RealNC wrote:He means the panels themselves. If a pixel cannot be updated that many times per second, higher refresh will give you washed-out colors and blur. LCDs need time to change state.
This is already happening with 144Hz monitors. If you actually measure color reproduction, the colors at 144Hz are worse than at 60Hz. Not very much so, but it would get even worse if you up the refresh rate even more. For the pixel to fully transition into its final state, it needs time. If it changes state before it has transitioned completely, you're getting a wrong color.
Yes. In fact, I have a QNIX 1080p TN panel that will overclock all the way up to 240Hz, but it looks absolutely terrible. Even at 144Hz, Gamma is WAY too high. Trying to compensate with windows calibration tool doesn't cut it.
That's what got me thinking "Is this enough?". Aside from stroboscopic effects (and minimal persistence of vision blur), going over 200Hz seemed to provide little improvement (Although I think I may have been hitting a pixel response time bottleneck. These monitors don't have any overdrive, which is one of the reasons they can be successfully overclocked). I figure most people would prefer higher resolutions and graphics settings to improved framerate well before 200+Hz was met anyway. Smoothness was quite good, persistence of vision blur wasn't THAT bad (and could still be improved with backlight strobing anyway), and input lag was probably about the lowest I've experienced (but I haven't done tests). It's not PERFECT, but considering the trade-offs involved in generating anything higher (Performance and bandwidth requirements), 200+Hz is about the realistic limit. We'll have to find other ways to improve, hence my interpolation idea. VR might be a different story.
Personally I will sacrifice graphics settings to get at least around 80-100Hz stable (60 isn't my target, it's my absolute minimum) so I'm pretty picky.
Too bad there isn't a way for me to directly compare to a "perfect" monitor. That would provide the insight I need.