How big of a gap is there between 120hz, 144hz and 165hz that you can percieve?

[Andrewf]

59 minutes ago, Doobeedoo said:

Well as far as cap it's not as low as you think it is. Comparing fighter jet pilots of what they can perceive to see flashes of aircraft at split of a second is not exactly the same thing like in gaming on a high refresh rate monitor.

 

Watching movies let's say at 60fps 120fps may not make much sense but in gaming it definitely does. Oh and speaking of movies, 24fps is not the best experience too. Really reasons why it is stuck there was mainly since it was the minimum for cinematic viewing for our eyes, ease of recording, budget and so. I've seen 48fps nad 60fps movie footage and I can understand why some people mention the soap opera effect too. Thing is, they're way too used to 24fps and little information it tends to provide, especially with motion blur used in movies. So when they see a movie in higher fps it feels unnatural to them.

Can't agree more that MagnesiumPC is more or less talking out of his ass, his argument doesn't hold much.

 

On the other hand, when it comes to movies and cinema, you seem to be talking from personal experience alone. If you left uneasy, it's intentional. 24fps (23.976) is still being used for good reason. Any good movie that you've ever seen in theaters, every emotion you feel is intentional. If that takes away from your experience, then please don't ever be a movie critic. You clearly typed this on your phone or something and didn't even bother to read it back to edit it.

 

The Hobbit was shown in 48fps alongside 24fps as an experiment. It failed and no one enjoyed it. You said yourself the soap opera effect is there and you understand why it's undesirable. You're wrong that people are "used to" it being at 24fps. I've been gaming on 144hz top end hardware for years and I simply cannot play a game under 60fps. I'm also a movie buff and have a big background in the industry and there's a reason for everything. It was almost never about the "minimum viewing" or "budget". Perhaps at first when film was so expensive, but money was and still is no object to big studios. Countless directors and DPs experimented with different framerates and refresh rates throughout many years of filmmaking and consensus still stands. 24fps (23.976) with a shutter degree of 180(or 2x fps; so 1/48 shutter speed in this case) is and always will be the best way to be immersed in a cinematic viewing for most people. 

 

Bottom line tl;dr

You're clearly not like most people, 24fps is and always be the cinematic standard for a reason. If you feel uneasy during a fast pan, it's intentional. It's not that people are used to to 24fps and haven't transcended to PC master race godhood; it's because when it comes to cinematic storytelling, the soap opera effect demystifies everything. Almost everything in cinema is intentional.

[Doobeedoo]

28 minutes ago, Andrewf said:

Can't agree more that MagnesiumPC is more or less talking out of his ass, his argument doesn't hold much.

 

On the other hand, when it comes to movies and cinema, you seem to be talking from personal experience alone. If you left uneasy, it's intentional. 24fps (23.976) is still being used for good reason. Any good movie that you've ever seen in theaters, every emotion you feel is intentional. If that takes away from your experience, then please don't ever be a movie critic. You clearly typed this on your phone or something and didn't even bother to read it back to edit it.

 

The Hobbit was shown in 48fps alongside 24fps as an experiment. It failed and no one enjoyed it. You said yourself the soap opera effect is there and you understand why it's undesirable. You're wrong that people are "used to" it being at 24fps. I've been gaming on 144hz top end hardware for years and I simply cannot play a game under 60fps. I'm also a movie buff and have a big background in the industry and there's a reason for everything. It was almost never about the "minimum viewing" or "budget". Perhaps at first when film was so expensive, but money was and still is no object to big studios. Countless directors and DPs experimented with different framerates and refresh rates throughout many years of filmmaking and consensus still stands. 24fps (23.976) with a shutter degree of 180(or 2x fps; so 1/48 shutter speed in this case) is and always will be the best way to be immersed in a cinematic viewing for most people. 

 

Bottom line tl;dr

You're clearly not like most people, 24fps is and always be the cinematic standard for a reason. If you feel uneasy during a fast pan, it's intentional. It's not that people are used to to 24fps and haven't transcended to PC master race godhood; it's because when it comes to cinematic storytelling, the soap opera effect demystifies everything. Almost everything in cinema is intentional.

He clearly doesn't even play games so whatever.

 

As for movies and cinema, my personal experience or not, I mentioned soap opera effect as peoples initial reaction though. Doesn't mean if initially there were more people that didn't necessarily find higher framerate movie better that it's a fail. Asking random people after seeing it at higher fps and hearing it felt odd etc. doesn't mean much. It's their first time seeing something like that. It definitely has to do with that that people are clearly not used to it. Watching close in fights with constant camera switch and blur is intentional to make me feel uneasy? Because why? To make me feel like I'm there mid combat or to try to make it feel intense. It's not intense. It's just a blurry mess. At times fist fights and at certain closeups look unrealistically faster and just looks plain bad. It's annoying and I don't buy the whole "how it should make me feel" as in correct way. Especially the american way of image capture too, don't like it at all. Low shutter for more light hitting the sensor and yey we get ton of blur too. I can't believe that Hollywood with all the money even outputs so much blurry shots and that that is approved, like what?

 

Well you can't really say that people aren't used to either. Say if movies start to only come out as 60fps and over some say year or two only people watching like that and after longer time going back to 24fps ones you think they wouldn't notice that being, odd? Higher fps does make it more life like . I don't want to feel like I'm watching through a limiting camera. Especially fast action stuff. Same for lens flare and depth of field annoyances in games. I studied about film and camera as well and movie industry and such. I may not know every single detail, that's not my path. I'm curious about your background in the industry though. 

It's more frames to render when shooting at higher framerate and most cinemas can't play them even. I'd say those are one of the reasons for sure. Every frame adds to cost.

So yeah also depends what filmakers want it to be, maybe they don't want it to look more real like. But "stylized" 'cinematic' like per say. That's on them, maybe they don't like the extra information or smoothness and all. Sure I may not be in majority, doesn't make me wrong nor it does make them right as the only right answer is X framerate. So like shutter speed rules and so kinda is subjective. So many things are still from old days of film. So it's not set in stone. Sports fast shutter angle and I've seen some awesome shots. It would definitely be interesting to see movies coming out in higher framerate like I said before, I'd really like to see how people feel about them after some prolonged time so that they've been exposed to those over longer period. Not just one movie. 

 

Most people don't even have basic knowledge how stuff work, all they can say it's different etc. First impressions don't mean to much nor are a proof of anything like I sad. 24fps is not the gold standard for everything like you think just because it's used generally and for long time. So many Hollywood action movies are just plain bad. 

Can't remember from which movie it was, but it was introductory shot of mountain landscape, zoomed in and panned very fast. Now that looked horrid, complete blur not to mention I noticed stutters as well. How is that intentional? A peaceful introductory to make me feel uneasy? I don't buy that. That could've been shoot better. Using constant blurring in films to make you feel 'whatever' is nonsense. And it is true that people are used to 24fps though. For specific films I really don't know why they're still using that. Has nothing to do with transcending to PC master race though, not what I meant. What exactly does the soap opera effect demystify for you that it takes away your immersion?

So constant blur in action scenes is intentional? Oh I can see that it's intentional, doesn't make it good.

[Kescarte DeJudica]

On 1/5/2019 at 7:38 PM, Guest said:

Scientifically, our eyes cannot see faster than 60 hz. There's a video by Knowing Better that explains this well (It also talks about why 4k is dumb).

 

Really hope this is a troll post.

[Knight77]

On 1/6/2019 at 12:16 AM, OttoVonBismarck said:

I'm choosing between 120hz and other options for a monitor, i know that increasing refresh rate is going to have diminishing returns after a certain point, so my question is how much can you feel the difference between these refresh rates? does it matter that much?

There is absolutely a difference. 

 

Nvidia did a study and found a faster refresh rate means players did better on the faster screens. 

 

When its smoother and you are essentially getting more information per second, it makes a difference. 

 

I can tell the difference between 60 / 100 / 120 / 144 / 165 / 240. 

 

Each one is a good step up in smoothness. 

 

The most dramatic is 60 to 120/144. 

 

But you can absolutely go onto a 240Hz Monitor and get a ridiculously smooth picture. 

 

Go on YouTube and look at slow motion 240Hz comparing to all the others. 

 

Even slowed down, the picture is much smoother than those below it. 

 

This leads to increased smoothness in real time. 

 

Hence there is a difference. 

[SolarNova]

Depends on the person. Some cant even see the difference between 60 and 120hz which is the easiest, and some claim they cant tell the difference between console 30 and pc 60.

 

That said, the monitor itself has a lot to do with it. if the Pixel response is very slow on a high frequency display it will not be as clear as a fast pixel response display with the same frequency. This is why IPS and VA panels above 100hz are rather pointless, as neither IPS or VA has the pixel response to keep up with anything higher, this may contribute to some people not beng able to notice a difference between say a 120hz TN panel and a 144hz IPS panel. or even 60 HZ TN and a 120hz IPS.

[Knight77]

3 hours ago, SolarNova said:

Depends on the person. Some cant even see the difference between 60 and 120hz which is the easiest, and some claim they cant tell the difference between console 30 and pc 60.

 

That said, the monitor itself has a lot to do with it. if the Pixel response is very slow on a high frequency display it will not be as clear as a fast pixel response display with the same frequency. This is why IPS and VA panels above 100hz are rather pointless, as neither IPS or VA has the pixel response to keep up with anything higher, this may contribute to some people not beng able to notice a difference between say a 120hz TN panel and a 144hz IPS panel. or even 60 HZ TN and a 120hz IPS.

 

Rubbish. 

 

The IPS PG279Q I owned is a 144/165Hz Monitor and it’s pixel response time is 3.8-6ms. 

 

144 requires 6.95ms or below. 

 

So considering its max was 6ms - It can easily do this. 

 

Its only when you start pushing above the 165 that this is true. 

 

So some cheaper screens may have issues but not all IPS / VA panels. 

 

Plus, you can definitely “see it” but whether you can recognise it is a different matter. 

 

Its a fact that more Hz means a more smoother picture. 

 

And it’s the whole debate of SD vs HD and then HD v 4K. 

 

Some people always claim “no difference” - the correct point is that there is a difference but you cannot process it. 

 

You can see it but but you cannot understand it. 

 

 

[Mick Naughty]

Big factor people tend to forget is the response time and age. Can’t conpare them unless it’s all equal. I think I’d prefer 165 over 240. But 144 would be my minimum, 120 just isn’t really enough for me but I no longer game and any frames less than that. 

[Dedayog]

It is also worth noting that there are absolutes vs differences.

 

If you sat at a PC and were asked what the refresh rate was, this is very different than going "oh, I can see this one is smoother than that one".

 

People can tell when driving at different speeds, but it's very difficult for someone to simply guess what speed they're driving without obvious indicators.

 

Good discussion, even tho it's getting a bit silly.  I've seen Top Gun and Tom Cruise can definitely see past 500fps.  Easily.