Although this thread has somewhat been hijacked, it was still an interesting read. Id just like to throw my two cents in.

While, i don't have any technical specs, or links or anything other than subjective observation. Personally ive always been able to tell the difference in gaming between say 24~30 fps, and 60. I find 60 far more enjoyable and always make sure my video card is powerful enough to max a game up to that point (with vsync enabled on a lcd monitor it caps at 60, due to the artificial refresh rate or w/e). Now i cant really tell the difference between 60 and higher very much, although i had a friend way back when with a Crt, that ran quake at like 200 or so, it looked a little more liquid, but that may have been subjective. I dont know.

And as for the OP, Currently i am running a Samsung Syncmaster 305T, its a 30 Inch S-PVA monitor, i highly recommend a S-PVA, or IPS type panel, TN type panels rely on a technology called color dithering (interlacing) to generate some types of colors, because they cannot reproduce the entire 24 bit range of color. This is essentially just alternating one pixel between two colors rapidly to generate the color in the middle. Dithering gives me headaches like crazy.

My thoughts.

Originally posted by Tain

Although this thread has somewhat been hijacked, it was still an interesting read. Id just like to throw my two cents in.

While, i don't have any technical specs, or links or anything other than subjective observation. Personally ive always been able to tell the difference in gaming between say 24~30 fps, and 60. I find 60 far more enjoyable and always make sure my video card is powerful enough to max a game up to that point (with vsync enabled on a lcd monitor it caps at 60, due to the artificial refresh rate or w/e). Now i cant really tell the difference between 60 and higher very much, although i had a friend way back when with a Crt, that ran quake at like 200 or so, it looked a little more liquid, but that may have been subjective. I dont know.

And as for the OP, Currently i am running a Samsung Syncmaster 305T, its a 30 Inch S-PVA monitor, i highly recommend a S-PVA, or IPS type panel, TN type panels rely on a technology called color dithering (interlacing) to generate some types of colors, because they cannot reproduce the entire 24 bit range of color. This is essentially just alternating one pixel between two colors rapidly to generate the color in the middle. Dithering gives me headaches like crazy.

 

My thoughts.

Voice of reason.

As somebody who plays PC games, first person shooters especially, quite frequently, I can attest to the fact that the difference between 30 and 60fps is plenty noticeable. Personal experience, combined with the multiple corroborating links I have supplied (in direct contrast to the exact zero links supplied claiming otherwise by those who disagree) should reveal to anyone that the maximum fps limit on the eyes/brain myth is just that.

I'm at work now and am staring at old piece of junk amptron 17" CRT running at 60 Hz

When I move this window left and right, I can clearly read the text, while like before on my LCDs I can't.  I have noticed the same type of blur on just about every LCD I've dealt with.  It's not a huge issue, but I do notice it esp in games.  when I'm looking around quickly in a FPS I can't see details as clearly as I can on a CRT.  Both of my LCDs are 5ms / 60hz - a 19" LG flatron (1280 x 1024) and an Asus 24" widescreen (1920 x 1080)

I don't know if it has to do with MS or refresh or what but the difference is definitely there.  I'd like to see if a plasma monitor or LED does the same thing.

---

Originally posted by Tykero
 
Edit: Seriously, right now you're saying you're smarter than the people at the BBC.
Oh, please actually read the link. Don't skim the first few sentences and exclaim "well it doesn't talk about the human eye and frame rates straight away so WELP CLEARLY THAT'S NOT COVERED AT ALL." 
 
 
P.S. You can't point out what's mixed up because there's nothing mixed up and you know it. Prove me wrong.

---

Nice article, unfortunately not related to the topic. Something you would know if you were not an ignorant as you are.

Conclusion paragraph quote:

'Even for television pictures transmitted and displayed at conventional frame rates, capturing at
high frame-rates can offer some improvement to picture quality through temporal oversampling,
giving better control over temporal aliasing artefacts and offering a choice of “looks” to the director at the post-production stage. It also offers improved compatibility with the different conventional frame rates adopted internationally.'

In fact it has nothing to do with displaying FPS but frame speeds to capture the motion picture.

Originally posted by Gdemami

 

---

Originally posted by Tykero
 
Edit: Seriously, right now you're saying you're smarter than the people at the BBC.
Oh, please actually read the link. Don't skim the first few sentences and exclaim "well it doesn't talk about the human eye and frame rates straight away so WELP CLEARLY THAT'S NOT COVERED AT ALL." 
 
 
P.S. You can't point out what's mixed up because there's nothing mixed up and you know it. Prove me wrong.

---

 

Nice article, unfortunately not related to the topic. Something you would know if you were not an ignorant as you are.

Conclusion paragraph quote:

'Even for television pictures transmitted and displayed at conventional frame rates, capturing at
high frame-rates can offer some improvement to picture quality through temporal oversampling,
giving better control over temporal aliasing artefacts and offering a choice of “looks” to the director at the post-production stage. It also offers improved compatibility with the different conventional frame rates adopted internationally.'

In fact it has nothing to do with displaying FPS but frame speeds to capture the motion picture.

Wow.

You are so incredibly dense it is just stunning.

Hey look basic information about what frame rate means.

Read the damn article, not the closing paragraph.
 

And you say I don't understand what I'm reading. Hilarious.

It is in every way related to the topic at hand, because the article is about, in part frame rates and how they apply to transmitting and displaying high quality picture.

You really just shouldn't speak on a subject at all if you're completely oblivious and unwilling to comprehend information about it, which you're making quite clear, especially if you're going to accuse other people of misunderstanding the very material that you cannot be arsed to understand yourself.

You are simply a terrible person. Stop posting, stop derailing the thread, stop wasting my time.

Edit: From the abstract (which I so kindly quoted earlier, in case you missed it) of the paper itself (emphasis mine):

"In this paper we report
on a programme of experimental work that successfully demonstrated the
advantages of higher frame rate capture and display as a means of improving the
quality of television systems of all spatial resolutions."

From the closing section ( you apparently didn't even read that fully before acting like a fool):

"We assert that a higher capture and display frame rate leads to a step change in picture quality
regardless of the spatial resolution."

Feel free to keep making an ass of yourself, I'll keep proving you wrong.

I didn't read this whole thread but I hope someone realized/mentioned that the reason 24 FPS works in film for the human eye is because the frames are naturally motion blurred due to the nature of film and exposure time, which fills in the motion gaps to make 24 FPS fool the human eye. In 3D rendering, without the motion blur to mesh 2 frames together, they become much more distinct and the FPS requirements go up to produce a smooth image as the brain is capable of distinguishing much higher than 24 fps.

Originally posted by noquarter

I didn't read this whole thread but I hope someone realized/mentioned that the reason 24 FPS works in film for the human eye is because the frames are naturally motion blurred due to the nature of film and exposure time, which fills in the motion gaps to make 24 FPS fool the human eye. In 3D rendering, without the motion blur to mesh 2 frames together, they become much more distinct and the FPS requirements go up to produce a smooth image as the brain is capable of distinguishing much higher than 24 fps.

It's covered in multiple of the links I posted (that none of them bothered to actually read).

Originally posted by heremypet

I have a bit of a problem, it would seem that my eyes don't like the 60hz refresh rate put out by most LCDs  I have an old CRT but it's small compared to my LCDs.  It's not a huge issue, but noticable enough to be an annoyance.

Last LCD I bought was an Asus 1080p LCD.  I read up on the differences between standard and GTG responce measuring, and went with the 5ms LCD, which I thought was supposed to equate to well over 120hz.

Seems it actually won't go over 60hz and it bugs my eyes just like my last LCD did. 

I need an simple widescreen LCD around 24" (1080p) that will do at least 75hz refresh..

Any ideas?  I can't exchange the Asus.

EDIT: Newegg had 75hz listed in the specs for my LCD, but apparently that was only for some noname resolution that I don't use.

there are glasses to help with that eye fatigue

it does wonder you should try em ,they showed them on ufragtv cant recall wich clip on their site sorry,you ll have to check all 36 hour of the pax show

Note that many 75 Hz monitors aren't really 75 Hz monitors, it is artificially created from 60 Hz.

The eye problem is not related to Hz amount, cause tft does not blink like crt monitors do. Too high brightness can cause such trouble, google for instructions how to calibrate your monitor correctly.

I highly recommend the Samsung SYNCMASTER 2233RZ. It's 120hz. I bought it along with an NVidia kit for stereoscopic filmmaking. It's true 120Hz, not frame doubling, which is great for stereoscopic 3d or anything else where you want/need over 100fps.

Originally posted by aoineko

I highly recommend the Samsung SYNCMASTER 2233RZ. It's 120hz. I bought it along with an NVidia kit for stereoscopic filmmaking. It's true 120Hz, not frame doubling, which is great for stereoscopic 3d or anything else where you want/need over 100fps.

The thing is also a great performance hit, you need a top end computer to get reasonable frame rates.

[quote]Originally posted by heremypet
[b]I'm at work now and am staring at old piece of junk amptron 17" CRT running at 60 Hz
When I move this window left and right, I can clearly read the text, while like before on my LCDs I can't.  I have noticed the same type of blur on just about every LCD I've dealt with.  It's not a huge issue, but I do notice it esp in games.[/quote]
i noticed that too when i first switched over to an lcd. i never realized how much i read while scrolling the screen. it was really aggravating at first, but eventually i changed the scroll wheel to move up/down one page at a time and now i can read just as fast without reading while scrolling.

the blur is magnified when you move windows with text because of the high contrast between the text and background. there's typically far less contrast in the details in gaming. after a little while i was able to adjust and game on lcd's without any affect to my gameplay, but i was never a super-competitive player.

Heremypet

I have worked with and been a gamer with both LCDs and CRTs.  As you have found out, LCDs are blurry compared to CRTs when dealing with steady across-screen motion.  You have performed the simple test that proves it by steadily dragging a window with text side-to-side.   I have yet to own or have seen one in a store that did not have this blur.  I would buy one immediately if i could find one that performed as well as a CRT.  I know its not just my eyes because this blur is seen by co-workers and also people in stores when I ask them if they see it.  But still, I may be more sensitive to it than most.

I just want to point out if you buy a new LCD for the purpose of having blur-free gaming, try it out in person first and do the text-dragging test.  If you find one, let me know!

I still use a CRT but I am looking to go to an LCD.  newegg has this on sale:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824236047

If I were to buy an LCD today, I would consider an LCD with these stats.

Originally posted by Tykero 

I won't blame you if you just drop it, but an apology in the form of "you were right, I'm sorry I bought into popular myth" would be lovely.

Gah, geez, you are the one telling that people are blind if they don't notice a difference beetween 30fps - 100fps.
There's more into it than that and you provided that information yourself. Read it.

I'm not so shure on how an animation made in 29fps will be better when shown in 100fps though.

Originally posted by Defect 

 

lol dude, you live in the stone age. They haven't made an LCD that still ghosts in the last 5+ years.

Even if ghosting is not such a problem there is some other involved with LCD's.

Blurry screen if not being able to run at its native resolution.
Scrolling text is a lot harder to read.

I'm using an old monitor at work because of that reason. Sitting on an network with different monitors it's not feasible to call to support to tell them to change my resolution. This last 2 days of work I have roughly scrolled thorugh 12 000 lines of text.

CRT's are more distinct but sadly my eyes gets more tired from them, that can be due to the light sources and so.

When talking about problems with LCD I doubt people are refering to a mouse tail across the screen that was done in the stone age... But that is not really the issue here is it.

Originally posted by Orphes

Originally posted by Tykero 

I won't blame you if you just drop it, but an apology in the form of "you were right, I'm sorry I bought into popular myth" would be lovely.

 

Gah, geez, you are the one telling that people are blind if they don't notice a difference beetween 30fps - 100fps.
There's more into it than that and you provided that information yourself. Read it.

I'm not so shure on how an animation made in 29fps will be better when shown in 100fps though.

 

Yes, there is more to it than that. But there's a very massive and discernible difference between 30 and 100 fps in most media. I was also employing a literary technique called exaggeration. Perhaps you've heard of it. Excuse me for not clarifying that I meant in cases where the source media was recorded or produced in a manner that would make higher frame rates result in an increase in information, rather than multiplied redundant frames. The topic was gaming, so I assumed it didn't need to be stated.

It's also important to note that I never claimed that showing an animation that was created at 29 fps at 100 fps would improve the quality. A fundamental understanding of how a computer display works makes this issue irrelevant.

In short, quit attempting to make corrections that aren't necessary, thanks.

9.10.8
Cnet's top five monitors (+23", us$250 to 800).

"great performance can be attributed to the LED backlight in the monitor. Most monitors use cold cathode fluorescent lamp-based backlights--several fluorescent tubes stretched horizontally across the screen."

Think they prefer the LCD Dell SP2309W at us$320.

Originally posted by heremypet

I have a bit of a problem, it would seem that my eyes don't like the 60hz refresh rate put out by most LCDs  I have an old CRT but it's small compared to my LCDs.  It's not a huge issue, but noticable enough to be an annoyance.

Last LCD I bought was an Asus 1080p LCD.  I read up on the differences between standard and GTG responce measuring, and went with the 5ms LCD, which I thought was supposed to equate to well over 120hz.

Seems it actually won't go over 60hz and it bugs my eyes just like my last LCD did. 

I need an simple widescreen LCD around 24" (1080p) that will do at least 75hz refresh..

Any ideas?  I can't exchange the Asus.

EDIT: Newegg had 75hz listed in the specs for my LCD, but apparently that was only for some noname resolution that I don't use.

ROFLMO, it's an LCD, not CRT! They don't work in the same manner, 60HZ LCD is fine for gaming, it's the reponse time you need to look at on an LCD you fool!  You need a 2ms reponse time LCD from a brand like Samsung. Go read up on how LCD tech works you tool! 

Originally posted by IAmMMO

Originally posted by heremypet

I have a bit of a problem, it would seem that my eyes don't like the 60hz refresh rate put out by most LCDs  I have an old CRT but it's small compared to my LCDs.  It's not a huge issue, but noticable enough to be an annoyance.

Last LCD I bought was an Asus 1080p LCD.  I read up on the differences between standard and GTG responce measuring, and went with the 5ms LCD, which I thought was supposed to equate to well over 120hz.

Seems it actually won't go over 60hz and it bugs my eyes just like my last LCD did. 

I need an simple widescreen LCD around 24" (1080p) that will do at least 75hz refresh..

Any ideas?  I can't exchange the Asus.

EDIT: Newegg had 75hz listed in the specs for my LCD, but apparently that was only for some noname resolution that I don't use.

 

ROFLMO, it's an LCD, not CRT! They don't work in the same manner, 60HZ LCD is fine for gaming, it's the reponse time you need to look at on an LCD you fool!  You need a 2ms reponse time LCD from a brand like Samsung. Go read up on how LCD tech works you tool! 

@OP make sure your running it through an LCD monitor and not a LCD TV.

@ IAmMMO i guess you didnt read the rest of the posts stating the same thing you did... GOD BLESS IGNORANCE!

Originally posted by IAmMMO

ROFLMO, it's an LCD, not CRT! They don't work in the same manner, 60HZ LCD is fine for gaming, it's the reponse time you need to look at on an LCD you fool!  You need a 2ms reponse time LCD from a brand like Samsung. Go read up on how LCD tech works you tool! 

Sigh, if you only know this little about lcd's you better not give any suggestions at threads like this.