Quote:
Originally Posted by CubicleGeek
It was quite a challenge to produce liquid crystals that could dissipate light fast enough to create 120Hz, so I would really question how well a 240Hz panel really works let alone 480Hz. Considering at 120Hz, you already need a black to black response time of ~8ms, you need 4ms black-to-black for 240Hz and 2ms (!!!) black-to-black for 480Hz.
Most panels that average 4ms or less are actually measured gray to gray.
|
Just so we're clear, grey-to-grey is actually slower than black-to-black, but it's also very wishy washy... at least according to
cnet.
Quote:
|
Many manufacturers, on the other hand, report their LCDs' gray-to-gray response times. Pixels are rarely completely on or off--instead they cycle between gray states, that is colors--and, in general, switching between gray states is much slower than switching between black and white. However, some also argue that measuring gray-to-gray response time is pointless, since the manufacturers rarely tell where in the cycle they start and end their measurements.
|
The reason? For black to black, you can basically apply maximum driving force to shift the state of the pixel. Grey-to-grey requires weaker electric fields to avoid overshoot.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LockedOut
I'm guessing 240 Hz will be more useful for 3D down the line if that ever catches on. This way you get 120 Hz per eye instead of 60 Hz that current newer 3D is using. Hopefully that'll cut down on the headaches and dizzyness.
|
My 3D-ready DLP refreshes the image (half-resolution - checkerboard pattern) every 8 ms... 125 Hz per eye. Don't have the glasses yet though. Thing is to actually get 240 Hz out of your GPU(s) is damn near impossible, so you're going to have frames repeat quite a bit anyways. No difference between 85 Hz per eye and 120 Hz per eye, I suspect. Anyways, like I said in the other thread, if anyone wants to see it (once I have it set up), just let me know and I'll be happy to show it to you. Even 60 Hz per eye is supposed to be good with the new nVidias. Some people are even okay with 37.5 Hz/eye. Basically, there's a threshold for everyone at which point they don't see the flicker anymore. Once that's crossed, extra Hz don't provide any benefit.
I wouldn't get 240 Hz for futureproofing. The future of 3D probably lies with glasses-free solutions that use prisms/screens to redirect light. Right now they're extremely expensive, but so were the polarized ones when they first came out. Not to mention that just because it's a 240 Hz display doesn't mean it can accept a 240 Hz input. Likewise, the 120 Hz TVs don't accept 120 Hz input. That's the difference between the new "true 120 Hz" Samsung and upcoming Viewsonic 22"-monitors, and a 120 LCD Hz TV which DOES NOT work for 3D.