Makes sense and the movies were not able to show very fast motion. But I think the problem here would be motion blur. There is a big difference between 120 Hz and 60 Hz when it comes to motion blur, but if I were getting a monitor, there is no way I would pay more for a 120 Hz monitor. I am speaking based on what I learned about video motion.
Originally Posted by bonami2
the problem with 60hz and 120hz is a crt 60hz destroy at 120 screen
The problem is the screen response time
crt has far less motion blur than traditional monitor, mostly because of the methods used to display images
they can have a few milliseconds of motion blur, while a standard 60hz lcd with constant backlight has ~16.7ms+ of motion blur, 120hz has ~8.34+ (those two numbers are just from eye tracking, before stuff like pixel response times) and 120hz strobed can get down to about ~0.5 - 2.0ms
In terms of motion fluidity, there's less gain going up towards like a 480hz monitor. It's already quite good @120, i've not really seen to compare. I can say outright that it would result in the rendering time for frames etc being reduced by a factor of 4 (1-frame lag on 60fps 60hz is ~16.7ms, while on 480hz 480fps it is ~2.08ms - we can benefit a lot for gaming by reducing input lag, there's 8.34ms drop going from 60hz to 120 and more if you go further)
as well as perceived motion blur from eye tracking (main cause of motion blur these days) dropping to 1/4 as much. You can use a strobed or scanning backlight etc to remove motion blur, but flicker is much less of a problem at higher refresh rate too - it's really hard to use @60hz, better at 120, but higher refresh rate would be more ideal for itEdited by Cyro999 - 4/2/14 at 8:12am