EVE Search - 60hz enough for a LCD?

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

60hz enough for a LCD?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
xeom Exit 13 Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.06.05 00:31:00 - [1] Well i just upgraded to a new monitor. From: http://www.viewsonic.com/support/desktopdisplays/lcddisplays/aseries/va720/ To: http://www.westinghousedigital.com/details.aspx?itemnum=108#VALUE The thing is my new monitor only supports 60hz at its native resolution.I've been told by several people this doesn't matter.Because the way LCD's work.So basically no difference and eye strain should be the same. Is there really no difference and am i just adjusting to the new monitor? --- 8) The coolest smiley ever!
Vari Carbide Industries	Posted - 2007.06.05 00:37:00 - [2] Correcto, your eyes will not be strained. Don't worry about that. But because LCDs have yet to break the 75hz barrier I personally recommend against them for FPS gaming.
xeom Exit 13 Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.06.05 01:02:00 - [3] Originally by: Vari Correcto, your eyes will not be strained. Don't worry about that. But because LCDs have yet to break the 75hz barrier I personally recommend against them for FPS gaming. Thats good eye strain was my only major concern going into this new monitor =D Well this whole wide screen thing is really bad for competitive FPS from what I've tried so far holy crap.I mean it looks great but So hard to see everything at once. --- 8) The coolest smiley ever!
Damien Smith Sybrite Inc.	Posted - 2007.06.05 04:02:00 - [4] There is no hz limit for LCD's really as there is no electron gun painting the frames. What you need to look for is the response time, which is the time it takes for the pixels to change colour. Unless I'm wrong all LCD's run at '60hz' but it doesn't really mean anything. Response times vary greatly but lower is always better. ----- Join channel 'Turby' or die! (bring pie)
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.06.05 04:14:00 - [5] Originally by: Vari Correcto, your eyes will not be strained. Don't worry about that. But because LCDs have yet to break the 75hz barrier I personally recommend against them for FPS gaming. LCDs don't refresh--the "refresh rate" as such is meaningless. What matters for FPSs is response time, not refresh rate. --23 Member--
Vari Carbide Industries	Posted - 2007.06.05 04:53:00 - [6] Edited by: Vari on 05/06/2007 04:54:37 Originally by: Dark Shikari LCDs don't refresh--the "refresh rate" as such is meaningless. What matters for FPSs is response time, not refresh rate. I must disagree. Refresh rate is everything. You play CS at 60hz, and then bump it up to 100hz, you'll notice the difference. Your brain gets more updates on where you're aiming and where your targets are every second. And never mind the difference in Quake 3. If it's response time that matters, not refresh rate, pick a FPS, lock your computer at 30fps, and I'll play you.
Sokratesz Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.06.05 04:53:00 - [7] Yup..lcds dont have a refresh time as the image insnt refreshed, its updated. Whatever remains the same will stay and not refresh the entire image like with a CRT monitor. And current CRTs with a sub-16 response time are great for FPS gaming - i did quake 4, RTCW (old gold) and some others on mine and no blurring or visual lag whatsoever. Just dont buy the '2ms response!' crap things cause thats isnt quite technically possible yet and just creative marketing talk. 12 - 16ms is good enough, and fairly cheap even. Sig removed. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] with a link to your signature. - Elmo Pug
Frezik Celtic Anarchy Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.06.05 05:12:00 - [8] Originally by: Vari Edited by: Vari on 05/06/2007 04:54:37 Originally by: Dark Shikari LCDs don't refresh--the "refresh rate" as such is meaningless. What matters for FPSs is response time, not refresh rate. I must disagree. Refresh rate is everything. You play CS at 60hz, and then bump it up to 100hz, you'll notice the difference. Your brain gets more updates on where you're aiming and where your targets are every second. And never mind the difference in Quake 3. If it's response time that matters, not refresh rate, pick a FPS, lock your computer at 30fps, and I'll play you. 1) The above statement was specifically about LCD technology, where the refresh rate is meaningless, because that's how LCDs work. 2) Human vision isn't that good in terms of frames per second. Around 30fps is as good as it gets. Many animals have much higher fps, though with reduced clarity/color perception. Claims to see better above that are likely placebo effect or perhaps better response on the part of the computer (high fps may indicate that the computer can spend more time on things besides graphics).
Vari Carbide Industries	Posted - 2007.06.05 05:21:00 - [9] Edited by: Vari on 05/06/2007 05:22:24 Edited by: Vari on 05/06/2007 05:20:13 Originally by: Frezik 2) Human vision isn't that good in terms of frames per second. Around 30fps is as good as it gets. Many animals have much higher fps, though with reduced clarity/color perception. Claims to see better above that are likely placebo effect or perhaps better response on the part of the computer (high fps may indicate that the computer can spend more time on things besides graphics). You take the challenge then. 30fps is where the illusion of motion is complete for film media. It is not the limit of the human mind. Go watch the movie 'Get Quake 3' and tell me Recon's shot at 12:45, along with many others, is some placebo effect whatever or the result of divine intervention. They recognize enemies, and then accurately place their cursors over them, and then click the mouse in tenths of a second. If the demos weren't captured at 300fps, then reduced down to the 30fps DivX standard you wouldn't be seeing anything.
Ionia Advanced Manufacturing	Posted - 2007.06.05 07:27:00 - [10] So much rubbish. How can you compare a video game with a film? Films use motion blur, games don't. That makes a huge difference. And to the person talking about playing quake at 300fps, what monitor are they using that supports this exactly??
Vari Carbide Industries	Posted - 2007.06.05 07:33:00 - [11] Originally by: Ionia And to the person talking about playing quake at 300fps, what monitor are they using that supports this exactly?? Quake 3's engine tops out at 85fps. But that's still a lot more than DivX's standard 30. I'm just saying when the movie guys captured the demos, they ran it at 300fps 'resolution' to give a smoother motion blur effect. A lot still happens sometimes in between frames for Quake to benefit from 300fps.
Xrak Black Eclipse Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.06.05 08:35:00 - [12] Ignore Vari. LCD are fine for films and games as long as you get a decent monitor. Sig stolen from Tekka. Evemail him for details about free sigs. <3
Ealiom Infinitus Morti R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.06.05 09:53:00 - [13] Edited by: Ealiom on 05/06/2007 09:52:06 lol i remember this old arguement. So here goes. LCD's work with a response time. anything around 5ms or lower is perfect for gaming. You also want one that has a aspect ratio of at least 700:1. FPS and refresh rates. The human eye and brain can only register approximately 60fps any more than this is pretty much useless. You may read many articles stating otherwise but ill ignore those, cos well i can'T be bothered typing out an explanation. Animation typically runs at 16fps TV runs at 30fps Film runs at 24fps A typical monitor has a refresh rate of 75hz. Which means that those folks who have monsterous graphics cards that churn out 300fps in there fps of choice will lose 225 frames per second and there own eyes will drop more of those frames. Basically as long as your FPS is the same as your monitors refresh rate your in gaming nirvana. Remember that the next time you see some 12 year old boasting about his 180fps in counterstrike. Executioner Model Blackbird Model
Kappas. Galaxy Punks	Posted - 2007.06.05 10:13:00 - [14] Edited by: Kappas. on 05/06/2007 10:13:12 Originally by: Vari Quake 3's engine tops out at 85fps. No it doesn't. /com_maxfps 500 will set the maximum frames per second to 500, on my pc it runs around 250fps, with hardware that's nearly 1.5 years old now, i'd imagine it's a lot faster now. Edit: To the poster above me, it's not so much about what you can see at high fps, it's about what you feel with your mouse when you move. 30fps in a FPS feels a million times slower and laggier than say 150fps
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.06.05 10:13:00 - [15] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 05/06/2007 10:14:00 Originally by: Vari I must disagree. Refresh rate is everything. You play CS at 60hz, and then bump it up to 100hz, you'll notice the difference. Your brain gets more updates on where you're aiming and where your targets are every second. And never mind the difference in Quake 3. If it's response time that matters, not refresh rate, pick a FPS, lock your computer at 30fps, and I'll play you. You don't seem to understand. LCDs don't refresh. LCDs don't refresh. The only reason they have a "refresh rate" is to appease the operating system running them, which insists on having a number on it measuring their supposed refresh rate. The number of FPS an LCD can show is related to its response time, NOT THE REFRESH RATE. Originally by: Kappas To the poster above me, it's not so much about what you can see at high fps, it's about what you feel with your mouse when you move. 30fps in a FPS feels a million times slower and laggier than say 150fps This depends very strongly on what engine the game uses. Quake 3 is of course notorious for this. --23 Member--
Kappas. Galaxy Punks	Posted - 2007.06.05 10:21:00 - [16] Well, it is a really old game now. It also lags like a ***** at above 60m/s pings too However it's one of the first multiplayer games I played on the internet, so holds a special place
Ealiom Infinitus Morti R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.06.05 11:01:00 - [17] I was always more of a UT man. I thought Quake3 was horrible online. laggy as hell + horrible map design. The bots were famous for having the crappest AI as well. Anyways OP most of the above posters are right LCD has no refresh rate only a response time. The lower the better, so as long as you are getting over 60fps in your games then you wont notice any difference. Executioner Model Blackbird Model
knifee Caldari Rage Academy	Posted - 2007.06.05 12:32:00 - [18] The other important thing to remember with TFTs response time is that it can be measured in different ways, and comparing TFTs based on the response time is pointless unless you know exactly what has been measured. Most quoted response times are based on a 'black -> white' change which tfts (particular cheap TN panels) are normally very good at. However this in no way reflects the response time of 'gray -> gray' or 'colour -> *' changes. Back to the OPs comment about eye strain, itÆs the flicker of a CRT (more noticeable the lower the refresh rate) thatÆs responsible for most of the eye strain, and TFTs are flicker free. So as long as you are taking other reasonable precautions (donÆt sit to close, take breaks etc) you should notice a significant improvement. www.eve-dev.net - makeing a good thing better
Frezik Celtic Anarchy Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.06.05 14:12:00 - [19] Originally by: Vari Go watch the movie 'Get Quake 3' and tell me Recon's shot at 12:45, along with many others, is some placebo effect whatever or the result of divine intervention. The placebo effect is very powerful, and should not be underestimated. Australian Aboriginals have been known to die simply because their tribal doctor said they'd die because of some new blemish on their skin. This is the source of much head-scratching among doctors and psychologists--there's no known reason why the power of suggestion should be this powerful. As I said, your eyes just aren't that good. This has been established in scientific literature for a long time. If high-end Quake players are showing a demonstratable difference after controlling for placebo, then the advantage lies elsewhere, such as better response time on the part of the mouse/keyboard/network and so on.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.06.05 14:48:00 - [20] Originally by: Frezik Originally by: Vari Go watch the movie 'Get Quake 3' and tell me Recon's shot at 12:45, along with many others, is some placebo effect whatever or the result of divine intervention. The placebo effect is very powerful, and should not be underestimated. Australian Aboriginals have been known to die simply because their tribal doctor said they'd die because of some new blemish on their skin. This is the source of much head-scratching among doctors and psychologists--there's no known reason why the power of suggestion should be this powerful. As I said, your eyes just aren't that good. This has been established in scientific literature for a long time. If high-end Quake players are showing a demonstratable difference after controlling for placebo, then the advantage lies elsewhere, such as better response time on the part of the mouse/keyboard/network and so on. In Quake 3, different framerates affect the game's physics, which is why 200+ FPS can matter. In more modern engines this isn't nearly as true. When panning very quickly one can notice up to 60+ FPS (even up to 100 or more) if your eyes are good, but beyond that its not noticeable at all, generally. And in slower games, you can get far fewer FPS and not notice the difference; your eyes can only catch the difference if an object is moving quickly enough across your field of vision. --23 Member--
Mtthias Clemi Gallente Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2007.06.05 15:22:00 - [21] Originally by: Dark Shikari Edited by: Dark Shikari on 05/06/2007 10:14:00 Originally by: Vari I must disagree. Refresh rate is everything. You play CS at 60hz, and then bump it up to 100hz, you'll notice the difference. Your brain gets more updates on where you're aiming and where your targets are every second. And never mind the difference in Quake 3. If it's response time that matters, not refresh rate, pick a FPS, lock your computer at 30fps, and I'll play you. You don't seem to understand. LCDs don't refresh. LCDs don't refresh. The only reason they have a "refresh rate" is to appease the operating system running them, which insists on having a number on it measuring their supposed refresh rate. The number of FPS an LCD can show is related to its response time, NOT THE REFRESH RATE. Originally by: Kappas To the poster above me, it's not so much about what you can see at high fps, it's about what you feel with your mouse when you move. 30fps in a FPS feels a million times slower and laggier than say 150fps This depends very strongly on what engine the game uses. Quake 3 is of course notorious for this. sorry, i loved the way Vari was ignoring the actual point.. well done -------------------------------------------- Stay away from my signature all of ya!!! IM WARNING YOU!! PEW PEW PEW PEW!
Vari Carbide Industries	Posted - 2007.06.05 16:51:00 - [22] Edited by: Vari on 05/06/2007 16:50:41 Originally by: Dark Shikari LCDs don't refresh. LCDs don't refresh. The only reason they have a "refresh rate" is to appease the operating system running them, which insists on having a number on it measuring their supposed refresh rate. The number of FPS an LCD can show is related to its response time, NOT THE REFRESH RATE. So you're telling me those gaming LCDs with a '2ms' response time update their full image 500 times a second? Originally by: Mtthias Clemi sorry, i loved the way Vari was ignoring the actual point.. well done And I love how you guys are all talking about stuff you know nothing about. Please don't challenge someone who's made hundreds in FPS gaming tournaments.
Frezik Celtic Anarchy Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.06.05 17:15:00 - [23] Originally by: Vari So you're telling me those gaming LCDs with a '2ms' response time update their full image 500 times a second? The max number of full screen images a LCD can show you in a second (FPS) is still fully tied to it's refresh rate. What refresh rate? There is no such thing as refresh rate for LCDs. Whatever the OS says, the display simply ignores that value. The screen buffer is a lump of memory. Location 0 in the buffer goes to pixel 0. Location 1 in the buffer goes to pixel 1. And so on. Response rate is the time it takes between setting a pixel value in the buffer and the screen actually displaying that value. Refresh rate is only relevant for raster CRT technologies, since it uses a electromagnetic beam to paint each pixel from left-to-right, top-to-bottom. If refresh rate is 75Hz, then it will restart from the bottom and go back to the top 75 times per second. LCDs don't behave anything like that. Quote: And I love how you guys are all talking about stuff you know nothing about. Please don't challenge someone who's made hundreds in FPS gaming tournaments. Your claimed experience is irrelevant. Your statements demonstrate a lack of knowledge. I've watched the video you posted above. While that level of play is impressive, I don't see anything that isn't explainable with the improved physics with high-fps in Quake III that Dark Shikari mentioned.
Sokratesz Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.06.05 18:18:00 - [24] If fragging people in unreal tournament got you hardware-knowledge i'd be head technician at Dell.
Mtthias Clemi Gallente Infinitus Odium	Posted - 2007.06.05 18:23:00 - [25] Originally by: Vari Edited by: Vari on 05/06/2007 17:11:26 Originally by: Dark Shikari LCDs don't refresh. LCDs don't refresh. The only reason they have a "refresh rate" is to appease the operating system running them, which insists on having a number on it measuring their supposed refresh rate. The number of FPS an LCD can show is related to its response time, NOT THE REFRESH RATE. So you're telling me those gaming LCDs with a '2ms' response time update their full image 500 times a second? The max number of full screen images a LCD can show you in a second (FPS) is still fully tied to it's refresh rate. It can never exceed it. Plus, 'response time' varies wildly depending on whether it's gray-gray or black-white-black. But even so, LCDs can't show you more than 75 frames per second due to the circuitry involved. Originally by: Ealiom The human eye and brain can only register approximately 60fps any more than this is pretty much useless. Approximately. It changes depending on your state of mind, whether you're under the influence of drugs, and other things. So years of FPS gaming can change things. Just as years of training means a martial artist can put his whole body weight on one finger. Plus things vary wildly from person to person. I know someone who when sleepy has a response time of ~160ms consistently, but heads towards ~135ms after repeated trials. Originally by: Mtthias Clemi sorry, i loved the way Vari was ignoring the actual point.. well done And I love how you guys are all talking about stuff you know nothing about. Please don't challenge someone who's made hundreds in FPS gaming tournaments. HUNDREDS!!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????! -------------------------------------------- Stay away from my signature all of ya!!! IM WARNING YOU!! PEW PEW PEW PEW!
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.06.05 18:28:00 - [26] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 05/06/2007 18:27:42 Originally by: Vari Originally by: Dark Shikari LCDs don't refresh. LCDs don't refresh. The only reason they have a "refresh rate" is to appease the operating system running them, which insists on having a number on it measuring their supposed refresh rate. The number of FPS an LCD can show is related to its response time, NOT THE REFRESH RATE. So you're telling me those gaming LCDs with a '2ms' response time update their full image 500 times a second? The max number of full screen images a LCD can show you in a second (FPS) is still fully tied to it's refresh rate. It can never exceed it. Plus, 'response time' varies wildly depending on whether it's gray-gray or black-white-black. But even so, LCDs can't show you more than 75 frames per second due to the circuitry involved. Yes, a 2ms response time LCD can show 500 frames per second... if it is given 500 frames per second to show via the RAMDAC of the graphics card. You are correct about the variable response time though--the "response time" given in the tech specs isn't accurate for all situations, not even close. --23 Member--
Vari Carbide Industries	Posted - 2007.06.05 18:54:00 - [27] Originally by: Dark Shikari I just checked this and technically you are right--the refresh rate does dictate the maximum framerate--but there are plenty of 120hz and above LCDs available today so it isn't really a disadvantage of LCDs over CRTs. Whoo hooo we have one guy who stopped quoting what they think they know and actually looked up the facts. But tell me, which LCDs can do 120hz? I'm honestly tired of lugging my 19" around. It's 50 pounds. Time for more fact checking.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.06.05 18:55:00 - [28] Originally by: Vari Originally by: Dark Shikari I just checked this and technically you are right--the refresh rate does dictate the maximum framerate--but there are plenty of 120hz and above LCDs available today so it isn't really a disadvantage of LCDs over CRTs. Whoo hooo we have one guy who stopped quoting what they think they know and actually looked up the facts. But tell me, which LCDs can do 120hz? I'm honestly tired of lugging my 19" around. It's 50 pounds. Time for more fact checking. Old news... I'd much rather game on an LCD anyways, the image quality is vastly better and less painful on the eyes. --23 Member--
Vari Carbide Industries	Posted - 2007.06.05 19:05:00 - [29] Originally by: Dark Shikari Old news... I'd much rather game on an LCD anyways, the image quality is vastly better and less painful on the eyes. Two thousand USD for a 32" TV that has a native resolution of 1366x768. A 21" CRT is lighter, has a WAYYYY higher resolution and will definitely be cheaper too. Try again.
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.06.05 19:08:00 - [30] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 05/06/2007 19:08:20 Originally by: Vari Originally by: Dark Shikari Old news... I'd much rather game on an LCD anyways, the image quality is vastly better and less painful on the eyes. Two thousand USD for a 32" TV that has a native resolution of 1366x768. A 21" CRT is lighter, has a WAYYYY higher resolution and will definitely be cheaper too. Try again. I was just answering your question. I see no good reason to use a bulky, low-quality CRT that burns out your eyes rather than a high-quality LCD of the same size. Modern computer LCDs (not HDTVs) can get up to about 100hz from what I've seen, and if you think you can see the difference between 100 FPS and 120 you are nuts. My eyes are constantly thanking me ever since I switched from my CRT to an LCD. I can hardly use CRTs anymore without realizing how painful they are on the eyes, let along the horrible contrast ratios and bad color. By the way, "contrast ratio" is misleading--on an LCD, it compares black and white, but black still has the backlight behind it, so its not technically black. But what matters is the contrast ratio between colors on the screen rather than between black and white, and in that category LCDs beat CRTs hands-down. --23 Member--

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

8)

8)