LCDs don't have a refresh rate. They don't have a electron gun. a actual emulated refresh rate of a LCD is 1000/response time
Now that's no where near the one you can set it to.
Only reason they have one that we can select is to be compatible with the gpu which works since the old days of the CRT with a refresh rate in which it sends the images to the screen when it got the signal and the CRT needs to refresh.
Now the Xbox gpu is out of sync basically with your display hence the lag.
Just set it to 60mhz. Don't worry a Xbox is locked to 35fps for most games so you would not see a difference. Remember again a refresh rate doesn't make the quality poorer than a higher one it just emulates on to be compatible with the hardware. Its not a CRT it doesn't refresh actually
this response always fascinates me because the person is either an engineer who designed a television, or has simply copy and pasted information from an engineer who designed a television.
design A television.. not the entire industry.
you gotta open the television and intercept the circuit board to know if the television pours out all input received onto the screen where needed, or if the entire scene is refreshed.. regardless of movement.
1000 is the oscillation (processing cycle) of some part of the circuit board.
i wouldnt expect that number to be the same for every television, or even every part of the circuit.
i appreciate the people who sell these televisions and test them so they know what the television can and cant do.
it helps shave off 'features' and 'quality' to point the customer to what they are willing to do without with.
if i walked in and said i dont need this, this, and this.. the seller should say 'okay that rules out all of these televisions'
and perhaps the price will go down because of the things i am willing to do without.
i dont think 35 frames per second is enough.. it should be 40.
playing games on the computer, the difference between 35 and 40 is a feeling of transparency.
as if 35 frames per second feels like all movement is weighed down by ankle weights and wrist weights.
going up to 40 helps remove the sluggish feeling.
another bump to 60 frames per second again feels smoother.
maybe we simply have to yell at the films who continue to get by with frame rates slightly below 30.
its not fair to our brains to be forced into a seat and view cloudy movement.
i usually wish people the best.. and its no different here, talking about sluggish frame rates.
you know what happens when movies continue to run at 30 frames per second?
it allows television manufacturers to build a television that is designed for 31 frames per second and nothing else.
it allows television manufacturers to build televisions that are designed for 40 frames per second and label them as superior, with an inflated price tag.
and when we ask the television to perform with other parts of the industry who are at a faster pace (video game consoles) there is a conflict.
then we get forum posts about people who have to turn off the feature that required the television to cost more.
what may their arguement be?
if every television was fast enough to work properly with a console, there would be nothing left to advertise one television as superior to the other televisions.
they are trying to keep the frame rate quality low so that they can bump the frames per second up by 10 frames per second and call that television their flagship?
what about when we buy the television that can do 10 extra frames per second, and we manage to make those television look just as bad as the other ones?
CRT computer monitors arent going anywhere anytime soon.
i have a crt for my computer monitor and a crt for my main television.
dont they realize that a CRT refresh rate directly amounts to the total response time?
i mean, having a computer monitor that does 2,048 x 1,536 maximum resolution at 75 Hz
we are doing 1600x1200 @ 120hz
more resolution than 1080p .. AND running that resolution at faster frames per second.
that is high competition compared to all of the LCD's
i mean c'mon 2048x1536 @ 75 frames per second compared to 1920x1080 that struggles with the 35 frames per second coming from the console..!!?
how bout a fair comparison?
even the generic CRT monitors that come from dell or emachines or compaq can do 720p at 60/72 frames per second.
compare that with a 720p LCD that struggles with 35 frames per second.
it would seem like we are being taught a lesson.. but that lesson is simply, the industry is willing to charge lots of money for inferior things.
you could say that we are being forced to appreciate how far electronics have come.. but what about all of those people who ditched their CRT for the new technology, simply because the new technology had to of been hard to develop.
it would appear that those people made a mistake.
regardless of the response time of the LCD screen itself..
if the video processor is slowing down the entire system.. the final frame per second either drops are lags and requires the audio to be connected to the television so that the audio can also be delayed and stay in sync.
asking people to purchase receivers and surround sound systems.. but we need to connect the audio to the television so the audio is in sync?
the home theater industry would be highly upset..!
and the people who see the vocals mismatch with the audio would be upset.
i dont see home theater enthusiasts complaining about such a thing.
so what makes that console special ??!!!!!!
was the console using a refresh rate ahead of its time?
that would solve everything.