Jump to content

Whats the framerate and resolution of your eys

Powerscape one man band
 Share
Posted

um....what movies can you watch on a computer at 120fps? I thought all movies online are 24fps? and only TV's with built in motion features fake/fill in the additional frames to create a smooth 120hz? I may be wrong but let me know. Plus a majority of people I used to talk to when I sold TV's really disliked the 120hz motion feature on TV's as they thought it made a movie feel too much like a soap opera and less like a movie.

OS: Windows 10 Pro

CPU: AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1950X

Cooling: Enermax LiqTech 360mm TR4
Motherboard: AORUS X399 Gaming 7
PSU: Corsair RM1000i

RAM: 32 GB G.Skill Trident Z RGB 3600MHz
M.2: 250GB Samsung 960 EVO
GPU: AORUS GeForce GTX 1080 8GB Xtreme OC Edition

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
3 minutes ago, awolive said:

um....what movies can you watch on a computer at 120fps? I thought all movies online are 24fps? and only TV's with built in motion features fake/fill in the additional frames to create a smooth 120hz? I may be wrong but let me know. Plus a majority of people I used to talk to when I sold TV's really disliked the 120hz motion feature on TV's as they thought it made a movie feel too much like a soap opera and less like a movie.

Hobbit and some others have been in 48fps and people felt sick

▓ƆԀ▓ S▓₱▓Ɇ▓c▓s▓: i7 6ʇɥפᴉƎ00K (4.4ghz), Asus DeLuxe X99A II, GT҉X҉1҉0҉8҉0 Zotac Amp ExTrꍟꎭe),Si6F4Gb D???????r PlatinUm, EVGA G2 Sǝʌǝᘉ5ᙣᙍᖇᓎᙎᗅᖶt, Phanteks Enthoo Primo, 3TB WD Black, 500gb 850 Evo, H100iGeeTeeX, Windows 10, K70 R̸̢̡̭͍͕̱̭̟̩̀̀̃́̃͒̈́̈́͑̑́̆͘͜ͅG̶̦̬͊́B̸͈̝̖͗̈́, G502, HyperX Cloud 2s, Asus MX34. פN∩SW∀S 960 EVO

Just keeping this here as a backup 9̵̨̢̨̧̧̡̧̡̧̡̧̡̡̢̢̡̢̧̡̢̡̡̢̧̛̛̛̛̛̛̱̖͈̠̝̯̹͉̝̞̩̠̹̺̰̺̲̳͈̞̻̜̫̹̱̗̣͙̻̘͎̲̝͙͍͔̯̲̟̞͚̖̘͉̭̰̣͎͕̼̼̜̼͕͎̣͇͓͓͎̼̺̯͈̤̝͖̩̭͍̣̱̞̬̺̯̼̤̲͎̖̠̟͍̘̭͔̟̗̙̗̗̤̦͍̫̬͔̦̳̗̳͔̞̼̝͍̝͈̻͇̭̠͈̳͍̫̮̥̭͍͔͈̠̹̼̬̰͈̤͚̖̯͍͉͖̥̹̺͕̲̥̤̺̹̹̪̺̺̭͕͓̟̳̹͍̖͎̣̫͓͍͈͕̳̹̙̰͉͙̝̜̠̥̝̲̮̬͕̰̹̳͕̰̲̣̯̫̮͙̹̮͙̮̝̣͇̺̺͇̺̺͈̳̜̣̙̻̣̜̻̦͚̹̩͓͚̖͍̥̟͍͎̦͙̫̜͔̭̥͈̬̝̺̩͙͙͉̻̰̬̗̣͖̦͎̥̜̬̹͓͈͙̤̜̗͔̩̖̳̫̑̀̂̽̈́̈́̿͒̿̋̊͌̾̄̄̒̌͐̽̿̊͑̑̆͗̈̎̄͒̑̋͛̑͑̂͑̀͐̀͑̓͊̇͆̿͑͛͛͆́͆̓̿̇̀̓͑͆͂̓̾̏͊̀̇̍̃́̒̎̀̒̄̓̒̐̑̊̏̌̽̓͂͋̓̐̓͊̌͋̀̐̇̌̓̔͊̈̇́̏͒̋͊̓̆̋̈̀̌̔͆͑̈̐̈̍̀̉̋̈́͊̽͂̿͌͊̆̾̉͐̿̓̄̾͑̈́͗͗̂̂́̇͂̀̈́́̽̈́̓̓͂̽̓̀̄͌̐̔̄̄͒͌̈́̅̉͊̂͒̀̈́̌͂̽̀̑̏̽̀͑̐̐͋̀̀͋̓̅͋͗̍́͗̈́̆̏̇͊̌̏̔̑̐̈́͑̎͑͆̏̎́̑̍̏̒̌̊͘͘̚̕̚̕̕̚̕̚̕̕͜͜͜͜͜͝͝͠͠͝͝͝͝͝͝͝͠͝͝ͅͅͅͅͅͅͅ8̵̨̛̛̛̛̮͍͕̥͉̦̥̱̞̜̫̘̤̖̬͍͇͓̜̻̪̤̣̣̹̑͑̏̈́̐̐́̎͒̔͒̌̑̓̆̓͑̉̈́́͋̌͋͐͛͋̃̍̽̊͗͋͊̂̅͊͑́͋͛̉̏̓͌̾̈́̀͛͊̾͑̌̀̀̌̓̏̑́̄̉̌͂́͛̋͊̄͐͊̈́̀̌̆̎̿̓̔̍̎̀̍̚̕̕͘͘͘̕̚͝͝͠͠͠0̶̡̡̡̢̨̨͕̠̠͉̺̻̯̱̘͇̥͎͖̯͕̖̬̭͔̪̪͎̺̠̤̬̬̤̣̭̣͍̥̱̘̳̣̤͚̭̥͚̦͙̱̦͕̼͖͙͕͇̭͓͉͎̹̣̣͕̜͍͖̳̭͕̼̳̖̩͍͔̱̙̠̝̺̰̦̱̿̄̀͐͜͜ͅͅt̶̡̨̡̨̧̢̧̢̨̧̧̧̧̢̡̨̨̢̨̢̧̢̛̛̛̛̛̠͍̞̮͇̪͉̩̗̗͖̫͉͎͓̮̣̘̫͔̘̬̮̙̯̣͕͓̲̣͓͓̣̹̟͈̱͚̘̼̙̖̖̼̙̜̝͙̣̠̪̲̞̖̠̯̖̠̜̱͉̲̺͙̤̻̦̜͎̙̳̺̭̪̱͓̦̹̺͙̫̖̖̰̣͈͍̜̺̘͕̬̥͇̗̖̺̣̲̫̟̣̜̭̟̱̳̳̖͖͇̹̯̜̹͙̻̥̙͉͕̜͎͕̦͕̱͖͉̜̹̱̦͔͎̲̦͔̖̘̫̻̹̮̗̮̜̰͇̰͔̱͙̞̠͍͉͕̳͍̰̠̗̠̯̜̩͓̭̺̦̲̲͖̯̩̲̣̠͉̦̬͓̠̜̲͍̘͇̳̳͔̼̣͚̙͙͚͕̙̘̣̠͍̟̪̝̲͇͚̦̖͕̰̟̪͖̳̲͉͙̰̭̼̩̟̝̣̝̬̳͎̙̱͒̃̈͊̔͒͗̐̄̌͐͆̍͂̃̈́̾͗̅̐͒̓̆͛̂̾͋̍͂̂̄̇̿̈͌̅̈́̃̾̔̇̇̾̀͊͋̋̌̄͌͆͆̎̓̈́̾̊͊̇̌̔̈́̈́̀̐͊̊̍͑̊̈̓͑̀́̅̀̑̈́̽̃̽͛̇́̐̓̀͆̔̈̀̍̏̆̓̆͒̋́̋̍́̂̉͛̓̓̂̋̎́̒̏̈͋̃̽͆̓̀̔͑̈́̓͌͑̅̽́̐̍̉̑̓̈́͌̋̈́͂̊́͆͂̇̈́̔̃͌̅̈́͌͛̑̐̓̔̈́̀͊͛̐̾͐̔̾̈̃̈̄͑̓̋̇̉̉̚̕̚͘̕̚̚̕̕͜͜͜͜͜͜͜͜͜͜͜͜͜͝͝͝͠͝͝͝͝͝͠ͅͅͅͅͅi̵̢̧̢̧̡̧̢̢̧̢̢̢̡̡̡̧̧̡̡̧̛̛͈̺̲̫͕̞͓̥̖̭̜̫͉̻̗̭̖͔̮̠͇̩̹̱͈̗̭͈̤̠̮͙͇̲͙̰̳̹̲͙̜̟͚͎͓̦̫͚̻̟̰̣̲̺̦̫͓̖̯̝̬͉̯͓͈̫̭̜̱̞̹̪͔̤̜͙͓̗̗̻̟͎͇̺̘̯̲̝̫͚̰̹̫̗̳̣͙̮̱̲͕̺̠͉̫̖̟͖̦͉̟͈̭̣̹̱̖̗̺̘̦̠̯̲͔̘̱̣͙̩̻̰̠͓͙̰̺̠̖̟̗̖͉̞̣̥̝̤̫̫̜͕̻͉̺͚̣̝̥͇̭͎̖̦̙̲͈̲̠̹̼͎͕̩͓̖̥̘̱̜͙̹̝͔̭̣̮̗̞̩̣̬̯̜̻̯̩̮̩̹̻̯̬̖͂̈͂̒̇͗͑̐̌̎̑̽̑̈̈́͑̽́̊͋̿͊͋̅̐̈́͑̇̿̈́̌͌̊̅͂̎͆̏̓͂̈̿̏̃͑̏̓͆̔̋̎̕͘͘͘͜͜͜͜͜͜͜͝͝͠͠ͅͅͅͅͅͅͅͅͅZ̴̧̢̨̢̧̢̢̡̧̢̢̢̨̨̨̡̨̧̢̧̛̛̬̖͈̮̝̭̖͖̗̹̣̼̼̘̘̫̠̭̞͙͔͙̜̠̗̪̠̼̫̻͓̳̟̲̳̻̙̼͇̺͎̘̹̼͔̺̹̬̯̤̮̟͈̭̻͚̣̲͔͙̥͕̣̻̰͈̼̱̺̤̤͉̙̦̩̗͎̞͓̭̞̗͉̳̭̭̺̹̹̮͕̘̪̞̱̥͈̹̳͇̟̹̱̙͚̯̮̳̤͍̪̞̦̳̦͍̲̥̳͇̪̬̰̠͙͕̖̝̫̩̯̱̘͓͎̪͈̤̜͎̱̹̹̱̲̻͎̖̳͚̭̪̦̗̬͍̯̘̣̩̬͖̝̹̣̗̭͖̜͕̼̼̲̭͕͔̩͓̞̝͓͍̗̙̯͔̯̞̝̳̜̜͉̖̩͇̩̘̪̥̱͓̭͎͖̱̙̩̜͎̙͉̟͎͔̝̥͕͍͓̹̮̦̫͚̠̯͓̱͖͔͓̤͉̠͙̋͐̀͌̈́͆̾͆̑̔͂͒̀̊̀͋͑̂͊̅͐̿́̈́̐̀̏̋̃̄͆͒̈́̿̎́́̈̀̀͌̔͋͊̊̉̿͗͊͑̔͐̇͆͛̂̐͊̉̄̈́̄̐͂͂͒͑͗̓͑̓̾̑͋̒͐͑̾͂̎̋̃̽̂̅̇̿̍̈́́̄̍͂͑̏̐̾̎̆̉̾͂̽̈̆̔́͋͗̓̑̕͘̕͘͜͜͜͜͜͝͝͝͝͠͠͝ͅo̶̪͆́̀͂̂́̄̅͂̿͛̈́̿͊͗́͘͝t̴̡̨̧̨̧̡̧̨̡̢̧̢̡̨̛̪͈̣̭̺̱̪̹̺̣̬̖̣̻͈̞̙͇̩̻̫͈̝̭̟͎̻̟̻̝̱͔̝̼͍̞̼̣̘̤̯͓͉̖̠̤͔̜̙͚͓̻͓̬͓̻̜̯̱̖̳̱̗̠̝̥̩͓̗̪̙͓̖̠͎̗͎̱̮̯̮͙̩̫̹̹̖͙̙͖̻͈̙̻͇͔̙̣̱͔̜̣̭̱͈͕̠̹͙̹͇̻̼͎͍̥̘͙̘̤̜͎̟͖̹̦̺̤͍̣̼̻̱̲͎̗̹͉͙̪̞̻̹͚̰̻͈͈͊̈́̽̀̎̃̊́̈́̏̃̍̉̇̑̂̇̏̀͊̑̓͛̽͋̈́͆́̊͊̍͌̈́̓͊̌̿̂̾̐͑̓̀́͒̃̋̓͆̇̀͊̆͗̂͑͐̀͗̅̆͘̕͘̕̕͜͜͝͝͝͝͝͝͝ͅͅͅͅͅͅͅͅͅḁ̶̢̡̨̧̡̡̨̨̧̨̡̡̢̧̨̡̡̛̛̛͍̱̳͚͕̩͍̺̪̻̫̙͈̬͙̖͙̬͍̬̟̣̝̲̼̜̼̺͎̥̮̝͙̪̘̙̻͖͇͚͙̣̬̖̲̲̥̯̦̗̰̙̗̪̞̗̩̻̪̤̣̜̳̩̦̻͓̞̙͍͙̫̩̹̥͚̻̦̗̰̲̙̫̬̱̺̞̟̻͓̞͚̦̘̝̤͎̤̜̜̥̗̱͈̣̻̰̮̼̙͚͚̠͚̲̤͔̰̭̙̳͍̭͎̙͚͍̟̺͎̝͓̹̰̟͈͈̖̺͙̩̯͔̙̭̟̞̟̼̮̦̜̳͕̞̼͈̜͍̮͕̜͚̝̦̞̥̜̥̗̠̦͇͖̳͈̜̮̣͚̲̟͙̎̈́́͊̔̑̽̅͐͐͆̀͐́̓̅̈͑͑̍̿̏́͆͌̋̌̃̒̽̀̋̀̃̏̌́͂̿̃̎̐͊̒̀̊̅͒̎͆̿̈́̑̐̒̀̈́̓̾͋͆̇̋͒̎̈̄̓̂͊̆͂̈́̒̎͐̇̍̆̋̅̿̔͒̄̇̂̋̈́͆̎̔̇͊̊̈́̔̏͋́̀͂̈́̊͋͂̍̾̓͛̇̔̚͘̚̕̚͘͘̕̕̕̚͘͘̚̕̚̕͜͜͜͝͝͝͝͝͝͝͝ͅͅͅͅͅç̵̧̢̨̢̢̢̧̧̡̨̡̢̧̧̧̨̡̡̨̨̢̢̢̧̨̢̨̢̛̛͉̗̠͇̹̖̝͕͚͎̟̻͓̳̰̻̺̞̣͚̤͙͍͇̗̼͖͔͕͙͖̺͙̖̹̘̘̺͓̜͍̣̰̗̖̺̗̪̘̯̘͚̲͚̲̬̞̹̹͕̭͔̳̘̝̬͉̗̪͉͕̞̫͔̭̭̜͉͔̬̫͙̖̙͚͔͙͚͍̲̘͚̪̗̞̣̞̲͎͔͖̺͍͎̝͎͍̣͍̩̟͈͕̗͉̪̯͉͎͖͍̖͎̖̯̲̘̦̟̭͍͚͓͈͙̬͖̘̱̝̜̘̹̩̝̥̜͎̬͓̬͙͍͇͚̟̫͇̬̲̥̘̞̘̟̘̝̫͈̙̻͇͎̣̪̪̠̲͓͉͙͚̭̪͇̯̠̯̠͖̞̜͓̲͎͇̼̱̦͍͉͈͕͉̗̟̖̗̱̭͚͎̘͓̬͍̱͍̖̯̜̗̹̰̲̩̪͍̞̜̫̩̠͔̻̫͍͇͕̰̰̘͚͈̠̻̮͊̐̿̏̐̀̇̑̐̈͛͑͑̍̑̔̃̈́̓̈́̇̐͑̐̊̆͂̀̏͛̊̔̍̽͗͋̊̍̓̈́̏̅͌̀̽́̑͒͒̓͗̈́̎͌͂̕̚͘͘͜͜͜͜͜͠͝͝͝͝ͅͅͅͅͅͅͅS̵̡̡̧̧̨̨̡̢̡̡̡̡̧̧̡̧̢̫̯͔̼̲͉͙̱̮̭̗͖̯̤͙̜͚̰̮̝͚̥̜̞̠̤̺̝͇̻̱͙̩̲̺͍̳̤̺̖̝̳̪̻̗̮̪̖̺̹̭͍͇̗̝̱̻̳̝̖̝͎̙͉̞̱̯̙̜͇̯̻̞̱̭̗͉̰̮̞͍̫̺͙͎̙̞̯̟͓͉̹̲͖͎̼̫̩̱͇̲͓̪͉̺̞̻͎̤̥̭̺̘̻̥͇̤̖̰̘̭̳̫̙̤̻͇̪̦̭̱͎̥̟͖͕̣̤̩̟̲̭̹̦̹̣͖̖͒̈́̈́̓͗̈̄͂̈́̅̐̐̿̎̂͗̎̿̕͘͜͜͜͜͝͝ͅͅt̸̡̡̧̧̨̡̢̛̥̥̭͍̗͈̩͕͔͔̞̟͍̭͇̙̺̤͚͎͈͎͕̱͈̦͍͔͓̬͚̗̰̦͓̭̰̭̎̀̂̈́̓̒̈́̈́̂̄̋́̇̂͐͒̋̋̉͐̉̏̇͋̓̈́͐̾͋̒͒͐̊̊̀̄͆̄͆̑͆̇̊̓̚̚̕̚̕͜͠͝͝ͅͅơ̵̡̨̡̡̡̨̛̺͕̼͔̼̪̳͖͓̠̘̘̳̼͚͙͙͚̰͚͚͖̥̦̥̘̖̜̰͔̠͕̦͎̞̮͚͕͍̤̠̦͍̥̝̰̖̳̫̮̪͇̤̱̜͙͔̯͙̙̼͇̹̥̜͈̲̺̝̻̮̬̼̫̞̗̣̪̱͓̺̜̠͇͚͓̳̹̥̳̠͍̫͈̟͈̘̯̬̞͔̝͍͍̥̒̐͗͒͂͆̑̀̿̏́̀͑͗̐́̀̾̓́̌̇̒̈́̌̓͐̃̈́̒̂̀̾͂̊̀̂͐̃̄̓̔̽̒̈́̇̓͌̇̂̆̒̏̊̋͊͛͌̊̇̒̅͌̄̎̔̈́͊́̽̋̈̇̈́́͊̅͂̎̃͌͊͛͂̄̽̈́̿͐̉̽̿́́̉͆̈́̒́̂̾̄̇̌̒̈̅̍̿̐͑̓͊̈́̈̋̈́̉̍̋̊̈̀̈́̾̿̌̀̈́͌̑̍́̋̒̀̂̈́́̾̏̐̅̈̑͗͐̈͂̄̾̄̈́̍̉͑͛͗͋̈́̃̄̊́́͐̀̀̽̇̓̄̓̃͋͋̂̽̔̀̎͌̈́̈́̑̓̔̀̓͐͛͆̿̋͑͛̈́͂̅̋̅͆͗̇́̀̒́̏͒̐̍͂̓͐͐̇̂̉̑̊͑̉̋̍͊̄̀͂̎͒̔͊̃̏̕̚̕̕͘͘͘̚͘̚͘̕͘̚͘̚̚̚̕͘͜͜͜͝͝͠͠͝͝͠͠͝͝͝͝͝͝͝͝͝ͅͅͅc̴̨̡̢̢̢̡̡̢̛̛̛̻͇̝̣͉͚͎͕̻̦͖̤̖͇̪̩̤̻̭̮̙̰̖̰̳̪̱̹̳̬͖̣͙̼̙̰̻̘͇͚̺̗̩̫̞̳̼̤͔͍͉̟͕̯̺͈̤̰̹̍̋́͆̾̆̊͆͋̀͑͒̄̿̄̀̂͋̊͆́͑̑̽͊̓́̔̽̌͊̄͑͒͐̑͗̿̃̀̓̅́̿͗̈́͌̋̀̏̂͌̓́̇̀͒͋̌̌̅͋͌̆͐̀̔̒͐̊̇̿̽̀̈́̃̒̋̀̈́̃̏̂̊͗̑̊̈̇̀̌͐̈́̉̂̏͊̄͐̈̽͒̏̒̓́̌̓̅́̓̃͐͊͒̄͑̒͌̍̈́̕͘̚͘̕͘̚̕͜͝͠͝͝͝ͅǩ̴̢̢̢̧̨̢̢̢̨̨̨̢̢̢̨̧̨̡̡̢̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̜̥̩̙͕̮̪̻͈̘̯̼̰̜͚̰͖̬̳͖̣̭̼͔̲͉̭̺͚̺̟͉̝̱̲͎͉̙̥̤͚͙̬̪̜̺͙͍̱̞̭̬̩̖̤̹̤̺̦͈̰̗̰͍͇̱̤̬̬͙̙̲̙̜͖͓̙̟̙̯̪͍̺̥͔͕̝̳̹̻͇̠̣͈̰̦͓͕̩͇͈͇̖͙͍̰̲̤̞͎̟̝̝͈͖͔͖̦̮̗̬̞̞̜̬̠̹̣̣̲̮̞̤̜̤̲̙͔͕̯͔͍̤͕̣͔͙̪̫̝̣̰̬̬̭̞͔̦̟̥̣̻͉͈̮̥̦̮̦͕̤͇̺͆͆̈͗̄̀̌̔̈́̈̉̾̊̐̆̂͛̀̋́̏̀̿͒̓̈́̈́͂̽̾͗͊̋̐̓̓̀̃̊̊͑̓̈̎̇͑̆̂̉̾̾̑͊̉̃́̑͌̀̌̐̅̃̿̆̎̈́̀̒́͛̓̀̊́̋͛͒͊̆̀̃̊͋̋̾̇̒̋͂̏͗͆̂̔́̐̀́͗̅̈̋̂̎̒͊̌̉̈̈́͌̈́̔̾̊̎́͐͒̋̽̽́̾̿̚̕͘͘̚̕̕̕̚̚̕̚̕͘͜͜͜͝͠͝͝͝͝͝͝͝͝ͅͅͅͅͅͅB̸̢̧̨̡̢̧̨̡̡̨̡̨̡̡̡̢̨̢̨̛̛̛̛̛̛͉̞͚̰̭̲͈͎͕͈̦͍͈̮̪̤̻̻͉̫̱͔̞̫̦̰͈̗̯̜̩̪̲̻̖̳͖̦͎͔̮̺̬̬̼̦̠̪̤͙͍͓̜̥̙̖̫̻̜͍̻̙̖̜̹͔̗̪̜̖̼̞̣̠̫͉̯̮̤͈͎̝̪͎͇͙̦̥͙̳̫̰̪̣̱̘̤̭̱͍̦͔̖͎̺̝̰̦̱̣͙̙̤͚̲͔̘̱̜̻͔̥̻͖̭͔̜͉̺͕͙͖̜͉͕̤͚̠̩̮̟͚̗͈͙̟̞̮̬̺̻̞͔̥͉͍̦̤͓̦̻̦̯̟̰̭̝̘̩̖̝͔̳͉̗̖̱̩̩̟͙͙͛̀͐̈́̂̇͛̅̒̉̏̈́̿͐́̏̃̏̓̌̽͐̈́͛̍͗͆͛̋̔̉͂̔̂̓̌͌͋̂͆̉͑̊̎́̈́̈̂͆͑́̃̍̇̿̅̾́́̿̅̾̆̅̈́̈̓͒͌͛̃͆̋͂̏̓̅̀͂̽̂̈̈́̎̾̐͋͑̅̍̈́̑̅̄͆̓̾̈́͐̎̊͐̌̌̓͊̊̔̈́̃͗̓͊͐̌͆̓͗̓̓̾̂̽͊͗́́́̽͊͆͋͊̀̑̿̔͒̏̈́́̏͆̈́͋̒͗͂̄̇̒͐̃͑̅̍͒̎̈́̌̋́̓͂̀̇͛̋͊͆̈́̋́̍̃͒̆̕̚̚̕̕̕͘̕̚̚͘̕͜͜͜͜͝͠͠͝͠͝͝͝͝͠͝͝͝͝ͅͅͅͅͅI̵̡̢̧̨̡̢̨̡̡̢̡̧̡̢̢̢̡̢̛̛͕͎͕̩̠̹̩̺̣̳̱͈̻̮̺̟̘̩̻̫͖̟͓̩̜̙͓͇̙̱̭̰̻̫̥̗̠͍͍͚̞̘̫͉̬̫̖̖̦͖͉̖̩̩̖̤̺̥̻̝͈͎̻͓̟̹͍̲͚͙̹̟̟̯͚̳̟͕̮̻̟͈͇̩̝̼̭̯͚͕̬͇̲̲̯̰̖̙̣̝͇̠̞̙͖͎̮̬̳̥̣̺̰͔̳̳̝̩̤̦̳̞̰̩̫̟͚̱̪̘͕̫̼͉̹̹̟̮̱̤̜͚̝̠̤̖̮̯̳͖̗̹̞̜̹̭̿̏͋̒͆̔̄̃̾̓͛̾̌́̅̂͆̔͌͆͋̔̾́̈̇̐̄̑̓̂̾́̄̿̓̅̆͌̉̎̏̄͛̉͆̓̎͒͘̕̕͜͜͜͜͜͜͜͝͠ͅͅƠ̷̢̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̟̰͔͔͇̲̰̮̘̭̭̖̥̟̘̠̬̺̪͇̲͋͂̅̈́̍͂̽͗̾͒̇̇̒͐̍̽͊́̑̇̑̾̉̓̈̾͒̍̌̅̒̾̈́̆͌̌̾̎̽̐̅̏́̈̔͛̀̋̃͊̒̓͗͒̑͒̃͂̌̄̇̑̇͛̆̾͛̒̇̍̒̓̀̈́̄̐͂̍͊͗̎̔͌͛̂̏̉̊̎͗͊͒̂̈̽̊́̔̊̃͑̈́̑̌̋̓̅̔́́͒̄̈́̈̂͐̈̅̈̓͌̓͊́̆͌̉͐̊̉͛̓̏̓̅̈́͂̉̒̇̉̆̀̍̄̇͆͛̏̉̑̃̓͂́͋̃̆̒͋̓͊̄́̓̕̕̕̚͘͘͘̚̕̚͘̕̕͜͜͝͝͝͠͝͝͝͝͠ͅS̷̢̨̧̢̡̨̢̨̢̨̧̧̨̧͚̱̪͇̱̮̪̮̦̝͖̜͙̘̪̘̟̱͇͎̻̪͚̩͍̠̹̮͚̦̝̤͖̙͔͚̙̺̩̥̻͈̺̦͕͈̹̳̖͓̜͚̜̭͉͇͖̟͔͕̹̯̬͍̱̫̮͓̙͇̗̙̼͚̪͇̦̗̜̼̠͈̩̠͉͉̘̱̯̪̟͕̘͖̝͇̼͕̳̻̜͖̜͇̣̠̹̬̗̝͓̖͚̺̫͛̉̅̐̕͘͜͜͜͜ͅͅͅ.̶̨̢̢̨̢̨̢̛̻͙̜̼̮̝̙̣̘̗̪̜̬̳̫̙̮̣̹̥̲̥͇͈̮̟͉̰̮̪̲̗̳̰̫̙͍̦̘̠̗̥̮̹̤̼̼̩͕͉͕͇͙̯̫̩̦̟̦̹͈͔̱̝͈̤͓̻̟̮̱͖̟̹̝͉̰͊̓̏̇͂̅̀̌͑̿͆̿̿͗̽̌̈́̉̂̀̒̊̿͆̃̄͑͆̃̇͒̀͐̍̅̃̍̈́̃̕͘͜͜͝͠͠z̴̢̢̡̧̢̢̧̢̨̡̨̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̛̲͚̠̜̮̠̜̞̤̺͈̘͍̻̫͖̣̥̗̙̳͓͙̫̫͖͍͇̬̲̳̭̘̮̤̬̖̼͎̬̯̼̮͔̭̠͎͓̼̖̟͈͓̦̩̦̳̙̮̗̮̩͙͓̮̰̜͎̺̞̝̪͎̯̜͈͇̪̙͎̩͖̭̟͎̲̩͔͓͈͌́̿͐̍̓͗͑̒̈́̎͂̋͂̀͂̑͂͊͆̍͛̄̃͌͗̌́̈̊́́̅͗̉͛͌͋̂̋̇̅̔̇͊͑͆̐̇͊͋̄̈́͆̍̋̏͑̓̈́̏̀͒̂̔̄̅̇̌̀̈́̿̽̋͐̾̆͆͆̈̌̿̈́̎͌̊̓̒͐̾̇̈́̍͛̅͌̽́̏͆̉́̉̓̅́͂͛̄̆͌̈́̇͐̒̿̾͌͊͗̀͑̃̊̓̈̈́̊͒̒̏̿́͑̄̑͋̀̽̀̔̀̎̄͑̌̔́̉̐͛̓̐̅́̒̎̈͆̀̍̾̀͂̄̈́̈́̈́̑̏̈́̐̽̐́̏̂̐̔̓̉̈́͂̕̚̕͘͘̚͘̚̕̚̚̚͘̕̕̕͜͜͝͠͠͝͝͝͝͠͝͝͝͠͝͝͝͝͝͝ͅͅͅī̸̧̧̧̡̨̨̢̨̛̛̘͓̼̰̰̮̗̰͚̙̥̣͍̦̺͈̣̻͇̱͔̰͈͓͖͈̻̲̫̪̲͈̜̲̬̖̻̰̦̰͙̤̘̝̦̟͈̭̱̮̠͍̖̲͉̫͔͖͔͈̻̖̝͎̖͕͔̣͈̤̗̱̀̅̃̈́͌̿̏͋̊̇̂̀̀̒̉̄̈́͋͌̽́̈́̓̑̈̀̍͗͜͜͠͠ͅp̴̢̢̧̨̡̡̨̢̨̢̢̢̨̡̛̛͕̩͕̟̫̝͈̖̟̣̲̖̭̙͇̟̗͖͎̹͇̘̰̗̝̹̤̺͉͎̙̝̟͙͚̦͚͖̜̫̰͖̼̤̥̤̹̖͉͚̺̥̮̮̫͖͍̼̰̭̤̲͔̩̯̣͖̻͇̞̳̬͉̣̖̥̣͓̤͔̪̙͎̰̬͚̣̭̞̬͎̼͉͓̮͙͕̗̦̞̥̮̘̻͎̭̼͚͎͈͇̥̗͖̫̮̤̦͙̭͎̝͖̣̰̱̩͎̩͎̘͇̟̠̱̬͈̗͍̦̘̱̰̤̱̘̫̫̮̥͕͉̥̜̯͖̖͍̮̼̲͓̤̮͈̤͓̭̝̟̲̲̳̟̠͉̙̻͕͙̞͔̖͈̱̞͓͔̬̮͎̙̭͎̩̟̖͚̆͐̅͆̿͐̄̓̀̇̂̊̃̂̄̊̀͐̍̌̅͌̆͊̆̓́̄́̃̆͗͊́̓̀͑͐̐̇͐̍́̓̈́̓̑̈̈́̽͂́̑͒͐͋̊͊̇̇̆̑̃̈́̎͛̎̓͊͛̐̾́̀͌̐̈́͛̃̂̈̿̽̇̋̍͒̍͗̈͘̚̚͘̚͘͘͜͜͜͜͜͜͠͠͝͝ͅͅͅ☻♥■∞{╚mYÄÜXτ╕○\╚Θº£¥ΘBM@Q05♠{{↨↨▬§¶‼↕◄►☼1♦  wumbo╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ╚̯̪̣͕̙̩̦͓͚̙̱̘̝̏̆ͤ̊̅ͩ̓̏̿͆̌Θ̼̯͉ͭͦ̃͊͑̉ͯͤ̈́ͬ͐̈́͊ͤͅº͍̪͇͖̝̣̪̙̫̞̦̥ͨ̂ͧ̄̿£̺̻̹̠̯͙͇̳ͬ̃̿͑͊ͨͣ

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
13 minutes ago, awolive said:

um....what movies can you watch on a computer at 120fps? I thought all movies online are 24fps? and only TV's with built in motion features fake/fill in the additional frames to create a smooth 120hz? I may be wrong but let me know. Plus a majority of people I used to talk to when I sold TV's really disliked the 120hz motion feature on TV's as they thought it made a movie feel too much like a soap opera and less like a movie.

The video has 24 frames and the monitor refreshes 120 times per second. 

 

120/24=5

60/24=2.5

 

The video can display each frame 5 times unlike a 60Hz panel which has to make one frame hold for 3 cycles and the second for 2 cycles in order to fulfill its 60Hz limitation (or some other word). 

 

As for TV's, they're creating frames between the video's actual recorded frames to reach their [INSERT MARKETING] refresh rate by blurring the past and next frame together. 

Cor Caeruleus Reborn v6

Spoiler

CPU: Intel - Core i7-8700K

CPU Cooler: be quiet! - PURE ROCK 
Thermal Compound: Arctic Silver - 5 High-Density Polysynthetic Silver 3.5g Thermal Paste 
Motherboard: ASRock Z370 Extreme4
Memory: G.Skill TridentZ RGB 2x8GB 3200/14
Storage: Samsung - 850 EVO-Series 500GB 2.5" Solid State Drive 
Storage: Samsung - 960 EVO 500GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive
Storage: Western Digital - Blue 2TB 3.5" 5400RPM Internal Hard Drive
Storage: Western Digital - BLACK SERIES 3TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive
Video Card: EVGA - 970 SSC ACX (1080 is in RMA)
Case: Fractal Design - Define R5 w/Window (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case
Power Supply: EVGA - SuperNOVA P2 750W with CableMod blue/black Pro Series
Optical Drive: LG - WH16NS40 Blu-Ray/DVD/CD Writer 
Operating System: Microsoft - Windows 10 Pro OEM 64-bit and Linux Mint Serena
Keyboard: Logitech - G910 Orion Spectrum RGB Wired Gaming Keyboard
Mouse: Logitech - G502 Wired Optical Mouse
Headphones: Logitech - G430 7.1 Channel  Headset
Speakers: Logitech - Z506 155W 5.1ch Speakers

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
45 minutes ago, awolive said:

um....what movies can you watch on a computer at 120fps? I thought all movies online are 24fps? and only TV's with built in motion features fake/fill in the additional frames to create a smooth 120hz? I may be wrong but let me know. Plus a majority of people I used to talk to when I sold TV's really disliked the 120hz motion feature on TV's as they thought it made a movie feel too much like a soap opera and less like a movie.

41 minutes ago, BuckGup said:

Hobbit and some others have been in 48fps and people felt sick

 

What I am talking about has nothing to do with the actual number of frames displayed each second.

Like @ARikozuM said, you can not evenly display 24 frames on a 60Hz monitor.

 

How a 120Hz monitor handles 24 FPS video:

Display each frame for 5 screen refreshes.

24 * 5 = 120 (24 frames in the video, each displayed 5 refresh cycles, equals exactly 120).

 

How a 60Hz monitor handles 24 FPS video:

Display frame1 for 3 refreshes, display frame2 for 2 refreshes, display frame3 for 3 refreshes, and so on.

(12*3)+(12*2) = 60 (12 frames displayed for 3 refresh cycles, and 12 frames refreshed for 2 cycles, equals exactly 60 FPS).

 

As you can imagine in the 60Hz example, each second alternates between being displayed for 3 and 2 refresh cycles. What this means is that not all frames are on the screen for an equal amount of time, which makes the video slightly juddery. The frame rate is still the same regardless of if you watch on a 60Hz or 120Hz monitor, but on the 120Hz one each individual video frame will be displayed for the same amount of time which makes it smoother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
On 11/25/2017 at 8:50 AM, awolive said:

Do yourself a favor, buy a 144 hz monitor and play a game that you can run at 144+ FPS and compare it to a standard 60hz monitor. If you can't detect the difference in smoothness of motion then you should probably RMA your eyes lol

Or just accept that you are probably normal and haven't suffered any type of placebo effect.   As the evidence posted earlier shows, you cannot perceive frame rates above 76.  This has been tested and proven. 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

30fps 720p.

Console peasant /s

Gaming Mouse Buying Guide (Technical Terms,Optical vs Laser,Mice Recommendation,Popular Mouse Sensor,Etc)

[LOGITECH G402 REVIEW]

I love Dark Souls lore, Mice and Milk tea  ^_^ Praise The Sun! \[T]/

 

 

 

I can conquer the world with one hand,As long as you hold the other -Unknown

Its better to enjoy your own company than expecting someone to make you happy -Mr Bean

No one is going to be with you forever,One day u'll have to walk alone -Hiromi aoki (avery)

BUT the one who love us never really leave us,You can always find them here ♥ -Sirius Black

Don't pity the dead,Pity the living and above all those who live without love -Albus Dumbledore

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Or just accept that you are probably normal and haven't suffered any type of placebo effect.   As the evidence posted earlier shows, you cannot perceive frame rates above 76.  This has been tested and proven. 

Sir i'd love to read that proof.

What? no i didn't mean not trusting you i simply intrigued to read it.

Gaming Mouse Buying Guide (Technical Terms,Optical vs Laser,Mice Recommendation,Popular Mouse Sensor,Etc)

[LOGITECH G402 REVIEW]

I love Dark Souls lore, Mice and Milk tea  ^_^ Praise The Sun! \[T]/

 

 

 

I can conquer the world with one hand,As long as you hold the other -Unknown

Its better to enjoy your own company than expecting someone to make you happy -Mr Bean

No one is going to be with you forever,One day u'll have to walk alone -Hiromi aoki (avery)

BUT the one who love us never really leave us,You can always find them here ♥ -Sirius Black

Don't pity the dead,Pity the living and above all those who live without love -Albus Dumbledore

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
51 minutes ago, Hiya! said:

Sir i'd love to read that proof.

What? no i didn't mean not trusting you i simply intrigued to read it.

 

Here are the links that were posted earlier.  They are either straight from researchers or the articles are drawn straight from cited research.

On 11/19/2017 at 6:34 PM, asus killer said:

real study by MIT:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2542583/Scientists-record-fastest-time-human-image-takes-just-13-milliseconds.html

 

the eyes and the brain are insane machines.

 

On 11/18/2017 at 6:17 PM, mr moose said:

 

 

https://nerdist.com/your-brain-has-a-frame-rate-and-its-pretty-slow/

https://xcorr.net/2011/11/20/whats-the-maximal-frame-rate-humans-can-perceive/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1604863

 

 

 

On 11/18/2017 at 5:02 PM, mr moose said:

EDIT:

 

I'll take the word of the royal society over a 1000 self educated tech websites on something as complex as the visual processing system.

 

 

While there is a lot we don't know about vision and there is a lot that we do,  The thing that annoys me most about these threads, is the absolute intent people have to dismiss the evidence we currently have in favor of an idea that has no evidence behind it.  

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
19 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Here are the links that were posted earlier.  They are either straight from researchers or the articles are drawn straight from cited research.

 

 

 

 

While there is a lot we don't know about vision and there is a lot that we do,  The thing that annoys me most about these threads, is the absolute intent people have to dismiss the evidence we currently have in favor of an idea that has no evidence behind it.  

Excellent!

Within this wall of flesh, there is a soul that counts thee its creditor.

Gaming Mouse Buying Guide (Technical Terms,Optical vs Laser,Mice Recommendation,Popular Mouse Sensor,Etc)

[LOGITECH G402 REVIEW]

I love Dark Souls lore, Mice and Milk tea  ^_^ Praise The Sun! \[T]/

 

 

 

I can conquer the world with one hand,As long as you hold the other -Unknown

Its better to enjoy your own company than expecting someone to make you happy -Mr Bean

No one is going to be with you forever,One day u'll have to walk alone -Hiromi aoki (avery)

BUT the one who love us never really leave us,You can always find them here ♥ -Sirius Black

Don't pity the dead,Pity the living and above all those who live without love -Albus Dumbledore

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
1 hour ago, Erik Sieghart said:

Quit making stuff up. This is easily disprovable by taking my 144 Hz monitor and comparing the difference between 76 fps and 120 fps.

 

I tried it and noticed a difference. Maybe you should stick to claims that aren't so easily testable so that people won't call you out on this BS. You may as well have said, "Heaver objects fall faster than lighter objects! It's true the royal society said so!"

 

The only thing annoying is your lack of intellectual integrity.

Maybe you should apply for a research job at MIT seeing as you think you know better than every researched scientist on the topic.

 

Also, I am pretty sure you don't know what intellectual integrity is when you rely on the anecdotal evidence of your own experience and place it above the research of MIT, The Royal society, Harvard and numerous other respected institutions.

 

The only BS here is people who are too ignorant to accept the realities of life after it has not only been explained, but when it has been supported with multiple independent sources.

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

I can't tell the difference between a 60hz and a 120hz+ monitor personally, so I guess my eyes only see 60 FPS :P

New Build (The Compromise): CPU - i7 9700K @ 5.1Ghz | Mobo - ASRock Z390 Taichi | RAM - 16GB G.SKILL TridentZ RGB 3200CL14 @ 3466 14-14-14-30 1T | GPU - ASUS Strix GTX 1080 TI | Cooler - Corsair h100i Pro | SSDs - 500 GB 960 EVO + 500 GB 850 EVO + 1TB MX300 | Case - Coolermaster H500 | PSU - EVGA 850 P2 | Monitor - LG 32GK850G-B 144hz 1440p | OS - Windows 10 Pro. 

Peripherals - Corsair K70 Lux RGB | Corsair Scimitar RGB | Audio-technica ATH M50X + Antlion Modmic 5 |

CPU/GPU history: Athlon 6000+/HD4850 > i7 2600k/GTX 580, R9 390, R9 Fury > i7 7700K/R9 Fury, 1080TI > Ryzen 1700/1080TI > i7 9700K/1080TI.

Other tech: Surface Pro 4 (i5/128GB), Lenovo Ideapad Y510P w/ Kali, OnePlus 6T (8G/128G), PS4 Slim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
5 minutes ago, Phentos said:

I can't tell the difference between a 60hz and a 120hz+ monitor personally, so I guess my eyes only see 60 FPS :P

I stop caring at the 90 to 120Hz mark. After that, the expense and computing power is better served towards resolution [or peripheral vision aka ultrawides]. 

Cor Caeruleus Reborn v6

Spoiler

CPU: Intel - Core i7-8700K

CPU Cooler: be quiet! - PURE ROCK 
Thermal Compound: Arctic Silver - 5 High-Density Polysynthetic Silver 3.5g Thermal Paste 
Motherboard: ASRock Z370 Extreme4
Memory: G.Skill TridentZ RGB 2x8GB 3200/14
Storage: Samsung - 850 EVO-Series 500GB 2.5" Solid State Drive 
Storage: Samsung - 960 EVO 500GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive
Storage: Western Digital - Blue 2TB 3.5" 5400RPM Internal Hard Drive
Storage: Western Digital - BLACK SERIES 3TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive
Video Card: EVGA - 970 SSC ACX (1080 is in RMA)
Case: Fractal Design - Define R5 w/Window (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case
Power Supply: EVGA - SuperNOVA P2 750W with CableMod blue/black Pro Series
Optical Drive: LG - WH16NS40 Blu-Ray/DVD/CD Writer 
Operating System: Microsoft - Windows 10 Pro OEM 64-bit and Linux Mint Serena
Keyboard: Logitech - G910 Orion Spectrum RGB Wired Gaming Keyboard
Mouse: Logitech - G502 Wired Optical Mouse
Headphones: Logitech - G430 7.1 Channel  Headset
Speakers: Logitech - Z506 155W 5.1ch Speakers

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
8 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

I stop caring at the 90 to 120Hz mark. After that, the expense and computing power is better served towards resolution [or peripheral vision aka ultrawides]. 

I agree. 

 

My best friend IRL has a 165hz monitor and even watching him play long sessions of CSGO and PUBG on the monitor, I really can't tell any significant difference. Things seem slightly smoother, but that's about it.

New Build (The Compromise): CPU - i7 9700K @ 5.1Ghz | Mobo - ASRock Z390 Taichi | RAM - 16GB G.SKILL TridentZ RGB 3200CL14 @ 3466 14-14-14-30 1T | GPU - ASUS Strix GTX 1080 TI | Cooler - Corsair h100i Pro | SSDs - 500 GB 960 EVO + 500 GB 850 EVO + 1TB MX300 | Case - Coolermaster H500 | PSU - EVGA 850 P2 | Monitor - LG 32GK850G-B 144hz 1440p | OS - Windows 10 Pro. 

Peripherals - Corsair K70 Lux RGB | Corsair Scimitar RGB | Audio-technica ATH M50X + Antlion Modmic 5 |

CPU/GPU history: Athlon 6000+/HD4850 > i7 2600k/GTX 580, R9 390, R9 Fury > i7 7700K/R9 Fury, 1080TI > Ryzen 1700/1080TI > i7 9700K/1080TI.

Other tech: Surface Pro 4 (i5/128GB), Lenovo Ideapad Y510P w/ Kali, OnePlus 6T (8G/128G), PS4 Slim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
39 minutes ago, Erik Sieghart said:

Okay.

I looked into that article for you. It's actually citing another article from the New Yorker, which cites research from a study about CFF and metabolic rate. The "60 Hz" figure wasn't measured in that paper, it was a citation from a different paper (this one). So your source is wrong on several counts. First, it just copied over blindly from what the article in the New Yorker said (which was quoting the actual paper). Second in that the study didn't really question the CFF in humans (nor was that what the study by Jackson or Healy were concerned with). Third, the actual study by Brundrett conducted in 1974 used fluorescent lighting -- not LEDs -- to determine CFF. Fourth, the original paper didn't even cite 60 Hz. It's also paywalled and I'm not about to pay for this nonsense, the abstract alone hints that their methodology was simply to see if people noticed in flickering fluorescent overhead lights, a far cry from the intense concentration on a gaming monitor in central vision (maybe rewatch that video you linked?). Also note the paper's motivations were attempting to determine why people didn't like fluorescent lights. I can also wager they didn't use an ERG to measure the response, since that was relatively new technology at the time and wouldn't be needed for the purposes of the study.


Here's some REAL research on the topic, from Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07861

 

But no, go on about how you're right and everyone else is wrong about how we don't trust science. It's more like you read some blog post that said we can't see over 76 Hz and adopted that as your mantra. Anyone who disagrees with you is disagreeing with science! It's true, you saw a blog post about it.

You can keep embarrassing yourself or have the decency to admit you were wrong.

Do you even know what the article you linked to talks about? I'm guessing not. As it has already been linked and discussed.   But seeing as you haven't bothered reading any of the thread, I will quote were it was already addressed:

 

On 11/18/2017 at 7:39 PM, mr moose said:

 

The study you linked did not say "minimum" monitor refresh rate, it said "a frame rate of 72 Hz for computer displays is sufficient to avoid flicker completely" That is the most it needs not the minimum it needs. Which is funnily enough the same as what all the other research has discovered.

 

Flicker artifacts on non-uniform spacial images (need to be moving edges) have been observed for a while now.  (rainbow effect on DLP projectors are a classic example)

 

Flicker artifacts are not the same is perceiving whole frames or indeed even being able to perceive frame rates as we discuss them here, but tries to deal with the perception of flicker (consider one like seeing a car drive past (but not be able to identify it) and the other the perception of a dark flash in the corner of the eye), it is the Hypothesized that the reason they can be perceived is due to saccades.  Which as yet changes in both directions when accounting for eye movement (in the links I posted earlier).

 

 

 

 

In short the article you posted (if you understood any of it) actually supports the other articles that have been linked.  

 

Why would I admit to being wrong when the science says otherwise?

 

EDIT: and just so you know this is how science works, we have multiple studies (all carried out with different controls) we take the consensus of those studies and that makes up the current understanding on the subject.  We do not take one study and isolate it from the others then point and say see facts that prove you wrong.  When the scientific consensus tells me the human eye can observe more than 76 FPS I will start believing it then.

 

EDIT2: just regarding the article on CFF,  I linked to the easiest to attain and read, because like most scientific articles, the original is behind a paywall.  But here is my response to the last guy who didn't read it and tried to claim they didn't test human eyes:

 

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

The only real correct answer as of today is "We don't really know"

No amount of random articles, or contrarians arguing with said random articles, is going to change the fact that beyond a handful of studies, there's little concrete evidence backed in fact that can unequivocally support one side of the argument or the other.

You have studies? Great. Show me 10 or 15 identical ones with a similar starting hypothesis and end-result and we'll talk. Oh, and none of them can contradict each other in any way. Make sure they all use the same control and testing methodology as well.

As of now, I've read a total of abut 8 and in addition to wildly varying testing methodology, they nearly all contradict each other in some way or the other. The idea of the scientific process is rooted in testing and re-testing a hypothesis and getting consistent results that stand up to scrutiny. That hasn't happened here yet, sorry, a study does not equal a scientific fact, or even an accepted truth, it takes hundreds, maybe thousands of them before that can happen.

You want to instantly dismiss these articles completely? On what grounds? What makes you more correct than the people that have researched this thoroughly? True, the results vary in consistency and have thus far failed to establish convincing evidence, but they're trying and using due scientific process at the very least. Don't be contrary for the sake of being contrary.

Sorry op. You'll have to wait at least a few years before there's a decent answer worth considering, as of now, looks like it's devolved into this petty little forum feud with the same few people embarrassing themselves in a loop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
2 hours ago, Erik Sieghart said:

Nothing that you posted even hints at the fact you read what I posted. Your "response" isn't even in the same ballpark as the issues I raised.

 

From the article which "supports" your assertion:
" In the present study, we find that viewers can distinguish between modulated light and a stable field at up to 500 Hz, much higher than the widely reported rate. We hypothesize that unconscious rapid eye movements across high frequency edges in the displayed image are responsible."

Oh and the bit you quoted:

What the study actually says:

"These primary perceptual findings have been incorporated into international standards for display ergonomics14, and a belief that “…a frame rate of 72 Hz for computer displays is sufficient to avoid flicker completely.”15."

 

It's a quote from a different source, specifically to reference how that belief is wrong.


Oh and this:

I'm glad that you're capable of restating the article, but you left out this bit:

"Here we show that humans perceive visual flicker artifacts at rates over 500 Hz when a display includes high frequency spatial edges. This rate is many times higher than previously reported."

 

---

Wow. Just wow. This is what the paper actually says:
"We only included values from studies that measured CFF using either behavioural or electroretinogram (ERG) procedures."

 

They didn't do it themselves. Go to the table, go see where it says 60 for human. See the b,o,15 next to it? Go down to the table's footnotes. See where it says 15 there? Yeah that's where they got 60 from. A different paper.

 

---

 

At this point you're just lying to people.

Good to see you know what you are talking about. 9_9

 

Seeing as you are having trouble with the more complex side of the studies we are discussing (the difference between artifacting most likely due to the saccades effect and actual perception of frame rates), I am going to go back to the laymen's terms

 

 
What these studies are telling us is that the because the brain can operate so much faster than the eyes, it can literally piece together all the information it needs to interpret a clear image,  that is why we get the rainbow effect from DLP projectors with certain speed color wheels (SACCADES EFECT).    None of these articles show proof in the slightest that the eye can process and send images that present faster than 76 FPS.    Until that happens, making solid claims they can is just guessing at best.
 
 

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
10 minutes ago, Erik Sieghart said:

We do know because people can. I can, other people can.

 

The assertion that humans can't see the difference between 120 Hz and 90 Hz is demonstratively wrong. The problem with assertions like that is all it takes is one case to disprove them. It's an assertion most everyone here with a high refresh rate monitorcan test. I don't need published studies to prove anything.

That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm not referring to perceivable differences, or minimum or maximum thresholds, but rather concrete numbers and verifiable (on a large scale) averages that answer OP's original question.

 

Quote

Whats the framerate and resolution of our eyes?


That's all I'm talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted

This is essentially a game of "whose thesis is larger" and I'm appalled that you two are waving your dockets for everyone to see.

Cor Caeruleus Reborn v6

Spoiler

CPU: Intel - Core i7-8700K

CPU Cooler: be quiet! - PURE ROCK 
Thermal Compound: Arctic Silver - 5 High-Density Polysynthetic Silver 3.5g Thermal Paste 
Motherboard: ASRock Z370 Extreme4
Memory: G.Skill TridentZ RGB 2x8GB 3200/14
Storage: Samsung - 850 EVO-Series 500GB 2.5" Solid State Drive 
Storage: Samsung - 960 EVO 500GB M.2-2280 Solid State Drive
Storage: Western Digital - Blue 2TB 3.5" 5400RPM Internal Hard Drive
Storage: Western Digital - BLACK SERIES 3TB 3.5" 7200RPM Internal Hard Drive
Video Card: EVGA - 970 SSC ACX (1080 is in RMA)
Case: Fractal Design - Define R5 w/Window (Black) ATX Mid Tower Case
Power Supply: EVGA - SuperNOVA P2 750W with CableMod blue/black Pro Series
Optical Drive: LG - WH16NS40 Blu-Ray/DVD/CD Writer 
Operating System: Microsoft - Windows 10 Pro OEM 64-bit and Linux Mint Serena
Keyboard: Logitech - G910 Orion Spectrum RGB Wired Gaming Keyboard
Mouse: Logitech - G502 Wired Optical Mouse
Headphones: Logitech - G430 7.1 Channel  Headset
Speakers: Logitech - Z506 155W 5.1ch Speakers

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
1 hour ago, SupremeChunk said:

The only real correct answer as of today is "We don't really know"

No amount of random articles, or contrarians arguing with said random articles, is going to change the fact that beyond a handful of studies, there's little concrete evidence backed in fact that can unequivocally support one side of the argument or the other.

You have studies? Great. Show me 10 or 15 identical ones with a similar starting hypothesis and end-result and we'll talk. Oh, and none of them can contradict each other in any way. Make sure they all use the same control and testing methodology as well.

As of now, I've read a total of abut 8 and in addition to wildly varying testing methodology, they nearly all contradict each other in some way or the other. The idea of the scientific process is rooted in testing and re-testing a hypothesis and getting consistent results that stand up to scrutiny. That hasn't happened here yet, sorry, a study does not equal a scientific fact, or even an accepted truth, it takes hundreds, maybe thousands of them before that can happen.

You want to instantly dismiss these articles completely? On what grounds? What makes you more correct than the people that have researched this thoroughly? True, the results vary in consistency and have thus far failed to establish convincing evidence, but they're trying and using due scientific process at the very least. Don't be contrary for the sake of being contrary.

Sorry op. You'll have to wait at least a few years before there's a decent answer worth considering, as of now, looks like it's devolved into this petty little forum feud with the same few people embarrassing themselves in a loop.

I almost agree completely,  Only thing I don't fully agree with is the consensus part, because while it isn't well know, it is still consensus.  That may change in the future when better testing methods become available (i.e tapping directly into the optic nerve and looking for a measurable correlation to viewed FPS changes).  But until then we can only go on what we know.

 

3 minutes ago, Erik Sieghart said:

Read the methodology used in the paper and try again.

 

Talking down to me isn't helping your case.

 

It's not my case, I'm only parroting the research and pointing out the basic fact that you can't make solid claims based on evidence that does not exist yet.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
1 minute ago, ARikozuM said:

This is essentially a game of "whose thesis is larger" and I'm appalled that you two are waving your dockets for everyone to see.

 

They are not my dockets.  Unless somewhere in the last 6 pages I made a claim that isn't supported with evidence.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
17 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I almost agree completely,  Only thing I don't fully agree with is the consensus part, because while it isn't well know, it is still consensus.  That may change in the future when better testing methods become available (i.e tapping directly into the optic nerve and looking for a measurable correlation to viewed FPS changes).  But until then we can only go on what we know.

 

 

It's not my case, I'm only parroting the research and pointing out the basic fact that you can't make solid claims based on evidence that does not exist yet.

I'd argue that it's not a strong enough consensus to "go on" and that the best solution would be to wait until there's even more evidence to have a proper discussion about it. But that's simply my opinion. The various articles may support the same ideas, but the numbers I've seen between individual studies have quite a degree of variance, probably due to variability in the individuals in different sample groups. And that's really all the original question was about, was the numbers for resolution and FPS on average that the human eye is capable of seeing, and I'm not convinced there is a definite answer to that question yet.

But far be it from me to stomp on the right to debate, even if I personally do feel it's a bit pre-mature to be discussing at this point in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
11 minutes ago, SupremeChunk said:

I'd argue that it's not a strong enough consensus to "go on" and that the best solution would be to wait until there's even more evidence to have a proper discussion about it. The various articles may support the same ideas, but the numbers I've seen between individual studies have quite a degree of variance, probably due to variability in the individuals in  different sample groups. And that's really all the original question was about, was the numbers for resolution and FPS, and I'm not convinced there is a definite answer to that question yet.

But far be it from me to stomp on the right to debate, even if I do feel it's a bit pre-mature to be discussing at this point in time.

 

It's not strong enough to tout as being "almost" indisputable, but it is sufficient to show that limits exist. And while none of them prove perception beyond 76 FPS aligning with said known limits, making claims they do is erroneous.  

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

It's not strong enough to tout as being "almost" indisputable, but it is sufficient to show that limits exist. And while none of them prove perception beyond 76 FPS aligning with said known limits, making claims they do is erroneous.  

Alright that's fine.

Again, I'm not talking about limits or maximum rates,  but rather the average number. All that I'm referring to is the answer to OP's question, which didn't initially involve the concept of limits, but rather, an average number representative of the possible perceived "resolution" and "framerate" of most human's eyes, and I don't see sufficient evidence to confidently state such a figure. Theoretical limits, min/max, or anything else derivative of the original single question, I have no opinion on, and therefore am not debating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
Just now, SupremeChunk said:

Alright that's fine.

Again, I'm not talking about limits,  but rather the average. All that I'm referring to is the answer to OP's question, which didn't initially involve the concept of limits, but rather, an average.

Which is why I agree with your post. 

 

I didn't answer the OP in any of my first few posts because for me it can't really be answered beyond what we currently know, but the discussion went beyond that and my response was more about people throwing large numbers around that were either taken out of context/relevance to a particular study or anecdotal. 

 

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted
1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Which is why I agree with your post. 

 

I didn't answer the OP in any of my first few posts because for me it can't really be answered beyond what we currently know, but the discussion went beyond that and my response was more about people throwing large numbers around that were either taken out of context/relevance to a particular study or anecdotal. 

 

 

Fair enough, have a good day.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing General Discussion

×