120fps VIDEO: [120Hz users only] World's First 120fps Game Play Video !!!
2 / 2
[quote="helifax"]Personally above 60fps I can't really tell the difference...oh and I have tried...but I simply can't "feel" it unless I look at a monitor tool.[/quote]See the Framerate Comparision at www.testufo.com for animation of 30fps vs 60fps vs 120fps.
(View in 120Hz friendly browser such as Chrome)
For the most dramatic difference of 60Hz versus 120Hz, you need full 120fps@120Hz with no frame drops. 80/90/100/110fps@120Hz will not necessarily have less stutters than framerate-locked 60fps@60Hz, even though you will get less input lag at 120Hz. The fluidity differences between 60Hz and 120Hz is more dramatic during framerate matching Hz. Then bringing it to the next level, the difference is further amplified if you can do flicker (e.g. CRT flicker, plasma flicker, or LightBoost flicker). Flicker eliminates motion blur.
See the animation at [b][url=http://www.testufo.com/#test=eyetracking]www.testufo.com/#test=eyetracking[/url][/b] to see a cause of motion blur that is NOT caused by the LCD panel pixel speed limitation.
helifax said:Personally above 60fps I can't really tell the difference...oh and I have tried...but I simply can't "feel" it unless I look at a monitor tool.
See the Framerate Comparision at www.testufo.com for animation of 30fps vs 60fps vs 120fps.
(View in 120Hz friendly browser such as Chrome)
For the most dramatic difference of 60Hz versus 120Hz, you need full 120fps@120Hz with no frame drops. 80/90/100/110fps@120Hz will not necessarily have less stutters than framerate-locked 60fps@60Hz, even though you will get less input lag at 120Hz. The fluidity differences between 60Hz and 120Hz is more dramatic during framerate matching Hz. Then bringing it to the next level, the difference is further amplified if you can do flicker (e.g. CRT flicker, plasma flicker, or LightBoost flicker). Flicker eliminates motion blur.
See the animation at www.testufo.com/#test=eyetracking to see a cause of motion blur that is NOT caused by the LCD panel pixel speed limitation.
[quote="mdrejhon"][quote="helifax"]Personally above 60fps I can't really tell the difference...oh and I have tried...but I simply can't "feel" it unless I look at a monitor tool.[/quote]See the Framerate Comparision at www.testufo.com for animation of 30fps vs 60fps vs 120fps.
(View in 120Hz friendly browser such as Chrome)
For the most dramatic difference of 60Hz versus 120Hz, you need full 120fps@120Hz with no frame drops. 80/90/100/110fps@120Hz will not necessarily have less stutters than framerate-locked 60fps@60Hz, even though you will get less input lag at 120Hz. The fluidity differences between 60Hz and 120Hz is more dramatic during framerate matching Hz. Then bringing it to the next level, the difference is further amplified if you can do flicker (e.g. CRT flicker, plasma flicker, or LightBoost flicker). Flicker eliminates motion blur.
See the animation at [b][url=http://www.testufo.com/#test=eyetracking]www.testufo.com/#test=eyetracking[/url][/b] to see a cause of motion blur that is NOT caused by the LCD panel pixel speed limitation.[/quote]
Thanks for the links and the tests.. I understand it all too well the concepts including the details. I didn't see SAY there is no difference..as IT IS...
All I wanted to POINT OUT is that out brain is much more complex than we believe it to be... give it 30fps...it will adapt and see that information as "natural motion" as it is able to fill in the gaps.. same goes for 60fps or 120fps. The human eye and brain CAN detect even higher than 120fps..that doesn't mean at 30fps is less FLUID than at 120fps since the fluidity is un-altered. You put into equation the "Blurring"... then I am going to ask you this: How many "FPS" can the HUMAN EYE see... (when looking through your eyes around the window for example)
(The blurriness is a product of a technology and monitor...Using a 120/144hz monitor you will get no "artificial" blur at 30fps and the image is fluid as it is at any higher fps. The tests in the links provide a mathematical proof to what I am trying to say...I am not talking about the individual frames but rather the movement/fluidity of the movement)
helifax said:Personally above 60fps I can't really tell the difference...oh and I have tried...but I simply can't "feel" it unless I look at a monitor tool.
See the Framerate Comparision at www.testufo.com for animation of 30fps vs 60fps vs 120fps.
(View in 120Hz friendly browser such as Chrome)
For the most dramatic difference of 60Hz versus 120Hz, you need full 120fps@120Hz with no frame drops. 80/90/100/110fps@120Hz will not necessarily have less stutters than framerate-locked 60fps@60Hz, even though you will get less input lag at 120Hz. The fluidity differences between 60Hz and 120Hz is more dramatic during framerate matching Hz. Then bringing it to the next level, the difference is further amplified if you can do flicker (e.g. CRT flicker, plasma flicker, or LightBoost flicker). Flicker eliminates motion blur.
See the animation at www.testufo.com/#test=eyetracking to see a cause of motion blur that is NOT caused by the LCD panel pixel speed limitation.
Thanks for the links and the tests.. I understand it all too well the concepts including the details. I didn't see SAY there is no difference..as IT IS...
All I wanted to POINT OUT is that out brain is much more complex than we believe it to be... give it 30fps...it will adapt and see that information as "natural motion" as it is able to fill in the gaps.. same goes for 60fps or 120fps. The human eye and brain CAN detect even higher than 120fps..that doesn't mean at 30fps is less FLUID than at 120fps since the fluidity is un-altered. You put into equation the "Blurring"... then I am going to ask you this: How many "FPS" can the HUMAN EYE see... (when looking through your eyes around the window for example)
(The blurriness is a product of a technology and monitor...Using a 120/144hz monitor you will get no "artificial" blur at 30fps and the image is fluid as it is at any higher fps. The tests in the links provide a mathematical proof to what I am trying to say...I am not talking about the individual frames but rather the movement/fluidity of the movement)
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
[quote="helifax"]All I wanted to POINT OUT is that out brain is much more complex than we believe it to be...[/quote]Agreed. However, some of the motion blur mathematics and wagonwheel-effect mathematics rather quite simple (those are the easy parts) and corresponds very well between human vision and what's actually detected. Given variables of how fast the wagonwheel is spinning and what the strobe rate is (refresh rate), one can mathematically predict whether the wagon wheel will look like it's spinning backwards or spinning forward, and then actually find vision tests show that to be true. Likewise, for motion blur, as motion blur is dictated by the length of the visible refresh.
[quote="helifax"]You put into equation the "Blurring"... then I am going to ask you this: How many "FPS" can the HUMAN EYE see... (when looking through your eyes around the window for example)[/quote]There are more factors beyond 100fps.com's interpretation. 100fps.com tries to do a very good job of mythbusting, but there is actually no upper limit to "How many FPS" if you are aiming at the ultimate: Holodeck-quality. There is actually an indirect way (hint: wagonwheel effect) for human eyes to detect that a display isn't infinite framerate, even if it's running at 1 million Hertz! The human eye doesn't see in FPS, as the human eye does not use discrete framerates to function. There are indirect artifact problems that clues away a display's finite refresh rate behavior.
There are always problems with noninfinite-framerate displays; (1) stroboscopic/wagonwheel effects, and (2) sample-and-hold motion blur effects.
For the wagonwheel/stepping effect problem, let's go extreme here: A wagon wheel spinning at 100,000Hz could still look stationary, for example. The only way to fix wagonwheel effects at all wagonwheel speeds, is simply to add artificial motion blur (not always desirable) OR use an infinite framerate (not possible). A good compromise is to use really high Hz, and then add a very very light amount of motion blur, but that doesn't make everyone 100% happy.
Another great example of the wagonwheel/stepping/stroboscopic effect is the mouse cursor test on a black background. Mouse pointer "dots around" rather than a continuous blur. Stare stationary while moving mouse fast. The mouse arrow isn't a continuous blur but has the stroboscopic stepping effect. Even if the display refreshed far higher than 120Hz, you will still see stroboscopic effect. The stroboscopic steps during mouse movement, become smaller and smaller but won't yet become a single blur (analog-indistinguishable) at 1000Hz...
Another problem is motion blur caused by noninfinite-framerate sample-and-hold displays. When pixel transition speed is no longer the limiting factor, the sample-and-hold mathematics become quite simple: Mathematically, 1ms of sample-and-hold creates 1 pixel of motion blur for every 1000 pixels per second of motion (that's about 1/2 screen-width per second at 1080p, and that's 1/4 screen width per second at 4K). So during perfect fluidity motion such as [url=http://www.testufo.com/#test=photo]http://www.testufo.com/#test=photo[/url] you will still see motion blur even at 1000fps@1000Hz. If it is moving at 4000 pixels per second on a 4K display, that's still 4 pixels of motion blur, which would still be noticeable under ideal viewing conditions at regular computer monitor view distances, assuming the motion is perfectly fluid (exact pixel steps per refresh, no microstutters -- much like a Nintendo platformer pan effect -- then it's very, very easy to detect sample-and-hold motion blur even at incredibly short refresh lengths).
Strobing (adding black periods between refreshes; ala black frame insertion effect, or CRT effect, or strobe backlight) -- like Black Frame Animation at [url=http://www.testufo.com/#test=blackframes]www.testufo.com/#test=blackframes[/url] -- is a way to reduce motion blur without needing higer Hz. LightBoost (during 10% setting) uses 1.4ms (1/700sec) strobe flashes. So the motion blur of a strobed LightBoost display is the same as a 700fps@700Hz sample-and-hold display (lots of black frame insertion effect, 120 visible refreshes that are only 1/700sec long each). The sample-and-hold motion blur is nearly gone except during fast motions (e.g. over 1000 pixels/second). But you still have the stroboscopic/wagonwheel effect issue to contend with, and you need to add at least a full frame's worth of GPU motion blur in order to eliminate the wagonwheel/stepping/stroboscopic effect problem, and 8ms of motion blur is quite obnoxious to some of us (that's why I turn off GPU motion blur).
*View TestUFO motion test animation links in a 120Hz VSYNC-supported GPU-accelerated web browser (e.g. Google Chrome with everything enabled in chrome://gpu ...)
So obviously, there are certainly ways for a human to detect a display isn't an infinite refreshrate, indirectly, due to the wagonwheel effect and/or the sample-and-hold motion blur effect, even way beyond 1000fps@1000Hz. Diminishing points of returns definitely do apply, but clearly, they don't stop there yet.
That said, once we reach 1000fps@1000Hz (hopefully within 100 years from now), we can finally forget about using flicker (strobing ala LightBoost) -- and also just add only 1ms of artifical GPU motion blur (that's no longer obnoxious anymore) to eliminate whatever wagonwheel/stepping effect is there, and then the sample-and-hold motion blur is so tiny that perhaps 99.999% no longer cares. Michael Abrash of Valve Software talked about the 1000fps@1000Hz concept being worthwhile for virtual reality goggles.
Turning your head slowly at only 30 degrees per second on a 1080p display, creates several pixels of sample-and-hold motion blur even at 120Hz. If you're going to do fast head flicks with your human head while wearing VR glasses, and expect fast pans to be as crystal clear as real life, you really need an insane amount of Hz, or ultra-short strobes (preferably, eventually, far less than 1ms of visibility per single static refresh). Let's say, theoretically 20 years from now on, 4K goggles running at 500Hz, you'll still have 8 pixels of motion blur for every 4000 pixels/sec motion (1/500th of 4000 pixels), and that's still a slow head turn. Flick head fast (180 degrees), and even if the GPU manages to render 500fps@500Hz, you would still create several tens of pixels of motion blur even at 500Hz. Ouch. (Remember: sample-and-hold mathematics of 1ms of frame staticness creates 1 pixel of motion blur for every 1000 pixels/sec motion). So, alas, we're quite a long way from the nirvana of Holodeck-quality displays.
The manufacturers of tomorrow's Holodeck would have to come up with an analog way of representing motion (ala infinite framerate) to prevent all the problems of finite-framerate displays (wagonwheel/stepping effect problem, as well as the sample-and-hold motion blur effect problem).
Some manufacturers sell vision-researcher equipment (e.g. www.vpixx.com) sells 500Hz projectors, and at least one manufacturer has a monochrome 1000Hz display, for scientists to play with. All quite interesting stuff.
Now, whether this is important or not to a specific gamer viewing a small 1080p desktop monitor from a far distance away, depends on what they are used to or satisfied by. If a human's expectation is to see a game and it looks like real life rather than a display/screen, that's sky-high expectations. If a human's expectation is to at least see something that looks better than VGA 30fps, then you're already quite pleased with 1080p @ 60fps.
Links to Pages Talking about Sample-And-Hold Motion Blur / Stroboscopic Effect / Etc.
-- [url=http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/oled-motion-blur]Why Do Some OLED's Have Motion Blur?[/url] (same problem affects traditional LCD)
-- [url=http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/abrash/down-the-vr-rabbit-hole-fixing-judder/]Michael Abrash of Valve Software explaining motion blur caused by eye tracking[/url]
(For his article, "persistence" is same thing as "sample and hold". His eye-tracking diagrams are exactly what I've often tried to explain)
-- [url=http://www.avsforum.com/t/1484182/why-we-need-1000fps-1000hz-this-century-valve-software-michael-abrash-comments]Why We Need 1000fps @ 1000Hz This Century[/url] (uses Michael's images)
-- [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93GwwNLEBFg&t=5m35s]iD Software's John Carmack YouTube QuakeCon chat about about motion blur & strobing[/url]
For the purposes of this, "persistence", "sample-and-hold", "eye tracking motion blur" are roughly equivalent, as everyone often use different terminologies to describe similar problems.
-- [url=http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/oled-motion-blur#references]Scientific Papers about Sample & Hold[/url]
Again, not saying that it matters to everyone (especially those who don't have the GPU to truly take advantage of fluidity improvements), but I'm just saying that, alas, even a 1000fps@1000Hz display won't yet be Holodeck-indistinguishable from real life, due to the two visual artifacts I've (And John Carmack, and Michael Abrash) described of noninfinite-refresh displays.
There are definitely points of diminishing returns, but everyone who says there's a human eye framerate limit (where *everything* is true Holodeck-indistinguishable from real life, motion perfection, zero artifacts) is definitely not considering the wagonwheel effect factor, as well as not considering the sample-and-hold factor.
On the bright side, technological progress will continue for a very, very long time. :)
helifax said:All I wanted to POINT OUT is that out brain is much more complex than we believe it to be...
Agreed. However, some of the motion blur mathematics and wagonwheel-effect mathematics rather quite simple (those are the easy parts) and corresponds very well between human vision and what's actually detected. Given variables of how fast the wagonwheel is spinning and what the strobe rate is (refresh rate), one can mathematically predict whether the wagon wheel will look like it's spinning backwards or spinning forward, and then actually find vision tests show that to be true. Likewise, for motion blur, as motion blur is dictated by the length of the visible refresh.
helifax said:You put into equation the "Blurring"... then I am going to ask you this: How many "FPS" can the HUMAN EYE see... (when looking through your eyes around the window for example)
There are more factors beyond 100fps.com's interpretation. 100fps.com tries to do a very good job of mythbusting, but there is actually no upper limit to "How many FPS" if you are aiming at the ultimate: Holodeck-quality. There is actually an indirect way (hint: wagonwheel effect) for human eyes to detect that a display isn't infinite framerate, even if it's running at 1 million Hertz! The human eye doesn't see in FPS, as the human eye does not use discrete framerates to function. There are indirect artifact problems that clues away a display's finite refresh rate behavior.
There are always problems with noninfinite-framerate displays; (1) stroboscopic/wagonwheel effects, and (2) sample-and-hold motion blur effects.
For the wagonwheel/stepping effect problem, let's go extreme here: A wagon wheel spinning at 100,000Hz could still look stationary, for example. The only way to fix wagonwheel effects at all wagonwheel speeds, is simply to add artificial motion blur (not always desirable) OR use an infinite framerate (not possible). A good compromise is to use really high Hz, and then add a very very light amount of motion blur, but that doesn't make everyone 100% happy.
Another great example of the wagonwheel/stepping/stroboscopic effect is the mouse cursor test on a black background. Mouse pointer "dots around" rather than a continuous blur. Stare stationary while moving mouse fast. The mouse arrow isn't a continuous blur but has the stroboscopic stepping effect. Even if the display refreshed far higher than 120Hz, you will still see stroboscopic effect. The stroboscopic steps during mouse movement, become smaller and smaller but won't yet become a single blur (analog-indistinguishable) at 1000Hz...
Another problem is motion blur caused by noninfinite-framerate sample-and-hold displays. When pixel transition speed is no longer the limiting factor, the sample-and-hold mathematics become quite simple: Mathematically, 1ms of sample-and-hold creates 1 pixel of motion blur for every 1000 pixels per second of motion (that's about 1/2 screen-width per second at 1080p, and that's 1/4 screen width per second at 4K). So during perfect fluidity motion such as http://www.testufo.com/#test=photo you will still see motion blur even at 1000fps@1000Hz. If it is moving at 4000 pixels per second on a 4K display, that's still 4 pixels of motion blur, which would still be noticeable under ideal viewing conditions at regular computer monitor view distances, assuming the motion is perfectly fluid (exact pixel steps per refresh, no microstutters -- much like a Nintendo platformer pan effect -- then it's very, very easy to detect sample-and-hold motion blur even at incredibly short refresh lengths).
Strobing (adding black periods between refreshes; ala black frame insertion effect, or CRT effect, or strobe backlight) -- like Black Frame Animation at www.testufo.com/#test=blackframes -- is a way to reduce motion blur without needing higer Hz. LightBoost (during 10% setting) uses 1.4ms (1/700sec) strobe flashes. So the motion blur of a strobed LightBoost display is the same as a 700fps@700Hz sample-and-hold display (lots of black frame insertion effect, 120 visible refreshes that are only 1/700sec long each). The sample-and-hold motion blur is nearly gone except during fast motions (e.g. over 1000 pixels/second). But you still have the stroboscopic/wagonwheel effect issue to contend with, and you need to add at least a full frame's worth of GPU motion blur in order to eliminate the wagonwheel/stepping/stroboscopic effect problem, and 8ms of motion blur is quite obnoxious to some of us (that's why I turn off GPU motion blur).
*View TestUFO motion test animation links in a 120Hz VSYNC-supported GPU-accelerated web browser (e.g. Google Chrome with everything enabled in chrome://gpu ...)
So obviously, there are certainly ways for a human to detect a display isn't an infinite refreshrate, indirectly, due to the wagonwheel effect and/or the sample-and-hold motion blur effect, even way beyond 1000fps@1000Hz. Diminishing points of returns definitely do apply, but clearly, they don't stop there yet.
That said, once we reach 1000fps@1000Hz (hopefully within 100 years from now), we can finally forget about using flicker (strobing ala LightBoost) -- and also just add only 1ms of artifical GPU motion blur (that's no longer obnoxious anymore) to eliminate whatever wagonwheel/stepping effect is there, and then the sample-and-hold motion blur is so tiny that perhaps 99.999% no longer cares. Michael Abrash of Valve Software talked about the 1000fps@1000Hz concept being worthwhile for virtual reality goggles.
Turning your head slowly at only 30 degrees per second on a 1080p display, creates several pixels of sample-and-hold motion blur even at 120Hz. If you're going to do fast head flicks with your human head while wearing VR glasses, and expect fast pans to be as crystal clear as real life, you really need an insane amount of Hz, or ultra-short strobes (preferably, eventually, far less than 1ms of visibility per single static refresh). Let's say, theoretically 20 years from now on, 4K goggles running at 500Hz, you'll still have 8 pixels of motion blur for every 4000 pixels/sec motion (1/500th of 4000 pixels), and that's still a slow head turn. Flick head fast (180 degrees), and even if the GPU manages to render 500fps@500Hz, you would still create several tens of pixels of motion blur even at 500Hz. Ouch. (Remember: sample-and-hold mathematics of 1ms of frame staticness creates 1 pixel of motion blur for every 1000 pixels/sec motion). So, alas, we're quite a long way from the nirvana of Holodeck-quality displays.
The manufacturers of tomorrow's Holodeck would have to come up with an analog way of representing motion (ala infinite framerate) to prevent all the problems of finite-framerate displays (wagonwheel/stepping effect problem, as well as the sample-and-hold motion blur effect problem).
Some manufacturers sell vision-researcher equipment (e.g. www.vpixx.com) sells 500Hz projectors, and at least one manufacturer has a monochrome 1000Hz display, for scientists to play with. All quite interesting stuff.
Now, whether this is important or not to a specific gamer viewing a small 1080p desktop monitor from a far distance away, depends on what they are used to or satisfied by. If a human's expectation is to see a game and it looks like real life rather than a display/screen, that's sky-high expectations. If a human's expectation is to at least see something that looks better than VGA 30fps, then you're already quite pleased with 1080p @ 60fps.
Again, not saying that it matters to everyone (especially those who don't have the GPU to truly take advantage of fluidity improvements), but I'm just saying that, alas, even a 1000fps@1000Hz display won't yet be Holodeck-indistinguishable from real life, due to the two visual artifacts I've (And John Carmack, and Michael Abrash) described of noninfinite-refresh displays.
There are definitely points of diminishing returns, but everyone who says there's a human eye framerate limit (where *everything* is true Holodeck-indistinguishable from real life, motion perfection, zero artifacts) is definitely not considering the wagonwheel effect factor, as well as not considering the sample-and-hold factor.
On the bright side, technological progress will continue for a very, very long time. :)
[quote="Pirateguybrush"]That was a really interesting and insightful post, thanks for sharing it.[/quote]Thanks. As displays get more high-def, covers more vision, someday gets better and comfortable true-3D effect (better than today's stereoscopic glasses), GPU's become more capable of ultrahigh framerates, and other factors, the limitations of finite-framerates gradually becomes more visible. This will indirectly help drive progress over the long term.
As a small step forward towards the Holodeck, let's anticipate:
[url=http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/08/nhk-8k-super-hi-vision-120hz-camera/]NHK 8K 120Hz Camera -- 7680x4320 -- 33 megapixel video at 120fps[/url]
Pirateguybrush said:That was a really interesting and insightful post, thanks for sharing it.
Thanks. As displays get more high-def, covers more vision, someday gets better and comfortable true-3D effect (better than today's stereoscopic glasses), GPU's become more capable of ultrahigh framerates, and other factors, the limitations of finite-framerates gradually becomes more visible. This will indirectly help drive progress over the long term.
Thank you very much for a really good post and sharing this information among us! Especially for the software which is really useful. I found my self that i like 50% of Lightboost better than 10% cuz the picture gets too dim from me. Even if you bring more brightness while using LightBoost with 10% the dark colors just shade into something between grey and black, so i'll stick with the 50% of Lightboost which brings colors to life.
I'm eagerly waiting to see some gaming results from LG's/Samsung's OLED TV's to see is there any input lag/blur effect on the way.
I hope that future technologies like Gaming OLED monitors could banish the blur once and for all. Or maybe that's me dreaming :)
Thank you very much for a really good post and sharing this information among us! Especially for the software which is really useful. I found my self that i like 50% of Lightboost better than 10% cuz the picture gets too dim from me. Even if you bring more brightness while using LightBoost with 10% the dark colors just shade into something between grey and black, so i'll stick with the 50% of Lightboost which brings colors to life.
I'm eagerly waiting to see some gaming results from LG's/Samsung's OLED TV's to see is there any input lag/blur effect on the way.
I hope that future technologies like Gaming OLED monitors could banish the blur once and for all. Or maybe that's me dreaming :)
HW:
i7 3770K @ 4.6Hz on ASUS MAXIMUS V FORMULA together with G.Skill F3-2400C10D-8GTX
ASUS GTX 980ti DirectCU III in SLI paired with ASUS ROG Swift on DP 1.2
Rig is powered by Corsair AX850W
OS: Win8.1 Pro 64bit
Always on latest Gforce Drivers :)
[quote="Thug"]Thank you very much for a really good post and sharing this information among us! Especially for the software which is really useful. I found my self that i like 50% of Lightboost better than 10% cuz the picture gets too dim from me. Even if you bring more brightness while using LightBoost with 10% the dark colors just shade into something between grey and black[/quote]LightBoost=50% definitely is a good compromise for people who dislike the dimness of LightBoost=10%.
The dimness makes it harder to see colors. Adjusting brightness via nVidia Control Panel will kill the colors. So some people have [url=http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/creating-strobe-backlight/#lightboost]hacked the LightBoost hardware[/url] on an XL2411T's and VG248QE's to create bigger boost current surges during LightBoost 10%, to make it almost as bright as LightBoost=100% while keeping the colors.
Thug said:Thank you very much for a really good post and sharing this information among us! Especially for the software which is really useful. I found my self that i like 50% of Lightboost better than 10% cuz the picture gets too dim from me. Even if you bring more brightness while using LightBoost with 10% the dark colors just shade into something between grey and black
LightBoost=50% definitely is a good compromise for people who dislike the dimness of LightBoost=10%.
The dimness makes it harder to see colors. Adjusting brightness via nVidia Control Panel will kill the colors. So some people have hacked the LightBoost hardware on an XL2411T's and VG248QE's to create bigger boost current surges during LightBoost 10%, to make it almost as bright as LightBoost=100% while keeping the colors.
Im confused at how 120hz could be considered more immersive. Don't take it wrong but it seems like it definitely gives you a competitive edge. I havent really played any games with it so maybe I am wrong. In that video turning/aiming is liquid smooth. Not realistic but definetly good for competitive edge.
Im confused at how 120hz could be considered more immersive. Don't take it wrong but it seems like it definitely gives you a competitive edge. I havent really played any games with it so maybe I am wrong. In that video turning/aiming is liquid smooth. Not realistic but definetly good for competitive edge.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't we get 120fps in any game our graphics card can handle, once we disable 3d? I know I see my framerate hit 120 with vsync on.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but don't we get 120fps in any game our graphics card can handle, once we disable 3d? I know I see my framerate hit 120 with vsync on.
USUALLY
1 3D fps = 2 2D FPS
There are some reasons why sometimes it doesnt hold true. Just more or less.
Some games dont support 120hz though. I really couldnt say how many since I havent tested. Id imagine many old games don't. It might be a lot less then I expect. I remember at what point people were trying to maintain lists.
USUALLY
1 3D fps = 2 2D FPS
There are some reasons why sometimes it doesnt hold true. Just more or less.
Some games dont support 120hz though. I really couldnt say how many since I havent tested. Id imagine many old games don't. It might be a lot less then I expect. I remember at what point people were trying to maintain lists.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
(View in 120Hz friendly browser such as Chrome)
For the most dramatic difference of 60Hz versus 120Hz, you need full 120fps@120Hz with no frame drops. 80/90/100/110fps@120Hz will not necessarily have less stutters than framerate-locked 60fps@60Hz, even though you will get less input lag at 120Hz. The fluidity differences between 60Hz and 120Hz is more dramatic during framerate matching Hz. Then bringing it to the next level, the difference is further amplified if you can do flicker (e.g. CRT flicker, plasma flicker, or LightBoost flicker). Flicker eliminates motion blur.
See the animation at www.testufo.com/#test=eyetracking to see a cause of motion blur that is NOT caused by the LCD panel pixel speed limitation.
Thanks for the links and the tests.. I understand it all too well the concepts including the details. I didn't see SAY there is no difference..as IT IS...
All I wanted to POINT OUT is that out brain is much more complex than we believe it to be... give it 30fps...it will adapt and see that information as "natural motion" as it is able to fill in the gaps.. same goes for 60fps or 120fps. The human eye and brain CAN detect even higher than 120fps..that doesn't mean at 30fps is less FLUID than at 120fps since the fluidity is un-altered. You put into equation the "Blurring"... then I am going to ask you this: How many "FPS" can the HUMAN EYE see... (when looking through your eyes around the window for example)
(The blurriness is a product of a technology and monitor...Using a 120/144hz monitor you will get no "artificial" blur at 30fps and the image is fluid as it is at any higher fps. The tests in the links provide a mathematical proof to what I am trying to say...I am not talking about the individual frames but rather the movement/fluidity of the movement)
1x Palit RTX 2080Ti Pro Gaming OC(watercooled and overclocked to hell)
3x 3D Vision Ready Asus VG278HE monitors (5760x1080).
Intel i9 9900K (overclocked to 5.3 and watercooled ofc).
Asus Maximus XI Hero Mobo.
16 GB Team Group T-Force Dark Pro DDR4 @ 3600.
Lots of Disks:
- Raid 0 - 256GB Sandisk Extreme SSD.
- Raid 0 - WD Black - 2TB.
- SanDisk SSD PLUS 480 GB.
- Intel 760p 256GB M.2 PCIe NVMe SSD.
Creative Sound Blaster Z.
Windows 10 x64 Pro.
etc
My website with my fixes and OpenGL to 3D Vision wrapper:
http://3dsurroundgaming.com
(If you like some of the stuff that I've done and want to donate something, you can do it with PayPal at tavyhome@gmail.com)
There are more factors beyond 100fps.com's interpretation. 100fps.com tries to do a very good job of mythbusting, but there is actually no upper limit to "How many FPS" if you are aiming at the ultimate: Holodeck-quality. There is actually an indirect way (hint: wagonwheel effect) for human eyes to detect that a display isn't infinite framerate, even if it's running at 1 million Hertz! The human eye doesn't see in FPS, as the human eye does not use discrete framerates to function. There are indirect artifact problems that clues away a display's finite refresh rate behavior.
There are always problems with noninfinite-framerate displays; (1) stroboscopic/wagonwheel effects, and (2) sample-and-hold motion blur effects.
For the wagonwheel/stepping effect problem, let's go extreme here: A wagon wheel spinning at 100,000Hz could still look stationary, for example. The only way to fix wagonwheel effects at all wagonwheel speeds, is simply to add artificial motion blur (not always desirable) OR use an infinite framerate (not possible). A good compromise is to use really high Hz, and then add a very very light amount of motion blur, but that doesn't make everyone 100% happy.
Another great example of the wagonwheel/stepping/stroboscopic effect is the mouse cursor test on a black background. Mouse pointer "dots around" rather than a continuous blur. Stare stationary while moving mouse fast. The mouse arrow isn't a continuous blur but has the stroboscopic stepping effect. Even if the display refreshed far higher than 120Hz, you will still see stroboscopic effect. The stroboscopic steps during mouse movement, become smaller and smaller but won't yet become a single blur (analog-indistinguishable) at 1000Hz...
Another problem is motion blur caused by noninfinite-framerate sample-and-hold displays. When pixel transition speed is no longer the limiting factor, the sample-and-hold mathematics become quite simple: Mathematically, 1ms of sample-and-hold creates 1 pixel of motion blur for every 1000 pixels per second of motion (that's about 1/2 screen-width per second at 1080p, and that's 1/4 screen width per second at 4K). So during perfect fluidity motion such as http://www.testufo.com/#test=photo you will still see motion blur even at 1000fps@1000Hz. If it is moving at 4000 pixels per second on a 4K display, that's still 4 pixels of motion blur, which would still be noticeable under ideal viewing conditions at regular computer monitor view distances, assuming the motion is perfectly fluid (exact pixel steps per refresh, no microstutters -- much like a Nintendo platformer pan effect -- then it's very, very easy to detect sample-and-hold motion blur even at incredibly short refresh lengths).
Strobing (adding black periods between refreshes; ala black frame insertion effect, or CRT effect, or strobe backlight) -- like Black Frame Animation at www.testufo.com/#test=blackframes -- is a way to reduce motion blur without needing higer Hz. LightBoost (during 10% setting) uses 1.4ms (1/700sec) strobe flashes. So the motion blur of a strobed LightBoost display is the same as a 700fps@700Hz sample-and-hold display (lots of black frame insertion effect, 120 visible refreshes that are only 1/700sec long each). The sample-and-hold motion blur is nearly gone except during fast motions (e.g. over 1000 pixels/second). But you still have the stroboscopic/wagonwheel effect issue to contend with, and you need to add at least a full frame's worth of GPU motion blur in order to eliminate the wagonwheel/stepping/stroboscopic effect problem, and 8ms of motion blur is quite obnoxious to some of us (that's why I turn off GPU motion blur).
*View TestUFO motion test animation links in a 120Hz VSYNC-supported GPU-accelerated web browser (e.g. Google Chrome with everything enabled in chrome://gpu ...)
So obviously, there are certainly ways for a human to detect a display isn't an infinite refreshrate, indirectly, due to the wagonwheel effect and/or the sample-and-hold motion blur effect, even way beyond 1000fps@1000Hz. Diminishing points of returns definitely do apply, but clearly, they don't stop there yet.
That said, once we reach 1000fps@1000Hz (hopefully within 100 years from now), we can finally forget about using flicker (strobing ala LightBoost) -- and also just add only 1ms of artifical GPU motion blur (that's no longer obnoxious anymore) to eliminate whatever wagonwheel/stepping effect is there, and then the sample-and-hold motion blur is so tiny that perhaps 99.999% no longer cares. Michael Abrash of Valve Software talked about the 1000fps@1000Hz concept being worthwhile for virtual reality goggles.
Turning your head slowly at only 30 degrees per second on a 1080p display, creates several pixels of sample-and-hold motion blur even at 120Hz. If you're going to do fast head flicks with your human head while wearing VR glasses, and expect fast pans to be as crystal clear as real life, you really need an insane amount of Hz, or ultra-short strobes (preferably, eventually, far less than 1ms of visibility per single static refresh). Let's say, theoretically 20 years from now on, 4K goggles running at 500Hz, you'll still have 8 pixels of motion blur for every 4000 pixels/sec motion (1/500th of 4000 pixels), and that's still a slow head turn. Flick head fast (180 degrees), and even if the GPU manages to render 500fps@500Hz, you would still create several tens of pixels of motion blur even at 500Hz. Ouch. (Remember: sample-and-hold mathematics of 1ms of frame staticness creates 1 pixel of motion blur for every 1000 pixels/sec motion). So, alas, we're quite a long way from the nirvana of Holodeck-quality displays.
The manufacturers of tomorrow's Holodeck would have to come up with an analog way of representing motion (ala infinite framerate) to prevent all the problems of finite-framerate displays (wagonwheel/stepping effect problem, as well as the sample-and-hold motion blur effect problem).
Some manufacturers sell vision-researcher equipment (e.g. www.vpixx.com) sells 500Hz projectors, and at least one manufacturer has a monochrome 1000Hz display, for scientists to play with. All quite interesting stuff.
Now, whether this is important or not to a specific gamer viewing a small 1080p desktop monitor from a far distance away, depends on what they are used to or satisfied by. If a human's expectation is to see a game and it looks like real life rather than a display/screen, that's sky-high expectations. If a human's expectation is to at least see something that looks better than VGA 30fps, then you're already quite pleased with 1080p @ 60fps.
Links to Pages Talking about Sample-And-Hold Motion Blur / Stroboscopic Effect / Etc.
-- Why Do Some OLED's Have Motion Blur? (same problem affects traditional LCD)
-- Michael Abrash of Valve Software explaining motion blur caused by eye tracking
(For his article, "persistence" is same thing as "sample and hold". His eye-tracking diagrams are exactly what I've often tried to explain)
-- Why We Need 1000fps @ 1000Hz This Century (uses Michael's images)
-- ;t=5m35s" rel="nofollow" target = "_blank">iD Software's John Carmack YouTube QuakeCon chat about about motion blur & strobing
For the purposes of this, "persistence", "sample-and-hold", "eye tracking motion blur" are roughly equivalent, as everyone often use different terminologies to describe similar problems.
-- Scientific Papers about Sample & Hold
Again, not saying that it matters to everyone (especially those who don't have the GPU to truly take advantage of fluidity improvements), but I'm just saying that, alas, even a 1000fps@1000Hz display won't yet be Holodeck-indistinguishable from real life, due to the two visual artifacts I've (And John Carmack, and Michael Abrash) described of noninfinite-refresh displays.
There are definitely points of diminishing returns, but everyone who says there's a human eye framerate limit (where *everything* is true Holodeck-indistinguishable from real life, motion perfection, zero artifacts) is definitely not considering the wagonwheel effect factor, as well as not considering the sample-and-hold factor.
On the bright side, technological progress will continue for a very, very long time. :)
As a small step forward towards the Holodeck, let's anticipate:
NHK 8K 120Hz Camera -- 7680x4320 -- 33 megapixel video at 120fps
I'm eagerly waiting to see some gaming results from LG's/Samsung's OLED TV's to see is there any input lag/blur effect on the way.
I hope that future technologies like Gaming OLED monitors could banish the blur once and for all. Or maybe that's me dreaming :)
HW:
i7 3770K @ 4.6Hz on ASUS MAXIMUS V FORMULA together with G.Skill F3-2400C10D-8GTX
ASUS GTX 980ti DirectCU III in SLI paired with ASUS ROG Swift on DP 1.2
Rig is powered by Corsair AX850W
OS: Win8.1 Pro 64bit
Always on latest Gforce Drivers :)
The dimness makes it harder to see colors. Adjusting brightness via nVidia Control Panel will kill the colors. So some people have hacked the LightBoost hardware on an XL2411T's and VG248QE's to create bigger boost current surges during LightBoost 10%, to make it almost as bright as LightBoost=100% while keeping the colors.
Model: Clevo P570WM Laptop
GPU: GeForce GTX 980M ~8GB GDDR5
CPU: Intel Core i7-4960X CPU +4.2GHz (12 CPUs)
Memory: 32GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3L 1600MHz, 4x8gb
OS: Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
1 3D fps = 2 2D FPS
There are some reasons why sometimes it doesnt hold true. Just more or less.
Some games dont support 120hz though. I really couldnt say how many since I havent tested. Id imagine many old games don't. It might be a lot less then I expect. I remember at what point people were trying to maintain lists.
Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com
If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com
But really, who cares about 120fps when you can play in 3d?
EXACTLY