Only some humans can see refresh rates faster than others, I am one of those humans.

[freeagent]

On my old Sony CRT it was easy to tell between different refresh rates, I used 85Hz. On my TV because it is only 60Hz I lock the frames to that. On my old monitor I would see tearing above refresh. But not really on my tv, kinda wierd. My TV has game mode, but never tried it.. it can do 120Hz at 1080p and it was ok, but I didnt stick with it. Maybe I just need a better screen.. I do not play fps anymore because nuketown is gone

But everything else looks great at 4K/60 max settings most of the time.. maybe I will buy a real monitor to try out.

 

[Chrispy_]

but OLEDs are still inherently sample-and-hold displays and they still have a measure of blur due to this that’s unavoidable.

Sample+hold blur is OLED's biggest problem.

People thought that 0ms pixel response would cure motion blur for good but because OLEDs can't strobe (at least I've not seen a strobing OLED yet), their "effective pixel response" is equivalent to their frame interval, so 4.2ms on a 240Hz OLED, for example.

A decent LCD display can also achieve 4.2ms pixel transitions, so really you're just getting the perfect blacks with OLED, whilst losing any hope of better motion clarity through strobing. VA's are mostly trash at dark pixel response times, but if you can find one of the few good ones (such as the Odyssey G7 C32G75T) then you get very good black levels (not quite OLED), competitive pixel response times, AND you also get strobing.

Add the higher input lag for OLED's anti-burn and brightness management processing, and it's not a clear-cut win for OLED. Hell, I prefer my strobing G7 over my OLED TV for fast-paced gaming.

 

[bonehead123]

Man, I feel so sorry for ya'll.....

Since I got my positronically-enhanced implants, which are connected directly to my visual cortex, I just dynamically adjust my eyes to my preferred refresh rate simply by looking at any display..... when they are low, I go high, when they are high, I go even higher, and my brain adapts instantly

aint technology great

/s

 

[gurusmi]

everyone DOES see higher refreshrates, it just changes accordingly to the person perspective.
i used 60hz monitors and tvs for my entire life, but i still can notice the 30-60HZ (FPS) difference on videos and video games (except for beamgndrive)
if i get an higher rate monitor, even at 75hz, i would notice huge differences. i think i would be okay with 144hz, but i probably can get more.

You know that you are talking about 50 - 60 half pics changes when talking about tv's? That means that one half of the full picture (all even lines) are changed and all (odd) lines stay. At the next turn all odd lines changes and all even ones keep. So you are talking about 25-30 FPS on videos. So already this lines you wrote are nonsense.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Sample+hold blur is OLED's biggest problem.

People thought that 0ms pixel response would cure motion blur for good but because OLEDs can't strobe (at least I've not seen a strobing OLED yet), their "effective pixel response" is equivalent to their frame interval, so 4.2ms on a 240Hz OLED, for example.

A decent LCD display can also achieve 4.2ms pixel transitions, so really you're just getting the perfect blacks with OLED, whilst losing any hope of better motion clarity through strobing. VA's are mostly trash at dark pixel response times, but if you can find one of the few good ones (such as the Odyssey G7 C32G75T) then you get very good black levels (not quite OLED), competitive pixel response times, AND you also get strobing.

Add the higher input lag for OLED's anti-burn in and brightness management processing, and it's not a clear-cut win for OLED. Hell, I prefer my strobing G7 over my OLED TV for fast-paced gaming.

All of the more recent oled monitors have pretty low input latency even at 165hz. The C2/G2 is only around 5ms at 120hz as it is.

Some Oleds have black frame insertion but I hate it as much as strobing on LCDs, ULMB gives me a headache. I have a hard time gaming on an IPS/VA period anymore though.
That 540hz TN isn't too bad when it comes to input lag but TN is shite.



The G7 isn't bad but the curve is awful tried one for about a month.

 

[Keullo-e]

120Hz is fine for me, I see no differences after that. My main PC has a 4K120 monitor and my second has a 1080p144 so I can compare easily.

 

[Onasi]

People thought that 0ms pixel response would cure motion blur for good but because OLEDs can't strobe (at least I've not seen a strobing OLED yet), their "effective pixel response" is equivalent to their frame interval, so 4.2ms on a 240Hz OLED, for example.

Latest Asus models do have ELMB. It locks the refresh to 120, turns off VRR and locks the brightness to sub-100 nits (yup), so how practically useful it is is debatable.

 

[Shrek]

My bike LED seems fine on partial brightness... until it rains, then the falling rain comes down in dashes...

 

[Chrispy_]

My bike LED seems fine on partial brightness... until it rains, then the falling rain comes down in dashes...

yeah, most LEDs strobe on lower brightness. It's why modern cars all have flickering daylight running lights in videos now, because the camera catches it where human vision can't, just like CRT's look awful when recorded on video...

 

[Onasi]

You know that you are talking about 50 - 60 half pics changes when talking about tv's? That means that one half of the full picture (all even lines) are changed and all (odd) lines stay. At the next turn all odd lines changes and all even ones keep. So you are talking about 25-30 FPS on videos. So already this lines you wrote are nonsense.

…that’s just straight up not true. What you’re talking about is interlacing and it is far from being common nowadays. It’s also not the function of the display necessarily, but content. The native resolution of any reasonably modern display (yes, TVs included) is full progressive.

 

[Solaris17]

I took a look at the actual journal and while I didn’t read every section the section specific to testing methodology indicated most people started to fall off as they got closer to 60hz. They briefly used 80hz as a baseline and had them work lower from that.

I didn’t see anything in this article mentioning people with triple digit hz range eye sight. In fact there graph shows the opposite. Am I missing something?

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I took a look at the actual journal and while I didn’t read every section the section specific to testing methodology indicated most people started to fall off as they got closer to 60hz. They briefly used 80hz as a baseline and had them work lower from that.

I didn’t see anything in this article mentioning people with triple digit hz range eye sight. In fact there graph shows the opposite. Am I missing something?

I'm not even sure a flickering LED light can be applied to a FPS on a monitor other than to say that people that were able to distinguish higher flickering rates might be able to different higher refresh rates... A bit above my head to be honest.

 

[mechtech]

I can tell a major difference going from 60hz to 90hz even, like it's night and day "holy fuck this is immersive" kind of difference. Interesting how our eyes our so different from one another.

I am wondering also if it declines with age, so when I am age 70 will I still be able to have that experience? Will be interesting to find out.

yep.

I had 120hz in school and a roomate had a 144hz

I could not tell the difference in a game at that.

Having said that, being at 4k and not really playing fps anymore, I'll keep my money and use 60hz. When/if 120hz becomes about a $50 adder to 4k I may drop that coin for the option.

Also I'd be willing to bet younger people can detect more fps than older people say like teenager vs 60+, but same cane be said for hearing, etc. Just the nature of things.

 

[freeagent]

other than to say that people that were able to distinguish higher flickering rates might be able to different higher refresh rates...

That might be PWM, to which I am not sensitive to.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

That might be PWM, to which I am not sensitive to.

True, it gives me a headache at least on every display I've tried it on. I was thinking ULMB 2 would help but at least on the Asus 360hz 1440p monitor it does not.

I haven't tried BenQ varient I've heard it's decent it's called Dyac I believe.

 

[gurusmi]

…that’s just straight up not true. What you’re talking about is interlacing and it is far from being common nowadays. It’s also not the function of the display necessarily, but content. The native resolution of any reasonably modern display (yes, TVs included) is full progressive.

Did you read my post? What did i write? About TV-Systems? It's true since the Pal, Secam and NTSC came up. I'm able to explain why it is that way and how the underlying technics (cathod ray tube = crt) works. At least in german.

 

[Vayra86]

If I fire up a game at 120fps I can see the difference, but to me it isnt a positive experience, the supposed cut in latency as an example I definitely do not notice. Instead it just feels unnatural and after that experiment I never went above 60fps again.

I am super sensitive to stutters in games, and am aware the higher you push target frame rate the more likely a stutter, so that also impacts my frame rate decisions and I actually prefer to play RPGs at 30 as they feel more immersive. I think I cant feel input latency differences between 30 and 60 if I am honest, my brain just doesnt compute that fast.

Still these high frame rates did do some good, it brought about VRR. That does wonders when playing FF15 lol.

Im in this camp too. Though my ideal world is made of 90-100 fps, but yeah, it must be super consistent in frametimes. If its not give me less with better consistency.

 

[Chrispy_]

I took a look at the actual journal and while I didn’t read every section the section specific to testing methodology indicated most people started to fall off as they got closer to 60hz. They briefly used 80hz as a baseline and had them work lower from that.

I didn’t see anything in this article mentioning people with triple digit hz range eye sight. In fact there graph shows the opposite. Am I missing something?

That journal is based on LED flicker, this discussion is more about the point at which people fail to gain any fluidity or perceived framerate improvement.

Since LED flicker works on persistence of vision from the retinal chemical reactions activation and recycling in the rods and cones of your eye, your "flicker perception framerate" is organic chemistry, and it varies from I guess 35Hz to 90Hz depending on the individual. I suspect the speeds of your eye chemistry vary from evolutionary mutuations, the same way some colourblind people have fewer colours of cones (dicromats like me) or in the case of some women, a fourth colour cone (tetrachromacy). IIRC I think this one covers the retinal reaction cycle somewhere.

The old 60Hz CRTs were an eyestrain-inducing strobe light for me, "flicker-free" was introduced in the '90s to mean 72Hz or 75Hz, but I was never happy with anything less than 85Hz which was the point at which I could neither see the flicker, nor did I get headaches.

Motion fluidity at a particular framerate is a slightly different mechanic than the persistence of vision, especially on modern displays that have constant backlights (so zero flicker). The illusion of motion is far more complex that just the speed of your retina's chemistry, the human visual cortex, specifically its performance/speed at the specific function of: 'object tracking and motion prediction'. There is clearly a wide variance in the population's ability to distinguish frames of motion from true motion, Just like there are huge ranges in other aspects of brain function. Some people are smart but can't read a map, others are maths geniuses but cannot solve three-dimensional spatial problems. My favourite difference in the way people's brain works was the discovery that some people don't have a mind's eye (ie, they cannot visualise images or scenes in their head, at all - they are barely visual and work entirely off patterns of association, apparently!)

So yeah, if people can provably see the difference between 120fps and 240fps, even in blind testing with no reference framerate, while you have others saying 30fps or 50fps is fine - I just have to assume that everyone is right and there are people out there who can tell 400fps from 500fps, and also people who don't see any difference between 24fps cinema and 60Hz broadcast/streaming!

 

[Vayra86]

Heck, I imagine I could notice a difference between 60 Hz and 66 Hz on CRTs, LOL. Some CRTs, had 60 Hz and 66 Hz options, I believe.

Even on lcd though... I can tell anyone without a frame counter if Im looking at 40, 45, 50, 55 or 60 fps no problem. Beyond 80 it becomes harder to me. Above 120 I dont really notice.

 

[Warcore 8400gs]

You know that you are talking about 50 - 60 half pics changes when talking about tv's? That means that one half of the full picture (all even lines) are changed and all (odd) lines stay. At the next turn all odd lines changes and all even ones keep. So you are talking about 25-30 FPS on videos. So already this lines you wrote are nonsense.

my tv operates at 139251928592159821895218951829589 hertz.
okay, i used tv for most time in gaming, as we had monitor but for some reason, it would explode wshen turning on (according to my dad)
now im on a monitor, i wishi had a better monitor for actually seeing some difference.
still, thanks for the push!
.

 

[freeagent]

Some people don't have an inner monologue either which is incredibly fascinating to me.

I still do not understand how this can be. They must be NPC's.

 

[TumbleGeorge]

Am I missing something?

Here on the forum we have supermen who see faster than normal people?

 

[dgianstefani]

That journal is based on LED flicker, this discussion is more about the point at which people fail to gain any fluidity or perceived framerate improvement.

Since LED flicker works on persistence of vision from the retinal chemical reactions activation and recycling in the rods and cones of your eye, your "flicker perception framerate" is organic chemistry, and it varies from I guess 35Hz to 90Hz depending on the individual. I suspect the speeds of your eye chemistry vary from evolutionary mutuations, the same way some colourblind people have fewer colours of cones (dicromats like me) or in the case of some women, a fourth colour cone (tetrachromacy). IIRC I think this one covers the retinal reaction cycle somewhere.

The old 60Hz CRTs were an eyestrain-inducing strobe light for me, "flicker-free" was introduced in the '90s to mean 72Hz or 75Hz, but I was never happy with anything less than 85Hz which was the point at which I could neither see the flicker, nor did I get headaches.

Motion fluidity at a particular framerate is a slightly different mechanic than the persistence of vision, especially on modern displays that have constant backlights (so zero flicker). The illusion of motion is far more complex that just the speed of your retina's chemistry, the human visual cortex, specifically its performance/speed at the specific function of: 'object tracking and motion prediction'. There is clearly a wide variance in the population's ability to distinguish frames of motion from true motion, Just like there are huge ranges in other aspects of brain function. Some people are smart but can't read a map, others are maths geniuses but cannot solve three-dimensional spatial problems. My favourite difference in the way people's brain works was the discovery that some people don't have a mind's eye (ie, they cannot visualise images or scenes in their head, at all - they are barely visual and work entirely off patterns of association, apparently!)

So yeah, if people can provably see the difference between 120fps and 240fps, even in blind testing with no reference framerate, while you have others saying 30fps or 50fps is fine - I just have to assume that everyone is right and there are people out there who can tell 400fps from 500fps, and also people who don't see any difference between 24fps cinema and 60Hz broadcast/streaming!

Can you rotate an apple in your head test, mental rotation.

Some people don't have an inner monologue either which is incredibly fascinating to me.

Cognitive testing is quite interesting, the basic tests are cool, but so are the more specific ones that most people haven't heard of.

For example, IQ testing (which is relative, not absolute BTW, it's based off the average, which is 100, this changes depending on region or year), current research suggests that most people with IQs below 90 cannot understand a conditional hypothesis - "how would you feel if you didn't eat lunch" "what do you mean, I did eat lunch" etc. Also tied in with recursion, or mapping.

I'm not suggesting that how well people can differentiate between different FPS is related to IQ, in fact I highly doubt it, but there are very interesting and measurable differences between different people when it comes to how we perceive or understand things.

I suspect like many things related to the brain, FPS sensitivity is partially determined by how well you "train" your brain. i.e. people who play a lot of fast paced competitive shooters at a younger age and continue to do so, likely have more acute sensitivity.

 

[Vayra86]

I still do not understand how this can be. They must be NPC's.

They cant be AI, thats all inner monologue right there lol

 

[dgianstefani]

I still do not understand how this can be. They must be NPC's.

Well, it is related to certain cognition and reasoning etc. Some things are measurable. However, this does not necessarily mean the person is stupid, just that in that area they have a deficiency.