Blur Busters Forums

[Editor's Note For Readers: This is a success report from following HDTV Refresh Rate HOWTO: True 120Hz from PC to TV, for those wondering.]


So this tv is doing 108hz smoothly, very clear, with sound. Tried Pixel Overclock via EVGA Precision X to boost to 120 or even 109 with no success. Have a custom refresh set via NVIDIA Control Panel at 108hz currently. Trying the Reduced Timings setting does nothing at 109hz, trying to manually change the front porch etc is doing nothing at 109hz/110hz/120hz.

So it looks like 108hz is the max, but with sound and 108hz working over HDMI, this beats 60hz hands down.

I would love feedback if anyone has suggestions to get it up to 120hz.

Also, this particular TV is less than a week old and shows a fairly significant amount of Backlight bleeding/clouding. It also displays feint horizontal backlight banding/stripes, which I had never seen nor heard of before. Neither are at all noticeable with normal/bright scenes, but stand out during dark scenes and continuously during letterbox videos. I plan to call for an exchange later today.

I am curious what the general consensus would be given 2 options. Should I give another M651d-A2R a shot as a straight exchange, or should I go with the UN65F6400 120hz Samsung and hope it, like the UNxxF6300 line, will also be 100+ hz capable? I should mention I have literally just over 100+ 3D films and have previously had an absolutely awful experience with Samsung UN55C7000 active 3D shutter glasses. I would rate the Samsung 2010 model's 3D at a 1/10 and the Vizio M's passive at an 8.5/10. The 3D would be an important factor to me. Or maybe I should risk trying an LG 60LM7200 passive model, which I haven't seen any mention of as being +100hz capable, and also a step down to 60"?

Also of note, after viewing the "Smooth Motion Effect" interpolation of the Vizio M, I can see what people have been complaining about on different TV forums for the last several years about Motion Interpolation in general. On the Vizio its very blurry with tracers of bright objects. Plain ugly really, which stinks because I really enjoyed the Automotion Plus settings of the 2010 Samsung (at least on HDMI/HD content).

I have not yet tested my UN40F6300, and another fellow says 120hz works on his UN32F6300. But I would not assume that you get 120hz on every size of that model. I know the Seiki 39" has issues with 120hz in the past at least, even though the 50" model does not. I know lots of people would like to know if the UN65F6400 supports higher framerates. So buy it where you can take it back and find out. Showing us evidence of your DD that the Visio at least goes to 100+ is very valuable for the forum, so thanks for sharing that with us.

I have work to do today to verify if the Seiki 39" with latest firmware will do 120Hz, and also the Samsung UN40F6300. I will share my results as soon as I have them.

trey31 wrote:So this tv is doing 108hz smoothly, very clear, with sound.

Excellent news for the Vizio model.
From what I see in the photograph of http://www.testufo.com/frameskipping -- you did the frameskipping test correctly, and it's indeed confirming 108Hz is working. (A slightly longer camera exposure is more ideal to capture more refreshes, but this photo is good enough)

When you say "nothing", do you mean 109Hz at reduced timings is going blank? Or it's showing normal (as if nothing changed). If it blanks out, it's not a promising sign. If picture stays (e.g. looks like nothing has changed) then it's a good sign.

In order to get to 120Hz:
-- Try reducing VERTICAL porches slowly (decrease by 1), until the picture blanks out. Then back off by 1 or 2. Then finally change 109 into 110, and keep going from there. Increase Hz by 1.
-- Then reducing VERTICAL sync slowly (decrease by 1), keep going until it blanks out, then once that's done, increase Hz by 1.
-- Once you hit the limits, slowly reduce the HORIZONTAL values (you can decrease by 8, rather than by 1 to speed things up).

I know people who hit 120Hz on certain models that way. But even if not, 109Hz is still pretty good if you have zero frame skipping; motion should be significantly smoother, and with less blur, especially when viewing motion such as http://www.testufo.com/photo ....

Ahigh wrote:I have not yet tested my UN40F6300, and another fellow says 120hz works on his UN32F6300. But I would not assume that you get 120hz on every size of that model. I know the Seiki 39" has issues with 120hz in the past at least, even though the 50" model does not. I know lots of people would like to know if the UN65F6400 supports higher framerates. So buy it where you can take it back and find out. Showing us evidence of your DD that the Visio at least goes to 100+ is very valuable for the forum, so thanks for sharing that with us.

I have work to do today to verify if the Seiki 39" with latest firmware will do 120Hz, and also the Samsung UN40F6300. I will share my results as soon as I have them.

I'd love to see the results of the Seiki 39" myself. I like 4K, but 30hz for most gaming stinks. I read elsewhere that the 50" model was allowing custom resolutions in the NVIDIA Control Panel at 60hz and above, but some were displaying blurry if they weren't a nice round percentage number of 3840x2160, like 2880x1620 (75% of 3840x2160) looked great but 3200x1800 @60hz (83.333%) looked blurred. Which is odd to me because 3200x1800@60hz looked fantastic on the UN55C7000 Samsung and looks possibly even better on the Vizio M651d-A2R. I guess I should look for the link to where I read that and post it here for reference.

Either way the blurry scaling of custom resolutions is one reason why I passed over the 50" Seiki. That and I plan to buy a larger panel passive 3D 4K TV w/ HDMI 2.0 specs sometime in the next 2 years anyway, for local splitscreen gaming in Dual Play-style mode (1080 to each player via 2D passive glasses), better passive 3D film viewing (1080 to each eye), and of course 4K film content if it ever shows up (I wouldn't put it past the manufacturers to start pushing 8K earlier than expected if 4K film content isn't wowing consumers though).

However, I am looking for a new TV to use as a desktop monitor later in 2014, and for that reason I'd love to see your results with the 39" Seiki. Specifically the oddball resolutions like 3200x1800, if you wouldn't mind briefly testing that resolution out for PQ I'd be extremely appreciative. I love downsampling non-FP games at 3200x1800. Tomb Raider for instance only has about a 10fps drop from 1080p to 1800p for me, but the difference in PQ is stunning. Also I'm curious what the max refresh rate is @1080p if it can't reach 120hz. The UN40F6300 also looks like a great deal if it can do 100+hz, but the native 4K of the Seiki as an up-close desktop application resolution sounds like the better option, at least on paper.

In regards to the Samsung, my better half wants to give the Vizio another shot. From what I understand, if the second one also has the same issues (or any issues) I will still be able to exchange it as well (within a specific time frame). If that's the case (hopefully not) we'll probably try the LG 60" instead. She is drawn to the passive 3D sets and has never liked active on any TV, only on the 3D Vision DLPs. As long as there is minimal crosstalk I'm good with whatever. 95% of my viewing is in 2D anyway, but I'm not the only one using the family room TV. So I guess I jumped the gun on the F6400 option...

I will update back here with whatever course of action we take. I look forward to seeing the Seiki and UN40F6300 results as well!

Chief Blur Buster wrote:

trey31 wrote:So this tv is doing 108hz smoothly, very clear, with sound.

Excellent news for the Vizio model.
From what I see in the photograph of http://www.testufo.com/frameskipping -- you did the frameskipping test correctly, and it's indeed confirming 108Hz is working. (A slightly longer camera exposure is more ideal to capture more refreshes, but this photo is good enough)

When you say "nothing", do you mean 109Hz at reduced timings is going blank? Or it's showing normal (as if nothing changed). If it blanks out, it's not a promising sign. If picture stays (e.g. looks like nothing has changed) then it's a good sign.

In order to get to 120Hz:
-- Try reducing VERTICAL porches slowly (decrease by 1), until the picture blanks out. Then back off by 1 or 2. Then finally change 109 into 110, and keep going from there. Increase Hz by 1.
-- Then reducing VERTICAL sync slowly (decrease by 1), keep going until it blanks out, then once that's done, increase Hz by 1.
-- Once you hit the limits, slowly reduce the HORIZONTAL values (you can decrease by 8, rather than by 1 to speed things up).

I know people who hit 120Hz on certain models that way. But even if not, 109Hz is still pretty good if you have zero frame skipping; motion should be significantly smoother, and with less blur, especially when viewing motion such as http://www.testufo.com/photo ....

Sorry about the exposure length, I used a cell phone camera to take it. I'll use one of the DLSRs in the future. What is the recommended exposure length for the test? Long enough to get every frame, or like half of them?

At 109hz/110hz/115hz the desktop is visible, but the image is doubling the top 20 or so horizontal pixels and repeating them from top to bottom with some major warping. So while I can see part of the desktop, its not in any way usable at all. I think 120hz shows up entirely black/blank.

I will tweak more following your instructions and re-post the results here. Thanks for the help!

Also I remember reading that I should try more than just 120hz, like also 109hz/110hz/115hz as well. That is still the general consensus, right? So I may never get 110hz, but 115hz or 118hz might work perfectly, correct?

trey31 wrote:Sorry about the exposure length, I used a cell phone camera to take it.

Cellphone cameras are good! Just hard to adjust exposure on. Dimming the display is one tactic to trick them into longer exposures.

trey31 wrote:I'll use one of the DLSRs in the future. What is the recommended exposure length for the test? Long enough to get every frame, or like half of them?

No, not that extreme as a full screenful of them! Just enough to capture at least ten squares in the photo (At least). That way, you can be even more sure it wasn't skipping 1 frame out of 10. For 109Hz, that means an exposure length of 10/109, or approximately 1/10th second. The photo that you took, is quite accurate already though.

trey31 wrote:Also I remember reading that I should try more than just 120hz, like also 109hz/110hz/115hz as well. That is still the general consensus, right? So I may never get 110hz, but 115hz or 118hz might work perfectly, correct?

That sometimes happens. I've seen displays work at 60Hz and 120Hz, and never at any intermediate refresh between 60Hz and 120Hz. But, for your situation, it is looking quite unlikely, alas!

Another test to try is 720p at 120Hz, because that often works more often than 1080p@120Hz. That said, I would personally prefer 1080p@100Hz over 720p@120Hz...

Chief Blur Buster wrote:Just enough to capture at least ten squares in the photo (At least). That way, you can be even more sure it wasn't skipping 1 frame out of 10. For 109Hz, that means an exposure length of 10/109, or approximately 1/10th second. The photo that you took, is quite accurate already though.

These are all @720p:






These were taken with one of our Nikon D series DSLRs. My wife is the photographer, so I'm sure she could have set up the camera to capture the frames better than I did. I'm not all that knowledgeable about aperture or iso settings on digital cameras, but the frames show up so that's all I was after.

After testing 720p 240hz/200hz/175hz/144hz with the frame skipping test in Chrome, I would definitely recommend 12 frames be captured by anyone confirming 120hz, or 14/15 for anyone confirming 144hz. The frame skipping at 200hz/175hz was easy to spot with my eye. Literally didn't need to take any photos of those to confirm, I already saw it skipping. However testing 144hz looked in real time to my eye to be accurately displaying 14 consecutive frames at first glance. After looking at the pics on the dslr I could spot the frame skipping in real time at 144hz though. So the idea of capturing more frames with a single exposure is definitely justified, because just a string of 4 or 5 successive frames in an exposure could potentially make someone think there is no skipping when there actually could be. However if only 60hz is being displayed when set to 120hz, I would imagine that would be fairly easy to spot as it would be dropping every other frame on the frame test.

I do have a question about the frame skipping test in Chrome however, I was under the impression that the Chrome browser is limited to displaying only 120hz refresh rate. Is that only true for the UFO Motion Test? To be honest, 720p@144hz seemed to me to be slightly smoother than 720p@120hz when dragging windows across the desktop. That was before doing the frame skipping test, so I'm fairly certain now that it was only displaying 120hz while in 144hz mode, and that it was simply dropping 2 frames out of every 14. Or perhaps its possible that Chrome was limited to 120hz, and the browser was dropping the frames and not the TV? I would guess its the other way around, but I thought I would ask anyway.

EDIT:To be honest watching the UFO test @144hz set to 960pps creates a placebo effect, if in fact it is the TV that is dropping frames @144hz and not Chrome.
EDIT #2: After viewing and photographing 144hz on the UFO test at 3840 pixels per second, I am now certain it is the monitor and not Chrome that is dropping frames at 144hz. Every 6th frame (I think) there is a gap between UFOs at a 1/15 exposure. Its even visible without the camera once I knew to leave my eyes focused on the black background and not try to follow the UFO men (even if they are so inviting).

Another question. Hypothetically speaking, if turning V-Sync off caused screen tearing above 120hz (say, at 190fps with a 120hz refresh), would setting the resolution to 240hz resolve the screen tearing? I know that 240hz on this TV is dropping every other frame, but even so it still looks as smooth and accurate as 120hz does when moving items around on the desktop. So if I were playing Republic Commando or something with V-Sync off to have the least amount of input lag, and experienced screen tearing, would setting the refresh to 240hz fix it? Or would setting it to 240hz and letting it drop each alternating frame lower the input lag even more than 120hz, perhaps?

Chief Blur Buster wrote:Another test to try is 720p at 120Hz, because that often works more often than 1080p@120Hz. That said, I would personally prefer 1080p@100Hz over 720p@120Hz...

I prefer 1080p@108hz over the 720p@120hz on this particular panel, if only because icons look so gigantic on a 65" screen. That and the difference of 12hz between the two resolutions is nowhere near as drastic as the difference between 60hz and 100hz.


On to further testing. Here is what I have confirmed thus far:
1. 1920x1080p@100hz (auto timings, 100hz refresh confirmed)
2. 1920x1080p@108hz (auto timings, 108hz refresh confirmed)

3. 1280x720p@120hz (automatic timings, but I had to set the resolution to 1280x720p@60hz in the NVIDIA control panel before creating the custom resolutions in order to get it to show the correct timings. Going from 1920x1080p as the default/current resolution to creating a custom resolution at 720p was showing the same timings as 1080p in the NVIDIA control panel. 120hz refresh confirmed)
4. 1280x720p@144hz (auto; confirmed frame skipping 2/14 frames)
5. 1280x720p@175hz (auto; confirmed frame skipping)
6. 1280x720p@200hz (auto; confirmed frame skipping)
7. 1280x720p@240hz (auto; confirmed frame skipping every other frame, motion looks perfectly fine and on par with 120hz. Could possibly improve input lag and still display 120 frames?)

8. 3200x1800p@60hz (auto; 60hz refresh confirmed. As a downsampling fan, I must say this resolution on the Vizio looks even better than it did on my old Samsung UN55C7000. Possibly because of the larger panel size, however that doesn't quite make sense considering the DPI of a 65" 1080p TV is lower than that of a 55" 1080p TV. Either way 1800p looks fantastic.)
9. 3360x1890p@23hz (auto; 23hz refresh rate confirmed, and stinks.)

Testing Soon:
1. 2560x1440p
2. 2880x1620p
3. 3072x1728p
4. 2400px1350p
5. 1080p@96hz

NOTE: No Interlaced resolutions above 60hz are being accepted as Custom Resolutions by the TV via NVIDIA Control Panel. I've read other TVs are capable of doing 120hz interlaced, but neither my previous UN55C series Samsung (2010) nor the Vizio M651d-A2R are capable of 120hz interlaced refresh rates, at least not with NVIDIA Control Panel.

I hadn't read much about downsampling, but that's very interesting information!

Ahigh wrote:I hadn't read much about downsampling, but that's very interesting information!

I absolutely love downsampling. Even Wii/Dolphin games at 4K look stunning for a 7+ year old 480p console:

As far as NVIDIA cards are concerned, the cards that have like 3GB or 4GB gddr5 ram typically have only slight drops in fps at higher resolutions. Well, SLI cards with 3GB or 4GB in my experience have only slight drops at higher resolutions. The lower end cards with only 2GB of video memory tend to have a lot more issues maintaining frame rates as resolutions increase. At least in my experience, which has mostly been with NVIDIA cards.

For me personally, downsampling 3200x1800@60hz always improves aliasing in 3D applications (games) without needing to screenshot it to see what difference "2x versus 4x" is making. So if a game (non first person shooters/rpg) is capable of running at a higher fps than vsync is allowing, rather than loading up tons of AA at native resolutions, you can downsample (or in the case of a 4K panel like Seiki's, downscale) a higher resolution and leave AA options turned off, or use them in conjunction with downsampling. I personally like to setup post-process SMAA anti-aliasing which isn't very taxing on a GPU (1-8fps drops), as well as using downsampling to smooth jaggies.

Another non-AA benefit of using downsampling is higher texture resolution. Not only do you get less aliasing using downsampling, you also benefit from larger texture renderings, which make hi-res textures (Ultra/Very High) look more crisp and lifelike. Even sloppy console ports can look fantastic on PC with downsampling.

This is typically how devs make the "bullshots" they use to advertise their games. Downsampling from 4K and using multiple AA options in unison help create those "actual gameplay" screenshots that we all know we'll never see because, well, we like to play games at rates higher than 1-2fps...

trey31 wrote:After testing 720p 240hz/200hz/175hz/144hz with the frame skipping test in Chrome, I would definitely recommend 12 frames be captured by anyone confirming 120hz, or 14/15 for anyone confirming 144hz.

Actually, one of the problems is that if you try to capture too many frames, the squares become too dim to see. Depending on how bright the overall photo is. Using a faster ISO helps a lot, if you use a longer exposure. This will blow out the whites, but will make the squares easier to see. Generally, the sweet spot appears to be about 8-10 frames, which gives you a 99%+ confirmation certainty if you see an unbroken sequence.

trey31 wrote:So the idea of capturing more frames with a single exposure is definitely justified, because just a string of 4 or 5 successive frames in an exposure could potentially make someone think there is no skipping when there actually could be. However if only 60hz is being displayed when set to 120hz, I would imagine that would be fairly easy to spot as it would be dropping every other frame on the frame test.

This is true, and you only need about 3-4 consecutive squares highlighted in order to confirm a successful 120Hz overclock of a normally 60Hz HDTV.

trey31 wrote:I do have a question about the frame skipping test in Chrome however, I was under the impression that the Chrome browser is limited to displaying only 120hz refresh rate.

Chrome has no 120Hz limitation. I only mention that at the bottom of TestUFO as "120Hz+". cirthix tells me he successfully tested Chrome at 240Hz with no frame skipping on his custom-modified 240Hz LCD, with a green VALID. At 240fps, it does push the limits of Chrome performance, though!

Internet Explorer is reliable up to 105Hz, Opera is as reliable as Chrome (240Hz), while FireFox is still too stuttery to do reliable frameskipping testing. Chrome is the best browser I can reliably detect perfect VSYNC with monitor (and detect browser-skipped frames as opposed to display-skipped frames). That way, if you photographed with a green VALID (confirming validity of photo), and Chrome is currently GPU accelerated in Aero mode on the primary monitor, it's virtually guaranteed to be the monitor that's frame skipping if you see black gaps. That's why i currently recommend Chrome, closely followed by Opera (which now uses the Chrome engine), when doing TestUFO motion tests.

trey31 wrote:Is that only true for the UFO Motion Test? To be honest, 720p@144hz seemed to me to be slightly smoother than 720p@120hz when dragging windows across the desktop.

If you are using Windows 8.1, that is because of mouse fluidity issues. You should be aware of the Gaming Mouse fix for Windows 8.1 before judging the window drag test. Give it a try!

trey31 wrote:EDIT #2: After viewing and photographing 144hz on the UFO test at 3840 pixels per second, I am now certain it is the monitor and not Chrome that is dropping frames at 144hz. Every 6th frame (I think) there is a gap between UFOs at a 1/15 exposure. Its even visible without the camera once I knew to leave my eyes focused on the black background and not try to follow the UFO men (even if they are so inviting).

That's correct, its the TV that's dropping frames, and not Chrome. Chrome is extremely reliable at not being the cause of dropped frames whenever a green "VALID" is being displayed at the bottom (As long as you're in Aero mode, and all app/browser windows are on the primary monitor, or you're in single monitor mode).

trey31 wrote:Another question. Hypothetically speaking, if turning V-Sync off caused screen tearing above 120hz (say, at 190fps with a 120hz refresh), would setting the resolution to 240hz resolve the screen tearing? I know that 240hz on this TV is dropping every other frame, but even so it still looks as smooth and accurate as 120hz does when moving items around on the desktop.

Aero is always VSYNC ON; it is not currently possible to turn off VSYNC using Aero, so this is a moot question.
That said, if running full screen apps, you will still see tearing even if you get frameskipping. Tearing is refresh-specific, unrelated to frameskipping. Yes, it means half of tearlines become invisible, but the other half of tearlines will still be in the visible non-skipped refreshes. ("Frameskipping" is actually really "refreshskipping" as it's not frameskipping on the GPU framebuffers / videogame framebuffers, but frameskipping on the displays' own internal framebuffer used for refreshes).

trey31 wrote:Or would setting it to 240hz and letting it drop each alternating frame lower the input lag even more than 120hz, perhaps?

Oh -- from the perspective of the display, it is not game-framebuffer-skipping, it's refresh-framebuffer-skipping. Display do not ever know how many frames per second your game is running at! It's just "dumbly" refreshing synchronously at some exact rate (e.g. 120 cycles per second -- 120Hz), and the GPU is sometimes splicing the new frame into the existing refresh as the display scans out -- creating the tearline artifact.

(GSYNC is smarter than this, but that's a separate topic altogether...)

Yes, you do get less input lag at 240Hz (even if frameskipped to 120Hz) than you do at 120Hz (non-frame-skipped).
However, tearing will still be there. Tearing is intrisinically embedded into the refreshes, and thus tearing gets recorded into the monitor's internal frame buffers. It's like multiple videogame frames spliced-above-each-other, into one refresh, and that refresh is buffered into the monitor, and that some buffered refreshes might be frameskipped (ignored).

trey31 wrote:7. 1280x720p@240hz (auto; confirmed frame skipping every other frame, motion looks perfectly fine and on par with 120hz. Could possibly improve input lag and still display 120 frames?)

Yes, that's correct. You can get less input lag with frameskipped 240Hz->120Hz. Each frame is transmitted in 1/240sec, so your input lag is reduced by 1/240sec (4ms) which is actually noticeable to some people -- 4 milliseconds means getting 4 pixels ahead in motion during moderate 1000 pixels/second motion -- or 16 pixels ahead during fast 4000 pixels/second turning motion. These ultra-subtle differences can surprisingly be noticeable to some very sensitive people in some fighter games, FPS games, even emulation).

Although lots of people say sub-20ms differences are not felt (and this is very true for most of population), this isn't true for 100% of population. Remember the 100 meter olympics races; sometimes people cross the finish line only 1ms or 2ms faster than the 2nd place! Mere inches, mere centimers. And likewise, for displays, mere pixels. So, milliseconds actually matter for some elite players...

The faster frame-transmission time is also seen on other displays capable of 240Hz input (frameskipped to 120Hz), such as the SEIKI 4K 50" HDTV, which can display 120 out of 240 when 720p@240Hz is input. Someone on HardForum confirmed they were able to feel the difference during fast-twitch FPS games. As Chief Blur Buster, I certainly believe them!