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

[Madfish]

r0bc, I'm wondering, why do you assume that 120hz is so great? I don't get it - especially when talking about 3d and flat screens. Technologically that's not making sense.

You need 120mhz for shutter based 3d only and that is because it will degrade any 120hz display to a 60hz one due to swapping the images per frame. You gain nothing by using a 120hz display as it's a regular 60hz display - the opposite really: because the image doesn't just "progess" (in motion) but needs to be swapped out and replaced the effects of low response time panels is much more pronounced.

If you don't use 3d then it still mostly depends on your actual FPS and the panels response time.
Seeing how consoles are framelocked and most computers don't exceed 60fps anyways it's basically pointless to have a theoretical 120fps available because the source of the image can't deliver 120 frames, only 60 or less.
All "regular" image formats (tv, dvd, blueray etc.) and as mentioned games (console, pc varies but usually also around or lower than 60fps) are FPS based and in gaming the response time of the display is way more of a limiting factor.
The refresh rate has nothing to do with image quality and it doesn't matter if it's fast paced sport or whatever.

This said I will agree that 120hz is a trend, because it sells, and thus newer displays will most likely be developed with this in mind. In other words many good screens coming out do have 120hz because many customers expect it. But them being so good is not because they are 120hz models - it's just because they are "new types".


I don't want to make 120hz look silly - it's just odd that so many people confuse the theoretical number with what can actually be provided by the sources. Traditionally the frequency is also a bandwidth variable - and I don't see the bandwidth of non-3d media rising - only for 3d media and that will halve it again back to 60. Even worse: while traditional 60hz flat screens are without flicker that's not the case anymore for 3d as the continuous swapping often results in ghosting and blurring which then often leads to feeling dizzy or getting a headache.

[r0bc]

Madfish I totally understand what your saying but just watch this

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xfh...20hz-hdtv_tech

Originally Posted by Madfish

Seeing how consoles are framelocked and most computers don't exceed 60fps anyways it's basically pointless to have a theoretical 120fps available because the source of the image can't deliver 120 frames,

A lot of PC's can deliver 120fps but I've never owned a modern console

[Madfish]

What you're saying may be correct for a few games but all the new titles usually tend to completely maxing out the newest hardware.

But then again, if you hit 60fps in a game under ALL circumstances (numbers of enemies, big maps etc.) you might as well just framelock the game as everything beyond that is literally waste of electricity as the human eye can only interpret about 30fps - but that is not a fixed number as the human eye doesn't see in frames (chemical reactions based on stimuli). So let's give an additional buffer of another 30fps and you should be fine.
At least you don't need 1295 frames per second and many games use framelocks to avoid exactly that. Beyond 60frames there is a lot you can improve - but the framerate is not important - the human eye wouldn't be able to see it at all.
Also a lot of games these days are multiplatform titles and thus inherit the 60frames lock of their console brothers and sisters.

Also please keep in mind that from 60fps on the limiting factor in gaming is not the display but actually mouse- and inputlag, the response time of your display and also in online gaming your ping. I have played fast paced shooters for a long long time, including quake 3 arena (rocket arena to be precise) and others. While there is a myth of the more FPS the better there is much more to it - e.g. the criteria mentioned above.




That said let me say something regarding the video you posted. I had to search because your link wasn't working (for me at least) but I found it. The guy in that video is pretty famous for pretending to be an expert - which he isn't. He messed up on a lot of occasions and I also disagree with his explanation here. In fact he messed up once again.

The 3:2 pulldown has a completely different origin. It's necessary to convert cinema material to the american television standard NTSC. Basically converting from 24 frames to 29,97 NTSC frames and preparing them for the line scan CRT screens of the past.
The problem is that this can't even be done on plasma, lcd and even modern 100hz CRT screens anymore as they use progressive images and can't display half images at all.
That said the method he eventually wanted to talk about is the 2:2 pull down.


That aside there is some truth to it. However, it's questionable at the core. The reason is simple: first of all you would have to raise the question of compatibility. For example PAL vs NTSC - pal uses 25 frames... and many sources are NTSC and PAL. Also keep in mind that only a fraction of the globe, literally only US, Mexico and Canada uses NTSC. Also there is SECAM although it dies out...

The fundamental issue however is that you don't need 120 hz All you need is a display that has a 24p mode. In other words: it SLOWS itself down to 24frames per second instead of 60 or even more. And honestly, you won't see any difference. The movie just can't get faster.

Further 3D would be basically pointless as you'd require 240 instead of 120hz. Otherwise you'd run into the same problem once again.

So, you see? There is more behind the curtain. Sadly it's really just a marketing gag until now.
- no value in gaming
- no value in 24p mode either as even 60hz displays can display that just fine
- inherits the "theoretical" (because you don't need to swap images with 60hz) problems of 60hz screens combined with the real problems of older CRT screens when in 3D mode

Also keep in mind that there are no IPS 120hz panels out there (at least non that I know of) so far.
So what's better then? A fake 120hz with mediocre colors or a great panel with awesome colors? I'm sold on the latter to be honest.

Sorry for the lenghty post but it's very hard to explain the technical issues behind all this 120hz fuzz.

[r0bc]

If you were refering to Patrick yes I agree but Robert is a pretty smart guy. Disagree if you like and I think he mentioned 3:2 pulldown because we use NTSC .
The Anti-Judder and Motion Smoothing/motion interpolation on 120hz/240hz TV's works, it isn't perfect but I think the image for the most part has a smoother motion and certain content like racing looks amazing. If you don't agree...thats fine,some like it and some can't stand it, whatever.

On my PC just by dragging windows around my desktop from one monitor to the other I see the difference and its noticeable in games, everything looks more fluid but your trying to tell me it can't be.

In games everyone can see the differance between 30fps and 60fps and I'd bet money you would see the difference between 60 and 120.
I don't no what PC games your refering to that are frame locked...I can't think of any and I don't think many new titles are maxing the newest hardware, most games are crappy ports. I checked my Steam account. Only 1 out of the last 10 games I bought can't get 120fps(guess) and new hardware is just around the corner.

[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.