The Big Bad Console Thread - Sway your Station with an Xboner !

That stupid argument always comes up, that most people can't see over 60 fps. Then some other person will come in with new findings that says they can, because rods differ from cones etc.
Here's what I know, there is a visible difference in the smoothness of gameplay over 60fps. Where the acutel threshold is for when it stops making a difference, I have no fucking clue.

If your monitor is 60hz then to stop screen tearing you have to put Vsynch on, so you are stuck at 60fps.
If you have a 120hz monitor, then you can put Vsynch on and still play over 60fps.

That's just one part of it tho. When you turn/strafe a character on a 60hz monitor with a 1ms refresh rate, there is visible blurring not matter how many FPS you are getting.
On a 120hz monitor, and this is why they have become the FPS standard in monitors, when you turn it is silky smooth because of the frame doubling.

If anyone remembers how smooth the old CRTS were, this is exactly how the new 120-144hz monitors are now.

The biggest problem by far with Plasmas is the best refresh rate you can get is 30ms. That is a full frame of fucking lag, that effects any type of game you play besides turn based JRPGS.
The lowest they could get it to on AVS was 16.9ms using a game mode, which degrades the picture quality for a higher refresh rate.

Vaclav_sl said:

No.... you.... can't.....

I've been literally labelled as "superhuman" for being able to detect 77 fps (that's the exact threshold they quoted me) from the one of the best Eye Departments in the world - Wilmer Eye at John's Hopkins - with some pretty in depth testing due to my odd genetics and more so because my eyes are the OPPOSITE of what the odd genetics are supposed to do to my eyes. (I was born with 40/20 - and my eyes are past 16/20 at this point - they estimate 12/20 but they don't have formalized testing equipment that goes that low so it was fast and dirty - of the other 1000 or so tracked cases of oculodigitaldental dysplasia everyone else has had degrading vision over their life and often cataracts as well by my age, whereas mine continued to improve through my late 20's and are holding solid through my 30's with zero warning signs).

If 77 fps is considered superhuman, than you've literally got probably the best eyes on the planet if you're telling the truth - which you're clearly not.

That's not to say you might not experience different eye strain or something under different monitor hz conditions (they tested me at up to 1400 hz - I was quickly getting a migraine, but visually the image looked no different than the others they compared against [it was static at those hz though]) - but that's "feeling" not image quality.

Click to expand...

I was going off some testing I did 10 years ago back when I used to play professional CS. Out of boredom, me and my bro rigged up some tests to see if we could tell the difference between various frame rates. I was able to tell the difference between 90 and 120 fps around 90% of the time. As you say, I was probably noticing a difference in eye strain or something, and not a difference in frame rate.

So do those monitors not work the same way that TVs do? I ask because I know the 120 and 240 hz in lcd/led tvs is bullshit and can actually make pictures look worse seeing as how it is subing fake frames.

Yes, its different.

sebur_sl said:

So do those monitors not work the same way that TVs do? I ask because I know the 120 and 240 hz in lcd/led tvs is bullshit and can actually make pictures look worse seeing as how it is subing fake frames.

Click to expand...

Video and TV have a set number of frames recorded. Imagine an old film reel, or open up a video file in a video editor. If your TV is going to show more frames than that, it has to "guess" what those frames are supposed to look like. Ie fake frames.

When you're playing a video game, the frames are created by your console/PC based on the game engine, so there is no guesswork going on. Every frame created will be "correct". You can theoretically have a gazillion correct frames per second if your computer is strong enough and your screen has a gazillion hz.

there are some fascinating things you can do with some of the new 120hz IPS panels in regards to Lightboost. I have one but haven't messed around with it much yet, people are confabulating motion blur, which is a real and totally visible thing, with the difference in how visible refresh rates are. You can read more about it here:
http://www.blurbusters.com/zero-motion-blur/lightboost/

for an example, here are three images

60hz:


120hz:


120hz with lightboost (one strobe per refresh):



"600hz plasmas" are 10 field, 60hz displays so while they are good at short burst refresh not really sure they qualify as low motion blur displays. They are great for kicking back 10 feet away and watching stuff or playing games, but the difference in IQ and motion blur is night and day between the two, irrespective of viewing distances. Its just way too expensive to go above 30" for 120hz IPS, but hopefully 60"+ 4k OLEDs start going into mass production next year?

I have lightboost on my Asus 144hz. Its the closest thing I've seen to the old crts.

Yeah, my Plasma looks like the third pic - the 120hz with lightboost. It pretty much has 0 motion blur. It's not a 600hz Plasma. It's a 2500 FFD Plasma.

I didn't know the 120hz IPS panels were out. Who makes a monitor with them? I still prefer a 60hz IPS panel the 120hz TN's.

Holy shit, that picture is crazy. That certain makes a lot of sense about the frames and I suppose I was thinking of it still in TV/film/set frames terms and not the gaming side of it. As much as I am in to reading about all the tech behind tvs and laughing at a lot of it, I have been completely neglecting looking in to monitor tech and this has certainly intrigued me. Thanks for the information.

edit- So I just looked at that article and if I am reading it correctly it basically flashes the backlight then turns it off between refreshes to make the motion blur go away....is this correct?

Taking it the same sebur - makes me wonder how that test might actually be different today that they put me through (it was 2003) - I can logically see how results might vary with a tech like that versus 2003 monitor tech like they had been using then. Perhaps I was wrong to say absolutely not. I'm very intrigued to "test drive" one with my eyes sometime. (Although likely not soon, our monitors kick ass for us right now)

Trannies gonna tranny:Xbox One Presenter Humiliated Me on Stage, Says Transgender Journalist

So people apologized but she wanted to confront the comedian directly and was upset the people wouldn't bring him out himself. How silly.

sean what console are you going to get so i know which one is better?

TecKnoe_sl said:

sean what console are you going to get so i know which one is better?

Click to expand...

WiiU.

Sean_sl said:

WiiU.

Click to expand...

cmon bro my phone has more rpms, than the wiiu.

khalid_sl said:

So people apologized but she wanted to confront the comedian directly and was upset the people wouldn't bring him out himself. How silly.

Click to expand...

They were sorry she was offended. They didn't apologize about the actual content of his schtick. That's a pretty significant difference. Still, it's silly to think they would bring him out to help escalate a situation, heh.

So comedians can make fun of ugly people, but not if the ugly people are some subset of a special ugly people community? That ain't right.

Also,

PS4ggots.