i'm leaving

Cancel 2018. 3

<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
for my hot new TV, actually went with the 120 hz (sorry WM...it makes a difference to me) and my playstation...i know...i have finally modernized by purchasing a gaming console

games so far:

fallout 3 - awesome

price is right - (you laugh, i will hunt you down and kill you, after i dismember you) - so/so...but fun with family....thinking of wheel of fortune next...

monoply - great family or girlfriend/wife fun...seriously

red dead - holy crap....the graphics...fun so far...but engrossing...hard to give so much time to a game

bolt - bought for wife...she likes it....me....eh, ok
 
i forget who...but i think it was cawacko that recommended i get FIFA 2010....i downloaded the demo....i just can't play games that like...i don't know how to move the controller that smoothly....great graphics and music....and looks fun....maybe when i've had ps3 longer
 
If it's making a different to you due to the placebo effect is what I'm interested in. No offense, but you are obviously not a reliable source in that area.
 
If it's making a different to you due to the placebo effect is what I'm interested in. No offense, but you are obviously not a reliable source in that area.

do you remember the old crt computer screens? i don't know if you're old enough...but hz does matter....refresh rate does matter...

especially with sports or print on the screen
 
do you remember the old crt computer screens? i don't know if you're old enough...but hz does matter....refresh rate does matter...

especially with sports or print on the screen

Yes, yurt, I'm not 3. HZ mattered because in CRT's it reduced flicker, not because of smoother motion. Beyond 80 HZ, however, you really couldn't tell the difference. LCD's don't have the flicker problem. And sports and print come in 30 FPS. With a 30 FPS source, there is no objective difference between 60 and 120 hz. With 24 hz movies, however, they have to do some fancy tricks to match it to the native refresh rate, and it's better to have more frames to do that with.

240 HZ, however, is nothing more than a cynical marketing gimmick.
 
Yes, yurt, I'm not 3. HZ mattered because in CRT's it reduced flicker, not because of smoother motion. Beyond 80 HZ, however, you really couldn't tell the difference. LCD's don't have the flicker problem. And sports and print come in 30 FPS. With a 30 FPS source, there is no objective difference between 60 and 120 hz. With 24 hz movies, however, they have to do some fancy tricks to match it to the native refresh rate, and it's better to have more frames to do that with.

240 HZ, however, is nothing more than a cynical marketing gimmick.

honest question....

have you actually seen the difference (or no difference).......or is this something you researched on the net?
 
honest question....

have you actually seen the difference (or no difference).......or is this something you researched on the net?

Due to the wonders of blind testing I know that if I managed to see any difference it would all be in my head. Experience is the most worthless kind of evidence when it comes to this kind of technical mysticism these companies are exploiting.
 
good source for what? it is six pages long....

From the article:

So, Is Blurring Even an Issue for Videos, Movies, and Games?

For all of the tests—the DisplayMate test patterns, the moving photos, and the live video—we found that there was no visually detectable difference in motion blur for the mid- to top-of-the-line LCD HDTVs. This regardless of their claimed pixel response times, 60Hz or 120Hz refresh rates, strobed LED backlighting, or motion-enhancement processing. If you find this surprising then just re-read the classic tale of The Emperor’s New Clothes.

The underlying reason why higher refresh rates don’t mitigate blurring is that the true pixel response times of displays are considerably longer than the 60Hz video frame rate, so it doesn’t matter whether the screen refresh rate is 60Hz or 120Hz, or whether the LED backlights are strobed off during the frame updating. Similarly, adjusting the electronic processing enhancements that some models offer—controls that are supposed to reduce motion blur—only served to introduce objectionable contours, edges, and other artifacts onto moving objects without reducing the overall motion blur.
So that’s the story on video. What significance do these results have for PC gamers?
First, while motion blur isn’t generally noticeable with live video, it’s more likely to be seen by gamers who intently focus on particular moving objects. For this reason, the blur illustrated above with test patterns and test photos applies.
Second, don’t pay much attention to a manufacturer’s response time specs because they are so different from the real response time and motion blur that we have demonstrated here.
Third, while 120Hz refresh rate monitors and HDTVs don’t inherently improve on motion blur over the 60Hz models, they are generally equipped with better performing panels and electronics, so they may still produce superior image and picture quality. And if you’re a movie buff, the 120Hz units should offer better motion interpolation from the 24 frames per second used in all movies shot on film. The 60Hz models need 3:2 pull-down, which produces judder, but most people seldom notice it.
Fourth, be aware that the latest 240Hz displays don’t offer any real picture-quality performance improvements, and are just a marketing gimmick taken to an absurd level.
For more information and details, see my article on LCD response time and motion blur here:
 
Great Music in Fallout 3


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0cZs-X0bb0"]YouTube- Fallout 3 - Mighty, Mighty Man by Roy Brown[/ame]
 
There is swing revival coming due to this game.

The songs in it are all the old swing tunes with people like Roy Brown here as well as people Danny Kaye , Bing Crosby and Doris Day andmany names you never knew but should have.
 
Back
Top