superMHL: reaching for 8k at 120Hz

Breaking news in the gaming monitor industry! Press releases, new monitors, rumors. IPS, OLED, 144Hz, G-SYNC, Ultrawides, etc. Submit news you see online!
Edmond

Re: superMHL: reaching for 8k at 120Hz

Post by Edmond » 26 Apr 2015, 03:32

RLBURNSIDE wrote: As an engineer, I put effort where it yields the greatest dividends. Corporations do the same. AAA studios do the same. Indie studios do the same. They go where the money is. There simply isn't enough demand for a game with simpler graphics but ultra high frame rate compared to more complex imagery with a still-decent 60p. Targetting beyond that is diminishing returns, both from a technical perspective, and definitely from a market and engineering perspective. Trust me, HDR is going to make the next gen games look stunning. Mark my words. We're working on it.
Ye, i disagree... a very small % of people have actually tried 120hz, and all of them say its amazing and a huge improvement and they will never go back.
While people who have not tried 120hz, say you cant see more than 60fps. While console gamers say you can see more than 30fps.
Get it? Why your point of view is a misconception?

Also, why do you think people have these nostalgia feelings towards old games, even stuff like doom1/2? Could it have something to do with the fact that they were experienced on 85hz CRTs. Why is Half life 2 so popular? could the way how smooth it ran on the hardware of the time have some part in it? Why doesnt anyone talk about crysis1?
Its not all blind nostalgia. Its legitimate nostalgia because those past experiences were BETTER, and in a not so obvious way.

120hz desktop is also so much easier on the eyes. 120hz MUST become the standard. Everything else we can debate endlessly on.
But the move from 85hz to 60hz was a fucking travesty.

RLBURNSIDE
Posts: 104
Joined: 06 Apr 2015, 16:09

Re: superMHL: reaching for 8k at 120Hz

Post by RLBURNSIDE » 30 Apr 2015, 15:10

Personally I like high framerate, the higher the better. My next monitor is still going to be a 60hz UHD freesync panel though, because 144hz is fun and everything, but I play games on my projector anyway. I'd love to have 120hz on my desktop, but not if I have to give up 1/2 the resolution. To wit, I have 120hz on my BenQ projector at 1280x720 but it looks like crap compared to 1080p, so I have to use 60hz. If I could get 120hz working through a 420 hack I would.

BUT all that said, in terms of developing games, I know more about the inherent choices on the industry side, and 120hz is not going to be coming to consoles, except perhaps rare Project Morpheus titles with extremely limited draw distances and scene complexity.

Plus, 60hz on a flat panel is nothing like 60hz on a CRT. 60hz on a scan line screen is like torture in terms of flicker. No flicker on 60hz LCDs.

Different tech = apples and oranges. The refresh rate of both types of displays are not equivalent.

Edmond

Re: superMHL: reaching for 8k at 120Hz

Post by Edmond » 01 May 2015, 04:27

RLBURNSIDE wrote: Plus, 60hz on a flat panel is nothing like 60hz on a CRT. 60hz on a scan line screen is like torture in terms of flicker. No flicker on 60hz LCDs.

Different tech = apples and oranges. The refresh rate of both types of displays are not equivalent.
I know why CRT was 85hz and how the flicker burns your eyes at 60hz. But if you put aside the flicker for a sec... the 60hz LCD refreshes 60 times a second, and the 85hz CRT refreshes 85 times a second... and is noticeably smoother. The time measurement of a "second" does not change.

I keep my 22" CRT @ 120hz and a lower res personally.

RLBURNSIDE
Posts: 104
Joined: 06 Apr 2015, 16:09

Re: superMHL: reaching for 8k at 120Hz

Post by RLBURNSIDE » 01 May 2015, 12:04

I'd also prefer a scanline raster display at 85+hz than a sample and hold at 60hz, so I'm not disagreeing. But 60hz for standard typing and casual use is more than solid enough. If we're talking games, then yeah higher Hz is better up to a point. But that point will rapidly hit a wall when you have to choose between 90 and 100hz, or more objects or draw distance in your scene. The higher the base Hz, the less perceptible improvement there is. You're usually better off increasing visual quality and so on for a better, more immersive experience, than chasing down every last Hzs you can get but sacrificing those things. Anyway, it's good to give people a choice to set their game up to whatever they want, but that applies only on PC because on console, these things are usually pre-determined to hit a certain visual target, given 60hz is the max that most TVs or LCD monitors can handle anyway.

User avatar
lexlazootin
Posts: 1251
Joined: 16 Dec 2014, 02:57

Re: superMHL: reaching for 8k at 120Hz

Post by lexlazootin » 01 May 2015, 23:37

RLBURNSIDE wrote:I'd also prefer a scanline raster display at 85+hz than a sample and hold at 60hz
Hey, when you reach 100hz~+ on a CRT does the flicker become less noticeable to your eyes? #ToYoungToKnowThis

User avatar
sharknice
Posts: 295
Joined: 23 Dec 2013, 17:16
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Re: superMHL: reaching for 8k at 120Hz

Post by sharknice » 02 May 2015, 00:18

lexlazootin wrote:
RLBURNSIDE wrote:I'd also prefer a scanline raster display at 85+hz than a sample and hold at 60hz
Hey, when you reach 100hz~+ on a CRT does the flicker become less noticeable to your eyes? #ToYoungToKnowThis
Generally the bearable amount of flicker is considered around 85 hz, but the higher you go the less noticeable it becomes.

Back in the CRT days I could tell a CRTs refresh rate immediately just from a glance. 60hz was absolutely unbearable for me. Most CRTs could handle 85hz at 800x600 so that is usually what you ended up with in computer labs. I had a very high end CRT and used mine at something like 1024x768@200hz. Even going from that to lower resolutions at even higher refresh rates was still noticeable. The upper discernible range is probably in the khz.

RLBURNSIDE
Posts: 104
Joined: 06 Apr 2015, 16:09

Re: superMHL: reaching for 8k at 120Hz

Post by RLBURNSIDE » 06 Jun 2015, 16:27

lexlazootin wrote:
RLBURNSIDE wrote:I'd also prefer a scanline raster display at 85+hz than a sample and hold at 60hz
Hey, when you reach 100hz~+ on a CRT does the flicker become less noticeable to your eyes? #ToYoungToKnowThis
It does improve the closer you get to 100hz, but the improvements are definitely a case of diminishing returns. I used to love using PS2rate utility to boost the sampling frequency of my mouse to match the refresh rate of my CRTs back in the day. It was also my "secret weapon" in early FPS matches.

RLBURNSIDE
Posts: 104
Joined: 06 Apr 2015, 16:09

Re: superMHL: reaching for 8k at 120Hz

Post by RLBURNSIDE » 06 Jun 2015, 16:50

Edmond wrote:
RLBURNSIDE wrote: As an engineer, I put effort where it yields the greatest dividends. Corporations do the same. AAA studios do the same. Indie studios do the same. They go where the money is. There simply isn't enough demand for a game with simpler graphics but ultra high frame rate compared to more complex imagery with a still-decent 60p. Targetting beyond that is diminishing returns, both from a technical perspective, and definitely from a market and engineering perspective. Trust me, HDR is going to make the next gen games look stunning. Mark my words. We're working on it.
Ye, i disagree... a very small % of people have actually tried 120hz, and all of them say its amazing and a huge improvement and they will never go back.
While people who have not tried 120hz, say you cant see more than 60fps. While console gamers say you can see more than 30fps.
Get it? Why your point of view is a misconception?

Also, why do you think people have these nostalgia feelings towards old games, even stuff like doom1/2? Could it have something to do with the fact that they were experienced on 85hz CRTs. Why is Half life 2 so popular? could the way how smooth it ran on the hardware of the time have some part in it? Why doesnt anyone talk about crysis1?
Its not all blind nostalgia. Its legitimate nostalgia because those past experiences were BETTER, and in a not so obvious way.

120hz desktop is also so much easier on the eyes. 120hz MUST become the standard. Everything else we can debate endlessly on.
But the move from 85hz to 60hz was a fucking travesty.
I've used 120hz CRTs back in the 90s, and couldn't really tell much difference past 85hz. The biggest jump was from 60hz to 72hz which most monitors could do and was something as a computer technician I would almost always do. My clients thanked me endlessly from that one simple settings change I did as I worked on their PCs. But I didn't see a big difference beyond 100hz on my own 17-20 inch monitors.

That said, how 100hz works on a scanline raster display and now a sample and hold LCD is totally different. A 60hz CRT might flicker like crazy, but it had very little to no sample and hold persistence blur, compared to a 60hz LCD. So even at the same Hz, it was a step down I agree. But 60hz LCDs were an improvement overall for casual or business use, for the opposite reason : flicker was virtually elimintated due to that same progressive scan sample + hold display. So given that most people are still using 60hz to this day, and most people using LCD monitors aren't doing so to game on, I would definitely say 60hz LCDs have done their job admirably for what they were intended to do, which is get rid of flickering and give you a small form factor futuristic-looking display with razor sharp text and perfect geometry. CRTs sucked for those things, good riddance!

I just bought a 144hz G-sync monitor and while it's terrific in games, it's absolutely superfluous to move beyond 60hz in windows desktop use. Sure, my mouse slides around smoother, but I stopped being impressed by mouse sampling rate hax back in the 90s.

Tell me, what use is a casual person to have going up to 120hz on their typical LCD? On a TV, yes, it makes sense to improve motion resolution especially when you go up to 240hz with BFI and/or interpolation, but even a 60hz plasma could get 1080 lines of motion resolution while a 2015 4K LCD with FALD probably can't even match that. Even a 120hz 4K LCD at the low range can't beat 600 lines of motion resolution! It's pathetic! My 2008 panasonic plasma locked to 60hz was a far better gaming display than any 2015 120hz input LCD is in terms of motion resolution and clarity.

While I agree with you that 120hz is better than 60hz, where gaming is concerned, the dollars being invested in graphics programming is focused on image quality at lower frame rates, rather than extreme frame rates at the expense of IQ, because consoles make about 5-10x about as much money as PC games and they need to look "next gen". Why do you think they released GTA V PC two years later than the old consoles? Follow the money. Gaming is an industry, and industries follow dollars. 120hz aficinados like us on this forum are not typical gamers.

I do think that 1080p / 120hz would be a better experience than 4K at 60hz, but many gamers don't see it that way, and the industry is moving towards 4K instead. Hopefully TVs with displayport 1.3 will come out soon so we can have our cake and eat it too. And with freesync! That would be awesome.

Post Reply