LG Products

So, I'm thinking about getting an LG 32" TV as a replacement for my analog TV and crt. Its a ridiculous deal for a 120 Hz 2ms response time. I'm just wondering about the quality of LG products. Anyone recommend them? Do they last, etc?

I can't speak for the tv's but I have had other LG products that served me well.

L2k wrote:I can't speak for the tv's but I have had other LG products that served me well.

Such as?

It may be your TV that you say is a crt, and replacing that with the LG TV would be fine for television and movies; however if you are planning on using it for your PC/games and are still using that GTX 460, you should note that the maximum refresh rate for a HDMI TV-out on these Fermi-GPU cards is 60Hz.

It was pretty fucking gay when I found that out trying to get my PC to goto 240Hz on my friends 52" LED TV. The maximum refresh rate listed on the Fermi cards is 240Hz, but that is only from the goddamn Dual-link DVI cable. Does that LG model have a dual-dvi input?
I think I was looking at that TV when it was on sale in October 2010 until I realized it would not fit on my desk. I settled on the over-priced ASUS 120Hz monitor. And yah, 120Hz is rape, but I have only seen PC's being able to achieve it through a DVI cable of some kind. Even when my Asian friend (so he obviously knew his shit on electronics) got a DVI-to-HDMI converter thingy, it still would only display any type of image whilst in "TV mode" under nVidia control panel - which if you look is only @ 60-mother-fucking-Hz.

TV's are made for console games, and consoles are usually locked @ 24/30fps; as such, the moronic masses that play COD don't know jack shit about proper FPS:Hz and won't demand a DVI link for 100+ hertz. I want to shove them all in an oven.

Aside form all that, LG electronics have done well by me in my experience with them. Never had to RMA or know what their customer support is like.
Sorry for not being of more help.

EDIT: Shit from LG I have used:
some 16:10 monitor (1440x900@60hz and 5ms)
Bunch of phones; all were very durable and did not break, but I lost 2 'casue I am an idiot and the last one was stolen.
Currently using a LG Optimus V and its pretty solid.

The monitor is from 2005 and still works well as the display for my Server shizzle.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 2032le5300

Doesn't look like it has DVI

The products I have had by LG were phones and dvd players ect.

Looking at the picture of the TV it has no DVI but it does have the RGB connector which may allow for more than 60 hz. My sony crt will do 150 hz over that same type of input so I would think it would work here as well. Possibly you could contact LG technical support to find out for sure though.

I'm curious what you are talking about. New Guy is blabbing about refresh rates and shit, but a simple question might be, are you going to watch CABLE on the TV and also run your PC through it?

Of course, if you are hooking up cable, it doesn't make a fuck if your PC DVMI/SuperQuad/DRM output is only 60 h.
And again LEDs don't fucking refresh like CRTs.

But, no DVI means you'd have hookup the PC some other way.

Somehow, your video card being locked at 60hz sounds like BS. Not sure, but why would that be?

Im pretty sure NG is correct about that when using the nvidia control panels tv out option, however if you use the pc display options it should perform the same as it would with any monitor.
Ive yet to see nice looking text on a tv though so thats something to think about too.

Contacting their customer support is the best idea, you'll get a feel for what any needed RMA process would be like and they will know if your PC gaming will be @ 120Hz.

According the the research my oriental Best Buy manager friend has done, TV's, as opposed to monitors, are shit when it comes to actual PC gaming above 60hz.
Something to do with the interface LCD/LED's do with the DVI shit.
In the CRT days, I am told, you had to get the driver info and stuff for your display and install it so the VGA knew what was going-down on the output end.
Zaulphkar (the best buy fag) tells me that the analog interface would not transfer the display's specifications to the VGA, just shit about the raw video data; whereas this LCD of mine was recognized right off the bat by my 470's as an ASUS VG236He and knew all the possible refresh rates ranging from 50hz to 120hz.
Plain, simple, Plug&Play. It's the only way a tech-moron like me can roll.

So the new video cards, like the Fermi ones, are expecting the display to automatically tell them wtf is going on.
Unless of course, it is in TV mode which pretty much forces the Video Card to behave similar to a blu-ray player, and the VGA just plainly transmits the video-shit and lets the TV figure the rest out.
In my attempt to play Half-Life games @ true 240Hz, since I always get above 300fps, I could only see any kind of image on the TV while in the basic nVidia-TV-mode.
This was true in both a DVI-to-analog and DVI-to-HDMI connections in both the one analog-PC-port of Z's TV and all 5 of his HDMI ones. Ultra redundant, yah, but I really wanted to see hl2dm @ 240hz. Nothing worked, and it was stuck @ 60hz.
Z now tells me it is because of this lack of 'specification-data-thing' that the VGA would say "fuck off" to my idea of PC shit @ 240Hz.
His TV was a Samsung brand, but I doubt LG is that much different.

I am confident, like Punk, that you can pull-off 120hz in hl2dm on that TV display; you just need to nig-rig it.
I am sure there is some riviaTuner-mod shit that will let you take control of your card and transmit whatever you'd like however you'd like.
Setting a Refresh rate too high will fuck up the display, not the card, so it can't be impossible.

You're very pretty and intelligent Constipator, so I believe in you.
Go forth.

"In my attempt to play Half-Life games @ true 240Hz, since I always get above 300fps"

Numbnuts, i will say it again: LEDs do NOT REFRESH like CRTs and the "refresh" rate has nothing at all to do with your FPS from the game.
FFS, they are in no way related.
Hertz in a flat screen is almost completely irrelevant to a CRT and even on a CRT, has nothing to do with FPS.

Yeah, pretty decent deal for a LG

$629.99 - $280 with code LG32328 = $350 + free shipping

LG have the best support on the planet. As for makers though, i'd look for a Samsung. Should find a great looking and reasonably priced piece with them too.

I hear dell are going to release a 40 inch 120hz computer monitor soon.

There are two manufacturers. the rest are brands. Samsung is one for sure. can't recall the other one.

Buy samsung. They never dissapoint.

provost wrote:Buy samsung. They never dissapoint.

QFT

The Argumentalizer wrote:"In my attempt to play Half-Life games @ true 240Hz, since I always get above 300fps"

Numbnuts, i will say it again: LEDs do NOT REFRESH like CRTs and the "refresh" rate has nothing at all to do with your FPS from the game.
FFS, they are in no way related.
Hertz in a flat screen is almost completely irrelevant to a CRT and even on a CRT, has nothing to do with FPS.

My nuts, as well as my cock, are far from being numb and are also fully functional w/out the need for any type of drug or medial treatment; jealous much?

And refresh rate does mean how many times a image is "drawn" or "displayed" per second? - right? - Thats what "Hertz" means right? cycles per second?
And when a VGA renders a image of a 3D application, it does so in frames, so "FPS" stands for "frames per second" - right?
and yah, CRT's would flicker when your FPS dropped below your refresh rate, or so I was told by people who used 150Hz monitors in the q3 days...
Whereas a LCD or LED display would just have the same image displayed and you would just notice a lack of smoothness or something and it would NOT be as eye-bleeding bad.
Am I somewhat-right so far?

So when I am playing an open-world/highly-demanding game like Crysis and I notice such a lack of smoothness on my Display, it has nothing to do with the fact I just suffered a fps drop of 25 frames from 100 to 75?
And when that same game seems "smooth as butter" as I look at the sky and the MSI Afterburner tells me I am @ the vertical-sync'd max of 120fps (for my particular Display), it has nothing to do with the fact that I am aiming at a helicopter which is the only thing my PC has to render in that instance?
Nothing at all? FPS lag is a myth? Like global warming or climate change?
Please enlighten me further Impala, and try to refrain from referencing male genitals and how they feel to you. 'tanks.
When did you have a chance to feel my nuts anyhow? I usually charge 300$ per hour for that kind of shit.

- Anywho -

I was fairly certain that there WAS a correlation between FPS and Refresh Rate.
Much like how Nutri-Grain was all proud about his new i7 machine getting 1000fps in lockdown only to learn via Deathwish that he was only seeing the effective "FPS" of his LCD display's vertical-refresh-rate which was, and currently is still, @ 75hz.
The VGA rendering 1000 frames a second, the LCD displaying the entire screen's image at a rate of 75 times a second. This OK? Seem right at all?
This subject has been covered a-whole-fucking-lot on these forums and the debate was not over FPS to Refresh-Hertz but whether or not the human eye could tell the difference between actual 60fps and 120fps (or above that).
I even recall Fearsome saying something along the lines of "you should not buy an expensive-ass display if you can't afford the PC hardware to Render images at the speed of the Display, if you want to fully enjoy your shit that is." Prolly less profane, but you all get the idea. My dick is small.
I am fairly certain that Constipator wants to use this display, or any new one of any brand, for everything and enjoy it fully including a dead-ass game of hl2dm.
For the record, my friends TV was a LCD one w/ LED back-lit crap - whatever that means.

I am pretty sure my own eye's don't lie:
hl2dm seems much smoother on this 120Hz display over any other one I have used, CRT or otherwise.
If I set my fps_max value BELOW 110, I noticed the game being less smooth. If I have no fps cap and it ranges from 340-670, I notice no sort of defamation of game-play/smoothness.
In ANY game I can tell a difference between <30 fps, 40:50 fps, from 50:60, from 60:75, from 85:100, and from 100:110. I do not see a difference in like 112:119 or above.
The entire time my Video cards say my Display is at 1920x1080p @ 120Hz. P means progressive scan right? No Interlaced crap, eh?
Borderlands seems 10x smoother on my PC than on the PS3 version being displayed by the aforementioned 240Hz TV, for many console games are locked @ 30 fps.
But for the "sake of fucking," they are "no-way related," or is Impala mistaken?

Can someone who knows their shit clear this up for me?
Much like when my undergrad Biology Professor said the human eye CANT detect anything over 75hz, which I believed and then found to be fucking wrong in another thread, I hate it when people pretend to know shit and allow me to regurgitate it upon others only to look like a complete fool.
Fucking old people piss me off.

You got it right as far as I know and believe it to be NG.
Also I just didn't feel like going into all that and trying to explain it again for the billionth time, not that he would ever believe he is wrong anyway.

I think this is the simplest way to explain to him NG XD

Its like preschool.

So, NewGuy, you're saying that the card and not even the nvidia control panel will let you display above 60hz when connected via HDMI to a TV?



Even with the "Customize" button, where I can choose a refresh rate, it will be maxed @ 60hz on HDMI connection (to an HDTV)?

I just found out my brother's Samsung 120hz led monitor is connected via DVI and the refresh rate is 60 fucking hertz. The display is beautiful, and there's no lack of smoothness or any of that bullshit when he's playing games. I'VE played on it, and it's fucking perfect. The fuck are you people talking about?

U can chose wateva u want?
Doesnt mean it will work?

There is a simple matter that Led flat screens DO NOT refresh a FRAME ever. The smoothness of your game has nothing to do with the visuals the monitor is putting out. Stop talking about CRTs altogether. They play no part in this discussion about LED. They are an entirely different technology.

LEDs refresh individual pixels as they are needed to change and only when they are needed to change. The HERTZ you speak of is update, how often the monitor updates information from the frames. It STILL changes pixels individually.
Like dark areas, maybe they don't change for X seconds.

Numbskull (that probably is more accurate), there is no FPS LAG in your monitor. The game runs, your monitor displays, period.

Don't make me have to come up there!

Yes and the individual pixels will be changing less often at 60hz, gets it?

Constipator:

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
No matter what I did, no custom or PC resolution would display any kind of image on my test-HDTV in both the analog-PC connector as well as the HDMI ones.
The max Refresh Rate in the HD/SD category is 60Hz; I surmise this based on the fact that it was the only option available in the drag-down menu and how the TV's menu said the input source was 1920x1080p@60hz.

It could be that the 240hz TV is newer and does not include such legacy support for the PC port and crap. Then again I don't know shit.
If you care to know, I can find out the model-specific info on that samsung TV and post it at some point.
I also have a riviaTuner mod and SLI going on so there are other variables that may be fucking me.
It is not like I would care to disable SLI to use a 120/240hz TV - how the fuck would I play any DX11 game with even average/low settings @ at least 240 fps on a single card?

This now brings me to Impala:
Thank you for the info, for I did not now how LED's differed in their display method of pixels and such.
Even though the LED is not drawing the entire screen in one pass like a CRT (in progressive scan), it would still update nearly all the pixels on that screen if you do a 360 spin or something and would be deriving that visual-information from your VGA/PC.
The display receives this information in Frames-Per-Second, and its been that way for quite some time. Silly goose.

It seems we were "arguing" about two different things: I thought you were saying that it was solely up to the display as to how smooth a game appeared and FPS played no part at all, and you thought I was saying that FPS will change how a display would *display* its images/environments.
If, however, that actually is what you were saying: I call morons upon you.

If I spent 300$ on this Monitor and had not the PC to have at least 120 fps in all my games, it would be a waste; Waste is bad, and its why I bring it to the attention of a guy, who prefers to waste-not, like Constipator.
So Constipator would WANT 120hz on a 350$ TV for games, if it will work.
120hz in an environment, like what you find in video games, when you are perceiving depth is much more "immersive" and WORTH the cash than fucking Movies or TV shows @ the same display/refresh rate.
On a 60Hz display, I could not tell a difference in FPS above 60, k?

So yes, as Pern said the entire screen on a LED can be refreshed at a maximum of the listed specification. HL2dm @ 120hz (provided the test PC is always over 120fps) should "feel" the same on my 120Hz LCD as it would a 120Hz CRT.
How it would actually *look* would obviously be different, but the same feel while flying around in-game should be consistent on both technologies.
Or so I would think.
You could argue that CRT's are inferior, since you would get a gay-ass flicker if your FPS dropped below the value of the Refresh rate. This would be due to the fact that the CRT display would have no image to draw at that particular split-second moment.
Am I right people like Ko-Tao, Pern, and Deathwish?
LCD or LED crap would just leave the previous image within the pixels and you would just feel the lag of a shitty PC, hence "fps lag."
Now I am repeating my shitty self. Apologies.

Constipator wrote:I just found out my brother's Samsung 120hz led monitor is connected via DVI and the refresh rate is 60 fucking hertz. The display is beautiful, and there's no lack of smoothness or any of that bullshit when he's playing games. I'VE played on it, and it's fucking perfect. The fuck are you people talking about?

I noticed a huge difference in a move from a 1600x1200@75Hz CRT to a 1440x900@60Hz-5ms LCD in 2005.
It was positive in favor for the LCD display, since It caused less eye-bleeding and seemed more "smooth" w/ my shitty PC.

Why is the Samsung monitor listed @ 120Hz but your VGA input is only @ 60hz?
Is it a real monitor or a HDTV like what I tried to fuck with?

I will say that 60hz on this display feels like a joke compared to 120hz max, especially on a well-made open game like Red Faction Guerrilla.
Once you play real fps's @ 120Hz, you will want nothing less; I did fucking tolerate it on Crysis, 'casue I mean yah - not like I am starving w/ aids in Africa or something.
Still, you will be more anal (tee-hee) about it and will work to mod Unreal Engine games (to remove the FPS smoothing that locks the games @ 62fps) and such.

I got this Display, which is terrible for hdmi TV/Movies, for 290$ on sale and I don't regret it at all.
If there is a Samsung equivalent now, go for it.

Pernicious wrote:Yes and the individual pixels will be changing less often at 60hz, gets it?

LOL, no I don't think he gets that!
Either that or he thinks there is no difference in seeing a image rendered twice as fast in situations like NG stated such as doing a 180 or 360 flick.
Lets just end the argument by saying those who have seen the difference or are capable of seeing the difference know the advantage and the pleasure it brings to the eye, and those who cannot or have not well thats just a shame.

Ohh, i get it. That isn't my point towards New Guys posts though.
There is no doubt twice the updates may give some margin of better performance.

i doubt one would even notice, but if they psychologically think it's better, than it is, in their minds.
But thanks for helping prove my point that the new technology does not work like the old.
LEDs do not refresh entire frames. They translate frames into a an ever changing matrix of separate pixels.
And twice the refresh will give some technical improvement, if the pixels can keep up the speed of change.

Still, none of this applies to Card FPS or FPS lag or whatever.
And refresh rates in Hertz for a CRT do not apply to LEDs.

So, i never did state there is no performance difference between 60 and 120 updates per second on a an LED, now did i!?!

I have a point to make directed only at Punk.

Turn your head real fast. Did you see a blurring? How many updates per second can you improve on the human eye and brain!?
Care to answer that? When you spin around fast, did your 120 hertz render you brain capable of seeing every frame without blurring?

Your comment sounds like you think that higher updates will improve the human brain and eye as far as Blurring or tearing when spinning 180 or whatever.
The notion is false.

So, apply the terms that are applicable to the tech, such as pixel rate in ms and updates.
And then explain why the more updates will cause less blurring than the human eye and brain are capable in reality.
Then, explain if you understand this idea or not.
And maybe there is a reason games put motion blur INTO gaming.

The Argumentalizer wrote:I have a point to make directed only at Punk.

Turn your head real fast. Did you see a blurring? How many updates per second can you improve on the human eye and brain!?
Care to answer that? When you spin around fast, did your 120 hertz render you brain capable of seeing every frame without blurring?

Your comment sounds like you think that higher updates will improve the human brain and eye as far as Blurring or tearing when spinning 180 or whatever.
The notion is false.

So, apply the terms that are applicable to the tech, such as pixel rate in ms and updates.
And then explain why the more updates will cause less blurring than the human eye and brain are capable in reality.
Then, explain if you understand this idea or not.
And maybe there is a reason games put motion blur INTO gaming.

can't compare LCD to CRT.
proceed to compare looking at a static screen to looking around in real life.

GTFO
Blur caused by shifting in and out of focus has nothing to do with refresh rate or anything else for that matter.

can't compare LCD to CRT.
proceed to compare looking at a static screen to looking around in real life.

GTFO
Blur caused by shifting in and out of focus has nothing to do with refresh rate or anything else for that matter.
--------------------------
Do you have a comprehension problem?
Did you even read any of this?
Where do you get the idea i am comparing CRTs and LEDS?? Fucking GOOFY.

Also, it is not my point that blurring caused by...has anything to do with refresh rate...

My point is that blurring occurs when scenes spin 180 fast, regardless of high update rates and fast pixels.
Let me explain. Spinning fast in the game isn't going to become unblurry because your monitor updates a million times a second.
If you spin quickly in real life, ie a scene flies by at high speed, it's going to blur regardless of your monitor, your card, your hertz, your update rates.

Do you get it now Cheesehead?

What I meant was...
Argumentalizer says you cant compare LED to CRT
Argumentalizer then says you should compare looking at a screen to looking around in real life.

sorry for the confusion.

Why is it any different? A whirling landscape is the same whether in real life or a 3d environment.
Why would you expect to see a fast moving 3D environment perfectly, without blur, when it is impossible in real life?
Aren't you using the same eye and brain!?

LOL at how many twists and turns this thread has taken on.

Lets think about this part of the equation impala for a second. There are some games played where you may want ultra realism,
and then there are some games you may play where you do not want ultra realism, you want ultra performance and every little
advantage you can get such as no blurring, no tearing and the images rendered as ultra fast and consistent as technologically possible.

This being a HL2DM forum and a game where most players are pretty competitive, I think comparing what you see on your monitor to real life is an invalid argument.
Of course in real life you are going to see motion blur but the point is that it can be eliminated when using certain types of setups for gaming. No matter how little of
an advantage that might be to each individual, it remains just that an advantage.

srslyNOTnewguy wrote:You could argue that CRT's are inferior, since you would get a gay-ass flicker if your FPS dropped below the value of the Refresh rate. This would be due to the fact that the CRT display would have no image to draw at that particular split-second moment.

Hmmmm no not that i know of, if ur frame rate drops ur screen still displays at the same refresh rate it just starts to display frames longer depending on how long they are up, like 1 frame is displayed twice then the next thrice, or i allways thought this atleast.
I never noticed any flicker or anything at all while playing at 100-160hz with fps drops.

And argumentaliser, playing games at 160hz u can see a difference, big time, especially faster paced games like cpma, and cpma being on an old engine its easy to keep a constant 160 frames per second to match. Maybe u should go find a cheap 21-22 inch crt on ebay and see for yourself.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Why is it any different? A whirling landscape is the same whether in real life or a 3d environment.
Why would you expect to see a fast moving 3D environment perfectly, without blur, when it is impossible in real life?
Aren't you using the same eye and brain!?

Lets say in real life u stood still with ur head in the sky, and down from the heavens comes some massive asteroid moving at tens of thousands of miles per hour, BOOOM! It hits nearby so its all over very fast.
It would look much smoother in real life then in a game @60hz, make no mistake. Since most the frames from teh sequence would not even display, thats just basic maths right thar.
Also i can whirl in real life and i dont see notable blur, u must has fuxed eyes dewd.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Why is it any different? A whirling landscape is the same whether in real life or a 3d environment.
Why would you expect to see a fast moving 3D environment perfectly, without blur, when it is impossible in real life?
Aren't you using the same eye and brain!?

When you look at a screen you're looking at a 2D plane. You perceive depth, but you're eyes are focused on the surface of the screen no matter what the game inside does. That's why a lot of FPS games now blur the background when you're reloading to put the focus on your gun. If you just look at your gun in a game like HL2DM you can still see the rest of the map perfectly.
Also, there's no peripheral vision when you're playing a game. Your peripheral vision works completely different then your center vision, and probably contributes to blur more then anything else.

I'm no eye specialist but its pretty obvious that these situations aren't the same.

O really, so your eyes are supposed to X feet per second flying by at high speeds and make them perfectly unblurred because you are running 120 hertz.
This is more than just 2d or 3D. Your eyes can never be expected to see a blur of fast motion unblurred by ANY means.

This seems to be a point only a few dilettantes like Punk, who believe they see great differences in things that are just not there.
FFS he has an ancient crappy CRT and swears it is better than any LCD/LED.
It's a lot of foolishness.
The eye can discern some things but it can't be made to unblur fast moving scenery, whether real or not! Got that.
The human eye cannot perform better than it performs because you believe it does.

I have noticed a lot lately, because i have been playing with music, that i spin a lot more and look and there is no TEARING or any other such problem with my 60 Hz monitor.
Some folks are simply mistaken. Some are the same folks that preach the wonders of CRTS!

To close, the average is never going to notice any difference.
If one were a top competitive gamer looking for every OUNCE of performance, i can understand.
For the rest of the folks, this stuff is nonsense. Buy a good high quality 2ms 60 to 120 hertz monitor and be happy.
Your eyes aren't going to become bionic overnight.

The Argumentalizer wrote:The human eye cannot perform better than it performs because you believe it does.

Say wat now, u still dont believe the 60-75hz myth do u. More and more ppl are realising these days how bullshit that is.
And it doesnt take a pro gamer to notice the diff between 60 and 120, its huge, anyone can see it if given the chance.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Your eyes can never be expected to see a blur of fast motion unblurred by ANY means..

Seriously, wat the fuck is wrong with your eyes lol.
Lets say im strolling through a jungle, and i hear something beside me, out from behind a tree goes a horse, fast.....my eyes focus on the horse and even though this all hapens very fast i can see the horse and every move it makes clearly until it dissapears behind another tree half a second later, now everything else might be blurred a bit but because my eyes are focused on teh horse, it doesnt matter how fast its moving i will see everything.
Are u saying that the horse for u, would be blurry?

The Argumentalizer wrote:The human eye cannot perform better than it performs because you believe it does.

Indeed, in real life we see at much higher rates then any monitor can produce, so the difference of 120 and above should be easy to discern yea?

"Say wat now, u still dont believe the 60-75hz myth do u. More and more ppl are realising these days how bullshit that is.
And it doesnt take a pro gamer to notice the diff between 60 and 120, its huge, anyone can see it if given the chance."

I am not saying there is NO difference. I am saying who gives a fuck, most won't notice, this stuff is for nerds, the advantage you think it might give is negligible.
All the while, real people are trying to make real decisions with their money and a few elite gamers are telling then X doesn't perform the Nth degree. Who cares.
Anyone that is arguing CRTS now is just weird.
Lacking common sense.

Punk referred to adding REALISM to games. Realism, as in reality.
Like i said, all a sensible person has to do is spin around 180 and see if they see the entire scene without blur.
NO, YOU CANNOT, because the brain cannot take in but so much info at a time.

120 hertz will not get anyone one extra kill.
120 hertz may perform on paper better than 60 but not TWICE as good.

This is my point. 2ms 60 hertz monitors perform fine and look great for 99% of folks.
For Punk, and KoTao and Pern, stay with your CRTs and stop acting like 120 hertz is twice as good.
LEDs don't work like CRTs. 60 times a second is fast. 120 will not make your eyes see twice as fast.

Maybe you can find some actual evidence for this stuff, like testimony from Ophthalmologists and Neuroscientists.

vhut!
Ophthalmologists and Neuroscientists will tell u the complete opposite of wat u just said, the brain processes more information then any personal computer for a start.

If u want a study look up military research on frames per second or how many frames can the human eye see, etc.
I found a whole pdf on it, not sure its the right one as i havent read through it, complicated wordy shiz.

"I am not saying there is NO difference. I am saying who gives a fuck, most won't notice"

False, even my sister can see the difference and she aint no gamer. The thing is, it will net u more kills assuming ur practiced, ofcourse u need to be comfortable with ur mouse and watnot but take someone who is very practiced and talented(and to be honest they only need to be decent or half decent) and compare their performance on 60hz to 120+ and they will be notably better on 120+ easily. Now while u might argue that this proves ur point about being a practiced/pro gamer the other advantages with 120+ is smoother animations, clarity of textures during movement, yada yada yada. The best way to describe it is ....simply, YOU SEE MORE.
So lets say u have 2 monitors that are exactly the same, both very high quality, fine dot pitch, 1 @ 60hz, the other @120, which one do u think will look better graphically? YEP thats correct, the second.
There are alot of ppl out there who appreciate quality who arent pro gamers. So theres plenty of reason to go 120+ if u has the cash to spare without care.

The Argumentalizer wrote:LEDs don't work like CRTs. 60 times a second is fast. 120 will not make your eyes see twice as fast.

Make your eyes?
Your eyes allready see way more then twice that, ADOI, and airforce study showed that pilots could identify frames and even the planes in the pictures at up to 500 frames per second.
For example they flashed 1 picture for 1 frame in a 300-500 frames per second sequence, google it im sure u can find it. I is lazy, maybe someone else will.

"If u want a study look up military research on frames per second or how many frames can the human eye see, etc.
I found a whole pdf on it, not sure its the right one as i havent read through it, complicated wordy shiz."

We are not talking about FRAMES per second!

Why do you fall back to nonsense?

Here is a test:

Spin around 180 degrees fast, several times and tell me what you saw.
Did you see roughly your peripheral vision at 12 Oclock and then the same at 6?
Did you notice you do not really see to the side clearly? That is your BRAIN working with your eyes.
Now try something else. Place your hand up 45 degrees to your head out as far as you can.
Now, looking forward, like an FPS, sweep your hand across to the other side and tell us what you saw.
Now, do the same thing and follow your to the other side.
What did you see?

You know jack shit, just some theoretical mumbo jumbo.

The reason your sister sees a difference is that you prompted her to.
Or you actually believe in physiological impossibilities that are unproven.
POST some damn scientific evidence for your case, from a reputable source, or shut the fuck up!

"Make your eyes?
Your eyes allready see way more then twice that, ADOI, and airforce study showed that pilots could identify frames and even the planes in the pictures at up to 500 frames per second.
For example they flashed 1 picture for 1 frame in a 300-500 frames per second sequence, google it im sure u can find it. I is lazy, maybe someone else will."

WHo the fuck is talking about identifying one frame in a thousand!?!?

Do you really think this bolsters your case for continuous eyesight at different hertz?
Yeah, I SAW the embed in the Exorcist, one frame, twice, in the movie, with corpse paint.
So fucking what!?

The Argumentalizer wrote:We are not talking about FRAMES per second!

"Frame rate, or frame frequency, is the frequency (rate) at which an imaging device produces unique consecutive images called frames. The term applies equally well to computer graphics, video cameras, film cameras, and motion capture systems. Frame rate is most often expressed in frames per second (FPS), and is also expressed in progressive scan monitors as hertz (Hz)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

frame rate, and hz, same shit fool.

The Argumentalizer wrote:Spin around 180 degrees fast, several times and tell me what you saw.
Did you see roughly your peripheral vision at 12 Oclock and then the same at 6?
Did you notice you do not really see to the side clearly? That is your BRAIN working with your eyes.
Now try something else. Place your hand up 45 degrees to your head out as far as you can.
Now, looking forward, like an FPS, sweep your hand across to the other side and tell us what you saw.
Now, do the same thing and follow your to the other side.
What did you see?

How is this test relevant? I see wat my eyes focus on, having background and foreground scenery blur for being in and out of focus could be an effect in games in the future u know....
If i focus on my hand and move it really fast, back an forth the same way i see my hand very clearly and the background is blurry. But the fact that i can make out every detail on my hand while its moving that fast proves my point.
Also spinning around its the same thing, i see wat my eyes focus on as im spinning, i was spinning my head just now and while doing it i can still make out the brand name on my fan, theres no blur persay though to read really small writing i would have to stop and focus a bit, but once again, thats focus, wat the fuck are u even trying to argue here by crapping on about a test that shows how your eyes focus?

Considering your eyes dont have to refocus constantly while staring at a screen makes it very easy to discern the difference.

You guys remember that time when Impala and Pern started spinning in their chairs whilst simultaneously going back-and-forth on Constipator's innocent, little, quality-concern tread?

Good times.





For the record, I spun around in my chair only once.

...make that twice.

haha spinning in your chair is fun though.....until somebody pukes.

.....

























Then its hilarious.

Wait, one more time....







WWWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

I HATE YOU!

Sooooo...did you buy the LG or what?