TR Forums

So, after watching a video like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... TtgW20IEm0

Which I found on RPS today, after playing through Skyrim, which has some amazing looking graphics, especially on characters, and playing through Rage, which does have some really sharp textures mixed in with the crap smears if you have the right settings configured, I've reached the realization that LCDs are actually reducing the quality of graphics in high motion scenes.

I'm not talking about still images, rather smearing that occurs due to low refresh rate/response. Generally speaking LCDs have sat at around 2ms response and 60hz refresh for quite some time, but even with vsync enabled in high motion scenes everything blurs (tearing particularly isn't what is effecting this). This actually gets proportionally worse at higher resolutions with more graphically intense scenes. The more detail that is in the scene, the more 'noise' you get that is displayed on the screen as there is nothing picking exactly what the pixels draw when they have a instant to morph. Not only do you lose detail, but you also lose situational awareness as the pixels that are actually drawn don't always coincide with one another (say part of an explosion, compared to a silhouette).

An example of this can be scene by playing a game like TF2 which has very recognizable silhouettes and good poly levels, compared to a game like BF3 which has a lot of detail. This is especially noticeable when trying to recognize someone in a bush, when you are running by. I'm not talking about camouflage. Even if you know the guy is there, they become unrecognizable due to the blurring of the polys as your monitor tries to render them.


This makes me wonder if AMD, NVidia, or even game makers have went out of their way to actually choose very precisely what to draw in high fluidity scenes or when a player is changing perspective quite fast. Something similar to QoS or a NCQ for monitors. So pixels that matter, such as someones outline have precedence over part of a explosion. Putting aside what monitor companies can due to improve monitors, which they aren't doing. Finding a small monitor with 120hz refresh is really hard and quite expensive even though TVs that have that feature are all over the place. Currently there are only 13 results on Newegg out of the 437 LCD monitors they have available and those weren't there when I checked last year.

Interesting, this would be right up Lucid's alley.

This is a semi-solved problem. The term for what you are describing is "ghosting", and good LCD monitors deal with it by doing various forms of processing on the image before displaying it. AMD has an option in their Catalyst drivers to overdrive pixels to get them to change faster, and you can calibrate it to your specific monitor. However a lot of monitors are doing this themselves as part of the above mentioned processing.

I'm not referring to ghosting specifically. Ghosting in itself refers to a after image formed from pixels that can't catch up to the image. If we talk about it broadly, as ghosting referring to response times of pixels and artifacts forming because of it, this would appear as a more advanced form of ghosting. As ghosting itself has been largely reduced by pixels that morph almost fast enough so a whole after image is no longer left behind. If you take a whole field of swaying grass and apply it to current monitors it doesn't leave behind after images of the grass, everything just blurs together now. Adding to this it seems like current monitors actually muddle the picture with prediction algorithms (such as you described) and with high detail levels ghosted images are no longer left behind as pixels right next to each other can be completely different parts of different objects in game, grass, a belt, a gun, a explosion effect. So this is cumulative effect of a multitude of different things.

Particularly I'm referring to making sense of the noise and determining a better method of delivery. Not based on prediction (such as over drive), but rather on what a user actually needs to see in order to make sense of an image.

I think you're overcomplicating things; the "blurring together" you describe is just a more subtle form of ghosting, or in the case of scene complexity is the result of the video card's inability to render at a fast enough rate. The monitor is only rendering in two dimensions; it has no idea what a polygon is.

Get a good monitor and a fast video card (or two) and the effect completely goes away. For reference, I have a 120 hz monitor with 6970s in crossfire.

As I understand it, the first (and most inexpensive) "120 hz" televisions are actually just interleaving a white frame between the actual 60 hz being supplied. That's why they don't support 3d even though it should be relatively simple to support 3d on a true 120 hz monitor.

Yes, this could be a more advanced form of ghosting as I described it in my last post. This was an attempt at a hypothetical discussion on the direction of technology used to improve such issues and overall discussion of the topic for other users who may (or may not) have experienced such issues. There is nothing on the market that completely eliminates the issue and there seems to be no one going out of their way to improve upon it, even though it does affect video quality. In other words, there is no solution or silver bullet.

For instance I have a 6970 and what is considered the best gaming monitor on the market, yet this is a very distinct issue most people tune out. Crossfire and SLI implementations also exhibit microstuttering, so it seems rather fruitless to chase after the issue by adding a second card to the mix.

There are other issues concerning 120hz monitors, some of which don't even accept 120hz input from a computer or like you're saying they simply interpret the picture. Such TVs actually predict what the next frame looks like, which further adds to noise in things that aren't easily predicted (such as video game). Some 3D monitors as well only accept 120hz input when they're being operated in 3D mode, you can read reviews about this on Newegg. So the overall experience is muddled.

About the best advent in this area is Lucid's Virtu, which Scott (or Geoff) touched on for a bit, but that doesn't specifically address perceptive issues when it comes to LCDs or detail levels, which adversely effect displays of this nature. Like you said, a monitor doesn't know what a polygon is. I think that's part of the problem as a monitor is a dumb device it doesn't know what parts of a scene needed to be rendered just in time and what part of the scenes are trivial. Like a silhouette of a character compared to a backdrop.

I am pleased I was smart enough to grab one of the last great CRTs. A 34" Sony XS 955:

http://reviews.cnet.com/direct-view-tvs ... 87609.html

The Super Fine Picture tube is about 60% sharper, a very fine grill, than the regular Sony HD TVs.

I love it. Games are so fine on this beast and the HD video is amazing. Put your face against the screen, 6" to 8" or so and you can see fine lines. Any LCD is gross at that distance.

I play my games about 30" from the 34" display.

I gave my Sony KD-34XBR960 television to my folks last year. That 200-lb monster was the pinnacle of CRT television development, but a good LCD or plasma television is much more suitable for a PC monitor and for high-definition movies. 1080p resolution with a 120 Hz refresh rate allows 23.996 Hz Blu-ray movies to play back without any nasty telecine judder or interlacing.

JustAnEngineer wrote:

I gave my Sony KD-34XBR960 television to my folks last year. That 200-lb monster was the pinnacle of CRT television development, but a good LCD or plasma television is much more suitable for a PC monitor and for high-definition movies. 1080p resolution with a 120 Hz refresh rate allows 23.996 Hz Blu-ray movies to play back without any nasty telecine judder or interlacing.

Yeah the interlace over 720P is a disadvantage alright. I find games are very fluid interlaced at higher resolutions though.

Too bad newer HDTVs including my 3d vt30 55 inch 120hrtz/ 600hrtz plasma 3dtv cannot handle a computer input higher then 60hrtz.Sure it can do 120hrtz 3d but its just giving you 60 flashes per eye x2 at 24fps.I have not seen any new tvs with a dual link DVI connection and HDMI only can give you 24fps with 3d vision @1080p,720p it can get 60 fps.It just does not have the needed bandwidth that only dual link DVI can give you for 120hrtz.
I do not know what the display port bandwidth specs are....but it won't do me any good since HDTVs do not have a display port anyways.

vargis14 wrote:

HDMI only can give you 24fps with 3d vision @1080p,720p it can get 60 fps.

Oh?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_1.4

To JAE,
I understand hdmi 1.4 is the 3d standard.Plus i see that it has the needed bandwidth for more frames then what i said, but as of 4-5 months ago nvidias 3dtv play or whatever it is called would only do 24fps in 1080p,60FPS in 720p.I hope Nvidia will make a driver or perhaps kelper will allow higher then 24fps in 1080p or even true 120hrtz gaming......that would be fantastic opening the doors to fluid frame rates on 3dHDTVs allowing a lot of people to try 120hrtz gaming or true 3dvision.
JAE you are a brainiac plus i believe you have the same VT30 tv i have.I can not get 120hrtz to work on my tv hooked up to my 560ti's the option is just not there in my drivers.If its possible i would think we would have the best chance of unlocking the unused bandwidth since Nvidia and panasonic are kinda partners with 3d if i recall correctly.If you have any ideas to unlock the HDMI 1.4 standards true video bandwidth,well that would be wicked Cool.Too bad i do not think you have Nvidia cards i sorta remember you having AMD for some reason.Also 3D tv play from Nvidia is free to try.
Any Ideas you have i am all ears,and thanks ahead of time.