Does 144hz really makes you a better player?

2»

Comments

  • bgyoshibgyoshi Posts: 1,116

    @MikeGreene1990 said:
    In Dirty bomb, or any game where you can limit the FPS via console command or cfg. Play with the refresh rate and limit it in multiples of 30. I see the difference in movement change going from 30-60-120. I start to level out after the 180-220 mark.

    Yes this is because we'll generally notice more smoothness between 30 and 60, and then your monitor is changing it's refresh rate from 60Hz to 120Hz when you go from 60 to 120 FPS. Again, you're seeing the change in refresh rate, not FPS.

    I feel like a very important metric here is being missed and not discussed. The latency portion not just the rate. 60hz over 1ms is going to feel and look faster than 60hz over 10ms. Pay attention the the frame timings right next to the frame rate counter. Ultra low is extremely important for being a good gamer. If running a game at 2x the refresh rate of your monitor cuts down on the frame timings than do it! I feel the difference in my case.

    Frame limiters increase latency a lot too. Usually when they're baked into the game, they don't increase latency much. But in the case of games like DB where you have to use a third party one, they cause a lot of input latency and you will definitely feel it when you turn them on.

  • SzakalotSzakalot Posts: 3,229

    @Xenithos the ‚fluid 22-25fps’ myth is complete bull. The only reason that a 22fps movie looks fluid is because of motion blur.

    Run a high speed camera at very low exposure and 22fps, you will see exactly how wrong the myth is

    First!

    48px-First_Blood.png?version=ee44701eadae9f5eb7db0d17c0edc6c9
  • nokiIInokiII Posts: 574

    @Szakalot said:
    @Xenithos the ‚fluid 22-25fps’ myth is complete bull. The only reason that a 22fps movie looks fluid is because of motion blur.

    And even with motion blur, when I watch a movie nowadays I can see the stutter, especially on landscape pans, just because I'm used to a much smoother experience.

    nerf snippers.
  • teflonloveteflonlove Posts: 606

    @MikeGreene1990 said:
    One last note, they do say the human eye sees only 23-30fps. But truthfully i don't believe this.

    The approximately 25 fps are the lower limit necessary where movement becomes fluent. The upper limit where the human eye is still able to process information is much higher. In experiments with fighter pilots they showed them silhouettes of various air planes for 1/200 seconds (1 frame at 200 fps) and they were still able to explain which plane it was.

    Forget the cobalt Kawaii stick, better listen to some Kawaii rock.

  • bgyoshibgyoshi Posts: 1,116

    @Szakalot said:
    @Xenithos the ‚fluid 22-25fps’ myth is complete bull. The only reason that a 22fps movie looks fluid is because of motion blur.

    Run a high speed camera at very low exposure and 22fps, you will see exactly how wrong the myth is

    @teflonlove said:

    The approximately 25 fps are the lower limit necessary where movement becomes fluent. The upper limit where the human eye is still able to process information is much higher. In experiments with fighter pilots they showed them silhouettes of various air planes for 1/200 seconds (1 frame at 200 fps) and they were still able to explain which plane it was.

    My videos mention both of these things and explain both of them lmao

  • SzakalotSzakalot Posts: 3,229

    like id have time to watch videos, double whammy lmao

    First!

    48px-First_Blood.png?version=ee44701eadae9f5eb7db0d17c0edc6c9
  • bgyoshibgyoshi Posts: 1,116

    @Szakalot said:
    like id have time to watch videos, double whammy lmao

    Then read my tl;dw

    tl;dr your eyes make motion blurry on purpose, that's normal

    Using a fast camera to record super fast motion in crystal clarity gives you a headache because your brain is trying to make it blurry but can't. It's such a problem that modern day broadcasting/movies/games showing ultra-clear high FPS are adding motion blur back in so that it doesn't give people headaches. That's from the second video of the three.

  • SzakalotSzakalot Posts: 3,229

    this is an interesting topic:

    in real, all images are ‚rendered’ at a frequency going into infinity, in as good a quality as physically possible.
    Motion blur in movies is a result of long exposure: data from fast moving obj is collected and compressed into a single frame, making them blurry.

    This is very different from the phenomenon you describe, which could be part neurological processing and part ‚exposure refresh rate’ differential across the eye/field of view.

    What are the exact differences between real and high quality image captured on a high speed camera? Why wouldnt your eye/vision succeed in blurring camera-captured frames, just as it does in real?

    First!

    48px-First_Blood.png?version=ee44701eadae9f5eb7db0d17c0edc6c9
  • XenithosXenithos Posts: 1,690Special Editor

    @Szakalot said:
    @Xenithos the ‚fluid 22-25fps’ myth is complete bull. The only reason that a 22fps movie looks fluid is because of motion blur.

    Run a high speed camera at very low exposure and 22fps, you will see exactly how wrong the myth is

    That's... kind of what I was saying. Completely agree with you. It's also why I was using 60fps as the usual limit where the eye stops seeing everything etc also... basically at certain speeds your brain can't capture the entire canvas every single frame, it can follow the movement at incredibly high speeds, but just the movement, and if you've got something that's not moving but just two different points or what not etc, at that point your brain will literally start seeing them both at the same time and stop following them as movment, but only in intensity.. 0.o

    I don't care how much you've played or how good your aim is - If you haven't touched the game at least twice in three months then I see your "opinion" as hot moot.

  • JShug07JShug07 Posts: 29

    Guys what if I buy a 75hz monitor will there be any Difference apart from 60 hz? 60hz vs 75hz? Surely there will be a difference at 100hz but what about 75hz

  • KiraysKirays Posts: 1,480Moderator

    It's a noticeable smoother experience but not worth buying an entire new monitor for. You might as well try and overclock your current monitor first.

  • FalC_16FalC_16 Posts: 915

    @Kirays said:
    It's a noticeable smoother experience but not worth buying an entire new monitor for. You might as well try and overclock your current monitor first.

    I bought IPS 144 Hz panel. Money well spent also thx to @bgyoshi . My gaming experience is day and night difference now

  • bgyoshibgyoshi Posts: 1,116

    @Szakalot said:
    this is an interesting topic:

    in real, all images are ‚rendered’ at a frequency going into infinity, in as good a quality as physically possible.
    Motion blur in movies is a result of long exposure: data from fast moving obj is collected and compressed into a single frame, making them blurry.

    Not necessarily true. There's a lot of manually added motion blur nowadays since camera can capture high clarity images at such a fast rate. Also digital CG images are not blurry by default.

    This is very different from the phenomenon you describe, which could be part neurological processing and part ‚exposure refresh rate’ differential across the eye/field of view.

    Also not true, your eyes and brain only focus on specific information and ignore everything else. This is why tracking a fast moving object with your eyes results in a perfectly clear fast object but a very blurry background, and vice versa. This is also why people get tunnel vision, and why people can forget things happening right in front of them when they're on the phone. Our mental focus and attention matters. Our eyes don't work like cameras. Again, this is all explained in video two.

    What are the exact differences between real and high quality image captured on a high speed camera? Why wouldnt your eye/vision succeed in blurring camera-captured frames, just as it does in real?

    Because your brain has a more difficult time filtering out the information like it usually does. Frames being presented to you in a chronological fashion aren't what we're used to seeing. Again, this is why 240hz tv's and motion enhancing features make movement displayed on them look weird and wrong.

    Just watch the videos man lol

  • Mc1412013Mc1412013 Posts: 2,274

    @Kirays said:
    It's a noticeable smoother experience but not worth buying an entire new monitor for. You might as well try and overclock your current monitor first.

    You can potentialy damage your monitor i would be carefull doing it

    Hey look i finaly got a sig , and nothing to put here

  • KiraysKirays Posts: 1,480Moderator
    edited April 18

    That would be a highly unlikely occurrence. As long as your overclock is stable (no artificats or other unusual things) you should be safe to go. I myself have overclocked a monitor, a laptop to be more precise. After I stumbled upon the site linked below offering an in-depth tutorial specifically for laptops I've started experimenting with it nearly a year ago, gradually increasing the refresh rate. It's currently running at a whooping 103.852 hz so if you are looking into increasing your refresh rate without spending a dim I absolutely recommend you to check it out. Note that results vary substantially - some monitors are not very cooperative at all while others grant you a tremendous success.

    forum.notebookreview.com/threads/psa-you-can-now-overclock-your-laptop-monitor-intel-intel-optimus.802167/

    Post edited by Kirays on
  • DeathiDeathi Posts: 483
    edited April 18

    You may get problems with the longevity of the parts, mainly the elkos. Some get more stressed and dry-out faster, when the switching-frequency is raised. So if you've got some just-in-warranty product, it could end-up badly.
    F.e. I had some factory-overclocked 75hz 2007 Panasonic Tft (some factory-overclocked 60hz display), where i had to replace the elkos in the high-voltage-part nearly exact every 2.5 years, after the first one got replaced inside the 3-year-warranty.
    But who knows in wich TFT they've saved two dollars/euros today...

    So, know what you are doing, even Intel doesn't give you some warranty if you overclock your "overclockable" K-CPU's ;-)

Sign In or Register to comment.