Stuck at 60hz

[Ywap]

Originally Posted by JuggernautOfWar

Get an LCD monitor.

I will never own a lcd screen for gaming. Bad black levels, bad viewing angles, unnatural colors and slow response time are not my thing since i hate motion blur. And yes, i have seen the latest and fastest screens and they are a joke compared to a high quality CRT monitor. The intruduction of lcd:s was a huge step backwards for pictures in motion, but probably a nice cash-cow for the manufacturers. We desperatly need something better, hopefully Canon can do it with SED...

So, no no. I rather play at 30hz or not at all than use a lcd screen.

Not trying to be an arse here JuggernautOfWar, just stating my opinion of the LCD technology

[JuggernautOfWar]

Yeah I know what you mean. I am looking forward to OLED technology. Hopefully when they are stable and seriously on the market the flaws will be ironed out. Oh and some LCDs now have 120hz.

What's that Canon technology you said?

[Ywap]

Originally Posted by JuggernautOfWar

Yeah I know what you mean. I am looking forward to OLED technology. Hopefully when they are stable and seriously on the market the flaws will be ironed out. Oh and some LCDs now have 120hz.

What's that Canon technology you said?

Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SED_display

Flat screens with crt quality

[JuggernautOfWar]

Guys check out OLED. Videos of it are on the intertubez.

[WhatsOneMore]

Originally Posted by Ywap

Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SED_display

Flat screens with crt quality

Now Ywap thats a monitor and one I would buy !

[WhatsOneMore]

Oh BTW it is a known fact that the human eye can't see pass 35 frame per second.

Actually it is said the human eye can't RECOGNISE anything faster that 35 FPS and thats a scientific fact, proven by studies of the human eye and brain reactions.

But where the thinline is that when a game drops below a steady 35 fps then the human eye will notice it and the brain sez OPPS this game Sux.

So if you were to watch videos as in one at 50 fps and then one at 65 fps, you couldn't tell them apart or even name which one was which speed.

BTW I think I mispelled some words here, but I will go for another beer and think about it on my way to the fridge

[JuggernautOfWar]

The human eye can't recognise more than a certain amount, true. But the game is overall smoother the higher FPS you get, no matter what.

[WhatsOneMore]

Originally Posted by JuggernautOfWar

The human eye can't recognise more than a certain amount, true. But the game is overall smoother the higher FPS you get, no matter what.

Ok man your right but the fact of the matter is that, with dips in the fps rate it causes it to stutter first and then lag to the point of glitching.

Point of reason you can't run 60 fps and drop to 25 without noticing it and if it's dropping that much. It will eventually drop lower and stick causing a glitch that can freeze your PC to the point of lockup.

My only reason for pointing out the 35 fps as far as the eyes can see was to actually acknowledge the fact that there is a probelm here, sure I did it tongue and cheek. But my point was made.

As in the human eyes watching 35 fps or better there is no real differance unless there is slowdown caused by the frame rates dipping below any set rate. Your eyes become acustomed to things and when they change you notice it more.

[serinity]

Originally Posted by Ywap

So, no no. I rather play at 30hz or not at all than use a lcd screen.

Not trying to be an arse here JuggernautOfWar, just stating my opinion of the LCD technology

Taken from Tom's hardware site: "There's 1000 milliseconds in a second (like thousand milliliters in a liter). There's 1000 microseconds in a millisecond, and there's 1000 nanoseconds in a microsecond. And to be complete: a decisecond is a tenth of a second, and a centisecond is .01 seconds. These last two are never used in practice. You see them occasionally in combination with liters (volumetric measurement).

If you have a refresh rate (in case of LCD response rate is the proper term really) of 2 milliseconds, then you can refresh/change the pixels on the screen 1/0.002 = 500 times a second, hence referred to as 500 frames per second, or 500 fps. (8ms rr = 125 fps, 12ms = 83 fps, etc)."

With 2 ms monitors today arent CRT's obsolete? 2ms LCDs are great. Most of the things you mentioned arent really that much of an issue anymore as far as color, veiwing angles and such. They might have been when LCDs first came out. When LCDs first came out 2ms wasnt even close to possible.

[Ywap]

Originally Posted by serinity

With 2 ms monitors today arent CRT's obsolete? 2ms LCDs are great. Most of the things you mentioned arent really that much of an issue anymore as far as color, veiwing angles and such. They might have been when LCDs first came out. When LCDs first came out 2ms wasnt even close to possible.

I watchted the Samsung T220 yesterday and it´s said to be a 2ms gaming screen. The blur during motion were so obvious i felt motion sick, maybe i´m more sensitive to this issue than most people, i don´t know...

The very obvious backlight and the bad preassure in the colours both gave a very unnatural picture.

Again, not trying to be an a-hole, i just want pictures in motion to be sharp and i want natural colours and for the black to actually be black. Lcd can´t give me that today and i suspect it never will. We need something better!