BOE Creates 27-Inch Full HD Display With 500 Hz Refresh Rate

[WhoDecidedThat]

I haven't noticed any smearing while scrolling vertically in my last ten years of desktop LCD display here at work.

Ir's not about smearing. That was never the issue. There is a butteriness/smoothness to scrolling text when I am coding or reading articles (that's the best way I can describe it) and moving windows in these high Hz monitors. It's the difference you feel between 30 fps videos and 60 fps videos only more subtle and more buttery.

 

[bug]

Ir's not about smearing. That was never the issue. There is a butteriness/smoothness to scrolling text when I am coding or reading articles (that's the best way I can describe it) and moving windows in these high Hz monitors. It's the difference you feel between 30 fps videos and 60 fps videos only more subtle and more buttery.

That's also a good test for aggressive overdrive: scrolling black text on white background will overshoot/bleed like crazy.
If it doesn't bleed, people will simply perceive trails like text in motion. Truth be told, that's not really annoying. It's not tiring on the eye and you're not reading moving text either.

 

[Mussels]

Considering that the human eye can not determine single frames above 80hz and can not perceive a framerate above 220hz, a 500hz framerate is a waste. Give us a quality 240hz display and call it a day.

Thats not true - humans can see a single frame change in the hundreds easily

 

[lexluthermiester]

Thats not true - humans can see a single frame change in the hundreds easily

View attachment 234921

You're referring to these?

AMO.NET America's Multimedia Online (Human Eye Frames Per Second)

AMO.NET America's Multimedia Online (Human Eye Frames Per Second 2)

There were no citations stated and I can not find any USAF documentation to verify.

While exceptions to the rule exist, the fact remains that for most of the human race, the eye can not perceive individual frames of animation above 80hz and can not perceive a difference of framerate above 220hz, generally.

While I was unable to find the University study I read years ago, I was able to find an article in a science publication that shows data that was studied on the subject which supports my statement, but also shows that exceptions to the general rule happen.

Humans perceive flicker artifacts at 500 Hz - Scientific Reports

Humans perceive a stable average intensity image without flicker artifacts when a television or monitor updates at a sufficiently fast rate. This rate, known as the critical flicker fusion rate, has been studied for both spatially uniform lights and spatio-temporal displays. These studies have...

www.nature.com

Also found this which details 13millisecond perception, which is a little over 75hz;
https://news.mit.edu/2014/in-the-blink-of-an-eye-0116

This is also a paper which details information about human visual perception.
https://opg.optica.org/jdt/viewmedia.cfm?uri=jdt-12-11-1372&seq=0

The way we see things is very complicated but can be understood once the principles of vision are clear(pun intended).

 

[bug]

Thats not true - humans can see a single frame change in the hundreds easily

View attachment 234921

Except that's a totally different scenario. A sudden burst of light in a dark room will be noticeable - persistence of vision makes sure it registers. A single frame inserted among other at 200+ fps is a whole other story - PoV is overridden by the subsequent frames.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Except that's a totally different scenario. A sudden burst of light in a dark room will be noticeable - persistence of vision makes sure it registers. A single frame inserted among other at 200+ fps is a whole other story - PoV is overridden by the subsequent frames.

This is also a thing. Testing methodology is important.

 

[Assimilator]

Processing is completely different from perceiving, the brain already discards massive amounts of information that it gets from our senses, so just because we may be able to perceive a difference in smoothness between 60FPS and 165FPS, doesn't mean the brain is actually going to process at 165FPS. To make a poor analogy: if you think of a monitor as eyes and a GPU as brain, it doesn't matter if the monitor can display at 165Hz - if the GPU can only render 120FPS, the monitor is only going to display at an effective 120Hz.

Human Eye FPS: How Much Can We See and Process Visually?

Your eyes and your brain are doing a lot of work to process images — more than you may realize. Learn more about how many frames the human eye can see per second, if you can test human FPS, and more.

www.healthline.com

For example, the authors of a 2014 study out of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that the brain can process an image that your eye sees for only 13 milliseconds — a very rapid processing speed. ... Thirteen milliseconds translate into about 75 frames per second.

500Hz is nearly 7 times faster than 75Hz, I haven't seen any evidence that it would be physically possible for a human to process visual information at such a high rate.

Thats not true - humans can see a single frame change in the hundreds easily

View attachment 234921

If you're going to post a quote, have the decency to at least link to its source, mkay? http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html, followed by http://amo.net/nt/05-24-01FPS.html - although reading that load of horseshit, I kinda understand why you didn't.

 

[bug]

500Hz is nearly 7 times faster than 75Hz, I haven't seen any evidence that it would be physically possible for a human to process visual information at such a high rate.

That's the whole point, why process? Nobody processes information these days, you just have to "feel the smoothness"

 

[Assimilator]

That's the whole point, why process? Nobody processes information these days, you just have to "feel the smoothness"

Yeah... "feel" generally doesn't make for good repeatable science, which is why most of the people who keep harping on about "feel" need to sit down and STFU.

 

[lexluthermiester]

If you're going to post a quote, have the decency to at least link to its source, mkay? http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html, followed by http://amo.net/nt/05-24-01FPS.html - although reading that load of horseshit, I kinda understand why you didn't.

I already pointed those links out. Perhaps you should pay attention...

which is why most of the people who keep harping on about "feel" need to sit down and STFU.

Can't believe I have to be the one to point this out, but how about you chill a little bit and not be so aggressive to users who are not attacking or insulting you.

 

[efikkan]

500Hz is nearly 7 times faster than 75Hz, I haven't seen any evidence that it would be physically possible for a human to process visual information at such a high rate.

The brain is fairly good at processing movement, and can certainly spot stutter lower than 13 ms. Back when I tested it, I believe it was in the ~1-2 ms range.
But I'm not advocating running screens at 500+ Hz, I think that would be a waste of resources. I think it's much more important to fine-tune software (both OS kernel, drivers and the games themselves) to provide better frame time consistency. And even then, I'm not convinced running >200 Hz will be noticeable.

 

[Mussels]

Seeing a single frames change is exactly what fast paced gamers do

Again, with mismatched timings such as a game servers tickrate falling right after your screen refreshes you miss it - but a faster refresh rate will display it

Lets say we have 20 people on the server with a magical fixed ns ping (It's a LAN party on fiber optic.)
They all have 16.6ms 60hz monitors (the 1ms marketing etc is another kettle of fish i'll skip here)
One guy has a 500hz, 2ms monitor

Server has a 15ms tickrate, because it's aussie pubg.

Tick 1: 15ms
the 60hz users display this 1.6ms after it happens
the 500Hz user gets it 1ms after it happens

Slim difference, no one would notice

Tick 2: 30ms
60Hz users display this at 33.2ms
500Hz user gets it at 30ms

Tick 3: 45ms
60Hz users display it at 49.8ms
500Hz gets it at 46ms

Tick 4: 60ms
60Hz are at 66.4ms
500hz bang on 60


Now yes this is napkin math, but the point is that with external sources of delays that prevent the monitor timing being perfect - you can end up with very large delays before the image even gets sent to the monitor to display
In reality these numbers would be all over the place, with ping varying every second as well as delays from all other players in the game and THEIR pings to the server - so information is chaotically arriving at erratic times

a 60hz user vs a user with 1000FPS and Vsync off, could have a ~15ms delay before things even display
A 60hz 60FPS user, who happens to get 1ms network latency at the wrong time, can suddenly get a 15ms delay vs everyone else


This is napkin math and ignoring network latency, input latency and a dozen other variables, but not including at least this much is just ignorance

If the human eye can see a single frames difference in the hundreds, and monitor technology can show a 15ms difference quite easily... how many frames are in that 15ms? How many chances to get updated visual information vs the competition?

 

[efikkan]

Tick 1: 15ms
the 60hz users display this 1.6ms after it happens
the 500Hz user gets it 1ms after it happens
<snip>

Now yes this is napkin math, but the point is that with external sources of delays that prevent the monitor timing being perfect - you can end up with very large delays before the image even gets sent to the monitor to display
In reality these numbers would be all over the place, with ping varying every second as well as delays from all other players in the game and THEIR pings to the server - so information is chaotically arriving at erratic times

a 60hz user vs a user with 1000FPS and Vsync off, could have a ~15ms delay before things even display
A 60hz 60FPS user, who happens to get 1ms network latency at the wrong time, can suddenly get a 15ms delay vs everyone else


This is napkin math and ignoring network latency, input latency and a dozen other variables, but not including at least this much is just ignorance

If the human eye can see a single frames difference in the hundreds, and monitor technology can show a 15ms difference quite easily... how many frames are in that 15ms? How many chances to get updated visual information vs the competition?

The reality is a bit more complex than that.
A network game's end-to-end latency will be something like this:
1) Device input lag (with OS overhead). ~15 ms (if we assume USB HID)
2) Client side tick (before sending to server). If we assume 120 Hz: 1000/120 + 50%* = 12.5 ms
3) Network transfer: Variable based on distance and condition. Let's assume 10 ms (average) for this example.
4) Server tick: 60 Hz seems fairly common, so I assume that. 1000/60 + 50%+ = 25 ms
5) Network transfer - same as 3): 10 ms
6) Client side tick (yes, again): 12.5 ms
7a) Rendering at 60 FPS: 1000/60 + 50%* = 25 ms
7b) Rendering at 120 FPS: 1000/120 + 50%* = 12.5 ms
7c) Rendering at 500 FPS: 1000/500 + 50%* = 3 ms
8) Frame pacing: unpredictable
9) Monitor input lag: I assume 5 ms
Total:
Scenario a 60 FPS: 115 ms
Scenario b 120 FPS: 102.5 ms
Scenario c 500 FPS: 93 ms
You decide whether this difference is significant or not. And keep in mind I assumed a low network latency here. I'm also ignoring pixel response time of the monitor, only looking at the monitor's input lag. I'm also assuming V-Sync is not used.

*) 50% is added for average variation whenever two things are not in sync. If a packet/event comes in 0.0002 ms too late, it needs to wait for the next tick.

So look at the impact if some of the other factors changed, like:
* Increasing the client and/or server side tick rate, e.g. to 200 Hz
* Choosing a game server that's closer
* Using a faster input device, either a device with a special protocol or PS/2.

 

[Mussels]

The reality is a bit more complex than that.

I know its way more complex, it was just an example that with random erratic timing of inputs, higher refresh rates increase the chance of the timing working in your favour

 

[Prima.Vera]

To be honest, I definitely can tell the smooth difference between 60Fps and 100fps or from a 60Hz screen to a 100Hz screen.
However I can also definitely say, I couldn't see absolutely no difference in the smoothness on a 240Hz panel running CS at ~240Fps, compared to 100Hz/100Fps.

 

[Mussels]

To be honest, I definitely can tell the smooth difference between 60Fps and 100fps or from a 60Hz screen to a 100Hz screen.
However I can also definitely say, I couldn't see absolutely no difference in the smoothness on a 240Hz panel running CS at ~240Fps, compared to 100Hz/100Fps.

part of that is because of the marketing BS
To reach 1000Hz, all parts of the screen need to run at 1ms (and for 500hz, 2ms, and so on)

Except uhh... they measure grey to grey.

Some monitors, simply cant keep up. Thats why VA panels get that black crush/smearing, for example.

I wonder if OLEDs future variants is the answer, but for now not all high refresh rate monitors can truly display at those rates, so of course you dont always see it