120hz TV pointless with PS3?

Discussion in 'Console Games' started by ozreth, Feb 6, 2011.

  1. ozreth macrumors 65816

    ozreth

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #1
    So I'm in the market for a TV, mostly for gaming. I recently read that the PS3 can only output 60hz, so a 120hz+ TV won't help in gaming at all.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. sammich macrumors 601

    sammich

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Location:
    Sarcasmville.
    #2
    Most TVs with high refresh rates will have their own 'frame smoothing' tech like Sony's MotionFlow which adds in frames to smooth video out.
     
  3. ozreth thread starter macrumors 65816

    ozreth

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
  4. jlw2387 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2010
    #4
    Not necessarily. What's happening is the TV is taking the two 60Hz frames and calculating what it thinks the in between frame should be. This could be good or bad, depending on how good the guess is. At best, it still won't even be close to the difference between, say, SD and HD. Don't spend more just to get 120 or 240Hz.
     
  5. ozreth thread starter macrumors 65816

    ozreth

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #5
    I see. Will the ps3 ever be able to put out more than 60hz? Is it a software or hardware thing?

    I ask because I recently bought my first TV ever (I've always had old used hand me down tank tv's). I've never been into movies or tv much and before the ps3 a regular tv played all of my ps2 and previous gen games great.

    Anyways I bought a 40" Sony Bravia 1080p 60hz for $500 out the door, it was an open box item at Best Buy. I think I got a good deal but admit I haven't done as much research as I should have.

    Am wondering now if I should return it and save a bit more for a 120hz TV to future proof it?
     
  6. sammich macrumors 601

    sammich

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Location:
    Sarcasmville.
    #6
    We bought out first proper big flatscreen a few years ago, and it was a Sony Bravia 1080p with 100hz MotionFlow. The settings for the MotionFlow are (forgot the exact wording): off, medium and full. The first time you watch anything with it on, it'll look decidedly 'odd' and (for me) gave movies and footage a 'b-grade' film feel. After an hour of it you don't notice it.

    That said, you may not feel any significant viewing improvement at all, it's just a nice feature that I don't feel is missing when I switch to an older TV.

    Finally, the PS3 doesn't need to output more than 60hz. 60hz is a soft limit of the human visual system and anything more is more or less wasted in processing power needed to generate the extra frames.

    If the 'better' TVs cost more for a subjective improvement, that's totally up to you to decide if it's worth it. From a technical standpoint, it is better as the refresh rates are better.
     
  7. SevenInchScrew macrumors 6502a

    SevenInchScrew

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Location:
    Omaha
    #7
    When you turn on the interpolation feature on a TV, you are asking it to think and create those "in between" frames itself. For TV and movies, this is fine, because those are passive experiences where you simply watch what happens on screen. Any slight delay the interpolation adds is easily missed by the eye. But playing games is an active experience, where you directly control the things happening on screen. So that slight delay that was previously unnoticeable watching a movie, is now FULLY apparent during gameplay. Games will feel very laggy and disconnected.

    Some people like the "120hz" look with movies and TV and what not, but that is up to you to decide. But for sure, if you are going to game on the TV, turn the feature off while playing. It just isn't worth it.
     
  8. ozreth thread starter macrumors 65816

    ozreth

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #8
    I may just be reading it wrong but your reading makes it first sound like 120hz is good for gaming as you will notice the lag in 60hz, but then in the end you say to turn the feature off?
     
  9. sammich macrumors 601

    sammich

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Location:
    Sarcasmville.
    #9
    I'm actually surprised I didn't question the technology earlier. Although I have a almost 4 year old 100hz set, I have never noticed any amount of input lag with the MotionFlow on (that said, I'm not 100% sure if different inputs have different settings for MotionFlow, which may mean I haven't used it while playing on the PS3).

    If you want an explanation as to this 'input lag', give the first few posts of this thread a read:

    http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1094236
     
  10. SevenInchScrew macrumors 6502a

    SevenInchScrew

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2007
    Location:
    Omaha
    #10
    The interpolation features on modern TVs are fine for watching TV and movies, but bad for gaming. With these features turned on, you are asking the TV to do a lot of extra processing before it displays an image. As I said before, this is fine for TV and movies, because you have no direct interaction with them. You start the movie and just sit back and watch. If there is a few millisecond delay due to processing, you'll never notice it. But that all changes the minute you are the one actually controlling what is happening on screen. This very slight bit of extra processing time makes games feel laggy and unresponsive.

    Many modern TVs have a "Game Mode" exactly for that reason. Turning the "Game Mode" on turns all of the processing in the TV off, so the signal sent to it gets displayed as quickly as possible. That way your button presses and stick movements on the controller happen on screen as quick as possible. If all you play is slower paced games, this might not matter. But if you play anything where quick, precise input is important (shooters, action games, racing), you want your inputs to happen as fast as possible.
     
  11. ozreth thread starter macrumors 65816

    ozreth

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
  12. Wang Foolio macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    #12
    The best ways to research a TV are to do the real intensive research (which can be difficult since the good review sites don't review every model from every manufacturer) and to check the TV out in person. The refresh rates, contrast ratios, response times, etc. can't be taken at face value from the manufacturer. The real world performance can vary hugely when looking at different TV's that on paper should be about the same.

    When checking out TV's at the store, I like to walk down the aisle and watch for distortion as the viewing angles change. Nothing worse than buying a nice shiny new TV and finding that the colors/contrast changes dramatically if you move your head 6" side to side!

    And with respect to the frame smoothing, noise reduction and other features of the TV, being able to customize these settings is a huge deal. Some algorithms generate a lot of noise and aren't worth turning on (really depends on the make and model). Some do cause lag, which can desync the audio (movies look badly dubbed) or cause noticeable lag in games. I love it when you have the off/low/medium/high type options for these features. Low/medium is often your best bet, as you get some of the benefits without causing nearly as many side effects. "Film modes" for 24fps blu rays is also nice.

    For the average user, get yourself a good deal and try to make sure the TV has the features you actually need. 1080p, enough inputs to accomodate your consoles, dvd players, cable box etc. and hopefully have a little room to grow, and of course you want a decent picture. But if you're mostly concerned about spending under $500 then don't worry too much about getting the perfect picture. Get a brand you trust (I like Sharp and Samsung, Sony is usually decent, Panasonic makes some very nice plasmas...) and you'll probably be fine.

    Personally I have a 46" Sharp Aquos released ~18 months ago. I do like it quite a bit, but I kinda wish I had waited a little bit longer to buy a high end TV as their new Quatron LED's are damn sexy. Give it a few more months, and LED's will continue to come down.
     
  13. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #13
    I believe the PS3 is fully capable of outputting a 120 Hz signal, but a lot of games don't even make 60 FPS smoothly...it's a software deal. Doubling the frame rate requires doubling the power (or halving the CPU intensity of what you're rendering).


    Movies'll actually benefit most. Most films are filmed at 24 frames per second. They display on the TV in 60 frames per second, by various techniques...one example is displaying every odd frame 3 times and every even frame two times.

    So...1-1-1-2-2-3-3-3-4-4-5-5-5-6-6-etc.

    120 Hz lets it just display every frame five times, which results in smoother motion for things filmed in 24p (which is almost everything).
     
  14. Monkey194545 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    #14
    I have a 46in samsung with 240hz ('09 model for $1600) and a 40in samsung with 60hz ('10 model for $500). Both are LCDs' and for the ps3, games don't look any different. For movies, the cheaper one can play 24hz correctly so it actually looks better.

    Just go with 60hz. As stated earlier, the ps3 only outputs 60.
     
  15. Ace134blue macrumors 6502a

    Ace134blue

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    #15
    No point in a 120hz TV for consoles. All the games are either locked at 60FPS/HZ or less.
     
  16. goMac macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2004
    #16
    There is some misunderstanding here about why refresh rates are so high...

    The TV cannot interpolate frames because the next frame hasn't been sent yet. This would require pulling frames from the future. :)

    Rather, LCD's tend to have "stuck" pixels where due to the technology, each pixel retains some of it's old value. It often takes several passes to unstick these pixels. You might see this sometimes, it's referred to as "ghosting". A TV with a higher refresh rate makes more passes, and has less ghosting issues.

    It really has nothing to do with interpolating frames. Again, the TV doesn't have the frame from the future to interpolate with, and even if it did, why interpolate instead of using the full frame?
     
  17. sammich macrumors 601

    sammich

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2006
    Location:
    Sarcasmville.
    #17
    Some of us are referring to the frame smoothing technology on various TVs, TruMotion, MotionFlow etc. This feature will hold the current frame, wait for the next one, compute the 'middle frames' and display the current frame and the 'middle frames'. This introduces input lag, especially in games where reaction time is critical.

    For another discussion on this have a look at: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1094236

    Finally yes (just to reiterate) a TV with a faster refresh rate means that the common LCD 'ghosting' problem is far less noticeable since pixels change colour faster. It's also the reason to buy a 3D LCD set, even if you wouldn't use it for the 3D.
     
  18. Irishman, Feb 10, 2011
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2011

    Irishman macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    #18
    Not from the future, but an LCD or LED-LCD TV does hold the frames, does its frame interpolation and then displays it to you. It does it (ideally) faster enough that your eyes don't notice.

    Ideally.

    Also, it sounds like there's confusion between 120Hz and Frame Interpolation, which are 2 different things. On a 120-240Hz set, Frame Interpolation is defeatable (can be turned on or off). The refresh rate (the Hz #) is constant, and cannot be defeated.

    The higher refresh rate was developed to overcome one of LCDs bigest shortcomings, which is smearing, blurring and artifacting on the screen when fast action is displayed. So, on a 60Hz set, when you watch sports, action movies, racing, anything with fast action on the screen (games even), you can see the above listed problems in the picture.

    120Hz does largely solve that.

    Frame Interpolation is the effect called Auto Motion Plus, MotionFlow, TruMotion by different HDTV makers. It creates the fake frames in between 2 real frames from whatever source material you're displaying. It tries to display what it thinks that imaginary frame should look like, but frequently gets it wrong, which is why some complain of an unnaturalness to its motion.
     
  19. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #19
    The human eye can see well in excess of 60fps. A camera flash on most digital point-and-shoot cameras is 1/500 of a second and I'm sure you've seen a camera flash before. ;)

    TVs frame rate in the US was based around 60hz because the power systems in the US run at 60hz. In Europe for example their power runs at 50hz so their frame rates are based around 50 instead of 60.


    Lethal
     
  20. ozreth thread starter macrumors 65816

    ozreth

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #20
    OK so, after all this I've found the Sony Bravia EX 500 120hz for $600 out the door as opposed to the Sony Bravia EX 400 60hz open box item for $520. Prettyy sure I'm gonna do it :)
     
  21. pcypert macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Location:
    Bangkok
    #21
    Even if not just games, I wouldn't advise to skip it...it can make a difference in a lot of other areas. Sports for instance...maybe you upgrade some component or other later... a high refresh tv is near the price of normal these days anyways...
     
  22. Miharu macrumors 6502

    Miharu

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2007
    Location:
    Finland
    #22
    I have a Philips 42" 100hz TV (would be 120hz in America), watching TV is fine but when playing games with 100 hz mode on they look jagged and laggy. Especially if you play an FPS you can see the crosshair jumping a bit. Also movies are meant to be watched in their original 24 fps, otherwise they look "weird" like a TV broadcast. So no I would not use it for gaming but nowadays it's going to get hard to buy a 50/60 hz TV and you can always turn all the image modifiers off so go ahead.
     
  23. gkarris macrumors 604

    gkarris

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2004
    Location:
    "No escape from Reality..."
  24. Tonepoet macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2010
    #24
    Camera flashes seem much longer than 1/500th of a second to me but maybe that's because my cameras aren't recent enough.

    At any rate, I'd just like to note that I'm not 100% sure but I think 3DTV requires 120hz output minimum since it's preferable to produce at least 60 FPS for each individual eye. All PS3s are 3DTV compatible with sufficient firmware updates...
     
  25. ozreth thread starter macrumors 65816

    ozreth

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    #25
    Ok so ive been doing tons of research on actual gaming web sites and the general consensus seems to be that 120hz looks unatural for gaming and that people typically turn it off. BUT it is better for movies typically (which i dont want much of).

    So now Im stuck between getting the 40" 120hz or 46" 60hz...

    I hate this. TV's are stupid, I just want to play my ps3 but feel I wont be getting my moneys worth if it isnt in HD (current tv cant connect hdmi)
     

Share This Page