# Poll:  Do you like the smoothness of high refresh gaming and/or 60 FPS YouTube videos?



## Space Lynx (Jul 19, 2021)

I'm just curious. I met someone today who can't stand 60 FPS YouTube videos... but to my eyes they look so much smoother when watching them... I don't see why anyone would not want them...

I'm just doing this poll for fun.


----------



## EzioAs (Jul 19, 2021)

Duh....

I even use SVP (which uses motion interpolation) to watch any local videos on my PC at 144 fps. Been doing that since 2011 (60 fps back then)


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 19, 2021)

EzioAs said:


> Duh....
> 
> I even use SVP (which uses motion interpolation) to watch any local videos on my PC at 144 fps. Been doing that since 2011 (60 fps back then)



never heard of SVP, can you give me a link?

and I have been enjoying high refresh since 2013 or so with one of those imported overclocking Korean 1440p monitors. that's why I find people like this who even watch a 60 fps youtube video and say they hate it... I just don't get it... I really don't, it looks so smooth in comparison. very odd.


----------



## EzioAs (Jul 19, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> never heard of SVP, can you give me a link?








						SVP – SmoothVideo Project – Real Time Video Frame Rate Conversion
					






					www.svp-team.com


----------



## Khonjel (Jul 19, 2021)

I generally like it but also understand the dislike for it. Lower fps (24, 30) and motion blur generally makes our brain fill in the gaps of information for us. But I think action heavy media NEEDS 60 fps.

Here's an example:
Original 30 fps:









Interpolated 60 fps:


----------



## Solaris17 (Jul 19, 2021)

I actually didn’t the first time I saw a TV doing 120hz . The flow made me feel odd and it looked as if was a crystal clear VHS in fast forward.

it took some time to get used to it


----------



## erocker (Jul 19, 2021)

I have no idea why this question needs to be asked.


----------



## wolf (Jul 19, 2021)

I can't fathom why anyone would say no to this


----------



## Liquid Cool (Jul 19, 2021)

I'll be the outlier(as usual...).  I voted no and have blocked them since day one with h264ify.  Why?  Health reasons.  They make me sick.

How sick?  The same nausea(from motion sickness) you feel when a video game doesn't agree with you, just throw in some dizziness, the urge to vomit and a splitting headache...and there you go.

Best Regards,

Liquid Cool


----------



## EzioAs (Jul 19, 2021)

Maybe a good follow up question/poll would be, "Do you like watching films/shows at frame rates higher than 24fps?"

People have gotten so used to 24fps videos (anything presented on cable TV and films) so I would think it'd be interesting to see the percentages of people who would watch at higher than 24fps vs people who prefer to stay at 24fps.


----------



## xkm1948 (Jul 19, 2021)

Most 360 VR video are nauseating at 50 or 60FPS. And yes I can tell the night and day difference between 100FPS VR video versus 60FPS VR video. I will take high refresh for sure. Pancake gaming/video does not bother me that much with low FPS though


----------



## Rithsom (Jul 19, 2021)

For me, it depends on the type of media that I'm watching. For games, I want the most FPS possible, hands down. On the other hand, I prefer watching my favorite film at its original 24 FPS.

Films that are boosted up to 60 FPS look cheaper, in my opinion. It's kind of hard to explain, like maybe they were produced by an inexperienced indie studio or something.


----------



## ThrashZone (Jul 19, 2021)

Hi,
I suppose so but I'm off googletube.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 19, 2021)

wolf said:


> I can't fathom why anyone would say no to this



this

answers this:



erocker said:


> I have no idea why this question needs to be asked.




I want to show my friend this poll. to show he is in the minority.  



Rithsom said:


> For me, it depends on the type of media that I'm watching. For games, I want the most FPS possible, hands down. On the other hand, I prefer watching my favorite film at its original 24 FPS.
> 
> Films that are boosted up to 60 FPS look cheaper, in my opinion. It's kind of hard to explain, like maybe they were produced by an inexperienced indie studio or something.



I never said films though. I said youtube in a general sense. for films I am ok with the way they were intended, though for some films I do like 60 fps yeah, but they need to be designed for it... there are some movie producers now specifically making high refresh movies... they are not out yet to my knowledge, I am looking forward to them though.


----------



## robot zombie (Jul 19, 2021)

Some people have it down that the typical FPS for film and broadcast are more appealing. I can actually see that with smaller, more 'typical' motion. When I am looking at an actor's face as they are making expressions and speaking, it does register to me as wayyyyy more natural than native 60+. Well, the few times I've had any reasonable comparison.

Still prefer youtube videos at 60fps for the most part. Something about the effect doesn't translate there. But then, I don't watch a lot of stuff where people just talk in front of a camera.

Any fast action is so much better at higher frame rates. That has actually bugged me about movies my whole life. The amount of stuff you could barely make out between intense lighting dynamics, everything happening on the screen, and the amount of blur. Sure, I can imagine. But it's much more impactful when you truly SEE it. In real life, I understand it would be chaos but movies with action are supposed to have more "oomph" than real life... show you things as you would never be able to see them.

There's a thing where animations done in lower frame rates (as is often the case... sometimes for practical reasons, even) are artificially boosted up to higher frame rates. Lotta hype around it for a while. I think it looks awful. If you pay attention it grossly distorts movements, making them uncanny and robotic. However, animation MADE at those frame rates are SO much more engaging to me. Oh good lord. I have so much respect for people who do even the shortest anime stuff at over 30fps. It's an insane thing to do, from their perspective. But it brings results that always stand out.

Any of the boosting stuff... sucks. I hate it. It has to be natively done at that higher frame rate. There's no making up for that presently. Maybe one day.

Games? Man... higher is definitely better. Less strain trying to see what's happening. Many of the animations can be short, really only consisting of a few frames to begin with. You cut that down, you almost lose the trajectory of things. Not to mention the physical connection to what you're seeing. It's hand-eye. It makes sense that more 'complete' information would benefit this dynamic. You see it and feel it. I swear, I even feel the difference on my desktop. I know this because when I play FO4 I cap my monitor at 60hz. When I come back out and tick it up to 165hz it's just like "Ahhhhh how did I not notice? This is so much nicer to look at."

It actually bothers me now. There's a fatigue that sets in at the lower frame rates. I get headaches and tired eyes.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 19, 2021)

robot zombie said:


> Some people have it down that the typical FPS for film and broadcast are more appealing. I can actually see that with smaller, more 'typical' motion. When I am looking at an actor's face as they are making expressions and speaking, it does register to me as wayyyyy more natural than native 60+. Well, the few times I've had any reasonable comparison.
> 
> Still prefer youtube videos at 60fps for the most part. Something about the effect doesn't translate there. But then, I don't watch a lot of stuff where people just talk in front of a camera.
> 
> ...


 very high action paced movies like some of Liam Neeson movies, the frame blur/skipping has ruined some action scenes for me, I wish I could watch those in 60 fps lol


----------



## Rithsom (Jul 19, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> for films I am ok with the way they were intended, though for some films I do like 60 fps yeah, but they need to be designed for it... there are some movie producers now specifically making high refresh movies... they are not out yet to my knowledge, I am looking forward to them though.



I definitely agree that a film needs to be designed around a certain frame rate in order to look nice. Brand new nature documentaries with drone footage are excellent candidates for 60 FPS, in my opinion. In contrast, I dislike watching movies that were originally produced at 24 or 30 FPS like Harry Potter, Toy Story, Titanic, etc. with a 60 FPS algorithm. They were clearly made for lower frame rates, and it really shows when you try to watch them at frame rates any higher.

For YouTube videos, if I had to pick an option, I would choose 60 FPS over 30 for the same reason stated above. 60 FPS YouTube videos were originally created at 60 FPS, so they don't look unnatural to watch.



robot zombie said:


> There's a thing where animations done in lower frame rates (as is often the case... sometimes for practical reasons, even) are artificially boosted up to higher frame rates. Lotta hype around it for a while. I think it looks awful. If you pay attention it grossly distorts movements, making them uncanny and robotic. However, animation MADE at those frame rates are SO much more engaging to me.
> 
> Any of the boosting stuff... sucks. I hate it. It has to be natively done at that higher frame rate. There's no making up for that presently. Maybe one day.



Good description! That's precisely what I see, too. Movies that are algorithm-boosted up to 60 FPS look so cheap...


----------



## EzioAs (Jul 19, 2021)

Rithsom said:


> Good description! That's precisely what I see, too. Movies that are algoritm-boosted up to 60 FPS look so cheap...



Give SVP a try if you haven't done so yet. Sure it's not 100% perfect, but for most scenes, it looks so good that you don't notice the imperfections/artifacts. As I've said before, I've used it since 2011 or so and will continue to use it to watch any videos.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jul 19, 2021)

Smoothness can be 30 fps too.


----------



## oobymach (Jul 19, 2021)

Most movies are still 24fps, telivision is 29.9fps, but you definitely notice the difference between a 24fps film and a 60fps one. Gemini Man starring Will Smith was shot in 60fps glory, I hope all media adopts 60fps as the new standard. It's just so fluid, motion does not judder and retains detail.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 19, 2021)

oobymach said:


> Most movies are still 24fps, telivision is 29.9fps, but you definitely notice the difference between a 24fps film and a 60fps one. Gemini Man starring Will Smith was shot in 60fps glory, I hope all media adopts 60fps as the new standard. It's just so fluid, motion does not judder and retains detail.



I'm going to go watch this movie now... ty...


----------



## thesmokingman (Jul 19, 2021)

oobymach said:


> Most movies are still 24fps, telivision is 29.9fps, but you definitely notice the difference between a 24fps film and a 60fps one. Gemini Man starring Will Smith was shot in 60fps glory, I hope all media adopts 60fps as the new standard. It's just so fluid, motion does not judder and retains detail.


24fps was an evolved standard that was more about cost. Remember celluloid film cost a lot of money. The industry gradually went up from 10-12fps. But yea today with so many shooting on digital and the resolution has gone up crazy digital editing wise, there's not a technical reason to stay at 24fps or 30fps. But old habits die hard... it's kind of ironic though that a lot of these traditions are from fifty years ago and they still adhere to them. While some special effects houses are editing in realtime at 4k or 8k with 64 core threadrippers... crazy ass juxtapositions.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 19, 2021)

thesmokingman said:


> 24fps was an evolved standard that was more about cost. Remember celluloid film cost a lot of money. The industry gradually went up from 10-12fps. But yea today with so many shooting on digital and the resolution has gone up crazy digital editing wise, there's not a technical reason to stay at 24fps or 30fps. But old habits die hard... it's kind of ironic though that a lot of these traditions are from fifty years ago and they still adhere to them. While some special effects houses are editing in realtime at 4k or 8k with 64 core threadrippers... crazy ass juxtapositions.



seems like the best youtubers always have high rez high fps as well. especially the travel ones.  so there is money in it for sure. if you want the viewers.


----------



## nguyen (Jul 19, 2021)

YES if the source is actually high refresh (Gaming) and 
NO when the source is 24fps and interpolated to 60fps (Youtube video), it looks unnatural.


----------



## Jetster (Jul 19, 2021)

When I am at work I need to keep the bandwidth down


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 19, 2021)

nguyen said:


> YES if the source is actually high refresh (Gaming) and
> NO when the source is 24fps and interpolated to 60fps (Youtube video), it looks unnatural.



a lot of youtube is naturally made in native 60 fps these days though.

but i still like the interpolated 60 fps too, it still is smoother on the eyes overall.



Jetster said:


> When I am at work I need to keep the bandwidth down



fiber to the moon!


----------



## Jetster (Jul 19, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> a lot of youtube is naturally made in native 60 fps these days though.
> 
> but i still like the interpolated 60 fps too, it still is smoother on the eyes overall.
> 
> ...


We have fiber, we also have a list of top ten YouTube users. They frown on it when you watch 9 Gb of YouTube in 4 days


----------



## Chomiq (Jul 19, 2021)

High refresh rate games - fine with it. 

YouTube videos shot at 60fps? Sure, if there's a point to it. Otherwise stick to 30fps or 24fps optimal.

60 fps movies? 30fps movies? It's 24fps or death, nothing else should be allowed for movies. That's what it was and that's what it always will. Anything else will simply look like TV or weirdly sped up.

You don't want another repeat of this:


----------



## Sithaer (Jul 19, 2021)

Depends on what I'm watching.

I watched some interpolated Dragon Ball scenes _'much like the previously posted OPM ones' _and they kinda felt out of place for me even if it was smoother, idk like it was sped up so in that case I prefer the original design.
Same goes with movies, I prefer the original version if possible.

Gaming wise I'm all good with my 75Hz freesync monitor and whatever FPS as long as its within that range with no crazy frame time issues. _'basically anything thats ~45+ fps or so, don't play competitive games'_

In overall I'm somewhat indifferent to this so I did not vote.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 19, 2021)

Jetster said:


> We have fiber, we also have a list of top ten YouTube users. They frown on it when you watch 9 Gb of YouTube in 4 days



your co-workers eat bandwidth for breakfast eh?  nom nom


----------



## Kissamies (Jul 19, 2021)

60Hz/fps is fine for me in every usage. My next monitor will be a 4K60 one.

But yeah, I like having 60fps in youtube videos.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 19, 2021)

Jill Valentine said:


> 60Hz/fps is fine for me in every usage. My next monitor will be a 4K60 one.
> 
> But yeah, I like having 60fps in youtube videos.



bad news for you.  60 fps youtube videos are smoothed out (very different than 60 fps in games), so its more like equivalent of 100 FPS in a game.  so if you like 60 fps in youtube, you would very much like 100 FPS in games on a 144hz monitor. 

sauces:






						youtube 60fps looks smoother that 60fps in a game?
					

i noticed that while watching 60fps videos on youtube it looks way smoother than 60fps in a game, why?




					linustechtips.com
				









						Why do games look so much smoother on YouTube?
					

I don't know if this is just me, but whenever I watch a gameplay video on YouTube at 1080p 60fps, it looks really smooth. Now whenever I play that game at 60fps, it looks a whole lot less smooth. I have a 60hz display, so in theory, the two shouldn't look any different. Why is this?




					forums.tomshardware.com


----------



## Kissamies (Jul 19, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> bad news for you.  60 fps youtube videos are smoothed out (very different than 60 fps in games), so its more like equivalent of 100 FPS in a game.  so if you like 60 fps in youtube, you would very much like 100 FPS in games on a 144hz monitor.
> 
> sauces:
> 
> ...


Like I said, I'd rather have moar resolution than refresh rate. That's a thing I need to say separately for everyone it seems..

And yeah there are high refresh 4K monitors, but they aren't an option for a poor guy like me.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 19, 2021)

Jill Valentine said:


> Like I said, I'd rather have moar resolution than refresh rate. That's a thing I need to say separately for everyone it seems..
> 
> And yeah there are high refresh 4K monitors, but they aren't an option for a poor guy like me.



not I. when you experience high refresh gaming you never want to go back even if it means sacrificing rez.  

I live for the smoothness. I worship the swordplay in Witcher 3 with 0 blur... so smooth... IT IS GLORIOUS BEYOND MEASURE


----------



## Kissamies (Jul 19, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> not I. when you experience high refresh gaming you never want to go back even if it means sacrificing rez.
> 
> I live for the smoothness. I worship the swordplay in Witcher 3 with 0 blur... so smooth... IT IS GLORIOUS BEYOND MEASURE


Someone likes the mother, someone likes the daughter, someone likes both of 'em.

I just don't give a crap about the refresh rate, I hate when people are enforcing that to me. It's just a budget thing and I don't want anything lower than 4K on my next monitor.


----------



## qubit (Jul 19, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> I'm just curious. I met someone today who can't stand 60 FPS YouTube videos... but to my eyes they look so much smoother when watching them... I don't see why anyone would not want them...
> 
> I'm just doing this poll for fun.


Yeah, I don't get those people who prefer the crappy old 24fps look saying it looks "filmic".   It seems to me that it's just Hollywood peddling this myth because it makes it easier and cheaper for them to make movies - higher framerates show up the fakery better.

I love the motion interpolation feature on modern TVs and use it all the time. My Sony TV has degrees of it, which I've turned up to the max and makes a real difference.


----------



## Ferather (Jul 19, 2021)

I'm a vsync (FreeSync) gamer, I like my FPS equal to the monitors refresh rate, I dislike people who say 'I get better FPS without vsync', that's because its not sync'd with the monitor.
If you have a 75hz refresh, going over 75 fps will end up as wasted processing, extra heat and power, more money. Some info here.


----------



## qubit (Jul 19, 2021)

Ferather said:


> I'm a vsync (FreeSync) gamer, I like my FPS equal to the monitors refresh rate, I dislike people who say 'I get better FPS without vsync', that's because its not sync'd with the monitor.
> If you have a 75hz refresh, going over 75 fps will end up as wasted processing, extra heat and power, more money. Some info here.


Yup, vsync always. With it off, screen tearing is always happening to some degree, whether the game is rendering above the monitor's refresh rate or below it and whether you notice it or not. On top of that, the animation isn't perfectly smooth either, even if the game renders above the monitor's refresh rate.

The best option by far, is to use adaptive sync whenever possible (NVIDIA or AMD) which fixes everything.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 19, 2021)

Jill Valentine said:


> Someone likes the mother, someone likes the daughter, someone likes both of 'em.
> 
> I just don't give a crap about the refresh rate, I hate when people are enforcing that to me. It's just a budget thing and I don't want anything lower than 4K on my next monitor.



no one is forcing you to do anything, just sharing our opinions. also you will need some beefy hardware to run 60 fps at 4k, less hardware to run at 165 fps 1080p.


----------



## elghinnarisa (Jul 19, 2021)

I always go for HFR content when I can, but I hate interpolated stuff because I notice all the artefacts and such way too easily, and I don't like that. So if it isnt HFR originally, then a hard skip. Interpolation is just bleh.


----------



## claes (Jul 19, 2021)

As others have pointed out, the question is misleading — I think we all like to view content at the rate it’s meant to be viewed at...


----------



## EzioAs (Jul 19, 2021)

claes said:


> I think *we all like to view* content at the rate it’s meant to be viewed at...


Not all of us.


----------



## claes (Jul 19, 2021)

Example? No judgement, it’s obviously subjective, but I personally can’t stand interpolation on my blu-ray rips, for example, but to each their own!

edit: oic, svp user. I get it for animation and sports but otherwise not for me


----------



## TheUn4seen (Jul 19, 2021)

For things I interact with - yes, very much so. In fact, getting a 120Hz screen was the most important improvement in the quality of interacting with my computer in a long time, probably since my first SSD more than ten years ago.
For non-interactive content - absolutely no. I don't own a TV or watch Youtube all that much, but my wife's father always has frame interpolation in his TV set to maximum and it looks horrible. I call it the "soap opera look" because many years ago soap operas from South America had this artificially smoothed look to them. It felt like like they were sped up by 20%. Some people like that, I don't. It might be different with materials done in 60fps natively, but my experience here is limited.


----------



## ShiBDiB (Jul 19, 2021)

I voted no just because it's a really stupid question..

Obviously smoothness and high res is preferred. Whoever you talked to that said no is either a troll or hasn't actually experienced 60fps content at 60fps. 

Yes there's exceptions like media not made for 60 fps, or needs to save bandwidth. But the question is ambiguous enough that these don't apply.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 19, 2021)

TheUn4seen said:


> For things I interact with - yes, very much so. In fact, getting a 120Hz screen was the most important improvement in the quality of interacting with my computer in a long time, probably since my first SSD more than ten years ago.
> For non-interactive content - absolutely no. I don't own a TV or watch Youtube all that much, but my wife's father always has frame interpolation in his TV set to maximum and it looks horrible. I call it the "soap opera look" because many years ago soap operas from South America had this artificially smoothed look to them. It felt like like they were sped up by 20%. Some people like that, I don't. It might be different with materials done in 60fps natively, but my experience here is limited.



native content made in 60 fps viewed at 60 fps looks superior to native content at 24 fps viewed at 24 fps. that's my only goal with this thread really.  24 fps is outdated. time to move on.


----------



## MentalAcetylide (Jul 20, 2021)

Jill Valentine said:


> Someone likes the mother, someone likes the daughter, someone likes both of 'em.
> 
> I just don't give a crap about the refresh rate, I hate when people are enforcing that to me. It's just a budget thing and I don't want anything lower than 4K on my next monitor.


Depends on personal preference/what you can tolerate, and the type of gaming you'll be doing. My experience with going to a higher resolution without an appropriate boost in refresh rate can be hard on the eyes for some. 

Modern panels probably don't compare much, but when I was using a CRT monitor and needed to switch to a higher resolution for graphics/photo-editing, I always had to go with a higher refresh rate(from 60 to 85 iirc) because it seemed to strain my eyes more if I left the refresh rate at 60. Just be sure that whatever you get you're able to return for refund if it doesn't agree with you. A week or two should be more than enough time for your eyes to tell you if its a good fit or not.


----------



## TheUn4seen (Jul 20, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> native content made in 60 fps viewed at 60 fps looks superior to native content at 24 fps viewed at 24 fps. that's my only goal with this thread really.  24 fps is outdated. time to move on.


I wouldn't be so sure, to be honest. You got me curious so I just played around with 24, 30, 60 and 120fps videos and refresh rate of the screen and I have to say I definitely prefer 24/30 fps videos irrespective of the screen refresh rate. 60fps looks fine but not preferable even if shot in native 60fps and viewed on a 60Hz screen, and 120fps has the "soap opera" look I mentioned. One could say it's because that's what I grew up with so that's what I'm used to, but that's not really the case, last time I had a TV in the house was back when color CRTs were considered current and many people had monochromatic ones (which probably dates me rather well) and I really didn't spend a lot of time watching tv or video, I mostly used it to play games, so I'd say I'm actually more used to 60fps.
Also, this looks like feeding a confirmation bias, no offense. I think the framerate preference is far too subjective to use blanket statements.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 20, 2021)

TheUn4seen said:


> I wouldn't be so sure, to be honest. You got me curious so I just played around with 24, 30, 60 and 120fps videos and refresh rate of the screen and I have to say I definitely prefer 24/30 fps videos irrespective of the screen refresh rate. 60fps looks fine but not preferable even if shot in native 60fps and viewed on a 60Hz screen, and 120fps has the "soap opera" look I mentioned. One could say it's because that's what I grew up with so that's what I'm used to, but that's not really the case, last time I had a TV in the house was back when color CRTs were considered current and many people had monochromatic ones (which probably dates me rather well) and I really didn't spend a lot of time watching tv or video, I mostly used it to play games, so I'd say I'm actually more used to 60fps.
> Also, this looks like feeding a confirmation bias, no offense. I think the framerate preference is far too subjective to use blanket statements.



its possible everyones eyes are different too. i only notice the soap opera effect if i see a game at 190fps or above on a 240hz monitor. and yes I hate it.

I'd say 165-180 fps on a respective hz monitor is my sweet spot. maybe everyones eyes has their own sweet spot, biologically speaking.


----------



## TheUn4seen (Jul 20, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> its possible everyones eyes are different too. (...) maybe everyones eyes has their own sweet spot, biologically speaking.


I definitely agree with that. We are, after all, creatures living in the analog domain. My wife can distinguish no less than thirty shades of red while my ability ends with "more red" and "less red". Well, there is also "I think it's red" but that's an edge case.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 20, 2021)

TheUn4seen said:


> I definitely agree with that. We are, after all, creatures living in the analog domain. My wife can distinguish no less than thirty shades of red while my ability ends with "more red" and "less red". Well, there is also "I think it's red" but that's an edge case.




how did you two find that out? is there a test that can be taken?


----------



## 64K (Jul 20, 2021)

I like high frame rates.


----------



## chrcoluk (Jul 20, 2021)

I prefer 30fps, but I dont hate 60fps videos to the point I wont watch them.

Regarding gaming, the only benefit I see to higher than 60hz/fps is that 120hz is compatible with both 24fps and 60fps so has an advantage you can play games that have 24fps cutscenes with no judders.

It seems to be a thing primarily driven by multiplayer FPS gamers. (and gpu manufacturers as higher framerate demands sell more gpus).


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 20, 2021)

chrcoluk said:


> I prefer 30fps, but I dont hate 60fps videos to the point I wont watch them.
> 
> Regarding gaming, the only benefit I see to higher than 60hz/fps is that 120hz is compatible with both 24fps and 60fps so has an advantage you can play games that have 24fps cutscenes with no judders.
> 
> It seems to be a thing primarily driven by multiplayer FPS gamers. (and gpu manufacturers as higher framerate demands sell more gpus).



I have never understood this argument. I play loads of games at 165 fps 165hz and never seen a judder or tear ever. Perhpas you not calculator in freesync/gsync


----------



## chrcoluk (Jul 20, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> I have never understood this argument. I play loads of games at 165 fps 165hz and never seen a judder or tear ever. Perhpas you not calculator in freesync/gsync



My comment regarding 120hz is assuming no access to freesync or gsync. 120 is a multiple of both 24 and 60.

Its just personally I feel no benefit of 165fps over 60fps, I particurly find it ridiculous there is monitors coming out slightly faster than older ones as if a human can noticeably tell a difference between 144hz and 120hz.  Like in the linus video its diminishing returns, it wouldnt surprise me if we still stuck with no high quality gaming screens in 5 years time but instead manufacturers keeping the refresh rate war going with one at 500hz going against another at 480hz.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 20, 2021)

chrcoluk said:


> My comment regarding 120hz is assuming no access to freesync or gsync. 120 is a multiple of both 24 and 60.
> 
> Its just personally I feel no benefit of 165fps over 60fps, I particurly find it ridiculous there is monitors coming out slightly faster than older ones as if a human can noticeably tell a difference between 144hz and 120hz.  Like in the linus video its diminishing returns, it wouldnt surprise me if we still stuck with no high quality gaming screens in 5 years time but instead manufacturers keeping the refresh rate war going with one at 500hz going against another at 480hz.



ah ok, well I have gsync/freesync on 24/7 when I game, so that doesn't apply to me

I can tell difference between 144hz and 165hz. its a "feel" though with the mouse. not visual.


----------



## Anarchy0110 (Jul 20, 2021)

Yes, of course. 
Can't wait to get myself a 144/240Hz monitor soon tbh.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 20, 2021)

Faith[ROG].Anarchy said:


> Yes, of course.
> Can't wait to get myself a 144/240Hz monitor soon tbh.




your system specs laptop doesn't have high refresh?  regardless, hope you get one soon!  I love my monitor!  Acer 165hz 23.8" IPS 1080p.  I highly recommend you try to get one of the 23.8" IPS panels regardless of brand... these new panels are so great, no ghosting and wonderful colors thanks to IPS.


----------



## Anarchy0110 (Jul 20, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> your system specs laptop doesn't have high refresh?  regardless, hope you get one soon!  I love my monitor!  Acer 165hz 23.8" IPS 1080p.  I highly recommend you try to get one of the 23.8" IPS panels regardless of brand... these new panels are so great, no ghosting and wonderful colors thanks to IPS.



Sadly not, and most entry-level laptops have only decent quality panels anyway.
I plan to use 60Hz normally, and when I decide to game, I would just plug the HDMI port to the external monitor I set at home.

EDIT: Depends on how much money I can save, I can look from the AOC 24G2/27G2 all the way to a hardcore Zowie one.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 20, 2021)

Faith[ROG].Anarchy said:


> Sadly not, and most entry-level laptops have only decent quality panels anyway.
> I plan to use 60Hz normally, and when I decide to game, I would just plug the HDMI port to the external monitor I set at home.
> 
> EDIT: Depends on how much money I can save, I can look from the AOC 24G2/27G2 all the way to a hardcore Zowie one.



AOC 24G2

THIS ONE!!!! PLEASE GET THIS ONE!!!  if you can get it at a good price... this one actually has a slightly better picture than my Acer.  I have seen both side by side. they are both advanced fast IPS panels I believe... but the AOC seemed better calibrated out of box...


----------



## Anarchy0110 (Jul 20, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> AOC 24G2
> 
> THIS ONE!!!! PLEASE GET THIS ONE!!!  if you can get it at a good price... this one actually has a slightly better picture than my Acer.  I have seen both side by side. they are both advanced fast IPS panels I believe... but the AOC seemed better calibrated out of box...



Fairly hard to find one actually, but yes - I know what you mean. 
Multiple people on YouTube review it and it's such a good monitor for its price. 
Don't worry, if I have one I certainly will show it on the purchase thread for you to see


----------



## Valantar (Jul 20, 2021)

This is a very poorly designed poll. I generally like 60fps YouTube, though it does depend on the topic and content - it's comfortable for product shots and talking heads. If there's rapid movement, it looks weirdly smooth and unnatural. Motion interpolation should be banned by law and TV makers implementing it (especially by default) should be put before the Hague International Criminal Court. It looks absolutely terrible no matter what, and is sufficiently distracting to entirely break whatever is being shown. I quite like high fps/high refresh rate gaming, though I haven't tried anything excessively high. 120Hz looks good and plays well IMO though.

Different use cases have different needs and preferences, in addition to familiarity of course. Movies don't need more than 24fps, and don't generally benefit from it, though it could depend on the film. Games do, and IMO we tune our senses quite differently when playing games vs. watching movies - they're very different sensory experiences, and we have different techniques for adjusting to each.


----------



## EzioAs (Jul 20, 2021)

Valantar said:


> This is a very poorly designed poll. I generally like 60fps YouTube, though it does depend on the topic and content - it's comfortable for product shots and talking heads. If there's rapid movement, it looks weirdly smooth and unnatural. Motion interpolation should be banned by law and TV makers implementing it (especially by default) should be put before the Hague International Criminal Court. It looks absolutely terrible no matter what, and is sufficiently distracting to entirely break whatever is being shown. I quite like high fps/high refresh rate gaming, though I haven't tried anything excessively high. 120Hz looks good and plays well IMO though.
> 
> Different use cases have different needs and preferences, in addition to familiarity of course. Movies don't need more than 24fps, and don't generally benefit from it, though it could depend on the film. Games do, and IMO we tune our senses quite differently when playing games vs. watching movies - they're very different sensory experiences, and we have different techniques for adjusting to each.


I don't agree with anything you've just said here, except for...



> Different use cases have different needs and preferences


...which is a very broad and general phrase.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 20, 2021)

Valantar said:


> This is a very poorly designed poll. I generally like 60fps YouTube, though it does depend on the topic and content - it's comfortable for product shots and talking heads. If there's rapid movement, it looks weirdly smooth and unnatural. Motion interpolation should be banned by law and TV makers implementing it (especially by default) should be put before the Hague International Criminal Court. It looks absolutely terrible no matter what, and is sufficiently distracting to entirely break whatever is being shown. I quite like high fps/high refresh rate gaming, though I haven't tried anything excessively high. 120Hz looks good and plays well IMO though.
> 
> Different use cases have different needs and preferences, in addition to familiarity of course. Movies don't need more than 24fps, and don't generally benefit from it, though it could depend on the film. Games do, and IMO we tune our senses quite differently when playing games vs. watching movies - they're very different sensory experiences, and we have different techniques for adjusting to each.



well it's generated 3 pages of conversation so it must not be to terribly designed


----------



## Valantar (Jul 20, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> well it's generated 3 pages of conversation so it must not be to terribly designed


Well, if it was designed to stir up controversy, I guess it was decently designed. I can't vote either way though, as the options are far too black and white.



EzioAs said:


> I don't agree with anything you've just said here, except for...
> 
> 
> ...which is a very broad and general phrase.


Yep, it is, but IMO it's also true for most things, especially in cases involving human perception. That sentences isn't designed to be specific, but rather outline a general approach to things. As such it must be broad.


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 20, 2021)

Valantar said:


> Well, if it was designed to stir up controversy, I guess it was decently designed. I can't vote either way though, as the options are far too black and white.
> 
> 
> Yep, it is, but IMO it's also true for most things, especially in cases involving human perception. That sentences isn't designed to be specific, but rather outline a general approach to things. As such it must be broad.




that's fine. but to me it is a black and white issue. i love the smoothness. my eyes love it. there is no doubting it.


----------



## Yukikaze (Jul 20, 2021)

I like content which is originally in high refresh rates. Things which are extrapolated to high refresh rates look horrendous to me. First thing I disable on every TV.

I am also firmly in the resolution over frame rate camp. So give me 5K (or 6K, or 8K) at 60hz over 165hz at any lower resolution.


----------



## Anarchy0110 (Jul 20, 2021)

Yukikaze said:


> I like content which is originally in high refresh rates. Things which are extrapolated to high refresh rates look horrendous to me. First thing I disable on every TV.
> 
> I am also firmly in the resolution over frame rate camp. So give me 5K (or 6K, or 8K) at 60hz over 165hz at any lower resolution.



Sharp eyes aren't you. I prefer smoothness over sharpness.


----------



## Mussels (Jul 20, 2021)

I'm not gunna lie, i get an almost sexual satisfaction from real high FPS content
killing floor 2 at 165Hz/165FPS? Oh my lordy, it ruins other games. 60FPS feels janky to me now.


Hell i have a 90Hz phone and it hurts to use my old 60Hz one



EzioAs said:


> Give SVP a try if you haven't done so yet. Sure it's not 100% perfect, but for most scenes, it looks so good that you don't notice the imperfections/artifacts. As I've said before, I've used it since 2011 or so and will continue to use it to watch any videos.


i actually bought a lifetime licence for that and forgot its name so i havent used it in years XD


----------



## TheUn4seen (Jul 20, 2021)

lynx29 said:


> how did you two find that out? is there a test that can be taken?


There are several test you can take. I have a damaged optical nerve and it appeared to limit my ability to distinguish colors, so I took the Farnsworth-Munsell Hue Test, Hardy-Rand-Rittler test and some more. My wife did the Farnsworth D-15 test just for fun and she could easily distinguish between all the shades, which is a decidedly above average result


----------



## Valantar (Jul 20, 2021)

TheUn4seen said:


> There are several test you van take. I have a damaged optical nerve and it appeared to limit my ability to distinguish colors, so I took the Farnsworth-Munsell Hue Test, Hardy-Rand-Rittler test and some more. My wife did the Farnsworth D-15 test just for fun and she could easily distinguish between all the shades, which is a decidedly above average result


Are these tests online? If so I would imagine the poor color reproduction of most monitors/displays would skew average results rather heavily.


----------



## Yukikaze (Jul 20, 2021)

Faith[ROG].Anarchy said:


> Sharp eyes aren't you. I prefer smoothness over sharpness.



Heh, yes. I am one of the mad people who run a 27" 4K monitor at 100% scaling.


----------



## Ferather (Jul 20, 2021)

The eye should see around 60hz-60fps, however we are not synced with technology (lol plug my brain into HDMI), to overcome the de-sync, 120fps can be, is, used to draw 2 frames per 1 eye.
This allows the eye to work at its own rate, personally I suggest a minimum of 75hz-75fps, the difference between 60hz-75hz is notable to me.

If I switch desktop, via ctrl+winkey+left-right if can tell instantly the difference. Each eye and person can be different.


----------



## TheUn4seen (Jul 20, 2021)

Valantar said:


> Are these tests online? If so I would imagine the poor color reproduction of most monitors/displays would skew average results rather heavily.


Nah, this wouldn't make any sense, as you noticed. We took them in a ophthalmologist (in my case specialized in neurology) laboratory. And since, after so many years, my neurologists are as close to being my friends as humanly possible and my wife is usually there as my driver she also gets checked, because why not?


----------



## Valantar (Jul 20, 2021)

Ferather said:


> The eye should see around 60hz-60fps, however we are not synced with technology (lol plug my brain into HDMI), to overcome the de-sync, 120fps can be, is, used to draw 2 frames per 1 eye.


That is utter nonsense. Human vision does not work that way - it doesn't have a fixed refresh rate, nor is it entirely clear that it registers individual "frames" at all - and there is clear evidence that motion can be registered at far smaller intervals than 60Hz. This is highly context dependent and individual, so hard and fast numbers are essentially impossible to produce, but the vast majority of humans can notice high contrast motion within the majority of their field of view (including peripheral vision, which is often acutely motion sensitive) at extremely rapid rates. Heck, if our eyes worked at 60Hz driving at highway speeds would be pretty dangerous, and you'd have moved 4-5 meters between each time your eyes "refreshed". If that was the case, highway fatalities would be staggeringly high.


----------



## Rithsom (Jul 20, 2021)

Valantar said:


> Heck, if our eyes worked at 60Hz driving at highway speeds would be pretty dangerous, and you'd have moved 4-5 meters between each time your eyes "refreshed". If that was the case, highway fatalities would be staggeringly high.



4-5 meters multiplied by 60 Hz is equal to 240-300 m/s, which is roughly the speed of a jet liner. Highway speeds are much slower, around 30 m/s.

But I get your point. Having split-second response time is essential to being a safe driver.


----------



## Ferather (Jul 20, 2021)

Well 75% of Google searching says 60hz-60 fps, but in many cases it does say they don't fully understand, maybe I am wrong but I am going by the larger amount of 60fps I see in searches.
Most of the sites that say 60fps is not enough don't actually give any details as to how they found 60fps to be wrong, maybe I missed something.

Im also sure some lights are on-off rapidly, at the speed they do it the eye just see's on, never off.

----

Should be less than 100fps or on-off 100 times per second. Somewhere around 50-60hz, below this should flicker to the eye.

Why Do LED Lights Flicker On Video? - LED & Lighting Info (ledlightinginfo.com)

Either way you can measure they eye in Hz or FPS, when it stops seeing a difference.


----------



## Valantar (Jul 21, 2021)

Rithsom said:


> 4-5 meters multiplied by 60 Hz is equal to 240-300 m/s, which is roughly the speed of a jet liner. Highway speeds are much slower, around 30 m/s.
> 
> But I get your point. Having split-second response time is essential to being a safe driver.


Lol, that was supposed to be ".4-5", not "4-5". Guess that's what I get for typing too fast.



Ferather said:


> Well 75% of Google searching says 60hz-60 fps, but in many cases it does say they don't fully understand, maybe I am wrong but I am going by the larger amount of 60fps I see in searches.
> Most of the sites that say 60fps is not enough don't actually give any details as to how they found 60fps to be wrong, maybe I missed something.
> 
> Im also sure some lights are on-off rapidly, at the speed they do it the eye just see's on, never off.
> ...


"Most google searching" is quite often not a particularly good source, especially as oft-repeated sourceless truisms tend to score well in terms of SEO. Most people repeating this from my experience have heard it from some unnamed source who in turn did not provide any trustworthy sources for their data.

As for that LED flicker thing, again, remember that we don't even know if the human eye has something equivalent to a "refresh rate" or "fps" at all. For example, flickering lights are much more easily spotted if you're moving than if you're standing still. Most likely human vision functions in a far more flexible way - remember, our brains do _huge_ amounts of processing on what our eyes see before we even actually perceive it, such as filling in blind spots (there's one per eye after all), stitching together two eyes into one field of view, interpolating imagery while the eye is moving, and a bunch more. Precisely what the "raw input data" from our eyes is, whether it's somehow divided into distinct "images" or if it's a more blended-together continuous stream of signals? And how does processing affect this; what is the "output" that is available to our consciousness from the visual cortex? From what I've seen, we really have no idea. What we do know is that there are measurable differences in reaction times between even 240Hz and 360Hz displays - though quite possibly not for everyone. Vision is also highly individual, after all. It's the same thing with "resolution" - human vision isn't comparable to a grid of pixels, as we can make out _far_ higher amounts of detail in some scenarios than others (we can for example spot jaggies and unevenness in _extremely_ fine diagonal lines, while grids or larger shapes like letters or symbols are perceived at far lower detail levels. And so on, and so on.

The desire to attempt to quantify the immensely complex and nuanced workings of the human sensory apparatus - which _far_ outstrips anything we can produce technologically - is a really, really bad habit, and it tries to apply standards for human-made creations onto complex biological and neurological functions that we barely understand at all. Trying to understand the body as if it were a human-made technology brings with it a ton of biases and uncommunicated implications that will inevitably skew any findings and limit our possibilities for achieving a functional and useful understanding of it, and will inevitably be both misleading and reductive.


----------



## Ferather (Jul 21, 2021)

Well I'm not going to debate you know more about it than I do, Google is a perfectly fine source for info as long as you filter crap blogs and go for documented info (same as reading a book).

I do have a question, why is it if you wave back and forth your hand, with your fingers spread, your fingers are more ghostly, until they slow down to change direction.
Surely this is to do with the rate the human eye draws an image (or a frame in computer terms), it doesn't seem very high.

If we used the light frames (on-off), at 100-120 times per second, this is seen as always on, If my eyes could do 240fps, I should see flicker, and off frames?

Also if you where moving away from an object at the speed of light, whilst looking at it, you should see nothing right? Given the light doesn't reach your eye.
Any previous image should be hitting the back of my head, which will probably kill me with heat, if I was facing the other direction, probably blind then dead.


----------



## dirtyferret (Jul 21, 2021)

I prefer the calm beauty of watching a video at .000001 FPS


----------



## Valantar (Jul 21, 2021)

Ferather said:


> Well I'm not going to debate you know more about it than I do, Google is a perfectly fine source for info as long as you filter crap blogs and go for documented info (same as reading a book).
> 
> I do have a question, why is it if you wave back and forth your hand, with your fingers spread, your fingers are more ghostly, until they slow down to change direction.
> Surely this is to do with the rate the human eye draws an image (or a frame in computer terms), it doesn't seem very high.
> ...


You're still thinking of this from a digital, human-made technology frame of mind. The "if I can't see flicker at X Hz, then the eye must be slower than that" test only applies if a) the eye captures distinct and whole frames, b) captures them at an even cadence, c) has no smoohting/blending/etc. applied, d) has synced "framerates" for both eyes, e) reacts with equal sensitivity to extreme brightness changes to all other stimuli, and likely a whole heap of other caveats. Once you start treating this as what it is - an analog system with _tons_ of complex processing steps and unknown modes of operation - then the weaknesses of such a test become apparent, as you can't control for variables and thus can't know if the answers you are getting are actually demonstrating what you want them to. There's nothing saying your eyes couldn't, for example, (and this is assuming a bunch of unknowns such as discrete "frames" captured) be capturing thousands of images a second but blending many of them together to incrase light sensitivity, motion smoothness, etc. - and might also prioritize differently based on contextual clues (such as sudden movement propting faster signalling rather than better processing). That's just as possible as the eye having some fixed discrete maximum frame rate.


----------



## Ferather (Jul 21, 2021)

Indeed, very informative again.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Jul 21, 2021)

Liquid Cool said:


> I'll be the outlier(as usual...).  I voted no and have blocked them since day one with h264ify.  Why?  Health reasons.  They make me sick.
> 
> How sick?  The same nausea(from motion sickness) you feel when a video game doesn't agree with you, just throw in some dizziness, the urge to vomit and a splitting headache...and there you go.
> 
> ...


I knew that conditions like this existed. Had no idea it could be that severe..


----------



## Mussels (Jul 22, 2021)

One of the best examples i read on this years ago was airforce pilots being able to see one frame different out of 400, and identify the aircraft in that frame


just because we cant see the ENTIRE image and process it, doesnt mean we cant notice one small part of movement, one flicker, one flash *faster*


----------



## Ferather (Jul 22, 2021)

Was the result consistent? Or was there an overlap based on when the frames started, or any order? Would be interesting if the result was always frame 350.
I remember seeing flicker if a low frequency LED was at the corner of my eye (Old PC indicator LED), if I looked strait at it, it was solid on.

I agree the eye and brain work in different manors, in some cases dumping visual info, or even delaying it.
If you look at a clock, at times the second hand will pause, due to delay, with no updates.

Subliminal messages in video – Do they really work? - BBC R&D


----------



## Space Lynx (Jul 23, 2021)

Mussels said:


> One of the best examples i read on this years ago was airforce pilots being able to see one frame different out of 400, and identify the aircraft in that frame
> 
> 
> just because we cant see the ENTIRE image and process it, doesnt mean we cant notice one small part of movement, one flicker, one flash *faster*



480hz monitors to the moon!!!


----------



## Vayra86 (Jul 23, 2021)

erocker said:


> I have no idea why this question needs to be asked.



Soap opera effect. Its not new. But everyone figures it out at some point...









						Our TV Motion Tests: Motion Interpolation
					

Motion interpolation is a feature TVs use to increase the frame rate of content to match the TV's refresh rate. The goal of this is to help with the appearance of motion and smooth out fast-moving objects.




					www.rtings.com
				




Same stuff as we saw when The Hobbit was released with an odd framerate...

As with everything visual and in motion... our brain needs to adjust in processong the information. The actual amount of FPS can vary... 24 to 30 or 50 or 60... remember how gamers now (myself included) perceive 60 as pretty slow now that high refresh is more common. Its even preferable on the desktop.

Maybe its even better to feed your brain varying FPS so you stay nimble? An interesting experiment...


----------



## Ferather (Jul 23, 2021)

Well AMD FreeSync Premium is a minimum of 120hz, so I guess we are still at the 100-120 light bulb area.


----------

