TV refresh rate ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dragos
  • 26 comments
  • 2,575 views
D

dragos

Messages
16
120Hz and 240Hz

Is there a noticeable difference between the two? Lag or screen tear, that kind of stuff... (mostly interested in GT5, but feedback on other games also welcome) Looking for a new TV and trying to figure this out now.

Thanks
D
 
120Hz, 240Hz all the way up to 600Hz are just marketing gimmicks mainly from Plasma TV manufacturers, much like the contrast ratios of a gazillion:1 they all like to knock out.

Read this article:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2379206,00.asp

In short don't worry about them, for video they have little positive effect and for gaming they can be worse. Just stick with a normal, proper 60Hz HDTV would be my advice.
 
also you should get less input lag when using 60hz on those screens, and connect your controller via cable (not wireless).

Besides that, get a screen that has a "gaming mode" (which turns off image processing) and search reviews on the interwebz. More than that what matters the most is watching the TV in person before buying it.

Don't care too much about that issue though, since flat screens will always be not smooth in comparison to a CRT. For example you'll be better off with a sony than an old LG (better response but looks awful).
 
and if you want to get on the technical side of things, in general terms on a CRT screen the more hz the better. That didn't start as a marketing gimmick, but it was picked up by current TV manufacturers and they distorted the concept. In short, in reality not a single TV on the market outputs more than 60 "real" or "active" hz.

For example I still have an old Viewsonic for pc fps gaming. 125fps, 120hz and a 500hz mouse is a whole different experience, though some people in very, very niche games play with more than that and using "perfect" values.
 
We should add the caveat that the only reason they're "gimmicks" at this point is because most sources are 60 Hz or slower.

A 120 Hz source played on a 120 Hz display would look pretty sweet in current games, and with today's high-visibility display panels. (I miss my old CRT for its crisp framerates, but not its image quality).
Although I expect that much above 120 Hz would be lost on my eye-brain, but I'd have to try it (that's not to say it shouldn't be done in general.)
 
Griffith500
We should add the caveat that the only reason they're "gimmicks" at this point is because most sources are 60 Hz or slower.

A 120 Hz source played on a 120 Hz display would look pretty sweet in current games, and with today's high-visibility display panels. (I miss my old CRT for its crisp framerates, but not its image quality).
Although I expect that much above 120 Hz would be lost on my eye-brain, but I'd have to try it (that's not to say it shouldn't be done in general.)
Click to expand...

it's not only about the input (fps). Current TVs don't output 120hz, hence it's a marketing gimmick. What they do is just interpolating the image and others.

Some interwebz sites call that "passive 120hz", to distinguish them with some PC monitors that have "active 120hz", which is the real thing but it isn't as smooth as a CRT screen for even more boring reasons.

This discussion will go into the myth of that the human eye can't distinguish more than 30fps, and the difference between fps and hz and so on.
In short, that's false. In general terms it has to do with motion blur and the fact most customers haven't tried more than "active" 60hz.

edit: what an offtopic, lol. Just follow the easy instructions from #2 and #3.
 
Even if they're interpolating to 120 Hz, I'd hope they're actually making use of those interpolated frames, otherwise it's a waste of effort! (Not to mention entirely idiotic.)

So current TVs can and do "output" at 120 Hz, i.e. their screens are switched at 120 Hz with (potentially) distinct, different frames. It's just a case of getting those frames into the right place, either from a 120 Hz source directly (which I suspect is where displays, and source hardware, might be lacking, although 3D ones shouldn't be) or from the interpolation buffer / stream, also at 120 Hz.

It's just that when the source isn't 120 Hz, they can't add any extra information, they can only work from what is present (interpolation, etc.) That's in the same way that up-scaling an image can't add any information, but the image is still bigger. 120 Hz screens really do work at 120 Hz.


I agree about the 30 fps thing; that "myth" was borne from the cinema standard (24 fps), which is deliberate in its contrast ratio between the screen and surroundings in order to cater for such low framerates (not to mention the built-in blur on the film itself, at least originally) - these were technological limitations of the time, with "solutions" that proved adequate in practice for film, and still are in some ways today.
However, saying that 120+ Hz "modes" are "just gimmicks" may lead to further myths in the future, so it's important to, er, look at the bigger picture. ;)
 
Thanks for all the info, very informative. SimonK thanks for the link, good reading. Guess I'll stick with 60Hz and keep some cash in my pocket.
 
120hz is good for BD movies though. I'm NOT talking about the motion interpolation feature, but rather for 5:5 pulldown. It's kind of hard to explain if you're not familiar with these terms, but films are 24 frames per second, and that doesn't divide equally into 60. So, every other frame has to be shown a little longer than the one after it, resulting in uneven motion. Those of us in NTSC land are used to this, but it's still not right.

If the player can output 24hz and the display is a multiple of that (such as 120hz), each frame can be shown for the same amount of time, as it should be. With 120hz, each of the frames is shown 5 times for 5:5 pulldown.
 
Griffith500
However, saying that 120+ Hz "modes" are "just gimmicks" may lead to further myths in the future, so it's important to, er, look at the bigger picture. ;)
Click to expand...

Someday flat TVs will catch up with 30 years old technology, but it seems that won't be the case at least for the next 5.
 
Most 120Hz, and higher, TV's are for 3D capabilities. If you don't use those features, you won't notice a thing. I've been using my 60Hz for the past 5 years and the picture looks the same (PS3) as my brothers 120Hz 3D TV.

As some people said here though, a lot of those specs they advertise for TV's are for marketing. Some of those numbers get ridiculously high and our eyes don't even see or notice it. Sure it looks nice on paper but, if your eyes can't see it or pick it up, whats the point?
 
Usually the more expensive TVs also have better displays. 120 Hz can always be turned off. Also, they handle movies better (5:5 instead of 3:2).
But for regular gaming, 60 Hz will do.

Plasma, Led, you have to see for yourself what feels better for you.
 
240Hz mode in my TV and it makes 30fps titles run like they were 60fps. No major difference in GT5 as it already runs smooth.
 
60, 240, 600
 
I think the hz rating makes a huge different, same with contrast ratios... I had an LCD tv with a 60hz and 30'000:1 contrast ratio. HD picture was good but detail was lost slightly in the shadows and dark areas, and when rapid movement happened over with a light object moving over a darker background you would get ghosting (lag, imagine the Johnny Cage Shadow kick from mortal kombat for effect) hardly terrible but was noticable... I've not got an LED 400hz tv and a high contrast ratio, and the first thing you notice is how sharp the picture is because it LED, second the details in the shadows was mind blowing, playing GTA4 I noticed whole new things and details that where always lost in the blackness (imagine a slowly fading shadow instead of a jet black mass) and the ghosting, not a drop of it, no matter how fast the action or movement its always pin sharp.

I always thought that it couldnt make too much a of difference until my mum bought a 60hz and 6000:1 ratio tv and the picture quality is worlds apart from my tv, despite them both being Samsung.

But read as many reviews as you can, as the LG passive 3D tvs are utter garbage for gaming I've read... where the input lag is so bad people have said it makes games almost 'unplayable' Thats the 450,550,and 650s, LG have recently released a new tv with gaming in mind, but youre talking close to 2 grand for a 40" and that is a joke!
 
The issue with Dynamic Contrast Ratios is they ARE worthless because there is no standard. One manufacturer can have their own scale and claim 1:4,000,000 while another can have their own and claim 1:25,000,000. It doesn't mean the second is better necessarily.
 
SimonK
The issue with Dynamic Contrast Ratios is they ARE worthless because there is no standard. One manufacturer can have their own scale and claim 1:4,000,000 while another can have their own and claim 1:25,000,000. It doesn't mean the second is better necessarily.
Click to expand...

Also, they could be measuring the brightest white the set can put out compared to the darkest black. The problem is that white may be way too bright, so by the time you tone it down, who knows what CR you end up with?

Dynamic contrast should be disabled anyway, IMHO.
 
Searched. No results.
 
You know, I have played on a 60hz (my Sony Bravia 1080p LCD) and my friends 120hz LCD, I believe it is a Vizio. Anyways, I have gotten so used to 60hz gaming that when I played Halo Reach on his 120hz HDTV, it was kind of jarring to say the least.

The inconsistent smoothness and blur that was accompanying the game while I played it, just made me disoriented.:crazy: Maybe I could get used to 120hz gaming eventually, but I still think 60hz on a TV is more than enough for gaming nowadays.

Even when I watch a movie with the 120hz processing, it just seems....off, especially when you are used to seeing movies in 24fps on a 60hz TV. It looks really smooth, but to me when a movie looks like it is running in real time when all you are used to is the 24fps they normally run at, it seems rather unnatural. Just my opinion though.
 
You weren't playing a 120 Hz game, you were watching an "upsampled" version of the game, the "quality" of which will depend entirely on the implementation.

Just like some games still only run at 30 Hz now, despite the ubiquity of progressive 60 Hz displays, many games won't "benefit" from being run natively at 120 Hz, but just imagine a game like Wipeout at that sort of speed. Then again, 60 Hz is probably already in the "subjective zone" when it comes to perceived benefit, as I seem to recall that not everyone can tell the difference between native 30 Hz and 60 Hz, amazingly.
 
Griffith500
but just imagine a game like Wipeout at that sort of speed.
Click to expand...

Wipeout at a 120hz refresh rate = OMG!!:drool::drool:

That would be quite amazing, but how well would someone be able to play that with it being so seamless and wicked fast? I can barely keep up with Wipeout HD as it is now lol.
 
SimonK
120Hz, 240Hz all the way up to 600Hz are just marketing gimmicks mainly from Plasma TV manufacturers, much like the contrast ratios of a gazillion:1 they all like to knock out.

Read this article:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2379206,00.asp

In short don't worry about them, for video they have little positive effect and for gaming they can be worse. Just stick with a normal, proper 60Hz HDTV would be my advice.
Click to expand...

Dude I don't need to read any article to know that CONTRAST RATIOS ARE SUPER IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!


The problem is, a lot of TV companies will show you the dynamic contrast ratio, which is essentially a useless number, and is always higher than the contrast ratio that matters, the static contrast ratio. A dynamic contrast ratio is usually about 5 times higher than the static ratio, so obviously the TV companies no it will help they're TV seem better than it actually is by giving a higher ratio than the truth.

THAT DOESN"T MEAN CONTRAST RATIO ISN"T IMPORTANT!!!!!!!!!

The contrast ratio tells you difference between the brightest and darkest the TV can go. Static tells you the darkest and brightest a pixel can be on the screen at the same time, dynamic is the overall difference and is not a practical number, as it doesn't really tell you how vibrant the TV is.

Contrast ratios are HUGELY important. I've experienced it first hand last year. I was getting a new TV, I tried a few different ones, and let me tell you, static contrast ratio is the second most important thing on a TV besides resolution (and size obviously).

DO NOT UNDERVALUE CONTRAST RATIO!!!!!!!!! It's far more important than refresh, colors, or anything else besides size and res.
 
SimonK
The issue with Dynamic Contrast Ratios is they ARE worthless because there is no standard. One manufacturer can have their own scale and claim 1:4,000,000 while another can have their own and claim 1:25,000,000. It doesn't mean the second is better necessarily.
Click to expand...

Exactly, but that doesn't mean static contrast ratio isn't important, it's HUGELY important. If you can find out the static ratio of any TVs, you want it to be high as possible. I had a TV with a 1500:1 static ratio, another with a 5000:1 static ratio, and currently I have a vizio with a 50,000:1 static ratio (500,000:1 dynamic), and it looks so much better, it's hard to put into words how much better it looks.

Typically, LED TVs have better contrast ratios static but not always. The 1500:1 static ratio TV I had was LED, but it was an insignia (cheaper brand). Insignia is actually an awesome brand, I loved the TV but their smaller TV's have lower contrast ratios, even if they're LED.

Vizio is usually a safe bet if you want good contrast ratios, but not all of their sets will have the static ratio.

STAY AWAY FROM SAMSUNG!! or shamsung. They are notorious for being incredibly unreliable. Look at any TV repair forum, or just research all the power, geometry, and other problems they've had for the past ten years. I mean crap, they did a special on dateline talking about how unreliable samsungs are.

I don't care if you got lucky with your samsung (so don't come back saying "I have a samsung and it's fine"), but trust me or don't, do the research, samsung is actually less reliable than bargain brands.
 
Why are you shouting? When I said "much like the contrast ratios of a gazillion:1 they all like to knock out." I was obviously referring to the dynamic ratios because no static ratio is going to be anything near a gazillion. Yes made up number, but surely you got the point.
 
Griffith500
You weren't playing a 120 Hz game, you were watching an "upsampled" version of the game, the "quality" of which will depend entirely on the implementation.

Just like some games still only run at 30 Hz now, despite the ubiquity of progressive 60 Hz displays, many games won't "benefit" from being run natively at 120 Hz, but just imagine a game like Wipeout at that sort of speed. Then again, 60 Hz is probably already in the "subjective zone" when it comes to perceived benefit, as I seem to recall that not everyone can tell the difference between native 30 Hz and 60 Hz, amazingly.
Click to expand...

Isn't it unfortunate that 120hz has become synonymous (in many people's eyes) with the optional motion processing?
 
Yeah, that was my main motivation for posting in the first place. I don't know why, though, because ignorance is invincible!

EDIT: As for Wipeout at 120 Hz, it should be easier to play than at 60 Hz, assuming they don't actually speed the game up. The 60 fps patch for GPL (native 36 fps) proved the worth of reducing latency in the controls and visuals for anticipation- and reaction-based gameplay quite comprehensively to me (and now I know why John Carmack rightly bangs on about it all the time!)
 
Back