Will COD be stereographic 3D? Worth 3D monitor?

[Madfish]

I understand what you're saying but it is again a bit mixed up.

What you describe is a simple response time issue and has nothing to do with the hz at all.
You can simply prove that by setting a CRT screen to 60hz and do the comparison with an LCD screen. The CRT will ALWAYS be smoother and more direct at 60hz, or even lower, than any lcd / plasma technology out there, no matter if 60, 120 or 240 hz.
Yes, it flickers but it has no input lag! Input lags and panel response times are the most important factors and they are caused by internal electronics of the screens or the inheritance of the panel types itself. Hence we have all that overdrive etc. working so differently in many panels. Like I said, I agree that newer screens are often better but that's not because of 120 or 240hz - a CRT screen will beat any lcd/plasma out there even on 60hz when it comes to input lag.

The hz itself is just the theoretical capability of the controller if you will - that however doesn't change anything about the panels response time.
You can simply imagine that the panel is your screen and the controller is your GPU - meaning just because you have a 120hz screen doesn't mean it get's fed with 120fps. The same goes for the "display internal" affair and that is why so many people misunderstand the underlaying issue. It's also a reason why there aren't any PVA or IPS 240hz and eventually even 120hz displays out there because these panel types still fight a little with response time compared to TN panel types.

Also, as I pointed out, 3:2 pd has nothing to do with NTSC at all. The method does not work with lcd, plasma and 100hz CRT screens. He simply messed up (or rather his team as he's probably just a host.
Also please keep in mind that only a fraction of the consumed media is 24p. Most of it is being recorded at completely different frame rates. Even if it's compiled to 24p in production it doesn't change that problem. This goes for 99% of all online media e.g. and probably the largest majority of all TV.

What I'm trying so say is that most people compare apples and bananas. They mix different panel types, refresh rates, frame rates, input lag and other variables. That's not an opinion but merely a technological fact at this point.

120hz 3D introduces the same issues CRT had about 15 years ago, which is flickering. 240hz resolves that a bit but currently it means having a mediocre display in terms of colors etc.
However, that has nothing to do with the smoothness of an image itself and especially the lag issues you describe.

As for games you still confuse this. Yes, there is a difference between a 30fps and 60fps game, I never said otherwise. The issue is most confuse FPS with input lag. Also from 60fps it's only a marginal effect and more of a myth than truth.
In gaming the most problematic issue are sustained frames without ANY negative spikes, lags or stuttering. The human eye is literally incapable of responding much faster than 30"fps".
The issue most people have is that your pc can e.g. deliver 66 fps and is MAXED OUT doing so it will obviously lead to problems because it's under full load! If you now lock the FPS at 60 it means the pc doesn't need to render the extra 6 frames and makes headroom for smoother inputs e.g. etc. So of course, the lower the fps are on a system that doesn't lock the frames it means it will always be maxed out.
The same goes for switching to a computer that is capable of displaying 240 frames per second. It's obvious that this machine is maxed out as well but has more headroom for the overall system functions. Thus you have reduced lags from the components.

It's like driving your car at the most extreme - you can't do that while running your air conditioner e.g. Yes, it doesn't take away MUCH but it's still measurable. And the same issue is with computers and their input / output operation performance. But the effect of air conditioning is less pronounced on a 1200hp machine than on a 20hp machine. It's simple physics.

I do agree that eventually the general technology will progress towards 120 and 240 frame environments but to be honest from 120hz on it's complete nonsense. 60 is already a pretty good buffer, visually, but from 120 on it's just a marketing gag. Unless you want true 3d. Also it'd mean we need MUCH more capable GPU's while also lowering the progress of most games. Maybe some dedicated freaks tune their machines to play even the newest games with more than 120fps but I doubt it's possible. Just think of Crysis - NO ONE was able to max out the game at the time of release. And it's not because of a shitty engine.

That is why I say that:
- For true 3D you don't want 120hz: You want 240. Not only because of the 60/60 but because the constant image swapping is actually worse than just a fluid image.
- Currently you need to sacrifice a great deal of image quality, being colors and the visual angle stability, as there are no PVA and IPS type panels that support 120 and 240 hz!

So right now I wouldn't recommend anyone getting these displays unless he plans to use them in a low quality environment, e.g. a status display or whatever. It's just not worth it, only if you want to support the companies poor design attempts until they get proper panel types with true usable 240fps out there.
At least in my opinion one has to be aware of the fact that you're getting a low quality display with more theoretical numbers than real world performance for a much higher price and they will be outdated soon again anyways.

[DrSanchez]

@Madfish

"Smoothness" doesn't have anything to do with response time or input lag (which are different things alltogether).

It is very possible for a 120hz display to look smoother than a 60hz display when the source material (game) is running at, say, 50fps. Consider that the 120hz display has twice the update resolution of a 60hz display and therefore the display can grab the contents of the framebuffer at a more accurate time. Of course this does not matter so much if the source material is a movie since the time between frame updates does not change and your media player is likely performing a 3:2 pulldown on the material anyway.

Regarding 3:2 pulldown. This is absolutely applicable to NTSC and yes it does work with LCD and plasma displays and has nothing to do with displaying half frames. In fact most modern LCD displays ONLY operate at 60fps regardless of the input source. try and plug a PAL ps2 into your tasty new LCD and you will see this in action. Most displays on the market will do the pulldown internally rather than switch to a true 50hz (PAL) mode. Not an ideal situation if you like old games like me.