Question: ARMA/OA Smoothness on a 120hz monitor

[Jockson 10]

As for the 'sharper black' issue, I thought it was due to it being Backlit LED but it may well be down to a better LCD matrix as you said. I'm just not that well informed on the subject to argue the point anymore than I have done. I will say that my old NEC WUXI's had better blacks than any monitor I own currently and they were not LED, so logically, I see your point.

Yep, it's down to the matrix as there are no LED LCD monitors with local dimming on the market. There has been some big improvements in the last couple of years for all LCD techs. IPS no longer have poor black levels, some TNs are actually very good now in this regard. VA panels have an incredible 3000:1 to 4000:1 static contrast ratio now. LED is mostly for power saving and slim profile when it comes to computer monitors.

[bangtail 0]

Cool, well you learn something new every day :)

[rickidoo 0]

Now I understand why the 120 Mhz looks so good....

Read this article - look down about half way on the page where it talks about LCD "ghosting" on a 60 VS 120 system:

http://www.digitalversus.com/guide-120-hz-screens-article-502.html

My take away from that is that given two identical monitors, one with 60hz and one with 120mhz , the 120 will have less "ghosting" which to the eye looks sharper when objects are moving.

Edited December 22, 2010 by rickidoo

[gossamersolid 155]

Know I understand why the 120 Mhz looks so good....

Read this article - look down about half way on the page where it talks about LCD "ghosting" on a 60 VS 120 system:

http://www.digitalversus.com/guide-120-hz-screens-article-502.html

My take away from that is that given two identical monitors, one with 60hz and one with 120mhz , the 120 will have less "ghosting" which to the eye looks sharper when objects are moving.

Correct because the faster something can update, the smoother it will look.

[bangtail 0]

The faster something can update, the smoother it will look.

Correct!

But sadly, not particularly relevant to Arma 2. As we have said previously, you aren't going to sustain close to 120FPS in A2 (unless you have access to one of DARPA's super computers or you run in 800x600 with everything on low).

The monitor only updates as fast as the video card feeds it the information.

[-=seany=- 5]

Not only does it look smoother, its is.

The difference between a 120hz monitor and 60hz monitor is like night and day. Even on windows desktop, you can notice the improvement instantly just moving the mouse around. It does also make most games feel much smoother.

But with Arma, it's so stuttery it doesn't make a difference. And I'm not talking about HDD access induced stutter. Like the OP originally said, its this micro stutter/"jitteryness" when panning your view around.

[bangtail 0]

Not only does it look smoother, its is.

The difference between a 120hz monitor and 60hz monitor is like night and day. Even on windows desktop, you can notice the improvement instantly just moving the mouse around. It does also make most games feel much smoother.

But with Arma, it's so stuttery it doesn't make a difference. And I'm not talking about HDD access induced stutter. Like the OP originally said, its this micro stutter/"jitteryness" when panning your view around.

I guess that's subjective then because I don't notice it on my desktop and I spent the last 20 mins screwing around with it pretty extensively.

I don't get stuttering/jittering when I pan around in A2 on any of my monitors so I'm not sure what that's about.

EDIT: I'm going to go test it out in BC2, I can actually push 100FPS in that game pretty consistently and I really want to see this 'night and day' difference you're talking about because I haven't up until now.

EDIT2: Ok, so I tried BC2 on 2 seperate machines, side by side (they are similar spec although not exactly the same).

TBH, your eyes must be much better than mine because I really don't see much of a difference.

More power to those of you who do :D

Edited December 22, 2010 by BangTail

[gossamersolid 155]

Correct!

But sadly, not particularly relevant to Arma 2. As we have said previously, you aren't going to sustain close to 120FPS in A2 (unless you have access to one of DARPA's super computers or you run in 800x600 with everything on low).

The monitor only updates as fast as the video card feeds it the information.

If that statement is true, how do higher refresh rate TVs display the broadcast much smoother than standard refresh rate TVs? It's quite evident in sports broadcasts I find (note: this is WITHOUT an HD broadcast).

[bangtail 0]

If that statement is true, how do higher refresh rate TVs display the broadcast much smoother than standard refresh rate TVs? It's quite evident in sports broadcasts I find (note: this is WITHOUT an HD broadcast).

I've been testing things all afternoon as a result of this conversation and I'm just not seeing a 'night and day' difference and I can only speak from my own experience.

Edited December 22, 2010 by BangTail

[dmarkwick 261]

You would only benefit from a 120Hz monitor over a 60Hz monitor if your PC can generate > 60 FPS. If you can do this, you might benefit from enabling frame sync too, to prevent your display slicing during mid-render.

[bangtail 0]

You would only benefit from a 120Hz monitor over a 60Hz monitor if your PC can generate > 60 FPS. If you can do this, you might benefit from enabling frame sync too, to prevent your display slicing during mid-render.

This is my understanding as well.

[dmarkwick 261]

If that statement is true, how do higher refresh rate TVs display the broadcast much smoother than standard refresh rate TVs? It's quite evident in sports broadcasts I find (note: this is WITHOUT an HD broadcast).

What you're probably noticing is less ghosting from one frame to the next, due to superior pixel refresh of the TV. For myself, it seems to make everything look like it was shot on video, even films, but some people like it.

[Jockson 10]

If that statement is true, how do higher refresh rate TVs display the broadcast much smoother than standard refresh rate TVs? It's quite evident in sports broadcasts I find (note: this is WITHOUT an HD broadcast).

They use motion interpolation. Instead of receiving the 60Hz signal and simply displaying each frame twice, they use video processors to create "fake" frames in between the real ones. This does make the motion look smoother and reduce the perceived motion blur (although it doesn't get rid of it completely because the sample-and-hold problem is still there) but there are a few side effects that make it unsuitable for gaming, the main one being the high input lag. Because the interpolation works by analyzing two frames to generate one in between, the tv needs a certain amount of buffered information to do the processing. This results in an image that is several frames behind which is fine for TV but not good for games.

It is this interpolation that does exactly what DMarkwick is describing. When turned on, it makes films look like video. Some people like that some don't.

PC monitors work differently. They are able to receive a true 120Hz signal and display 120 frames with some models having zero input lag. It is worth noting that while all 120Hz PC monitors right now are truly 120Hz, there are also 120/240Hz monitors coming that use motion interpolation methods and only have a 60Hz input. This will cause all sorts of confusion when the manufacturers turn it into a "Hz race".

[dmarkwick 261]

They use motion interpolation. Instead of receiving the 60Hz signal and simply displaying each frame twice, they use video processors to create "fake" frames in between the real ones. This does make the motion look smoother and reduce the perceived motion blur (although it doesn't get rid of it completely because the sample-and-hold problem is still there) but there are a few side effects that make it unsuitable for gaming, the main one being the high input lag. Because the interpolation works by analyzing two frames to generate one in between, the tv needs a certain amount of buffered information to do the processing. This results in an image that is several frames behind which is fine for TV but not good for games.

Ah OK I didn't realise this was happening :) Don't like it myself, but you mention something about "turning it on"? Can it be disabled then? And is there then any benefit from having a 120Hz display for TV purposes?

[Jockson 10]

Ah OK I didn't realise this was happening :) Don't like it myself, but you mention something about "turning it on"? Can it be disabled then? And is there then any benefit from having a 120Hz display for TV purposes?

Yeah, it should be possible to turn it off on most sets. Look for a feature called MotionFlow, MotionPlus, TrueMotion etc. Some TVs have different levels to choose from, some only have off/on. One benefit of 120Hz is that it makes 5:5 pulldown possible for 24p material since 120 can be divided by both 24 and 30 with an even number of frames. Meaning it gets rid of the 3:2 pulldown judder that you get when watching 24fps movies on a 60Hz TV. Not all 120Hz support this AFAIR and some that do require certain options to be enabled/disabled.

[johncage 30]

you won't notice frames above 60-70.

[Millenium7 0]

you won't notice frames above 60-70.

oh I like this debate :D but just out of interest this is not strictly correct. If you had a 100hz TV/monitor showing 100fps (for this arguement lets also say 0ms pixel response time), if 99 of those were pure black and 1 was a pure white flash. You would notice it, ergo the human eye does detect faster than 60-70fps, you may even notice it at 200fps

Then theres the issue of 'skipping'. Try having an object move very fast across a screen (such as your mouse pointer), the more distance it covers and the smaller the object is the more noticeable the effect. at 60fps you'll notice it 'jump' from 1 spot to another and not. At 100fps it'll be smoother, you may even notice it higher than that

But the grand daddy of all is that regardless of how fast the eye can pick up movement. Your mind is much, much quicker. If you are watching somebody play at 60fps vs 100fps or even 30fps you may not notice a difference. However if you are playing you can most definately 'feel' a difference because your mind is very good as predicting what will happen at a specific point in time in regards to movement. If you are playing with a mouse and turn left, then right, then shoot etc things are delayed by as much as 33ms, and the final frame or transitioning actions may lag behind by just as much. at 60fps its 17ms and 100 its 10ms. If you absolutely suck (skill wise) you may not notice much of a difference but as you become much more accurate, faster and sharper you may even notice a difference as high as 240fps

[johncage 30]

just because you have an unconventional opinion and have lots of arguments/justifications for your belief in it it doesn't mean it's right.

the human eye is incapable of noticing any difference above 60 frames per second. it's a limitation of the eye, not anything to do with technology.

i'm not sure what 120hrz monitor is supposed to do. it probably has some benefits related to it. but i'll bet a big part of such a feature is simply to raise the price and trick people into buying something they'll never notice.

a lot of audio equipment is the same way. chock full of features that are essentially worthless, but raises the price.

[dmarkwick 261]

oh I like this debate :D but just out of interest this is not strictly correct. If you had a 100hz TV/monitor showing 100fps (for this arguement lets also say 0ms pixel response time), if 99 of those were pure black and 1 was a pure white flash. You would notice it, ergo the human eye does detect faster than 60-70fps, you may even notice it at 200fps

Then theres the issue of 'skipping'. Try having an object move very fast across a screen (such as your mouse pointer), the more distance it covers and the smaller the object is the more noticeable the effect. at 60fps you'll notice it 'jump' from 1 spot to another and not. At 100fps it'll be smoother, you may even notice it higher than that

But the grand daddy of all is that regardless of how fast the eye can pick up movement. Your mind is much, much quicker. If you are watching somebody play at 60fps vs 100fps or even 30fps you may not notice a difference. However if you are playing you can most definately 'feel' a difference because your mind is very good as predicting what will happen at a specific point in time in regards to movement. If you are playing with a mouse and turn left, then right, then shoot etc things are delayed by as much as 33ms, and the final frame or transitioning actions may lag behind by just as much. at 60fps its 17ms and 100 its 10ms. If you absolutely suck (skill wise) you may not notice much of a difference but as you become much more accurate, faster and sharper you may even notice a difference as high as 240fps

Hmm, well, to be contextual, the insert-a-white-frame test might indeed work, but I'd bet money that if you replace one frame with an identical frame before it, you wouldn't notice a thing :) You're right in that a human mind will fill in the gaps, which makes > 60 FPS rather meaningless apart from extreme tests such as you described :) in the context of onscreen fluid action, as long as input is processed quickly enough then the motion blur shader will make you believe you're seeing fluid movement.

[Millenium7 0]

Hmm, well, to be contextual, the insert-a-white-frame test might indeed work, but I'd bet money that if you replace one frame with an identical frame before it, you wouldn't notice a thing :) You're right in that a human mind will fill in the gaps, which makes > 60 FPS rather meaningless apart from extreme tests such as you described :)

Nothing really 'extreme' about it. It's just that we aren't sensitive enough to pick up minor differences between 2 nearly identical frames. Given more contrast between them (such as the position of a mouse pointer when its moving quickly) you can pick up the difference above 60fps

My last paragraph is more important, framerate aside your mind works much faster than 60fps, when you are playing a fast reaction based game your eyes may still see exactly the same thing at 60fps vs 120fps, but the 120fps will feel smoother and more responsive because its twice as responsive to the players actions

[celery 8]

just because you have an unconventional opinion and have lots of arguments/justifications for your belief in it it doesn't mean it's right.

the human eye is incapable of noticing any difference above 60 frames per second. it's a limitation of the eye, not anything to do with technology.

i'm not sure what 120hrz monitor is supposed to do. it probably has some benefits related to it. but i'll bet a big part of such a feature is simply to raise the price and trick people into buying something they'll never notice.

a lot of audio equipment is the same way. chock full of features that are essentially worthless, but raises the price.

You might not believe it but some people might have better visual and audio perception than you do. To me 60 frames is quite ok but it could be lots better. If you have Civilization 4 or 5, just scroll the map with your mouse and try to read what the text on the map says. Unless you have a 120 Hz monitor and >~100 fps to go with it, chances are that you can't because your eyes notice the change between frames and can't lock to the text. In other words, 60 frames per second is not the epitome of smoothness.

In addition, here is something for you to read:

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

And a simple comparison between 15, 30 and 60 fps for everyone interested:

http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

Edited December 24, 2010 by Celery

[rickidoo 0]

This is all good information.

But the bottom line is this: Under certain circumstances... theory or no theory... a 120 Mhz monitor offers a more realistic and pleasing view to the eye.

I have a dual monitor setup. One is 1900 x 1200 60hz and the other a 120 Mhz 1080. I can run one or the other in ARMA2.

When I compare the two, the 120 Mhz looks more fluid when the picture is rushing by, such as when you spin your character with a mouse left to right, or right to left etc. (It is only under this scenario that I notice a difference).

I have 16Gig ram, a 480 Nvidia and an I-950. The difference is noticeable whether I have graphics settings up or down. >>>There is just something about a rapidly changing picture that is handled more smoothly by a 120 Mhz.<<<

Maybe it's the ghosting issue, or maybe its an interference between two rapidly changing visual elements - the draw of the picture itself as determined by the math of the calculations behind them, and the draw of the picture as determined by the monitor's mechanics.

Don't know. All I know is this: I have two monitors side by side, and the 120 Mhz is simply smoother under certain circumstances. But not all.

Don't throw away your 60Mhz monitor, but when you do upgrade, go to a 120Mhz unit.

As many have written elsewhere, "once you go to 120Mhz you will never go back to 60". I did not "get" those statements before, but I do now.

Rick

[Millenium7 0]

another one is does anybody remember playing the first FPS dos games? such as doom, wolfenstein, hexen, heretic etc? you may not have noticed but those games allowed you to reduce the size of the viewport by using the + and - keys. Smaller viewport = less rendering and thus runs faster on older systems. I don't know what framerate they ran at, maybe 30fps. But no matter how fast your computer is, the smaller you make the viewport the smoother the game is, even at the exact same framerate.

Because the physical size is smaller there is less of a difference in change/moving objects and so you don't require as high of a refresh rate for it to appear smooth. If you set it to the smallest size for a few minutes, then put it back to full screen it wasn't nearly as smooth

[bangtail 0]

This is all good information.

But the bottom line is this: Under certain circumstances... theory or no theory... a 120 Mhz monitor offers a more realistic and pleasing view to the eye.

I have a dual monitor setup. One is 1900 x 1200 60hz and the other a 120 Mhz 1080. I can run one or the other in ARMA2.

When I compare the two, the 120 Mhz looks more fluid when the picture is rushing by, such as when you spin your character with a mouse left to right, or right to left etc. (It is only under this scenario that I notice a difference).

I have 16Gig ram, a 480 Nvidia and an I-950. The difference is noticeable whether I have graphics settings up or down. >>>There is just something about a rapidly changing picture that is handled more smoothly by a 120 Mhz.<<<

Maybe it's the ghosting issue, or maybe its an interference between two rapidly changing visual elements - the draw of the picture itself as determined by the math of the calculations behind them, and the draw of the picture as determined by the monitor's mechanics.

Don't know. All I know is this: I have two monitors side by side, and the 120 Mhz is simply smoother under certain circumstances. But not all.

Don't throw away your 60Mhz monitor, but when you do upgrade, go to a 120Mhz unit.

As many have written elsewhere, "once you go to 120Mhz you will never go back to 60". I did not "get" those statements before, but I do now.

Rick

Again, since you can't sustain 120FPS in ArmA 2, this is definitely a placebo effect (I am referring to Arma 2 only with regards to the placebo effect).

You can claim there is a difference but unless you can FRAPS me a video of ArmA 2 running at a consistent 60+ fps in any situation other than an empty field or an extremely low res with low detail settings I'm afraid I'm going to disagree (I have 2 580s and I had 2 480s before that).

Are there differences on the desktop and in other games that can push 100+ FPS, maybe, but in ArmA 2 there is not, pure and simple.

I've done a lot of testing across several monitors in the last few days (60 and 120hz) and there is nothing I have seen that would recommend a 120hz monitor over a 60hz monitor where Arma 2 is concerned.

Do I agree that if you are buying a monitor today you should buy a 120hz monitor, without question, but not because it will do anything for ArmA 2.

Edited December 24, 2010 by BangTail

[rickidoo 0]

Bangtail,

Fraps doesn't know what the monitor is, and the effect I am referring to has nothing to do with FPS. It's not something I could screenshot because a screenshot just takes a picture of the video card output.

In an earlier post I gave a link which went to a non-arma page which explained why there is less ghosting on a 120 monitor (and 120 tv, too), and therefore a sharper image, during times when the screen is moving rapidly.

As I mentioned before, the sharpness increase is only under certain circumstances. Granted they are extreme circumstances.. normally I don't play Arma 2 spinning my character around. Still, there are those hectic moments when I am looking rapidly for an enemy, and under that scenario, the 120 htz monitor does benefit Arma gameplay.

All the best,

Rick

Edited December 24, 2010 by rickidoo