Why wrong FOV is not a small issue

[tigersfan]

Here's an FPS comparison I found (as the first google result, so I put a lot of effort into that) http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

Honestly, I don't really see any difference there between the 30 and the 60. Even side-by-side like that. I'm not saying that other folks can't see the difference, I have no doubt that they can, but I can't. This is probably why I've usually been content with mid-range video cards without ever feeling like I need to have the best card on the market.

[BobTheJanitor]

Honestly, I don't really see any difference there between the 30 and the 60. Even side-by-side like that. I'm not saying that other folks can't see the difference, I have no doubt that they can, but I can't. This is probably why I've usually been content with mid-range video cards without ever feeling like I need to have the best card on the market.

For me, the falling down motion looks about identical, but the spinning upward motion is where the differences become visible. The 30 looks more like a pinwheel with some gaps in the motion, while the 60 is smooth all the way. And I agree, it's not a huge difference. I can usually play a game at 30 fps and not notice much consciously except for bits here and there. But I know that long term play like that will usually result in later headaches from eye strain.

[Shrugging Khan]

I can clearly see the difference between 30 and 60, especially of course in the spinning.

Is there any data on higher FPSs?

[eRe4s3r]

Well, remember this came about because Arthur 2 dev claimed 12-24 fps is enough

[Cyborg]

I actually get sick from LCD TVs, even the 200+ Hertz variety. That's why purchased a plasma. At the edges of my vision, I am more sensitive to low frame rates. 60 is doable, anything less is noticeable. For counterstrike FPS kind of games, I like 75+.

[eRe4s3r]

For the record, i run a bad-ass CRT at 85hz which is the perfect level for me, i never get tired eyes so i know it's working - but with LCD screens it can also be the sharpness, contrary to what the marketing claims, sharper image = more stress/fatigue

But hz and framerate are different things, i don't mind lowish framerates in the 30's but i could never play at a 60hz screen without making pauses every hour... no matter the framerate ;p

[tigersfan]

For the record, i run a bad-ass CRT at 85hz which is the perfect level for me, i never get tired eyes so i know it's working - but with LCD screens it can also be the sharpness, contrary to what the marketing claims, sharper image = more stress/fatigue

But hz and framerate are different things, i don't mind lowish framerates in the 30's but i could never play at a 60hz screen without making pauses every hour... no matter the framerate ;p

Don't use my computer then. I have a 23" LCD and a 27" LED, both at 60 Hz.

[keith.lamothe]

I mean if it's a black screen that blinks white for one frame, how quick would that frame have to be before you wouldn't notice it? 1/100th of a second? 1/1000th?

As you say that's not the only question, but that would be a fascinating one to see data on, as well as an explanation of how to set up the experiment to get reliable timing and "exposure".  I'm just guessing, but I guess that most of our display devices, even if they could "pulse on" for only 1ms, would have a residual excitation of the surface that would leave it non-black for at least another 1ms.  Or is that not true?

[eRe4s3r]

Don't use my computer then. I have a 23" LCD and a 27" LED, both at 60 Hz.

Yeah but on LCD's thats not really a value you ever reach in normal operation - lcd's also don't have a full-refresh unless theres a specific mode for that active. LCD's just look blurry to me (meaning i can see the ghosting when other people think its OK)

[Cyborg]

I mean if it's a black screen that blinks white for one frame, how quick would that frame have to be before you wouldn't notice it? 1/100th of a second? 1/1000th?

As you say that's not the only question, but that would be a fascinating one to see data on, as well as an explanation of how to set up the experiment to get reliable timing and "exposure".  I'm just guessing, but I guess that most of our display devices, even if they could "pulse on" for only 1ms, would have a residual excitation of the surface that would leave it non-black for at least another 1ms.  Or is that not true?

Good, good, good vibrations… Na na…

[Mánagarmr]

I've been trying to find a high refresh rate flat screen monitor without success. They seem all locked at 60 at best. Which is a bit sad.

[Mánagarmr]

Yay! (necro) Succeeded in finding a decent 24 inch monitor with 120 Hz. The BenQ xt2420T. I am now a happy puppy. And damn, it actually made a noticable difference.

[Shrugging Khan]

I'm also using a BenQ, and even though I know jack all about its specs, I've been perfectly content with it over the past years.

[Mánagarmr]

Both my monitors are BenQs at the moment, but only the XT2420T is actually capable of 120Hz. The other is a normal 60Hz screen. I'm also quite satisfied at the colors on the XT. Once I got past the horrid standard setting, the sRGB mode is actually very pleasant on the eyes.

[eRe4s3r]

I see decent screens for graphic work still only come from EIZO and cost 6 times as much.. blah
And then, they got a crappy 22ms on grey-to-grey in "normal" use, but claim 6ms

I am still stuck on my continually perfect 24" CRT

And from reading early reports about OLED's I read some scary shit about different decay rates of the used organic led's - different colors "burn out" at different speeds, and not "slowly" either. At this point i ask myself.. what the hell. It seems there are no screens in existence for me, gaming + graphics - either gaming, or graphics is not acceptable ;(