[Old Thread] Why I'm done with 240hz

All Unidentified Forum Objects go in this area! Any fun alien talk goes in this U.F.O. Abduction Lounge, even topics other than monitors or computers. Introduce yourself!
User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
Posts: 11647
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44
Location: Toronto / Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Post by Chief Blur Buster » 27 May 2020, 00:07

MaximilianKohler wrote:
26 May 2020, 23:02
I'm very confused by this thread and by reading in other places that "a 144Hz monitor 140fps looks better than a 240Hz 140fps".

I'm on the 144hz XG2402 mentioned in the OP. Overdrive (Rampage Response) is ON "Faster". Vsync is OFF.

In Talos Principle:

Freesync OFF, no frame limit, 160-190 FPS = not full tearing, but not smooth.

Freesync OFF + 144 frame rate limit = obvious tearing.

Freesync OFF + 141 frame rate limit = not full tearing but very obvious waves.

Freesync OFF + 120 frame rate limit = better, but not completely smooth.

Freesync OFF + 100 frame rate limit = smooth.

Freesync ON + 141 frame rate limit = smooth.

So what I learn from this testing is that having monitor hz significantly higher than your FPS is preferable, and negates the need for vsync or freesync.
Your post is about what I expected, but is easy for me to explain and is pretty much elementary display science to my head. Hopefully this post has helped (partially) clarify things.

It's a function of stutter harmonics and beat frequencies.

You know audio beat frequencies? Same thing with framerate beat-frequencying against refresh rate.

141fps at 144Hz = 3 stutters per second & 3 tearline roll cycles per second
100fps at 144Hz = ultra-high-frequency stutters that blend into motion blur.

Stutter Beat Frequencies

For VSYNC OFF (to get fps above Hz)
147fps at 144Hz = 3 stutter per second
146fps at 144Hz = 2 stutter per second
145fps at 144Hz = 1 stutter per second

For both VSYNC ON and VSYNC OFF:
143fps at 144Hz = 1 stutter per second
142fps at 144Hz = 2 stutter per second
142fps at 144Hz = 3 stutter per second

Tearing Beat Frequencies

For VSYNC OFF (to get fps above Hz)
147fps at 144Hz = Tearline rolls upwards 3 cycles per second
146fps at 144Hz = Tearline rolls upwards 2 cycles per second
145fps at 144Hz = Tearline rolls upwards 1 cycles per second
144fps at 144Hz = Tearline mostly stationary
143fps at 144Hz = Tearline rolls downwards 1 cycles per second
142fps at 144Hz = Tearline rolls downwards 2 cycles per second
142fps at 144Hz = Tearline rolls downwards 3 cycles per second

Now, you see 144fps cap at 144Hz?
-- Tearline may roll slowly. That's the tiny difference (144Hz may be 143.998Hz)
-- Tearline may vibrate. That's the frame rate capping error (caps aren't perfect frametimes)

Next, Understand Stutters & Motion Blur Is Essentially Same Thing

Firstly, the cause of stutters & common display motion blur are the same thing, especially if you closely watch www.testufo.com/vrr .... Low frame rates vibrate like a slow guitar string. High frame rates vibrate so fast like a blurry high-frequency guitar string. This is the regular frame rate (not erratic stutter).

Also look at how stutters blend into motion blur in this variable-speed motion test:



The humankind invention of a frame rate (using static images to create moving images) often creates side effects such as stutter (at low frame rates, like a slow vibrating guitar string) or motion blur (at high frame rates, like a blurry fast vibrating guitar string).

Your actions of eye-tracking across stationary refresh cycles on most displays (LCD displays which are sample-and-hold), means that the static images are smeared across your retinas -- generating the motion blur that you see.

Now, it's a double edged sword. That motion blur can hide tiny microstutters that are small frametime variations. Reduce the motion blur, and the erratic stutters (beat frequencies, or computer freezes, or diskloading stutters, etc) may become easier to see, depending on variables. Increase the display motion blur, and stutters are harder to see. There are a lot of interacting variables at paly.

Observe that regular stutters are the same thing as motion blur. At low frame rate, it is stutter. At high frame rate, it's motion blur. Another good TestUFO demo that demonstrates the "stutters-blend-into-blur" science is www.testufo.com/vrr (another animation!) ... For more amazing information, read the "stutter vibrations blends to display motion blur" section of Blur Busters Law: The Amazing Journey To Future 1000Hz Displays.

Now, once you've considered the "stutters-to-motionblur" continuum, this starts to make more sense.

"erratic stutter" (basically varying frame visibility times) can manifest itself as the beat frequency of frame rate versus refresh rate. Erratic stutters can be low frequency (visible as additional erratic stutters on the regular-framerate stutter of low frame rates, or the regular-framerate motion blur for higher frame rates).

Erratic stutters can also occur at really high frequencies (blending into additional display motion blur). For example a beat-frequency stutter inside another stutter, can be blended. 100fps at 144Hz doesn't have obvious beat frequencies/harmonics. This also means VSYNC OFF 238fps (non-VRR) may look better at 144Hz than at 240Hz, because the "framerate-near-refreshrate" situation creates an amplified-visibility beat frequency situation.
238-vs-240 = 2 stutters per second
238-vs-144 = no obvious divisors/multiples to create hugely visible beat-frequency stutters

Now if you deviated like 119fps at 240Hz or 359fps at 240Hz, that generates a cyclic stutter too. That still becomes visible again, because it's slightly off -- 119fps at 240Hz shows up as something like a stutter per second (albiet more invisible than 119fps at 120Hz due to reduced refresh cycle granularity)

Also, higher Hz also reduces motion blur (double framerate & double Hz = half motion blur), which can make major frametime variances easier to see. Assuming GtG is fast enough to be an insignificant impediment to a refresh cycle, so GtG needs to keep getting faster for higher refresh rates.

Image

Note: The Blur Busters recommendation is that refresh rate upgrades needs to be geometric. Upgrade by 1.5x to remain human noticeable, preferably at least 2x. The 144Hz-to-360Hz upgrade (2.5x) is more similar to the 60Hz-to-144Hz upgrade (2.4x).

Also, if you turn motion blur reduction on (strobing modes such as ULMB, DyAc, ELMB, PureXP, etc), the microstutter of 100fps at 144Hz might become visible again, since strobing amplifies the visibility of microstutters, since display motion blur hides stutter. Also, if you are testing fluidity using mouse movements, your mouse microstutters may generate an additional error margin, so testing fluidity via keyboard strafing is easier. Or you can enter a custom frame rate at www.testufo.com/framerates-versus ...and observe the microstutter beat frequencies and harmonics that way.

If you reduce motion blur (higher Hz or motion blur reduction), then you do have to eliminate other microstutter error margins (game engine stutter, mouse microstutter, etc). Increasing mouse DPI (1600dpi and reducing sensitivity to 1/4 in-game) can also reduce mouse microstutter error margin. A 400dpi mouse doing 2000 pixels over 1 inch at your preferred sensitivity setting, will go at only 100 positions per second if you move the mouse 1/4th of an inch, creating a mouse-dpi-capped frame rate of 100 frames per second (steppy-steppy-steppy mouseturns). If you lower DPI and juice-up the sensivity, and then try to mouse slowturn, you'll see mouse turns become granular (as if mouseturns were really slow frame rate when done slowly). This can muddy the microstutter beat frequencies / harmonics, 400dpi generating additional error margins in stutter-testing via mouseturns, so if you stutter-test your mouseturns, make sure you use 1600dpi or 3200dpi (at 1/4th sensitivity or 1/8th sensitivity respectively). Then you'll filter-out more of your mouse microstutter error margin away from your framerate-mismatch-Hz microstutters, making it easier to analyze your framerate-mismatch-Hz. Unless you're instead testing keyboard strafing or other perfect-smooth motion.

How tiny or big microstutters are visible? Depends. On a blurry 60Hz display, a 10ms stutter can be made mostly invisible. Now, on a 0.5ms MPRT strobe-backlight, a 1ms stutter can be visible at fast motion speeds. 1ms error at 4000 pixels/sec = 4 pixel stutter jump. Which may be visible if MPRT is low enough (0.5ms = only 2 pixels of motion blur per 4000 pixels/second motion), but definitely hidden meaninglessly by non-strobe 60Hz (16.7ms MPRT).

For example, a sudden 10ms frametime variance is much more noticeable at 240fps (4ms-4ms-4ms-14ms-4ms-4ms-4ms being a 250% stutter-amplitude change during 4 pixels of motion blur per 1000 pixels/sec) than a sudden 10ms frametime variance at 60fps (16.7ms-16.7ms-16.7ms-26.7ms-16.7ms-16.7ms-16.7ms being a 60% stutter-amplitude change during 16.7 pixels of motion blur per 1000 pixels/sec). That diskload microstutter invisible at 60Hz becomes much more visible at 240Hz consequently as a result.

On the other hand, higher Hz can reduce stutter, because of reduced granularity between frametime and refreshtime, especially on fixed-Hz. A missed refresh cycle is a shorter wait to the next refresh cycle, creating smaller divergence between game time and the time photons hit your eyeballs (aka less stutter).
MaximilianKohler wrote:
26 May 2020, 23:02
I'm very confused by this thread and by reading in other places that "a 144Hz monitor 140fps looks better than a 240Hz 140fps".
That depends on many variables, and the answer can be yes or no depending on settings or variables.

Want to read more Blur Busters articles / forum posts, relevant to the science of stutter and motion blur?
- Motion Blur Reduction FAQ (if you've never used a mode like ULMB)
- Blur Busters Law: The Amazing Journey To Future 1000Hz Displays
- Stroboscopic Effect of Finite Frame Rate Displays
- Pixel Response FAQ: GtG versus MPRT

In many situations, the millisecond is unimportant. In other situations, the millisecond becomes human-visible.
MaximilianKohler wrote:
26 May 2020, 23:02
Not being able to run games at 240+ FPS seems irrelevant. On a 240hz monitor you could simply cap your FPS at whatever is stable (say 150), and you'd have smooth gameplay. What am I missing?
Hopefully my post has explained why this is an assumption -- whatever you see at one refresh rate is not necessarily whatever you assume to see at a different refresh rate. By changing the refresh rate, you've changed the variables, which may or may not make specific stutters more visible.

Blur Busters exists because of understanding these milliseconds, an important aspect of eliminating display motion blur, of our Blur Busters name sake. So we are very familiar with this science.
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter

Image
Forum Rules wrote:  1. Rule #1: Be Nice. This is published forum rule #1. Even To Newbies & People You Disagree With!
  2. Please report rule violations If you see a post that violates forum rules, then report the post.
  3. ALWAYS respect indie testers here. See how indies are bootstrapping Blur Busters research!

flood
Posts: 929
Joined: 21 Dec 2013, 01:25

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Post by flood » 27 May 2020, 00:43

haven't really read this thread but
Notty_PT wrote:
23 Jan 2019, 23:42
As I mentioned on the first point, not being able to sustain high framerates on 240hz monitors is asking for problems. But will elaborate more.
ignoring beat/stutter effects when framerate and display refresh are very close.
i don't understand how this makes any sense. are we're talking about vsync off?

let's say my framerate is between 180 and 220. how can 240hz possibly be worse than 144hz?
i guess op has some specific issues with the overdrive, but overdrive (imo) should never be set to have significant ghosting.

as far as i'm concerned, when vsync is off, higher framerate and higher refresh rate are always better.

there seems to be this weird belief that there's something specifically bad about having framerate lower than refresh rate.
by this logic, a 125hz mouse tracks more smoothly with refresh rate 85hz than with 144hz. (hint: it doesn't)

quantitatively:
first, for simplicity, supposed i have a crt monitor, ignore pixel persistence.
let's say i'm tracking some object moving at V pixels per second. the smoothness (or lack of) is basically quantified by the amount the object jumps around, if my eyes are tracking smoothly.

as long as framerate and refresh rate differ, that amount is simply equal to V/framerate pixels. (draw out some scenarios on paper to convince yourself of this)
that's all. doesn't matter if framerate is great or less than refresh rate. refresh rate doesn't even matter here.

now if you have a full persistence monitor, you get an additional V/refresh rate of motion blur, plus a bit more from gtg. one way to think about this is that now the object is jumping around in a region of (V/framerate + V/refreshrate) pixels. doesn't matter whether framerate or refresh rate is higher.

and if you think about this carefully, for a full persistence display, X fps on Y Hz is exactly as smooth or unsmooth as Y fps on X Hz. (tearing will differ however)

flood
Posts: 929
Joined: 21 Dec 2013, 01:25

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Post by flood » 27 May 2020, 00:52

MaximilianKohler wrote:
26 May 2020, 23:02
by reading in other places that "a 144Hz monitor 140fps looks better than a 240Hz 140fps".
i don't get it either... it's really stupid tbh
i can guarantee you that unless the monitor has some really wack overdrive settings, 240hz 140fps will be better...

User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
Posts: 11647
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44
Location: Toronto / Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Post by Chief Blur Buster » 27 May 2020, 00:56

flood wrote:
27 May 2020, 00:52
MaximilianKohler wrote:
26 May 2020, 23:02
by reading in other places that "a 144Hz monitor 140fps looks better than a 240Hz 140fps".
i don't get it either... it's really stupid tbh
i can guarantee you that unless the monitor has some really wack overdrive settings, 240hz 140fps will be better...
Good replies, flood...

Another factor is the huge variances in different human sensitivities to GtG inconsistencies (ghosting/coronas).

Much like how different humans are very picky about different aspects. Colors? Tearing? Stutters? Lag?
Or something obscure like 3:2 pulldown judder or DLP rainbow artifacts.

Many humans don't really notice, while some see it pretty clearly (as if their eyes almost literally had automatic fluorescent highlight markers on faint ghosting/coronas -- because real life doesn't have ghosting/coronas -- and their brains seemed attuned to be super-sensitive to aberrations between a display and real life).

Human vision is like snowflakes -- no two humans see perfectly identically. The standards we have (colorimetry, RGB primaries) are based on an attempt to one-size-fits-all, but is nowhere remotely close to five-sigma carbon copy of real life and display.

About colors -- your average red color primary may be a nanometer or two off the next human's, and the colorbind (~12% of population) may be several nanometers off or completely missing altogether. You might see clearer or worse distinctions between colors, but still mostly normally (like 50%-99% normally), without ever being diagnosed as color blind. The bottom line is that classical RGB standards is an imperfect one-size-fits-all that is merely adequate for less than two-sigma human population!

Anyway, back to ghosting/coronas -- what is really amazing is that faint ghosting/coronas are massively more visible to some others. Faint ghosts/coronas showing up like a bleeping beacon. Perhaps their human brain is doing some kind of amplified highlighting of what a display aberrates away from real-life.

And other people with motion sicknesses that are connected to their human vision system (instead of other things like vertigo), not being able to tolerate much motion on a display, due to the imperfectness of how a display tries to use (an imperfectly-transitioning blend of) static images to emulate real life analog motion. (as in how imperfect displays are in emulating real life, whether it's pixel response, or the artificial humankind invention of a "frame rate")

That monitor with near-perfect VRR overdrive may look woefully imperfect to the next human.

This is also partially why this "Why I'm done with 240hz" thread exists, as there are many 144hz panels with superior overdrive to 240Hz panels. Maybe only 5% better (almost unnoticeably so), but that these people notice super-well.

Nontheless, this is changing rapidly, with the continued boom of 240Hz, and there are now many 240Hz panels that outperform too.

You hear everything about how picky different people are about different things. What you might not be able to see, they might see super-clearly.
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter

Image
Forum Rules wrote:  1. Rule #1: Be Nice. This is published forum rule #1. Even To Newbies & People You Disagree With!
  2. Please report rule violations If you see a post that violates forum rules, then report the post.
  3. ALWAYS respect indie testers here. See how indies are bootstrapping Blur Busters research!

MaximilianKohler
Posts: 31
Joined: 30 May 2014, 15:45

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Post by MaximilianKohler » 27 May 2020, 01:49

Ok, very interesting. So I gather a few things:

1. There should be some chart for both 144hz and 240hz that lists FPS values you should set in order to avoid "obvious divisors/multiples to create hugely visible beat-frequency stutters".

2. 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.

3. I might need to change my mouse DPI from 500 to 1600 and then drop ingame and windows sensitivity in order to decrease stuttering? I don't see that mentioned in your mouse guide https://blurbusters.com/faq/mouse-guide, so maybe you would want to update/add it?

I still don't understand why the OP (and others) say 144hz > 240hz. EDIT: from the last few comments that were submitted while I was type this, it sounds like it may just be false?
That depends on many variables, and the answer can be yes or no depending on settings or variables.
Is there a good link that explains those variables in an easy-to-understand way?

I've read the "Motion Blur Reduction FAQ" you linked, and I don't recall it being explained there (and looking at it again, you basically agreed with me: "100fps at 120Hz can look better than 120fps at 120Hz"). The 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 see in your "Blur Busters Law: The Amazing Journey To Future 1000Hz Displays" link it quotes someone:
higher frame rates would be required to hit the sweet spot at higher resolutions
But it still doesn't seem to explain why that would be the case.

1000WATT
Posts: 391
Joined: 22 Jul 2018, 05:44

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Post by 1000WATT » 27 May 2020, 06:24

Chief Blur Buster wrote:
27 May 2020, 00:56
flood wrote:
27 May 2020, 00:52
MaximilianKohler wrote:
26 May 2020, 23:02
by reading in other places that "a 144Hz monitor 140fps looks better than a 240Hz 140fps".
i don't get it either... it's really stupid tbh
i can guarantee you that unless the monitor has some really wack overdrive settings, 240hz 140fps will be better...
Good replies, flood...
How can this be a good answer?
Yes, he is telling the truth. (In theory, everything is true). But the real 240 tn monitors that we are discussing here, with an average overdrive setting, have problems that are not present on some 144 panels.
I often do not clearly state my thoughts. google translate is far from perfect. And in addition to the translator, I myself am mistaken. Do not take me seriously.

DrUninstall
Posts: 41
Joined: 12 Feb 2020, 07:58

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Post by DrUninstall » 27 May 2020, 06:40

Just have 2 monitors. 8-)

Obviously this thread is not going to hold up forever as reaching 240fps on most games is becoming more and more accessible.

I saved for a year and now with a 9900k/rtx2080super build I can run pretty much anything on 240fps, most even at 1440p or FullHD with 115% render scale.

1000WATT
Posts: 391
Joined: 22 Jul 2018, 05:44

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Post by 1000WATT » 27 May 2020, 06:52

Download this video, play in full screen (1920x1080). Use a video player capable of playing 240 fps. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E5OYbD ... sp=sharing

While viewing, slowly move the slider from 50% to 0%. https://imgur.com/jjyPg8F

For example, stock settings g-sync monitor 2019.
50% https://imgur.com/l1AaIcU
22% https://imgur.com/O62eA3S Pixels flicker like a Christmas garland.

For example, reducing contrast, it looks like. https://imgur.com/a/cH6IQ3i

Sometimes there are 144 tn panels without these problems. But most 240 tn (or maybe all) have this problem.
I often do not clearly state my thoughts. google translate is far from perfect. And in addition to the translator, I myself am mistaken. Do not take me seriously.

1000WATT
Posts: 391
Joined: 22 Jul 2018, 05:44

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Post by 1000WATT » 27 May 2020, 07:29

The author of this topic tried to choose for himself what gives him the best results in his games and aimhero Lightning Gun.
He chose between quality overdrive and input lag and blur 120-144-240hz.
At 240, he didn't like overdrive compared to some 144 panels. And its results in games that could not reach 200+ fps were worse on 240 monitors.
And this whole topic has long ended. He found a compromise for himself.
He chose xg258q which gave the best result in games and aimhero. And in games that could not reach 200 + fps, he used freesync + 120fps limit. And for the sake of better results in games (kda% hit percentage), he put up with a bad overdrive.
That’s the whole story. :P
I often do not clearly state my thoughts. google translate is far from perfect. And in addition to the translator, I myself am mistaken. Do not take me seriously.

1000WATT
Posts: 391
Joined: 22 Jul 2018, 05:44

Re: Why I'm done with 240hz

Post by 1000WATT » 27 May 2020, 08:01

I myself tried xg258q and this monitor had a terrible overdrive out of all 240 monitors that I had. The colors are simply horrible in Battlefield 1, the grass was no longer green and the walls were not yellow, it seemed to me that I was sitting behind a black and white monitor. Black ghosts are everywhere everywhere + the picture was darkened when moving. Nevertheless, for me, with all the flaws of this monitor, the input lag seemed negligible. Tracking the target was so easy that I laughed out loud.
And as a result, my kda has grown. I even naively expected that all lol would have such an effect and recommended it as a monitor that got an increase in kda.
But the reality is that what works for one does not necessarily work for everyone.
No one can guess what will be better for you.
So amazon and a return policy will help you.
I often do not clearly state my thoughts. google translate is far from perfect. And in addition to the translator, I myself am mistaken. Do not take me seriously.

Post Reply