Blur Busters Forums

Who you gonna call? The Blur Busters! For Everything Better Than 60Hz™ Skip to content

Are Cougar Mice Legit 2000hz Polling Rate?

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!

Re: Are Cougar Mice Legit 2000hz Polling Rate?

Postby Sparky » 24 Jan 2018, 17:39

darzo wrote:One poster on overlock.net did mention that his Cougar did not feel erratic or any worse than other mice and in fact felt "a little snappier".

You really shouldn't hold any confidence in comments like that. Too easy to let expectations change perceptions, and even if the test is repeatable and blind, you don't know what's causing the difference in feel. That goes double when you consider what people can get used to.
Chief Blur Buster wrote:Statistical analysis of mouse output can actually reveal a surprising lot of data. (granularity behaviours, rounding-behaviours, erratic behaviours). It won't be as perfect as a full DRO setup but a software app that does some basic statistical analysis on position readouts, is what I'm interested in.
Yup, you can certainly learn a lot from statistical analysis, but it still leaves some important questions unanswered, like latency, repeatability, and linearity. Sort of like how FCAT exposes some problems that FRAPS misses.
Sparky
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 15 Jan 2014, 02:29

Re: Are Cougar Mice Legit 2000hz Polling Rate?

Postby Chief Blur Buster » 24 Jan 2018, 17:57

Sparky wrote:Yup, you can certainly learn a lot from statistical analysis, but it still leaves some important questions unanswered, like latency, repeatability, and linearity. Sort of like how FCAT exposes some problems that FRAPS misses.

Agreed. I'll leave it to other software (and our future inventions). What I need is quick confidence of 2000 Hz testing, to be sure that the 2000 Hz is indeed truly useful.

Also most poll testers focus on competitive, but what about desktop use too? Window Desktop is always VSYNC ON.

Color-coded graph visualizations will easily show microstuttering caused by beat-frequency effects between mouse Hz and display Hz (especially for VSYNC ON operations, like composited window managers during ULMB). As everyone have seen my photographic proof of the beat-frequency microstutter oscillations of mouse cursor arrow...

Basically, the mouse cursor position report closest to right before your refresh rate's VBI, then the deltas between those VBIs between refresh cycles, then if the delta fluctuates too much: That's your refresh-rate beat-frequency mouse microstutter effect: Bad for desktop (and also correspondingly, less microstuttery ULMB -- e.g. solo RTS panning -- when supersmooth scrolling/panning is your priority).

Also, never measured by mouse manufacturers, but if you're using a mouse on VRR or ULMB, mouse microstutter that's not human-detectable, still slightly increases motion blur. This is because ultra-tiny microstutter (e.g. microstutter from a 1000Hz mouse on a 240Hz VRR display) increases display motion blur slightly -- even by just 1 or 2 pixels.

Just like a higher-frequency guitar string becomes blurry because it vibrates so fast -- High Frequency Stutter Blends Into Motion Blur. e.g. 1ms-error microstutter = 1 pixel of stutter amplitude during 1000 pixels/second = additive above-and-beyond display persistence. If a mouse has 1ms of ultra-rapid-microstutter error, that can turn 4ms persistence blur (240Hz) into a 5ms persistence blur. On a 4K low-persistence display, panning at 8000 pixels/second, 1ms ultra-high-frequency microstutter can create an additional 8 pixels of motion blur from ultra-high-frequency microstuttering (stuttering invisible to human eyes that is just a blurred edge rather than vibrating edge).

120 microstutters per second on my experimental 480Hz display tests, simply generated extra persistence-based motion blur. 120 stutters per second is so fast you can't see the stutter, but it is /definitely/ extra motion blur -- just like a plucked guitar string. So for those "2000Hz doesn't matter" manufacturers, shut up and release 2000Hz mice.

Yes, yes, yes, if mice with 12Kreport rates internally do it well (internally averages to really accurate 1000Hz) then there'll be very little microstutter errors between position readouts. That's really good! Unfortunately, that doesn't solve temporal aliasing-effects between monitor refresh rate (or framebuffer flip on VRR monitors) and the poll time of the mouse. There's always at least +/- 0.5ms timestamp difference between the nanosecond-exact refresh rate timing, and the nanosecond-exact mouse poll timing for a 1000Hz mouse. That's at least 0.5ms of extra motion blur (generated by ultra-high-frequency microstutter that blends into extra blur) for a low persistence display.

For example, 4K strobed monitor (coming this year) -- 2 screenwidth per second FPS turning -- 0.5ms persistence (caused by any means, including UHF microstutters) translates to 4 pixels of extra display motion blur -- lowering the horizontal motion resolution of an 4K display to the equivalent of a 960-pixel-wide display. Chrissakes, 1000Hz ain't enough anymore, we're not in Kansas anymore, Dorothy! How is it that mouse manufacturers have taken so long to release 2000 Hz?

That's ultra-tiny imperceptible microstutter. But when displays becomes low-persistence, it becomes a noticeable motion blur error margin. At 240Hz, you're already down to 4ms persistence for non-strobed. And if you're strobing, 1ms persistence (e.g. Some G-SYNC monitors with "ULMB" turned on) -- this becomes a big error margin. A 0.5ms ultra-high-frequency microstutter adds another 50% to persistence.

You can tell the difference between 0.5ms persistence and 1.0ms persistence (if you have an NVIDIA G-SYNC monitor with ULMB) by doing this test.
1. Go to the TestUFO Panning Map test, 3000 pixels per second
2. Maximize the window.
3. Enable NVIDIA ULMB.
4. Adjust ULMB Pulse Width down to under 50% (this does 0.5ms persistence ULMB)
5. The street name labels of that fast-moving map, magically becomes readable!
Remember, FPS mouseflicks can have faster panning than this.

At 3000 pixels/second motion:
60Hz non-strobed = 16.7ms = 50 pixels motion blur
120Hz non-strobed = 8.3ms = 25 pixels motion blur
240Hz non-strobed = 4.1ms = 12.5 pixels motion blur
ULMB 2ms persistence = 6 pixels motion blur
ULMB 1ms persistence = 3 pxiels motion blur
ULMB 0.5ms persistence = 1.5 pixels motion blur

So, we're forcing this planet to live with a +/-0.5ms persistence modifier caused by UHF microstutters (aliasing effect of 1000Hz report rate granularity in current 1000Hz mice). In the world of low-persistence (e.g. ULMB) and high-refresh rates (e.g. 240Hz and, soon, up), why are we still limiting mice to only 1000Hz?

As displays go ever-ever-ever higher resolutions (retina) and refresh rates go ever-ever-ever higher (retina), the pressure is to lower that 0.5ms aliasing error between frame delivery and mouse poll delivery. Smart engineers, but ones that don't understand the science of a true-1000Hz refresh rate display (already in laboratory). Goddamnit, why do some mouse manufacturers say "1000Hz doesn't matter" (one of them actually said that) -- that's not true anymore with 240Hz monitors, and will become more of a limiting factor with strobeless ULMB (blurless sample and hold displays)!

And I'm a coauthor of a peer-reviewed conference paper of a display testing technique (Blur Busters coauthored with NIST.gov, NOKIA and Keltek), so I should know what I am talking about! It is not tinfoilhattery stuff.

Over the coming years and decades -- as display reaches 240Hz, 480Hz, even 1000Hz (expected by year 2025), even higher-Hz mice will eventually be needed to prevent mouse microstutters (even if imperceptible) from increasing the persistence of the display. 1000Hz mice was definitely good enough for 60Hz displays, but as we now have 240Hz gaming monitors -- a mouse microstutter error margin now starts to become a double-digit percentage of the display's persistence. 0.5ms extra persistence is 12.5% additional motion blur for 240fps@240Hz sample-and-hold.

It also affects VSYNC OFF and variable refresh rate gaming (e.g. mouse aliasing errors to frametimes) but the beat-frequency artifacts are much more visually noticeable with synchronized fix-Hz operation, and very easily benchmarkable as proof of 2000Hz reducing mouse-versus-display Hz beat-frequency microstutter.

Most mouse manufacturers DO NOT understand the UHF microstutter effect that I have seen (Beat-frequency microstutters too fast to be seen by eye = extra display motion blur = like a plucked guitar string). We are the world's first website to test a true-480Hz display.

Absolute lag is also truly important too and many other tests do that well already. I want to see additional benchmarking metrics for the future of benchmarking computer mice in the world of "Better Than 60Hz" displays -- making sure 2000Hz mice actually help high-Hz displays.

I do give mucho kudos to Cougar for doing 2000Hz. I'm praying it's the Real McCoy. That's why I am writing a visualization test as we speak. I'll post in this thread ASAP.

Nudge, nudge -- all mouse manufacturers. 2000Hz or bust.
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter!
To support Blur Busters: Official List of Best Gaming Monitors | G-SYNC | FreeSync | Ultrawide
User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4691
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44

Re: Are Cougar Mice Legit 2000hz Polling Rate?

Postby darzo » 24 Jan 2018, 21:23

Motion blur of what?
darzo
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 12 Aug 2017, 12:26

Re: Are Cougar Mice Legit 2000hz Polling Rate?

Postby Chief Blur Buster » 24 Jan 2018, 22:19

darzo wrote:Motion blur of what?

Motion blur of mouse-panning.

(FPS turning, RTS panning, map dragging, and any mouse-movement that causes a full screen scroll motion).

1000Hz isn't enough to make panning 'perfect smooth' on ULMB displays, for example. The microstutters adds extra persistence above-and-beyond display persistence.

It's less important at 60Hz or 144Hz, but becomes a more significant factor at 240Hz+, for VRR (e.g. G-GYNC, FreeSync), and for low-persistence (e.g. ULMB).

Also, you're familiar with beat-frequency. Say, a 500 hertz audio tone and a 501 hertz audio tone creates a 1 hertz beat frequency. Also, whenever a beat-frequency microstutter occurs, the stutter ultra-tiny microstutter is the beat frequency between display refresh rate (precise time) and mouse report (precise time). For example, Old 125Hz mice on 120Hz displays created 5 microstutters per second.

If the beat frequency is low, it's visible stutter (stutter vibrates slower so it's like a visibly vibrating edge)
If the beat-frequency is high, it's motion blur (stutter vibrates so fast that it is blurry edge like a plucked higher-Hz guitar string)

Also, 1000Hz can roundoff +/- 0.5ms relative to frametimes, so that's your mouse microstutter error margin added above-and-beyond the regular microstutter of framerate-refreshrate mismatch -- that's your motion blur thickness for high stutter frequencies (0.5ms persistence).

Also, it gets more complex than that -- there's beat-frequency between mouse-hz and display-hz and framerate (three different frequencies). What this boils down to, is the mousefeel doesn't feel as perfect as it could be.

CS:GO is an old game, and the feel of 1000Hz vs 2000Hz is now visible on such game in the world of 240Hz / VRR / low-persistence.

Obviously, the difference between 1000Hz and 2000Hz is extremely subtle but not invisible. Just like some well-honed eSports players can tell apart tiny lag differences between displays -- other people like me, can tell the difference between 1000Hz and 2000Hz mice in certain display modes simply by eye-tracking motions on panning caused by mouse motions (e.g. FPS turns, RTS panning, or any mouse movement causing panning motions). 0.5ms is very subtle but that's still 4 pixels of error (offset = stutter) during 8000 pixels/sec panning speed (8000 x 0.5 = 4) -- that can become visible on a ULMB-equipped 4K display.

This stuff is not important to most people (maybe not even to you), but it's surprising how long mouse manufacturers have stuck to only 1000Hz when modern systems now permit 8000Hz and mouse camera sensors are already high-Hz.
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter!
To support Blur Busters: Official List of Best Gaming Monitors | G-SYNC | FreeSync | Ultrawide
User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4691
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44

Re: Are Cougar Mice Legit 2000hz Polling Rate?

Postby darzo » 24 Jan 2018, 23:00

What's blur in terms of pixels, and why would 4 pixels of it be more visible on a 4k monitor rather than a 1080 one?
darzo
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 12 Aug 2017, 12:26

Re: Are Cougar Mice Legit 2000hz Polling Rate?

Postby Sparky » 24 Jan 2018, 23:26

darzo wrote:What's blur in terms of pixels, and why would 4 pixels of it be more visible on a 4k monitor rather than a 1080 one?

Motion blur is the distance your eye moves across the screen in the time a single frame/refresh cycle is illuminated. 4k monitors generally have lower refresh rates, so at a given duty cycle/brightness your eye has more time to move across the image, and in this case specifically, there's more time for your eye to be tracking an object across the screen, so more time to notice issues.

As for how it increases motion blur, that would be most noticeable if your eyes are tracking the mouse cursor, and the amount of blur depends on how fast the image is moving. 4 pixels of difference between 1khz and 2khz corresponds to a mouse movement speed of 8000 pixels per second. If your polling rate is 1khz, then there's a random 0 to 1ms delay between where the cursor is, and where it would be with an infinite polling rate, so your cursor can be anywhere up to 8 pixels behind where it 'should' be. doubling the polling rate cuts that error in half. Basically, your eye is moving across the screen at 8k pixels/sec, and the cursor is too, but with that small random error included. I guess technically it isn't really motion blur, but a form of judder.
Sparky
 
Posts: 589
Joined: 15 Jan 2014, 02:29

Re: Are Cougar Mice Legit 2000hz Polling Rate?

Postby Chief Blur Buster » 25 Jan 2018, 00:12

Sparky wrote:Basically, your eye is moving across the screen at 8k pixels/sec, and the cursor is too, but with that small random error included. I guess technically it isn't really motion blur, but a form of judder.

If at a high vibration rate, judder/stutter does blend into blur.

That"s what display persistence is: The high-frequency "stutter" of eyetracking across static refresh cycles. That is what it is when you watch motion on a 30Hz display or a VRR going down to 30fps (30Hz).

Regardless, the mathematics is the same for blurwidth (if blur) or edge-vibrationwidth (if stutter/judder). Both are still imperfections in motion either way.

Explanation: http://www.blurbusters.com/1000hz-journ ... ramplitude

And motion demo: http://www.testufo.com/vrr
Watch the high and low framerates.

Edge vibration of framerates:
Low frequencies vibrate visibly: it is motion stutter
High frequencies blend to blur: it is motion blur

Scientifically are the same phenomenon producing different effects. The difference is your flicker fusion threshold for edge-vibrating frequency. Low means visible stutter. But high is blur (invisible stutter vibrating at high frequences). Like a slow guitar string (vibrates noticeably) and a fast guitar string (blurry string because it is vibrating faster than you can see).
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter!
To support Blur Busters: Official List of Best Gaming Monitors | G-SYNC | FreeSync | Ultrawide
User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4691
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44

Re: Are Cougar Mice Legit 2000hz Polling Rate?

Postby Chief Blur Buster » 25 Jan 2018, 00:15

darzo wrote:What's blur in terms of pixels, and why would 4 pixels of it be more visible on a 4k monitor rather than a 1080 one?

Sparky is right.

It is easier to eye-track 4000 pixels/sec on a 4K monitor (much slower motion) than 4000 pixels/sec on a 1024x768 monitor (much faster motion)

Likewise, higher dpi means you track more pixels per inch for same motionspeed.

TL;DR: Higher resolution puts bigger demands on mice, for perfection in mousefeel. especially if the higher resolutions is done with low persistence (e.g. 4K ULMB where 2000Hz mice makes a bigger difference)
Head of Blur Busters - BlurBusters.com | TestUFO.com | Follow @BlurBusters on Twitter!
To support Blur Busters: Official List of Best Gaming Monitors | G-SYNC | FreeSync | Ultrawide
User avatar
Chief Blur Buster
Site Admin
 
Posts: 4691
Joined: 05 Dec 2013, 15:44

Re: Are Cougar Mice Legit 2000hz Polling Rate?

Postby darzo » 28 Jan 2018, 02:18

I got the Minos. Overall a positive impression. I think it might feel livelier but a good test is needed. The shape is actually not bad for an ambidextrous mouse and the size was pretty damn good for me. The broader front I think gave me decent control with my ring finger and did not at all make me feel inclined to use three fingers on top or make me uncomfortable. But the shape still wasn't good enough and I still perform better with the Roccat KPOW, although I think I'm able to play a tracking hero like Soldier just as well, but I don't feel comfortable on a more flick hero like McCree (similar to how I feel about the G Pro). Feels just a bit awkward. Venator, Revel, and DM S Pro still left. Even if the Minos is true 2k polling rate shape matters more from my experience. Just like with Logitech you could possibly make an appealing mouse but overlook or be complacent with shape. Good job by Roccat.
darzo
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 12 Aug 2017, 12:26

Re: Are Cougar Mice Legit 2000hz Polling Rate?

Postby darzo » 29 Jan 2018, 17:44

https://zowie.benq.com/en/support/mouse ... ecker.html

Here I'm getting around 1500hz rather than 2000 while at 1000 I am getting around 1000. Not much difference between 1600 dpi and 800 dpi although it does seem like on that test the number ticks a little bit higher at 800.

I'm trying out this mouse again and this time I lowered my sensitivity slightly while keeping the polling rate at 2000. Now I'm starting to feel quite confident on it and it seems like I may have misattributed my initial sub-part performance on McCree to the shape being somewhat worse than the Roccat KPOE when so far this has reversed it. I may be able to perform better too but I need to play more. I think Cougar deserve credit for the shape. I don't know how my hand is so much different from RocketJumpNinja's but the broader front definitely gives me better control of the mouse due to good placement of the ring finger on the side, control being particularly important for an ambidextrous mouse and something the Logitech Pro lacks for me at least. Something about the contour of the mouse might be better too. Since I've lowered my sensitivity slightly I have no complaints, I'm controlling it well for the time being.

Why would a higher polling rate make sense of lowering sensitivity (have kept the dpi constant at 1600 btw)?

Bah, it turns out I might not be able to control this mouse for Widowmaker. :( Tried adjusting the sensitivity but no success. I get the G Pro thing where I sort of make a little line randomly and in general am having a tough time. Back to the Roccat and the difference is immediate and dramatic on Widowmaker. I've experienced stuff like this before and it's actually insane. I went from being mass reported in three different games (...lol) to popping things like zits on king of the hill.
darzo
 
Posts: 130
Joined: 12 Aug 2017, 12:26

PreviousNext

Return to Offtopic Lounge

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests