Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 20,802
- Location
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Get a CRT
75hz gaming monitor
- Thread starter GM@N
- Start date
Or just get a good LCD and don't worry about the 60hz refresh rate...
+1
I guess it still makes a difference to tearing we still see on lcd. The screen might not update line by line, but the gfx output still seems to want to. being able to hold vsync at a higher refresh is surly a good thing.
My benq fp241w can do 75 refresh (well ..is selectable ) but only at lower then native res.
My benq fp241w can do 75 refresh (well ..is selectable ) but only at lower then native res.
Yes that is exactly it.
To a "noob", 60hz on a modern lcd is the ultimate.
To anyone with a clue, 75hz creates noticably less tearing than 60hz on an lcd but still not in the same league as a good CRT.
Its nothing to do with response or afterglow and unless you've seen the smoothness of a good CRT on 120hz or 150hz then you'll never understand why the tearing on 60hz lcd drives "non-noobs" mad
On a more serious note this is completely irrelevent unless your wanting to play serious fps games well. This excludes battlefield and other similar crap
To a "noob", 60hz on a modern lcd is the ultimate.
To anyone with a clue, 75hz creates noticably less tearing than 60hz on an lcd but still not in the same league as a good CRT.
Its nothing to do with response or afterglow and unless you've seen the smoothness of a good CRT on 120hz or 150hz then you'll never understand why the tearing on 60hz lcd drives "non-noobs" mad
On a more serious note this is completely irrelevent unless your wanting to play serious fps games well. This excludes battlefield and other similar crap
there are none which have 75Hz as a native / recommended refresh rate. They are all 60Hz, for reasons already discussed above
Hi there
If 75Hz is a must then I only see two options. Try to source a CRT preferably something like the Mitsubishi Diamond Pro from the time.
Or up your games to 100Hz and try on of the 100Hz True HD TV's on the market. I have a 100Hz Samsung True HD 40" connected upto my PC and picture quality and DVD playback is superb but I don't play games on it or even know if its running at 100Hz it just looks great.
If 75Hz is a must then I only see two options. Try to source a CRT preferably something like the Mitsubishi Diamond Pro from the time.
Or up your games to 100Hz and try on of the 100Hz True HD TV's on the market. I have a 100Hz Samsung True HD 40" connected upto my PC and picture quality and DVD playback is superb but I don't play games on it or even know if its running at 100Hz it just looks great.
I thought the 226bw and the vx922 did support 75hz at native resolution?
However, AFIK, all lcds which support 75hz actually cheat. They display 4 images and then skip the 5th so it is even worse in games than running at 60hz although with vsync on it would show 75hz.
As said, even 100hz lcd tvs aren't really 100hz however games do like "better" aparantly.
http://www.behardware.com/articles/641-2/1rst-lcd-at-100-hz-the-end-of-afterglow.html
So get a CRT is the only answer i'm afraid.
However, AFIK, all lcds which support 75hz actually cheat. They display 4 images and then skip the 5th so it is even worse in games than running at 60hz although with vsync on it would show 75hz.
As said, even 100hz lcd tvs aren't really 100hz however games do like "better" aparantly.
http://www.behardware.com/articles/641-2/1rst-lcd-at-100-hz-the-end-of-afterglow.html
So get a CRT is the only answer i'm afraid.
many LCD screens will support 75Hz inputs, but i dont think any "recommend" this as the optimum refresh rate. 100Hz TV's interpolate every second frame, so arent true 100Hz either
as said, if you need true 75Hz, you will need a CRT
as said, if you need true 75Hz, you will need a CRT
Associate
- Joined
- 16 Sep 2008
- Posts
- 52
Higher refreshes are better. Full stop. But at what point is it 'good enough'?
Because CRTs scan the image line-by-line so you have a huge amount of the screen black between frames/fields, we see flicker at 60hz. But still 60Hz was the industry standard. Most people couldn't stand it and moved to 72/72/85 as soon as possible. I used to run my diamondtron at 100Hz.
As soon as LCDs started taking over, nobody complained about flicker any more because the image is simply left in place until it gets replaced (called 'sample and hold'). There is no black image between the frames.
However people suffer from what is known as the 'sample and hold effect'. Basically our brains used to actually prefer motion when seen on old displays like CRTs. Now that there isn't flicker - we see motion blur or smear instead. This is annoying to people in differing amounts (a bit like DLP rainbows is).
This artifact is even more apparent on 24p material such as blu-ray or properly deinterlaced film DVDs.
So - now that the LCD marketplace is maturing, manufacturers in the home entertainment arena are starting to use refresh rates at greater than 50/60Hz and interpolating new frames in-between. See Sony MotionFlow for example and similar techs from pretty much all the major players this year. It seems that 96Hz is being settled on as a minimum (so that's what 24p goes to), and PAL goes to 100hz, NTSC to 120Hz.
(it should be said that not everyone like the effect of the interpolation - especially with movies so some are experimenting with other methods - Sony's 'Dark Frame Insertion' is one).
BUT... most computer displays aren't showing moving images all the time - the vast majority still look at static apps all day long. You would only see the negative effects on moving images (esp 24p) and games (less so because you will likely be running at 60p) The computer market is even more price-sensitive than the home ent. market and nobody is really driving for this to happen.
Someone in a company will suggest different frame rates for their new monitor and then a project manager will ask the techies how much more it will cost to implement (might need a different Genesis scaling chip, a different input board, higher spec panel + plus more dev/testing time). So they come up with a price.
They then go to marketing and say "how many more units will we sell if we have this feature?". Now at the moment, I'm guessing the answer will come back very low indeed, so it doesn't happen - just look at this thread for evidence.
Wheras if ATI/NVidea/IBM/etc had an effective interpolation feature and the points above were more widely known, then maybe they could sell an extra 10-20%. That might start making things happen.
The good thing about a PC is it's one of the few areas where you actually have a variable frame-rate source. Unlike video where we are stuck with 24/50/60 for the foreseeable future.
BTW - there are plenty of 75+Hz capable displays out there, but they are all aimed at the high end CAD, Video market and cost roughly 4 times the price of an equivalent dell.
Anyway - thought it might be useful to some
I'm sure we'll get to a point where 60Hz isn't seen as enough any more.
Because CRTs scan the image line-by-line so you have a huge amount of the screen black between frames/fields, we see flicker at 60hz. But still 60Hz was the industry standard. Most people couldn't stand it and moved to 72/72/85 as soon as possible. I used to run my diamondtron at 100Hz.
As soon as LCDs started taking over, nobody complained about flicker any more because the image is simply left in place until it gets replaced (called 'sample and hold'). There is no black image between the frames.
However people suffer from what is known as the 'sample and hold effect'. Basically our brains used to actually prefer motion when seen on old displays like CRTs. Now that there isn't flicker - we see motion blur or smear instead. This is annoying to people in differing amounts (a bit like DLP rainbows is).
This artifact is even more apparent on 24p material such as blu-ray or properly deinterlaced film DVDs.
So - now that the LCD marketplace is maturing, manufacturers in the home entertainment arena are starting to use refresh rates at greater than 50/60Hz and interpolating new frames in-between. See Sony MotionFlow for example and similar techs from pretty much all the major players this year. It seems that 96Hz is being settled on as a minimum (so that's what 24p goes to), and PAL goes to 100hz, NTSC to 120Hz.
(it should be said that not everyone like the effect of the interpolation - especially with movies so some are experimenting with other methods - Sony's 'Dark Frame Insertion' is one).
BUT... most computer displays aren't showing moving images all the time - the vast majority still look at static apps all day long. You would only see the negative effects on moving images (esp 24p) and games (less so because you will likely be running at 60p) The computer market is even more price-sensitive than the home ent. market and nobody is really driving for this to happen.
Someone in a company will suggest different frame rates for their new monitor and then a project manager will ask the techies how much more it will cost to implement (might need a different Genesis scaling chip, a different input board, higher spec panel + plus more dev/testing time). So they come up with a price.
They then go to marketing and say "how many more units will we sell if we have this feature?". Now at the moment, I'm guessing the answer will come back very low indeed, so it doesn't happen - just look at this thread for evidence.
Wheras if ATI/NVidea/IBM/etc had an effective interpolation feature and the points above were more widely known, then maybe they could sell an extra 10-20%. That might start making things happen.
The good thing about a PC is it's one of the few areas where you actually have a variable frame-rate source. Unlike video where we are stuck with 24/50/60 for the foreseeable future.
BTW - there are plenty of 75+Hz capable displays out there, but they are all aimed at the high end CAD, Video market and cost roughly 4 times the price of an equivalent dell.
Anyway - thought it might be useful to some
I'm sure we'll get to a point where 60Hz isn't seen as enough any more.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
BUT 75HZ LCD Monitors were 75HZ and I preferred it to 60HZ.
I would not dream of gaming on a LCD myself, tried to do it and something simply is lacking never mind the colour.
The guy asked about a 75HZ monitor, he does not need justify himself to why he want it, don't reply if you don't agree.
Mitsubishi (while announcing new screens inc a Laser Screen) said the current HDTV Panels can only display 40% of what a humans eye can see.
I would not dream of gaming on a LCD myself, tried to do it and something simply is lacking never mind the colour.
The guy asked about a 75HZ monitor, he does not need justify himself to why he want it, don't reply if you don't agree.
Mitsubishi (while announcing new screens inc a Laser Screen) said the current HDTV Panels can only display 40% of what a humans eye can see.
Last edited:
That's colour space and not really related to the discussion at hand. Apples <-> Oranges.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 19 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 10,717
- Location
- InURmama
Nor is most of the other posts INC YOURS
, I'm stating LCD is bellow CRT quality (CRT was mentioned) and if he want 75HZ that's his choice.I already added a small part about 60HZ v 75HZ LCD's, what you adding ?.
The only reason I'd get a LCD is for a sharper picture/pixels. 60fps/Hz, lag and ghosting are all negatives that you have to just accept with the technology. LCDs that can display more than 60fps will be better, for gaming. You can quote me on that.
Last edited: