TCL's ultra-fast 4K LCD prototype has us musing about diminishing smoothness returns.
See full article...
See full article...
Does anyone really need a 1,000 Hz gaming display?
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
I know it's almost certainly massive overkill, but from a purely technical standpoint it's still awesome to see this kind of progress.
Upvote
79
(84
/
-5)
If it means that "lesser" rate monitors (144, 240, etc) go down in price - then absolutely agree.
Upvote
109
(109
/
0)
If you ask Microsoft researchers they will tell you that a conservative assumption of required frame rate for life-like VR is 1800Hz.
Upvote
123
(125
/
-2)
Where's the blurbusters guy? He'll explain why this is so awesome.
Of course we need to be able to feed monitors with 1000fps. We'll get there.
E: I know it's mentioned in the article, but that guy goes into even more detail than that in the comments every time this discussion comes up. As someone that's susceptible to both "simulation sickness" and migraines when playing games, I'm glad someone is figuring this shit out for us.
Of course we need to be able to feed monitors with 1000fps. We'll get there.
E: I know it's mentioned in the article, but that guy goes into even more detail than that in the comments every time this discussion comes up. As someone that's susceptible to both "simulation sickness" and migraines when playing games, I'm glad someone is figuring this shit out for us.
Upvote
15
(28
/
-13)
Upvote
57
(64
/
-7)
I would like it since it helps reduce how slow a display can feel when I am using it.
This may be because of poorly optimised software but I do not think software optimisation will be taken seriously without this industry being held to higher standards.
This may be because of poorly optimised software but I do not think software optimisation will be taken seriously without this industry being held to higher standards.
Upvote
-10
(2
/
-12)
- Add bookmark
- Featured
- #11
I'll wait to hear about the color accuracy, gamut and contrast ratio (real, not "dynamic") before being impressed. Too many of the high-refresh-rate monitors sacrifice image quality on the alter of speed.
Upvote
82
(85
/
-3)
Upvote
33
(40
/
-7)
And likely for physical reasons, the panels will have to be faster than this (by multiples). So maybe 3600 or 4800Hz and with 16000 ppi pixel densities. We're a LOOONG way to that.
Upvote
-8
(5
/
-13)
Old games that tied their tick rates to frame rates ought to get interesting... 16.67x faster, time for new speed runs.
Upvote
40
(40
/
0)
What physical reasons?
The referenced paper says (indirectly) that 6-10k should be fine. What makes you think 16k is required?
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
I'm surprised we haven't gotten to 1k yet, sometimes it feels like at around 240fps, it's already smooth enough. Might be like with 8K displays, but this is really cool to see
Upvote
2
(5
/
-3)
- Add bookmark
- Featured
- #18
This is the problem with inverse measurements. What we're actually measuring is the time between frames, which approach 0. Hz approach infinity, so the same improvement requires larger and larger increases. 20Hz from 60 to 80 is a much bigger improvement than 20Hz from 120 to 140.
70Hz is ~14ms frame to frame.
120Hz is ~8ms frame to frame.
144Hz is ~7ms frame to frame.
Upvote
109
(110
/
-1)
Upvote
63
(65
/
-2)
As the saying goes, if the headline is a yes or no question, the answer is always, "No."
In this case that's based on the difference between want, and need. I expect a lot of people will "want" it. But none of them will realistically "need" it.
In this case that's based on the difference between want, and need. I expect a lot of people will "want" it. But none of them will realistically "need" it.
Upvote
10
(20
/
-10)
Yeah people seriously underestimate our eyes' and brain's sensory and perceptive capabilities. People use to go into a fucking RAGE over the notion of "you can't see anything past 24 fps" just because movies were 24 fps. People have been regurgitating "your eye can't see past X" nonsense for a long time.
Movies only appear smooth because of the motion blur captured by exposure time. It's very lifelike and similar to our own perceived motion blur because it's basically just a function of exposure and time. As opposed to something like an LCD that creates a very different type of motion blur that does not look correct to our eyes.
Also, you can actually very much see the limitations of 24 fps if you carefully watch a fast moving object, or if the camera pans quickly. Take your eyes and move them "with" the motion of the object and the individual frames and the low temporal resolution become quite clear.
Or don't, because then you'll have a hard time unseeing it and it'll annoy you forever
Upvote
92
(96
/
-4)
Upvote
28
(29
/
-1)
You didn't read the article, did you? It's not about "seeing" 1000fps. It's about not inducing blur. Blue which leads to "motion sickness" or "simulation sickness."
Upvote
32
(35
/
-3)
They need to separate the frame duration from the frame update rate. The blurring they are showing is based on a frame persisting until the next frame. This is different than showing a frame for a short time, then another for a short time some time later.
Upvote
-3
(5
/
-8)
1000 Hz is equivalent to 1/1000 second for a still camera. An object moving at 100 meters per second is still moving 10 centimeters from frame to frame at that refresh rate. I hope that helps folks understand what our eyes can still see.
Upvote
-8
(6
/
-14)
It really depends on the kind of display. For sample-and-hold displays like what is being demonstrated in the image in question, the image in question is perfectly fine.
Upvote
6
(6
/
0)
One thing that I rarely see mentioned is that the need for VRR (e.g. G-SYNC/FreeSync) is reduced as refresh rates increase. At 1000 Hz, you've only got 1 ms between refreshes, where a "missed" frame is going to result in noticeably less stutter than a missed frame at 60 Hz (16.7 ms); 120 Hz (8.3 ms); or even 240 Hz (4.2 ms).
Effectively, 1000 Hz displays can kind of brute force VRR's job, but without the handful of issues that VRR can introduce. We won't see gamma curve-induced flickering at a fixed refresh rate, nor is there any need for low-framerate compensation. Black-frame insertion is far easier to implement with a fixed refresh rate as well.
Effectively, 1000 Hz displays can kind of brute force VRR's job, but without the handful of issues that VRR can introduce. We won't see gamma curve-induced flickering at a fixed refresh rate, nor is there any need for low-framerate compensation. Black-frame insertion is far easier to implement with a fixed refresh rate as well.
Upvote
34
(34
/
0)
Like anti aliasing is less necessary as resolution increases because the sheer number of pixels smooths the jagged edges on its own.
Upvote
37
(37
/
0)
Upvote
22
(23
/
-1)
Which is the distinction I was talking about. Sample and hold is the problem. Sample then off does not have that blurring, and does not require any more bandwidth.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
Upvote
2
(7
/
-5)
"Sample then off still has plenty of its own issues, not a single one of which I can be bothered to mention."
Upvote
-4
(8
/
-12)
Exactly, that's a great comparison! Higher pixel density means lower need for high-quality anti-aliasing at a given viewing distance, and we're able to use faster/lower-quality AA at 4K than at 1080p, for example. Many TAA implementations can look fairly blurry in general, but can range from "tolerable" to "good" at 4K. However, at 1080p they may be excessively blurry in some cases.
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Yes, that is exactly what I said, no need for deeper reading, you could have just read my post, because I said that, in my post, the one you quoted, the one where I said "a conservative assumption".
Upvote
34
(36
/
-2)
The technical mastery, epic.
That said this is still a totally pointless thing. As you jump from say 60Hz->120Hz->240Hz there is massive diminished returns and the hardware requirements to actually run against those limits jumps in cost and also power demands far above what is sane.
The only benefits will be how the cost of "lesser monitors" will fall ol
That said this is still a totally pointless thing. As you jump from say 60Hz->120Hz->240Hz there is massive diminished returns and the hardware requirements to actually run against those limits jumps in cost and also power demands far above what is sane.
The only benefits will be how the cost of "lesser monitors" will fall ol
Upvote
-14
(3
/
-17)
There's a limited budget of GPU horsepower, that can either be spent on reaching ultra high frame rates, or spent on generating ultra photorealistic images and physics. We will always have to choose one of the two: I don't think we'll ever get both at the same time - at least, not within our lifetimes. For my part, I'd rather have ultra-realistic ray-traced volumetric graphics with super high-fidelity physics. I'll gladly live with motion blur in exchange.
Upvote
6
(10
/
-4)
It's going to be done with image generation, as the article mentioned.
People can complain about those not being "real frames" but if they're only on screen for literally a millisecond, you won't know they're "fake" and in return, you get crisp, no blur motion that doesn't make you throw up. Sign me up.
Upvote
17
(19
/
-2)