To be clearer, higher refresh rates provide better headroom for low-Hz strobing.MaximilianKohler wrote: ↑27 May 2020, 01:492. I was wanting to get a MBR (motion blur reduction) monitor, but it sounds like I'd just be trading blur for stuttering. And according to the The Amazing Human Visible Feats Of The Millisecond 144hz monitors may be preferable to 240hz monitors for MBR? And since 240hz reduces motion blur more than 144hz, it's probably best for now to just get a 240hz monitor for reduced motion blur.
120Hz strobing on a 240Hz panel has less strobe crosstalk than 120Hz strobing on a 144Hz panel. The extra refresh rate headroom reduces strobe crosstalk.
There are pros/cons.
For low latency-priority strobing, use 240Hz strobing at 240Hz.
For low crosstalk-priority strobing, strobe at a Hz well below max Hz.
Don't adjust WIndows sensitivity, always keep it in center setting!
The rule of thumb for smooth strobed mouseturns (ULMB, ELMB, DyAc) is the High-Middle-Low rule:
- High DPI in mouse drivers
- Middle sensitivity setting in Windows Control Panel
- Low sensitivity setting in Video Game Settings
If mouse arrow is still too fast in Windows, you will want to dynamically change your DPI when you exit your game.
Agreed. The mouse guide is written by a guest writer, and dates back to year 2014. But yes, it does need to be updated with strobe-optimized mouse-dpi.
Context. It's not necessarily false but it is a very complex "depends" situation; that also is cognizant of different human pickinesses as well as technological factors.
For example, there are those nitpicky situations where some 240Hz panels have overdrive that is a tiny bit worse (like literally only 1% worse) than 144Hz panels. Especially on the date when this thread was originally posted more than a year ago. Most people could not see those differences, but some could. The 240Hz benefits outweighed the ultra-slightly worse overdrive that was found on many panels. For some people, it is a very noticeable problem, and for others, it is not noticeable. Also there are many other complex interacting factors. It's best not to make assumptions based on only my replies, as there are many different contexts. Just as a person might see tearing more clearly than others, others see stutters more clearly than others, and yet others sees overdrive issues more clearly than others.
The reasons indicated are separate from the reasons I wrote recently. This is a very long, very old thread, with over one hundred replies, so it's easy to lose track, get confused, and see things out of context.
This thread has outlived it usefulness, and my recommendation to newbies is to ignore this thread -- because lots of things have changed since the original date that this thread was posted on. But, it remains, because a few still see some flaws. This thread is more trouble than it is worth for new readers.
I will put a big red disclaimer box, or move this thread to the Off Topic forum, because it's a "nit pick" thread that highlights overdrive flaws on many early 240Hz panels (completely unrelated to things like stutter flaws).
See LCD Motion Artifacts and LCD Overdrive Artifacts. Things can simultaneously improve/worsen at the same time. For example, motion blur may reduce but overdrive artifacts might become worse. Or that colors improve but ghosting become worse. Or ghosting improves but colors become worse. And sometimes the differences are literally like 1% differences to some people, while for others they scream like it's a 2x-worse difference. And know the VSYNC ON versus VSYNC OFF wars -- lag versus tearing -- sometimes people are much more sensitive to tearing than the lag or vice versa (even for offline games where lag is not important). There are literally dozens of different warring preferences.
Not really, but my most famous Blur Busters Advanced Explainers / Articles are in the Area51 category, www.blurbusters.com/category/area51-display-research/
But they only barely scratch the surface of the complexity of display nuances.
I continue to write more. But one thing at a time. It almost feels like that there is not enough hours in my lifetime to explain it all, so I have to cherrypick the best Blur Busters battles.
Additional articles (many of them) need to be written just to explain the nuances of the display universe.
That's kind of out of context.
For VSYNC ON, 120fps at 120Hz looks definitely better than 120fps at 120Hz.
For VSYNC OFF, 120fps at 120Hz looks smoother (if you prefer smoother) but has that tearline problem (if you hate that more)
So, correct clarification is "For a person using VSYNC OFF, and hates lingering/vibrating/stationary VSYNC OFF tearlines, 100fps at 120Hz can look better than 120fps at 120Hz for this specific person". Context is critical.
Again, this thread has outlived its usefuless for most newbies although this thread still remains for advanced users who have lots of familiarity with many display nuances, and are wondering why a small subsection of population (Remember: happy users don't post, so forum posts are disproportionately overweighted with dissatisfactions).MaximilianKohler wrote: ↑27 May 2020, 01:49The other links you put at the end seem very technical and/or don't seem like they would answer the question of why 240hz would only be good at 240+ FPS (according to my tests it seems the opposite is true - which I understand now is due to the specific divisor/multiple instead of "lower").
I am going to action on downgrading this thread because it just confuses too many users needlessly with a mix of outdated info / unclear info / confusing info in the middle of useful information.