You smoke too much weed. lol Running a game at above 60fps, WILL be smoother. I did have some fun playing Need For Speed Most Wanted at 800x600, minimum settings to run the game at ~150Hz (I forgot the exact Hz) with my CRT. And I tell you, it's SUPER DUPER smooth.. not the flickering or something like that. The game is smoother... you DO SEE IT. What makes it great, is that when you move in the game you avoid screen tearing, so you really enjoy the game smoothness. I stop experimenting, because it really sucked playing games at such low settings.
You miss the big problem here though. Even if you DO like inaccurate colours, the fact is that they are not really like that, it's an artefact of your screen, and if you send the image anywhere, or post it online, no one else will see what you see. The idea of accuracy and colour management is that you are making sure everyone else with a decent screen CAN see what you see. If you don't like the less saturated colours on a colour managed set up, you can still make the image more saturated if you want, and then everyone else will see it too. Not strictly true. Your monitor has to refresh at 120hz to use 3D.. the frame rate the game plays at is irrelevant. My screen refreshes at 60Hz, but I can still play a game at 45fps if I want. Having a FPS LESS than refresh is not a problem, it's when you go past it that effects like tearing start to become apparent. You can play a game at 50fps and a 120Hz panel is still refreshing at 120Hz regardless, and will still produce 3D images regardless of frame rate. Frame rate and refresh rate are too wholly independent things.
You did not understand what I meant. If your game runs at 60FPS on a 120Hz.. then that 120Hz monitor is essentially useless. And assuming that VSync is on.. that will be the FPS of the game. As if it can't draw ~120 FPS, it will drop down to 60. The same for 60, if it can't draw 60FPS, it will drop to 30FPS. So let's say you have a 120Hz monitor, and you play Crysis, and the best you get is 45FPS. You'll get the same FPS if you had a 60Hz monitor. If you have V-Sync on, on both monitors, the game will run at 30FPS. Why, because the GPU will try cut frames out to avoid tearing, and in order to do this, it can match the monitor Hz, or if it can't, it will divide by 2 or 4 or 8...
^^ Unless you can run triple buffering of course but that's kind of off-topic... The point is that a 120hz refresh rate CAN (and doesn't always) provide a perceivably smoother experience, regardless of FPS. My experience of this is running a PS3 through a normal 60hz tele and a 120hz tele. Same framerate obviously, but the game did appear noticeably smoother on the 120hz screen.
That is because your TV adds the missing frames... how it does it? it guesses... I can't the exact algorithm, as that varies between TV's, but if you freeze frame that added frame, it looks like: Current frame + next frame, both set at 50-80% transparency and overplayed one top of another. Example: Frame 1: Frame 2: Added Frame between the 2: And that is why TV shows and movies looks freaking strange... especially on action movies, where you see everything like it was filmed using a high speed camera for sow motion shots, but the slow motion shots is normal speed. And you see this impact really hard on a 200Hz+ TV's. It's just awful, because the movie or TV show was not filmed using a 120FPS camera, but rather 24FPS.
that is also why TV's have 24 FPS mode for that movie feel. oh wow, looks like we are somehow going the other way, not up, but down! hum.......
Take your point, but I'm speaking of the 'perception' of a smoother image when playing a game (definitely not running more than 60fps obviously) through a PS3, not a movie. Does this trickery occur in this instance? And if so doesn't this mean that 120hz screens would apply the same technique even from a PC input? Again, I'm only speaking of perception which I have nothing to back it up with and will undoubtedly be different for different people.
I don't know... All I ever used was a descent CRT monitor, which could go at above 120Hz at low resolutions. It did not have this kind of circuit design (obviously). I guess you could say I got the raw thing. My TV is just a last gen Sony CRT TV, that can output 720i via composite (or 1280x1024 via computer attached). So I can't check on there.
I'd imagine that a 120Hz monitor wouldn't apply such 'trickery' as it would introduce input lag. The monitor would need the next frame in order to be able calculate all of the frames between the current frame and the next frame, and then you have to count in the cost of the actual computation. So if a game is running at 60FPS, you won't get any advantage out of 120Hz over 60Hz. But that's just theorycrafting and I could be wrong. As for the PS3 > TV thing, I have no clue.
Nope.. because the monitor needs a 120Hz refresh rate for the 3D system to work regardless of frame rate. SO if 3D is something you want, it's still essential. remove 3D from teh equation though, and yes, 120Hz will be useless unless you consistently achieve frame rates at much more than 80fps or so, you'll be getting no benefit.
huh? I am NOT talking about 3D... I am talking about seeing all 120 frame per second being drawn on the screen without tearing. Which brings more smoothness when you play a game. Beside you don't need 120Hz to enjoy 3D... it works on a 60Hz (Each eye sees 30Hz), even on a 30Hz (each eye sees 15Hz) screen... but you'll have a headache within minutes.
NO, but as it's the only real use for a 120Hz display I thought I'd throw that out there. As you say though, you'd not WANT to use 3D without 120Hz as the flicker would drive you mental in no time at all. 3D aside, I am agreeing with you. a 120Hz display showing a game running at 50fps will look no different than a 60Hz display playing the same game at the same frame rate.
