Welcome to Doom9's Forum, THE in-place to be for everyone interested in DVD conversion. Before you start posting please read the forum rules. By posting to this forum you agree to abide by the rules. |
15th January 2010, 18:37 | #1961 | Link |
_
Join Date: May 2008
Location: France
Posts: 692
|
@Alante: It looks like you don't know anything about smoothness, so that's why STaRGaZeR told you you were wrong.
I don't pretend to know this well, but I know one thing: in order not to have judder (or jitter ?), your display has to have a refresh rate which is a multiplier (or so) of video frame rate. FYI, all recent TVs have 24 and 50Hz support, and it's often used. But I can understand you don't believe it, since you don't understand it (for now). |
15th January 2010, 19:09 | #1962 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: NY
Posts: 104
|
Disable 32 bit float as RC only accepts up to 32 bit integer... other then that setting WASPI as the default output works fine...
Keep in mind I am using all 32 bit direct show filters... are you using 64 bit? |
15th January 2010, 19:23 | #1963 | Link | |
4:2:0 hater
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,302
|
Quote:
Look, I have four selectable options: 60, 100, 110 and 120. Ever heard of PowerStrip BTW? As said, you don't understand a thing about smoothness and other things. Gives no benefit for what? Optimal perfomance? Do you know how the screen is "refreshed" in LCD vs CRT? Capable monitors? Do you know why we need a refresh rate that is equal or a multiple of the original material FPS? Do you know, or at least have seen, the implications of 60 more images per second in games or the judder free playback of 24, 30 and 60 FPS material when using a true 120Hz monitor? Give me a break. Seriously, do some research and buy some stuff before you call everything except what you have or consider good useless. We are not genius, but don't think that because you have a crappy 19" monitor with input lag at 75Hz gives you some kind of authority or knowledge to come here and spread all that BS... Last edited by STaRGaZeR; 15th January 2010 at 19:32. |
|
15th January 2010, 21:17 | #1964 | Link | ||||
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 48
|
Quote:
Quote:
As for 60+ FPS in a game, funny one... you talk as if you're among the few that had that privilege... as if CRT monitors never existed. Guess you're really young to conclude that, but on my younger days CRT's were a STANDARD and most of us had CRT's capable of 85 Hz - 120 Hz. Even now, you might see some at some poor families (since SH CRT's are still the cheapest option), or at some people that couldn't let go a good technology, that got replaced by one that offer more ergonomics and less potential. Ask an older friend, a parent if you think I'm lying. Quote:
And it's not bullshit, learn how most LCD work: Quote:
As for the models that can operate at 120 Hz, they're very few in number, recently released and use a TN panel (if i remember correctly). You didn't even bother to look/inform-yourself and confront me with a vague and insulting answer. My last job was design/marketing related (IT domain) but I also worked as an IT technician, so yeah I have my share of knowledge regarding this subject. I know how they're made, how they work and even know how to bullshit (marketing tricks) uninformed people with details regarding Dynamic Contrast, response time (2 ms grey to grey), but ignore to mention important details like the viewing angles and the panel of a specific LCD. Last edited by Alante; 15th January 2010 at 21:20. |
||||
16th January 2010, 00:00 | #1965 | Link |
_
Join Date: May 2008
Location: France
Posts: 692
|
@Alante: sorry to interfere in your discussion with STaRGaZeR, but I feel obliged to support him. You can think 60Hz is the best refresh screen (that's why I thought at first), you're just wrong and you don't know it yet.
But as I don't want to hijack this thread, I let you read this thread, or rather this one dedicated to smoothness... |
16th January 2010, 00:15 | #1966 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,460
|
Since STaRGaZeR can switch between 100 and 120 Hz he can play back 25 FPS and 24 FPS content without any judder. I guess it works well for 24000/1001 FPS as well. I guess 600 Hz would be ideal because it divisible without remainder by 24, 25, 30, 50 and 60 and thereby covers all commonly used framerates. This isn't that important with games where you generally have framerates north of 30 FPS anyway, but with videos where you're generally stuck with 24 or 25 FPS having a multiple is very important for smooth playback.
Personally I'd switch from my 60 Hz LCD to a 120 Hz without hesitation if someone offered me a halfway decent unit. It's just not in my budget right now. Last edited by nurbs; 16th January 2010 at 00:18. |
16th January 2010, 01:22 | #1967 | Link | |
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 48
|
Quote:
The refresh rate is one the main reasons, why some people still keep their CRT's, fallowed by viewing angles, contrast and color reproduction. So I know refresh rate is important, especially for 3D but honestly I doubt most of you (even if this doom9 or other video forums/shacks) already have this monitor which was barley announced in December 2009. The other two were available earlier of 2009 but they use a crappy TN panel. Last edited by Alante; 16th January 2010 at 01:24. |
|
16th January 2010, 02:13 | #1968 | Link |
4:2:0 hater
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,302
|
Listen. There are several points in your posts that are so wrong in the concept that the correct and detailed explanation would need a very long post, and I'm not going to write that. Use Google if you want. Just some random corrections.
About the "flicker point" that article talks about. LCD will not flicker. Ever. The only possible flickering in LCD comes from the backlight, if the monitor has some crappy CCFLs or LEDs in there. Do not confuse screen flickering with backlight flickering or flickering caused by low FPS material. I'd be amazed if you could force 120Hz in a 60Hz monitor. Really amazed. Mostly because you won't be able to do that. About games, yes, I have (and had) that privilege. I've had 120Hz CRTs and LCDs. Talking about age is a bad habit, because I'm probably older than you. I have a true 120Hz monitor, a 2233RZ. I've had it for 6 or more months. It's indeed a crappy TN panel, but that's the price you have to pay for 120Hz right now. Please don't tell me what this monitor can and can't do. I know it first hand. That Acer is also TN. I have to insist: stop spreading BS. @nurbs The refresh rate is almost exactly 120Hz. 24000/1001, 30000/1001, etc. material is almost perfect, each 8,333s a frame is repeated 6 times instead of 5 (considering 24000/1001). It's very hard to notice it but it's there. I'd need 119,88Hz, something Windows or ATI don't offer right now. PowerStrip does the trick though, then you have indeed 100% judder free playback. |
16th January 2010, 10:02 | #1970 | Link | ||
Registered Developer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
|
Quote:
(1) 60Hz is not "well above the flicker point". (2) LCD monitors don't produce "less flicker", they don't produce any flicker at all, regardless of which refresh rate is used. (3) Pixels on an LCD screen don't "stay lit longer", they stay lit all the time, with no decrease in brightness whatsoever. Summed up, all LCD monitors (except some rare new ones with blinking/scanning backlights) are sample-and-hold type displays. You could use 10Hz refresh rate and there would still be zero flicker. @Alante, if you quote an article to proof your point, you should choose an article which is technically accurate... The sense of changing the refresh rate for video playback has nothing to do with flicker, but with perceived motion smoothness. If you watch 24fps content with 60Hz refresh rate (doesn't matter if it's LCD or CRT), there will be some motion judder, due to the 3:2 pulldown. If your display supports a refresh rate which is a straight multiplier of the source frame rate, that is the preferred video playback setup cause that way you can avoid the 3:2 pulldown and get 100% smooth playback. If you play back an NTSC 24fps* source, ideal refresh rates would be 24Hz*, 48Hz*, 72Hz*, 96Hz*, 120Hz*. If you play back a PAL source, ideal refresh rates would be 25Hz, 50Hz, 75Hz, 100Hz. If you can force your display to use those refresh rates, you'll get smoother motion. Input lag does not matter for video playback, since you can easily adjust audio delay. Video playback is not like gaming. For gaming input lag is important, for video playback it's not. Can we close the refresh rate discussion now? *) NTSC uses a 1.001 divisor, so it's not really 24.000, but 24.000/1.001 = 23.976 etc... |
||
16th January 2010, 12:29 | #1971 | Link |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 962
|
Stargazer, that monitor is the one compatible with Nvidia's 3D stuff, right? Does it also do 100 Hz? How does an LCD change refresh rates, the pixels just get updated faster/slower? I was under the impression that LCDs only had one fixed rate (120 Hz in your case). What it could take in, that's a different thing than the actual refresh rate of the screen.
|
16th January 2010, 13:40 | #1972 | Link | ||||
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 48
|
Quote:
Quote:
I NEVER SAID 60 Hz is the best refresh screen... what i said is that most LCD Monitors or capable of 60 Hz and force 100 Hz on those LCD's (the once for which 60 Hz is a standard) is just wrong and even stupid (as in - the ones that do that, don't really know what their doing). And advising others, misleading them to do the same and saying this is the way to go (as if most LCD's are capable of 100 Hz and only few or stuck at 60 Hz)... well, I can't agree with that. Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Alante; 16th January 2010 at 13:46. |
||||
16th January 2010, 14:13 | #1973 | Link | ||
4:2:0 hater
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,302
|
Quote:
When you're at xHz refresh rate the pixels can be updated x times per second. The ability to change or accept certain refresh rates depends of the monitor. When set to those xHz, the monitor and the graphics card will be locked at those xHz. It's the graphics card and/or the applications used responsability to adapt other contents to that rate, since that's the only one that's going to be sent to the monitor. That's why you have sync algorithms in all renderers, to adapt any source to the monitors' refresh rate, repeating or skipping frames to maintain sync with audio. Some of them can change the pixel clock, effectively changing the refresh rate to adapt the monitor to the video instead of the video to the monitor. Quote:
So now it's about tearing. Yeah right. I'd lecture you about the experience of playing with constant, vsync'ed 120FPS in a 120Hz monitor vs 60FPS in a 60Hz monitor, but I won't do that because that's completely off-topic and this is a video related forum. Also you'll probably start talking about not related things like input lag, ghosting, etc. Summing it up without going off-topic: you said "It's an LCD, so there's no point in changing the refresh rate beyond or lower then 60 Hz". That's just wrong, as me and others have told you. |
||
16th January 2010, 14:21 | #1974 | Link | ||
Registered Developer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
|
It's not ok, unfortunately. It's a bad and incorrect article.
Quote:
Quote:
Look, you come here with all that game related information (disabling VSync, input lag). You need to understand that video playback is very different to game rendering. Nobody disables VSync for video playback, and input lag doesn't matter for video playback, either. What does matter for video playback, is that you try to match the display's refresh rate to the source frame rate. And that's a concept which you don't seem to understand. This concept is only needed for video playback, not for games. So if you want to learn how to do video playback properly, first throw away all your games "knowledge" and then listen to people who have actual experience with optimizing video playback quality. It's a different world, and it follows different rules... |
||
16th January 2010, 14:36 | #1975 | Link |
Kid for Today
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,477
|
talking about games, I can't quite believe how stuttery games in MAME are(yes I use a matching refresh rate)...I wish they'd make a Reclock/Trimension edition, maybe some day
Last edited by leeperry; 16th January 2010 at 14:42. |
16th January 2010, 15:11 | #1976 | Link | |||
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 48
|
Quote:
I rarely play FPS games now, so don't really care... and when I did i had a CRT monitor. For the 3'rd time, I DIDN'T SAY 60 HZ is THE BEST OPTION, what i said is that most LCD Monitors or capable of 60 Hz and force 100 Hz on those LCD's (the once for which 60 Hz is a standard) is just wrong and even stupid (as in - the ones that do that, don't really know what their doing). And advising others, misleading them to do the same and saying this is the way to go (as if most LCD's are capable of 100 Hz and only few or stuck at 60 Hz)... well, I can't agree with that. I seriously doubt many people from here have a monitor like yours. And it's not cause they can't afford it since is not really expensive, but because it has a TN panel. This being said regarding LCD monitors - not HDTV/Projectors. Quote:
Quote:
My videos (the once encoded correctly) play smooth, don't have any problem there what so ever. I had a bad presumption regarding your video render, presuming it could render old/badly encoded videos with a better pixel fusion, based on the demonstration from the 1'st page, but in practice that personal theory was absent. For TV content, I have a TV and also have a console, don't use my PC for that. Of course, this are personal preferences, since I talk about what I do, can't be objective with my preferences saying that most do the same (also repeated this several times). As for being objective regarding LCD monitors, it's proven fact that most LCD monitor operate at 60 Hz, since LCD monitors weren't launched in 2009, only few with TN panel at 120 Hz where launched then and only few could have those as well (pretty logical). |
|||
16th January 2010, 15:38 | #1977 | Link | |||
4:2:0 hater
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,302
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
16th January 2010, 19:43 | #1978 | Link |
Registered Developer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
|
You can repeat your misinformation 100 times, it won't change the fact that it's wrong.
The general rule in video playback is to match source frame rate and display refresh rate. That doesn't mean that 100Hz or 120Hz are needed. As I said before, for NTSC video 24Hz would do just fine, or 48Hz or 72Hz. Or for PAL e.g. 50Hz or 75Hz. If a given display supports 100Hz or 120Hz, those are good choices, too. On the other hand, 60Hz is *not* a good choice for movie watching. And btw, who told you that watching movies on a computer monitor would be a good idea? For movie watching you should use a display which is capable of using refresh rates that match the usual movie frame rates. Because "we people" were naive enough to hope that you would be able to learn. But since it seems that our hope was wrong, I'd appreciate if you could stop posting in "my" thread, because honestly you've posted enough misinformation in the last few pages. Thanks. |
16th January 2010, 21:30 | #1979 | Link | |||
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 48
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
16th January 2010, 22:29 | #1980 | Link | |
Registered Developer
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,140
|
Quote:
NTSC movie frame rate = 24fps 24Hz/24fps = 1.0 = smooth motion 48Hz/24fps = 2.0 = smooth motion 72Hz/24fps = 3.0 = smooth motion 96Hz/24fps = 4.0 = smooth motion 120Hz/24fps = 5.0 = smooth motion 60Hz/24fps = 2.5 = motion judder This is my last post on this topic. |
|
Tags |
direct compute, dithering, error diffusion, madvr, ngu, nnedi3, quality, renderer, scaling, uhd upscaling, upsampling |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|