hz LCD monitors. But only because the LCD won't update any faster.
120hz monitors exist, though.
Also, how about a BBC white paper to prove my point? Good enough source material for you?
Originally posted by haratu Actually the headache is similar to car sickness ( brain is confused about movement)... as well as eye problems due to focussing difficulties.
I never get headaches even after many hours infront of CRT or low refresh LCDs because I make sure to have something behind the screen to excersize my eyes.
The reaction to CRT as well as car sickness is individual.
The eye strain caused by flickering is not the same as 'mechanical' like you have when reading or watching LCD for long hours. But that is not a subject to discuss here.
LCD has ZERO refresh rate, it is a diferent technology.
Only thing that might be reffered to refresh rate regarding LCD is the clock speed used to synchronize the data stream between output device and LCD. Then, this frequency has nothing to do with image quality but it representes the bandwith. Higher the freuency, more data is transfered, ie. resulting in higher resolution.
Actually the headache is similar to car sickness ( brain is confused about movement)... as well as eye problems due to focussing difficulties.
I never get headaches even after many hours infront of CRT or low refresh LCDs because I make sure to have something behind the screen to excersize my eyes.
The reaction to CRT as well as car sickness is individual.
The eye strain caused by flickering is not the same as 'mechanical' like you have when reading or watching LCD for long hours.
But that is not a subject to discuss here.
LCD has ZERO refresh rate, it is a diferent technology.
Only thing that might be reffered to refresh rate regarding LCD is the clock speed used to synchronize the data stream between output device and LCD. Then, this frequency has nothing to do with image quality but it representes the bandwith. Higher the freuency, more data is transfered, ie. resulting in higher resolution.
To understand the relation between human eye, FPS and brain, you can look at Subliminal messaging:
Refresh rate, in regards to LCD technology, refers to the rate at which the screen is updated. They do, in fact, have a refresh rate, though it does not cause flicker. Most monitors have a refresh rate of 60hz. Higher end models reach 120 or 240hz. This means, essentially, an upper limit of 120 or 240 frames per second, respectively.
Edit: It's funny that you keep posting without acknowledging that much of your information so far has been wrong.
Originally posted by Tykero Point out what's mixed up, I'd appreciate it.
Why to bother? If you are not able to understand the links you provide, why should I expect you will understand what I am pointing out?
All I can say is this: If you are able to so see 100 FPS as smooth movement, do you mind to tell me what you see when you go to the cinema and watch 24 frame per second movie? (you don't have to reply..)
If you are not able to understand the links you provide, why should I expect you will understand what I am pointing out?
All I can say is this:
If you are able to so see 100 FPS as smooth movement, do you mind to tell me what you see when you go to the cinema and watch 24 frame per second movie?
(you don't have to reply..)
It's really cute the way you back into a corner claiming I don't understand what's being posted but refuse to clarify because, deep down, you realize that you're wrong and I'm right.
But, unlike you, I have information backing me, so I'll humor you.
I see motion blur. Motion blur intentionally included as a result of the filming style to mask the fact that the film is being shown at a low frame rate. Motion blur intentionally induced to simulate real motion. If you actually bothered to read any of those articles, you would see why they talk about motion blur -- because it's relevant to explaining the situation.
Oh, please actually read the link. Don't skim the first few sentences and exclaim "well it doesn't talk about the human eye and frame rates straight away so WELP CLEARLY THAT'S NOT COVERED AT ALL."
P.S. You can't point out what's mixed up because there's nothing mixed up and you know it. Prove me wrong.
LCDs available commercially usually have a refresh rate of 60Hz... this is apparent on any LCD that you may have bought.
Usually televisions deal with higher than 80Hz, the primary reason for this is that they draw more power to do this ( A LOT more power) usually on a computer you would not want to draw that amount of power. Televisions of equivalent size also cost more... something to consider as to whether it really is worth it when a 60Hz is usually good enough (i watch dvds regularly on my 60Hz computer screen and notice no problem).
LCDs also have a response time of 3ms or 5ms... this is actually far more important as it relates to how fast the screen reacts to a signal. Do not confuse this with refresh rate.
LCDs available commercially usually have a refresh rate of 60Hz... this is apparent on any LCD that you may have bought. Usually televisions deal with higher than 80Hz, the primary reason for this is that they draw more power to do this ( A LOT more power) usually on a computer you would not want to draw that amount of power. Televisions of equivalent size also cost more... something to consider as to whether it really is worth it when a 60Hz is usually good enough (i watch dvds regularly on my 60Hz computer screen and notice no problem). LCDs also have a response time of 3ms or 5ms... this is actually far more important as it relates to how fast the screen reacts to a signal. Do not confuse this with refresh rate.
Although this thread has somewhat been hijacked, it was still an interesting read. Id just like to throw my two cents in.
While, i don't have any technical specs, or links or anything other than subjective observation. Personally ive always been able to tell the difference in gaming between say 24~30 fps, and 60. I find 60 far more enjoyable and always make sure my video card is powerful enough to max a game up to that point (with vsync enabled on a lcd monitor it caps at 60, due to the artificial refresh rate or w/e). Now i cant really tell the difference between 60 and higher very much, although i had a friend way back when with a Crt, that ran quake at like 200 or so, it looked a little more liquid, but that may have been subjective. I dont know.
And as for the OP, Currently i am running a Samsung Syncmaster 305T, its a 30 Inch S-PVA monitor, i highly recommend a S-PVA, or IPS type panel, TN type panels rely on a technology called color dithering (interlacing) to generate some types of colors, because they cannot reproduce the entire 24 bit range of color. This is essentially just alternating one pixel between two colors rapidly to generate the color in the middle. Dithering gives me headaches like crazy.
Comments
Well I was going to post in this thread this morning but I didn't. While I wouldn't go so far as to word it like this .. I don't know what the OP was using for a monitor besides it was an Asus... how old it .. the model it was etc
I know for work (we run a business out of the house and all we do is custom textures, animations etc) I personally use two monitors.
Just to make it short, one is a Samsung 22" with a 2ms response time and the other is a Dell 23" with a 5ms response time.
From work to videos to gaming I have never had any ghosting etc on either of these monitors. The only issue I have ever seen is taking certain videos from their native playback size and stretching them to full screen.
Videos etc in situations that natively support the full ress 1920x1080 (wide) as an example on the dell never show any issue. This is still never ghosting tho.. when you stretch some videos you will get more of a blotchy effect but that's just due to what you did to a video that wasn't intended to be done. video play back in games or "native" playback mode always look fine. Not sure I explain this well but overall just take it as meaning I don't have any issue with either of these monitors.
I have seen issues on LCD's when people changed certain settings in display settings that aren't supported by LCD's... oddly enough on some LCD's if you actually change the refresh rate in your vid settings to higher than 60hz eventually you will have issues. I'm not sure I can explain why.. its just something i have actually seen to the point that some monitors would actually exhibit burn in of images... and that hasn't been a problem with monitors for a very long time.
However, if you think you are seeing something... that's just how its going to work for your personally.. and you are going to have to find a solution you are comfortable with.
lol dude, you live in the stone age. They haven't made an LCD that still ghosts in the last 5+ years.
like i said, alot of ppl dont even notice or care.
i grew up with crts, started my fps with wolfenstien3d (caveman? sure i guess. how old are you, dude? 12? proud?). i used to compete in quake tournaments. Thresh is still my hero. responce times mean alot to me.
maybe ghosting was the wrong term and i should have just stayed with blurring or said streaking maybe. try to read text as it moves side to side either in a game or while moving a window. lcds can't display a moving object without losing crispness and or detail. they kick ass with displaying stationary objects tho
whats the lowest ms time of an lcd? 4ms? 2ms? i have a syncmaster 275t, it's response time is 6ms. plasmas and crts are nearly none-existant; 0.02ms as an example.
6 or 4 or even 2ms compaired to 0.02ms, makes a difference. to some ppl atleast.
I bet you are the person who can notice the difference between 30 and 100 FPS too.
I bet you are the person who can notice the difference between 30 and 100 FPS too.
You would have to be blind to not notice the difference between 30 and 100 fps.
Please don't tell me you believe that old "the eyes can't detect over 30 fps" trope. Because it's flat wrong.
Edit: whozthisguy, the Syncmaster 275t is a massive monitor from a few years ago. I'm willing to bet that if you got an LCD monitor today (possibly at a somewhat smaller size) you wouldn't have the issues you're having. I can read moving text quite clearly on my LCD monitor.
-
It's flat truth.
It's flat truth.
http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate#How_many_frames_per_second_can_the_human_eye_see.3F
Oh hey look at that two seconds of google search proved you wrong; funny how that works.
-
It's flat truth.
While the human brain only registers 24 frames per second, it is found that up to 60 frames a second can improve visuals because it reduces the chance of the eye catching refresh shots between the frames.
Despite this, if you are getting fps over 60 then you are overdoing it because the brain will not see the difference as any benefit is lost after this point.
For reference: Cartoons run at 24fps, cinema at 50fps, and television at 60fps. (some slightly different)
It's flat truth.
While the human brain only registers 24 frames per second, it is found that up to 60 frames a second can improve visuals because it reduces the chance of the eye catching refresh shots between the frames.
Despite this, if you are getting fps over 60 then you are overdoing it because the brain will not see the difference as any benefit is lost after this point.
There is no functional limit on the framerate that the brain can register because neither the brain nor the eye works in frames. It is a purely technological concept.
At the very least, read the two links I posted.
-
It's flat truth.
While the human brain only registers 24 frames per second, it is found that up to 60 frames a second can improve visuals because it reduces the chance of the eye catching refresh shots between the frames.
Despite this, if you are getting fps over 60 then you are overdoing it because the brain will not see the difference as any benefit is lost after this point.
There is no functional limit on the framerate that the brain can register because neither the brain nor the eye works in frames. It is a purely technological concept.
At the very least, read the two links I posted.
the brain constructs images using multiple images from different views... it does this refresh rate of multiple images at 24 fps... this is why cartoons run at this speed, because it is simply a waste of time to make more frames.
And yes I read the links... neither more reliable than the stack of science magazines and 4 years of a bachelor of science.
It's flat truth.
While the human brain only registers 24 frames per second, it is found that up to 60 frames a second can improve visuals because it reduces the chance of the eye catching refresh shots between the frames.
Despite this, if you are getting fps over 60 then you are overdoing it because the brain will not see the difference as any benefit is lost after this point.
There is no functional limit on the framerate that the brain can register because neither the brain nor the eye works in frames. It is a purely technological concept.
At the very least, read the two links I posted.
the brain constructs images using multiple images from different views... it does this refresh rate of multiple images at 24 fps... this is why cartoons run at this speed, because it is simply a waste of time to make more frames.
And yes I read the links... neither more reliable than the stack of science magazines and 4 years of a bachelor of science.
You are simply wrong, and it's sad that you state it so confidently.
http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html
Edit: You do realize that part of HDTV's quality is the fact that it runs at a higher framerate?
You do realize that the frame rate that cartoons run it has everything to do with the animation standards and absolutely nothing to do with human physiology?
Please scan me some of those science magazines with the information you claim to be true.
-
I better go get my biology text books out and look through the thousand pages to find the mistakes... because your random internet searches must be more reliable than a university text book.
If you read any of your searches you would find all relate to the motion blur effect to artificially trick the mind... not how many frames the brain sees
Also the first link is very badly written or the person is some retard because he mixes things up...
Also the first link is very badly written or the person is some retard because he mixes things up...
I understand quite well what's written there.
Perhaps you don't.
Point out what's mixed up, I'd appreciate it.
-
Oh hey super you read the first few sentences. Good for you.
Now continue reading to learn why that motion blur effect is used.
Is it really this hard to comprehend that the eye and brain do not process information in frames, and, thus, are not limited to some arbitrary processing limit in regards to them?
-
That is the reason why people got headache from looking at CRT. While you were unable to visualy see the flickering of the screen, the brain register the flickering causing you headache.
That is the reason why people got headache from looking at CRT. While you were unable to visualy see the flickering of the screen, the brain register the flickering causing you headache.
Actually the headache is similar to car/sea sickness ( brain is confused about movement)... as well as eye problems due to focussing difficulties.
I never get headaches even after many hours infront of CRT or low refresh LCDs because I make sure to have something behind the screen to excersize my eyes. And personally i do not get motion sickness.
Core i7 920 @ 3.8GHz
MSI X58 Platinum SLI
G.Skill PI Black 3x2GB DDR3-1600
Western Digital CB 500GBx3 Riad-5
VisionTek HD 4870 X2
Corsair 1000HX
This, at least, is true, in the case of 60hz LCD monitors. But only because the LCD won't update any faster.
120hz monitors exist, though.
Also, how about a BBC white paper to prove my point? Good enough source material for you?
http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/whp/whp-pdf-files/WHP169.pdf
Abstract from the paper:
"The frame and field rates that have been used for television since the 1930s
cause problems for motion portrayal, which are increasingly evident on the large,
high-resolution television displays that are now common. In this paper we report
on a programme of experimental work that successfully demonstrated the
advantages of higher frame rate capture and display as a means of improving the
quality of television systems of all spatial resolutions. We identify additional
benefits from the use of high frame-rate capture for the production of
programmes to be viewed using conventional televisions. We suggest ways to
mitigate some of the production and distribution issues that high frame-rate
television implies."
I won't blame you if you just drop it, but an apology in the form of "you were right, I'm sorry I bought into popular myth" would be lovely.
-
The reaction to CRT as well as car sickness is individual.
The eye strain caused by flickering is not the same as 'mechanical' like you have when reading or watching LCD for long hours.
But that is not a subject to discuss here.
LCD has ZERO refresh rate, it is a diferent technology.
Only thing that might be reffered to refresh rate regarding LCD is the clock speed used to synchronize the data stream between output device and LCD. Then, this frequency has nothing to do with image quality but it representes the bandwith. Higher the freuency, more data is transfered, ie. resulting in higher resolution.
To understand the relation between human eye, FPS and brain, you can look at Subliminal messaging:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_message
The reaction to CRT as well as car sickness is individual.
The eye strain caused by flickering is not the same as 'mechanical' like you have when reading or watching LCD for long hours.
But that is not a subject to discuss here.
LCD has ZERO refresh rate, it is a diferent technology.
Only thing that might be reffered to refresh rate regarding LCD is the clock speed used to synchronize the data stream between output device and LCD. Then, this frequency has nothing to do with image quality but it representes the bandwith. Higher the freuency, more data is transfered, ie. resulting in higher resolution.
To understand the relation between human eye, FPS and brain, you can look at Subliminal messaging:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subliminal_message
Refresh rate, in regards to LCD technology, refers to the rate at which the screen is updated. They do, in fact, have a refresh rate, though it does not cause flicker. Most monitors have a refresh rate of 60hz. Higher end models reach 120 or 240hz. This means, essentially, an upper limit of 120 or 240 frames per second, respectively.
Edit: It's funny that you keep posting without acknowledging that much of your information so far has been wrong.
-
If you are not able to understand the links you provide, why should I expect you will understand what I am pointing out?
All I can say is this:
If you are able to so see 100 FPS as smooth movement, do you mind to tell me what you see when you go to the cinema and watch 24 frame per second movie?
(you don't have to reply..)
If you are not able to understand the links you provide, why should I expect you will understand what I am pointing out?
All I can say is this:
If you are able to so see 100 FPS as smooth movement, do you mind to tell me what you see when you go to the cinema and watch 24 frame per second movie?
(you don't have to reply..)
It's really cute the way you back into a corner claiming I don't understand what's being posted but refuse to clarify because, deep down, you realize that you're wrong and I'm right.
But, unlike you, I have information backing me, so I'll humor you.
I see motion blur. Motion blur intentionally included as a result of the filming style to mask the fact that the film is being shown at a low frame rate. Motion blur intentionally induced to simulate real motion. If you actually bothered to read any of those articles, you would see why they talk about motion blur -- because it's relevant to explaining the situation.
Games generally don't have motion blur.
Edit: Seriously, right now you're saying you're smarter than the people at the BBC.
Oh, please actually read the link. Don't skim the first few sentences and exclaim "well it doesn't talk about the human eye and frame rates straight away so WELP CLEARLY THAT'S NOT COVERED AT ALL."
P.S. You can't point out what's mixed up because there's nothing mixed up and you know it. Prove me wrong.
-
LCDs available commercially usually have a refresh rate of 60Hz... this is apparent on any LCD that you may have bought.
Usually televisions deal with higher than 80Hz, the primary reason for this is that they draw more power to do this ( A LOT more power) usually on a computer you would not want to draw that amount of power. Televisions of equivalent size also cost more... something to consider as to whether it really is worth it when a 60Hz is usually good enough (i watch dvds regularly on my 60Hz computer screen and notice no problem).
LCDs also have a response time of 3ms or 5ms... this is actually far more important as it relates to how fast the screen reacts to a signal. Do not confuse this with refresh rate.
Who are you speaking to here?
-
Although this thread has somewhat been hijacked, it was still an interesting read. Id just like to throw my two cents in.
While, i don't have any technical specs, or links or anything other than subjective observation. Personally ive always been able to tell the difference in gaming between say 24~30 fps, and 60. I find 60 far more enjoyable and always make sure my video card is powerful enough to max a game up to that point (with vsync enabled on a lcd monitor it caps at 60, due to the artificial refresh rate or w/e). Now i cant really tell the difference between 60 and higher very much, although i had a friend way back when with a Crt, that ran quake at like 200 or so, it looked a little more liquid, but that may have been subjective. I dont know.
And as for the OP, Currently i am running a Samsung Syncmaster 305T, its a 30 Inch S-PVA monitor, i highly recommend a S-PVA, or IPS type panel, TN type panels rely on a technology called color dithering (interlacing) to generate some types of colors, because they cannot reproduce the entire 24 bit range of color. This is essentially just alternating one pixel between two colors rapidly to generate the color in the middle. Dithering gives me headaches like crazy.
My thoughts.