Support NeoGAF

[JeloSWE]

JeloSWE

I clicked your link using my a8h, and on my ps4 pro in game mode, and a clearness setting of 2 which I always have it on for games. I noticed only a slightly less clear image when I turned it off. No doubt it's only a slight decrease because of the simple test pattern. To be clear, when you quoted me a second time I tested turning it on and off in shadow of the colossus 60fps mode, with motion blur off (how I normally play), and i noticed 0 duplication, only a huge decrease in motion clarity. That Rtings slide says the a8h does 60hz flicker on the max setting, and that is the worst way to use bfi due to horrible flicker. I wonder if your z9f does that with 120fps content, because it's unusable.

My 900e does it beautifully as well, I don't know what else to say. Maybe it's more a problem for your unit, but I briefly had a 950g and also had no problem with duplication, although I didn't even have it a month. Sony definitely has the best motion processing for sure. I use clearness and smoothness while watching movies and animation and there are 0 artifacts with my settings.

As you can see in the image I posted in the post just above, The RTING logo, on my Z9F clearly show the image duplication. If you look at the puls under 900E you can see that the backlight never truly turn off, only goes down to 50% and then back up 100% again. On Z9F it goes completely dark for a long duration and then briefly flashed, this makes the image duplicating much clearer while your LCD has a much subtler implementation which wont make the image as pin sharp as mine can be but that will also lead to the duplications be less visible. I think the reason you don't see the duplication as clearly as I do on my TV is simply because I have a stronger implementation, while yours allow the image to stay on screen for longer time which will make the duplicates blend together more. Just because it's not super visible on your TVs doesn't mean that there aren't image duplication happening to a degree. Still, frame rate and BFI rate need to match or you will get more and more visible image duplication the longer and darker the scene stays between the flashes. I can add that the Q9FN and Q900 which I had for a while also produce clear image duplication, especially with BFI enabled and mismatched fps.

 

[StateofMajora]

As you can see in the image I posted in the post just above, The RTING logo, on my Z9F clearly show the image duplication. If you look at the puls under 900E you can see that the backlight never truly turn off, only goes down to 50% and then back up 100% again. On Z9F it goes completely dark for a long duration and then briefly flashed, this makes the image duplicating much clearer while your LCD has a much subtler implementation which wont make the image as pin sharp as mine can be but that will also lead to the duplications be less visible. I think the reason you don't see the duplication as clearly as I do on my TV is simply because I have a stronger implementation, while yours allow the image to stay on screen for longer time which will make the duplicates blend together more. Just because it's not super visible on your TVs doesn't mean that there aren't image duplication happening to a degree. Still, frame rate and BFI rate need to match or you will get more and more visible image duplication the longer and darker the scene stays between the flashes. I can add that the Q9FN and Q900 which I had for a while also produce clear image duplication, especially with BFI enabled and mismatched fps.

But if framerate and bfi both match, doesn’t that produce flicker even at 120fps? I’d imagine even on your display that’s much worse than image duplication. Because 60fps matched with 60hz bfi is horrible man. At least, if that’s what the max bfi setting is indeed doing on my sets.

I said it before, but the 950g is also an x1 ultimate lcd, like your z9f, so I wish I could’ve tested it more. If what you’re saying is true, I picked better sets than I thought even. They truly have no issue with duplication, to my eyes, and I really have a good eye for these things.

I wonder how possibly the best Sony lcd ever made, the 75inch z9d handles bfi. Wish I could’ve bought that bad boy on sale.

 

[JeloSWE]

But if framerate and bfi both match, doesn’t that produce flicker even at 120fps? I’d imagine even on your display that’s much worse than image duplication. Because 60fps matched with 60hz bfi is horrible man. At least, if that’s what the max bfi setting is indeed doing on my sets.

I said it before, but the 950g is also an x1 ultimate lcd, like your z9f, so I wish I could’ve tested it more. If what you’re saying is true, I picked better sets than I thought even. They truly have no issue with duplication, to my eyes, and I really have a good eye for these things.

I wonder how possibly the best Sony lcd ever made, the 75inch z9d handles bfi. Wish I could’ve bought that bad boy on sale.

Yes, 60hz is tiresome, 120hz is not. Still a mismatch will produce duplicates. And as I can deduce from the measurement from Rtings is that your LCD isn't doing a very strong BFI so the duplicates may not manifest well at all and on the OLED you have 60. Still you I'm surprised you don't see anything if you change speed on this ufo test. https://www.testufo.com/framerates#count=3&background=none&pps=2560

Also, I absolutely don't want to sound condescending here but you are following the ufo with your eyes and not just staring at the screen right?

And looking at Z9D on Rtings it only had 60hz and but looks like a very good and sharp implementation.

---

This here is a very good example, I get two Eifel towers with my 120hz BFI on 60fps side scrolling material, I did my own persuit camera which is not the best with an iPhone but should give an inclination of how it looks.
Test: https://www.testufo.com/framerates-...irection=ltr&framerate=60&compare=2&showfps=1

 

[StateofMajora]

Yes, 60hz is tiresome, 120hz is not. Still a mismatch will produce duplicates. And as I can deduce from the measurement from Rtings is that your LCD isn't doing a very strong BFI so the duplicates may not manifest well at all and on the OLED you have 60. Still you I'm surprised you don't see anything if you change speed on this ufo test. https://www.testufo.com/framerates#count=3&background=none&pps=2560

Also, I absolutely don't want to sound condescending here but you are following the ufo with your eyes and not just staring at the screen right?

And looking at Z9D on Rtings it only had 60hz and but looks like a very good and sharp implementation.

Oh god, yeah that's terrible man. I completely understand what you mean now. But yes, I was following with my eyes for 3 minutes trying to see the difference. Your tv is still a great one, just not for bfi apparently. The Z9D definitely had 120hz BFI.

I honestly didn't know this was a thing on any sony tv, and I appreciate the knowledge.

Cheers

 

[Keihart]

well, i see it this way, most games released on PS5 so far are made targeting the performance mode like demon's souls and Miles Morales, those games were made trying to get them running at 60 and the the quality mode was scaling it up, so naturally, you are never going to be losing a lot. Most of the time it's like bumping one notch the settings on a PC game, really not a big fucking deal.

I hope this performance and quality mode get burned to the ground soon, it's such a shitty thing on consoles where every machine it's the same, the developer should fucking pick a target and go at it.

 

[Tickle My Tendies]

I hope this performance and quality mode get burned to the ground soon

While I actually really like having options to play with on console, part of me agrees with you. Pick a target and maximum optimize for that one target, be it 60 or 30 fps, make it the best it can be, put everything into it.

But, then again, options are nice too....

 

[JeloSWE]

well, i see it this way, most games released on PS5 so far are made targeting the performance mode like demon's souls and Miles Morales, those games were made trying to get them running at 60 and the the quality mode was scaling it up, so naturally, you are never going to be losing a lot. Most of the time it's like bumping one notch the settings on a PC game, really not a big fucking deal.

I hope this performance and quality mode get burned to the ground soon, it's such a shitty thing on consoles where every machine it's the same, the developer should fucking pick a target and go at it.

As long as they all target 60 fps... but wait, some will say, I want resolution, I don't care for fps... and then you get some that go, 120fps is truly where it should be for shooters, racing and platforming. Alas, it's probably better if we have the options after all.

I would personally be happy if all games were made for 60 first and then add some slight boost to geo and res for those 30 fps peeps. Demons Souls is the perfect game in this regard. 60 looks awesome, 30 doesn't really make a difference but it's noticeable if you just stand still and stare at the screen.

 

[Keihart]

As long as they all target 60 fps... but wait, some will say, I want resolution, I don't care for fps... and then you get some that go, 120fps is truly where it should be for shooters, racing and platforming. Alas, it's probably better if we have the options after all.

I would personally be happy if all games were made for 60 first and then add some slight boost to geo and res for those 30 fps peeps. Demons Souls is the perfect game in this regard. 60 looks awesome, 30 doesn't really make a difference but it's noticeable if you just stand still and stare at the screen.

Who fucking cares what every customer prefers tho, you can never satify everybody, way better for the developer to use what they think it works best instead of juggling options for no real gain at the end of the day. Every mode it's shittier because of it.

 

[JeloSWE]

I care, and some games I simply avoid to play if they are only available in 30 or I play them on PC instead. Thus Sony at least is losing money because I didn't buy it on their platform and some times the developer as well if I can't get it in 60 anywhere.

Granted if every game were solid 60fps then I wouldn't be complaining. Still I'd like some games in 120fps as well. It's good with options, it gives more players what they want. After all it us players who are to enjoy the game. If I want more salt on my stake that the chef things is right, there is no harm in me adding some for my benefit and everyone is happy.

 

[TheKratos]

Who fucking cares what every customer prefers tho, you can never satify everybody, way better for the developer to use what they think it works best instead of juggling options for no real gain at the end of the day. Every mode it's shittier because of it.

Indeed who cares about customers.

 

[PaintTinJr]

It doesn't seem like it to me. I've been playing Spider-Man: Miles Morales and Assassin's Creed Valhalla. I prefer both of them on Performance mode running 60 FPS. Valhalla got really choppy when I switched it to Quality mode. Like even just moving the curser around the map was clipping, it was really bad.

Ultimately though, I don't even see the difference visually when I switch it to quality. What even is ray tracing? Something to do with the lighting? I've even watched Youtube comparisons between them and all I can see is Performance mode running better, I don't see any benefit to running it on Quality. Am I just blind? Does HDR play a big role in it? Because a lot of times I turn HDR off because I can't get it to look good on my television no matter how much I mess with the settings.

I've only tried it on the Spider-man: Remaster in the Black Cat Story, and it looks miles better - pun intended - in the Museum mission that I've played. The updates for the Performance mode lighting are off and the light shafts visibly separate where you can see undersampling - even without all the objects being fully reflected in some of the statues.

If anything, performance mode doesn't feel like a true 60fps, either - when comparing inputs with quality mode and RT-off mode - only the things like manual web aiming feel like the updates are different. My guess is that RT-off has more animation frames in its 60fps mode, hence why it feels much more responsive. Whereas Performance mode probably has the same 30fps animations interpolated over the additional frames.

I have zero use for a mode that neither brings the visual fidelity of a design made for a 30fps game, or feels like it transforms the game to a true 60fps.

I'm hoping it gets dropped quickly, because it would be such a poor generation if graphics get held back in games that have 30fps gameplay - by design/animations - being bumped to some 60fps rendition of 30fps, but with heavily compromised visual fx.

 

[PaintTinJr]

I care, and some games I simply avoid to play if they are only available in 30 or I play them on PC instead. Thus Sony at least is losing money because I didn't buy it on their platform and some times the developer as well if I can't get it in 60 anywhere.

Granted if every game were solid 60fps then I wouldn't be complaining. Still I'd like some games in 120fps as well. It's good with options, it gives more players what they want. After all it us players who are to enjoy the game. If I want more salt on my stake that the chef things is right, there is no harm in me adding some for my benefit and everyone is happy.

The thing is, and Ueda made this point back at the PS3 remasters of Ico and SotC. The games and animation were designed around the target frame-rate, and just rendering it at higher fps doesn't truly change the feedback loop, because the animation and gameplay timings are based on a user having 33ms between seeing feedback from their inputs - and this is the huge fallacy of people believing that 30fps games running on PC are truly transformed to 60fps, or whatever.

The reason you can't get some games at 60fps is because it makes no sense to do so without remastering the 30fps game fully for that target frame-rate. Cursory aim (1st or 3rd Person view) will always get a benefit from higher fps in these scenarios, but the true benefit on well made 30fps (3rd person) games running artificially at 60fps is noticeable, but marginal in most cases - and not the transformation people like DF keep stating.

 

[JeloSWE]

The thing is, and Ueda made this point back at the PS3 remasters of Ico and SotC. The games and animation were designed around the target frame-rate, and just rendering it at higher fps doesn't truly change the feedback loop, because the animation and gameplay timings are based on a user having 33ms between seeing feedback from their inputs - and this is the huge fallacy of people believing that 30fps games running on PC are truly transformed to 60fps, or whatever.

The reason you can't get some games at 60fps is because it makes no sense to do so without remastering the 30fps game fully for that target frame-rate. Cursory aim (1st or 3rd Person view) will always get a benefit from higher fps in these scenarios, but the true benefit on well made 30fps (3rd person) games running artificially at 60fps is noticeable, but marginal in most cases - and not the transformation people like DF keep stating.

I know this already, many older games, especially Japanese developers made the whole games system tied around a locked 30fps, some code values are simply hard coded and assume a locked 30, not that Ueda can even make that work, his games have the absolutely worst fps of any game I've played, but modern games can render with dynamic framerates and often times the animations interpolates between the keyframes rather than playing frame by frame baked keys. Yet even if the animations run at 30, you still benefit from 60 for lower input lag and sharper images in motion during camera movement.

 

[rofif]

can someone post the same uncompressed screenshot of demon souls quality vs performance ?
Quality should be 4k and have better tesselation?

 

[alabtrosMyster]

It's probably boils down to resolution. I never opted for Quality mode, when they started to be a thing, always played in Performance. Gives you the best experience, in my opinion.

They should really be called:
Bullshot mode
Play mode

 

[nikeboy94]

For me, Miles Morales on Fidelity (Quality) mode and Demon's Souls on Performance. Spiderman just looks so much better with ray tracing and didn't mind 30fps, whereas I felt like I needed 60fps on DeS.

It does depend game by game but I also feel like you do need a good 4K TV to get the best out of the quality modes. I have an LG CX and these PS5 titles look gorgeous with HDR.

 

[JeloSWE]

can someone post the same uncompressed screenshot of demon souls quality vs performance ?
Quality should be 4k and have better tesselation?

If you haven't seen it DF has a great video where they talk to the developers and show of cinematic vs performance, basically even the devs say it's hard to see a difference between the two, in part because the game was designed for 60fps in mind but also because the temporal upsampling works so well it. The only real difference is a bit of sharpness and extra tesselation in the environment not really visible in game play.

 

[rofif]

If you haven't seen it DF has a great video where they talk to the developers and show of cinematic vs performance, basically even the devs say it's hard to see a difference between the two, in part because the game was designed for 60fps in mind but also because the temporal upsampling works so well it. The only real difference is a bit of sharpness and extra tesselation in the environment not really visible in game play.

yeah seen it. Not good enough to show in youtube video

 

[JeloSWE]

yeah seen it. Not good enough to show in youtube video

Here they zoom in really close so you can see better even on YT. But taking screens hots from the PS5 is trouble some as they get stored as jpgs any way, you need a HDMI raw capture to get uncompressed images which isn't so easy to do. I suggest to do some googling to see if some one else have done it already.

 

[PlayerPurple]

Gaf's come such a long way from the "I don't even notice 60fps" days from 3 or 4 years ago.

 

[Kerotan]

So far this gen? Nope.

Native resolution is the biggest waste of resources, dynamic 4K is just as good.

But but you gotta see 4k to believe it! Remember that line used to be bandied about. Well I've seen it and I can live without it if it means improvements in better areas!

 

[MAX PAYMENT]

I really like the rtx reflections in spiderman. They make a huge difference to me with a game full of glass buildings

 

[StateofMajora]

I know this already, many older games, especially Japanese developers made the whole games system tied around a locked 30fps, some code values are simply hard coded and assume a locked 30, not that Ueda can even make that work, his games have the absolutely worst fps of any game I've played, but modern games can render with dynamic framerates and often times the animations interpolates between the keyframes rather than playing frame by frame baked keys. Yet even if the animations run at 30, you still benefit from 60 for lower input lag and sharper images in motion during camera movement.

I would never, ever run a game at 60fps where the actual game logic was 30, that's gross heathen pc gamer speak. 360 era assassins creed PC comes to mind. But yeah, thankfully modern games are becoming largely untied to fps.


Also I can not really find how the bfi works on a8h oled yet, maybe its 120hz bfi is so good because of oleds response time and no backlight, but then again lg's cx has issues with bfi.

 

[JeloSWE]

Also I can not really find how the bfi works on a8h oled yet, maybe its 120hz bfi is so good because of oleds response time and no backlight, but then again lg's cx has issues with bfi.

What do you mean, you can't turn it on under motionsflow clearness or you don't notice any difference?

 

[StateofMajora]

What do you mean, you can't turn it on under motionsflow clearness or you don't notice any difference?

Oh, i'm just rambling lol, I could talk about tvs for hours. I think CES has got me excited too.

Oh no, i've been using a clearness setting of 2 while gaming since the day I bought it, which is 120hz bfi. It adds just as much motion clarity without noticeable duplication as my 900e does, I was just wondering how the oled bfi functions ; the LCDs use the backlight but Oled doesn't have one. I suppose it's just an image processing trick, which would explain why there's a lag hit when using bfi unlike on my lcd which has no lag hit. I just am not 100% sure how it works.

Using it takes the lag from 18ms to 26ms using my leobodnar 4k lag tester, so I hope that by the time QNED or microled is used by Sony/panasonic the lag hit will be much smaller with faster image processing chips, since I suppose there will always be image processing with bfi on self emissive displays. Under 15ms with bfi would be great.

 

[PaintTinJr]

I know this already, many older games, especially Japanese developers made the whole games system tied around a locked 30fps, some code values are simply hard coded and assume a locked 30, not that Ueda can even make that work, his games have the absolutely worst fps of any game I've played, but modern games can render with dynamic framerates and often times the animations interpolates between the keyframes rather than playing frame by frame baked keys. Yet even if the animations run at 30, you still benefit from 60 for lower input lag and sharper images in motion during camera movement.

You don't get lower input lag, that is another misconception, you just get a larger window to put in an input, which in turn means you typically react faster, but still wait the same time to see the result -but with smoother animation - because it is a feedback loop, and has nothing to do with hard coded values. The logic has to sync with animation, and if the logic is designed around 30fps - as the lowest common denominator hardware target on virtually every 3rd person game always is - running at 60fps still syncs the feedback loop to the same sync points as 30fps. If it was a driving game or an FPS where the frame-rate directly impacts the user control, then that is a different matter.

As for the sharper image, what if that wasn't the intended artistic look? Games might be constrained by hardware and software engineering, but if done right they should be art, too IMHO and making something sharper isn't always going to be a win, just like certain motionflow settings on my ZD9 turning a 24fps cinematic film and making it look like soap opera at an interpolated 60, or whatever is the very opposite of the look the director intended.

Certain genres like driving simulators, FPS, fighting games lend themselves to highest frame-rate or certainly 60fps, but since the use of inverse kinematics in games, a hallmark of the AC games, that actually increases the delay between the time the user is in control, the talk of 60 instead of 30 feels very much misplaced. Because what people are really saying IMHO is they want finer grain control - like back in the day comparing the rawness of Kickoff 2 to Sensible soccer, or Olympic soccer to International Super Star Soccer Pro Evolution, and gamers claiming they want the former game styles, rather than the latter - which I still don't think they really want that, either, just the average gamer seems conditioned to believe that developers are wrong to choose 30fps.

 

[onnextflix5]

If u have a very good tv, u will be able to tell the difference in resolution, but most people have cheap tvs, so they will have a better experience at 60fps.

 

[StateofMajora]

You don't get lower input lag, that is another misconception, you just get a larger window to put in an input, which in turn means you typically react faster, but still wait the same time to see the result -but with smoother animation - because it is a feedback loop, and has nothing to do with hard coded values. The logic has to sync with animation, and if the logic is designed around 30fps - as the lowest common denominator hardware target on virtually every 3rd person game always is - running at 60fps still syncs the feedback loop to the same sync points as 30fps. If it was a driving game or an FPS where the frame-rate directly impacts the user control, then that is a different matter.

As for the sharper image, what if that wasn't the intended artistic look? Games might be constrained by hardware and software engineering, but if done right they should be art, too IMHO and making something sharper isn't always going to be a win, just like certain motionflow settings on my ZD9 turning a 24fps cinematic film and making it look like soap opera at an interpolated 60, or whatever is the very opposite of the look the director intended.

Certain genres like driving simulators, FPS, fighting games lend themselves to highest frame-rate or certainly 60fps, but since the use of inverse kinematics in games, a hallmark of the AC games, that actually increases the delay between the time the user is in control, the talk of 60 instead of 30 feels very much misplaced. Because what people are really saying IMHO is they want finer grain control - like back in the day comparing the rawness of Kickoff 2 to Sensible soccer, or Olympic soccer to International Super Star Soccer Pro Evolution, and gamers claiming they want the former game styles, rather than the latter - which I still don't think they really want that, either, just the average gamer seems conditioned to believe that developers are wrong to choose 30fps.

Yeah, definitely adding more resolution can make a game look worse ; shows the flaws or limitations more, and potentially breaks/changes visual effects. I'm definitely a purist and only play a new version of a game if it doesn't break any vision the original had. Or is a straight up remake, in which case it offers something new entirely.

Interesting discussion here about input lag not being reduced at higher framerates, if the game logic is locked to a lower rate. I had not honestly thought about that, but it makes sense.

Also, just curious, do you have the 75inch or 65inch Z9D? How's the pixel response time on that? I've read on forums that the 75 inch models of the Z9D/F are better than the 65 versions, but nothing concrete. Rtings has the Z9D 65 inch rated at a 30ms 100% response time, which is extremely high.

 

[Azelover]

I prefer higher framerates than resolution anyday!

 

[PaintTinJr]

Yeah, definitely adding more resolution can make a game look worse ; shows the flaws or limitations more, and potentially breaks/changes visual effects. I'm definitely a purist and only play a new version of a game if it doesn't break any vision the original had. Or is a straight up remake, in which case it offers something new entirely.

Interesting discussion here about input lag not being reduced at higher framerates, if the game logic is locked to a lower rate. I had not honestly thought about that, but it makes sense.

Also, just curious, do you have the 75inch or 65inch Z9D? How's the pixel response time on that? I've read on forums that the 75 inch models of the Z9D/F are better than the 65 versions, but nothing concrete. Rtings has the Z9D 65 inch rated at a 30ms 100% response time, which is extremely high.

It is only the 65" unfortunately . If the ZG9 reaches an affordable buy price I would maybe be tempted to upgrade, but certainly not looking at any other options other than another masterbacklight drive set, until Sony's Crystal (micro)LED tech turns into a home product.

Response time I can't say that I've notice imperfections when the tv is in use, the picture on the TV is spectacular, even comparing with my older/smaller X9000A . The master backlight drive typically will have some residual grid glow at screen switch on, which others might worry was clouding, but it isn't present when viewing, even with transitions to black, and there is no response trails. The Tv has had a lot of firmware updates over the years - across two different versions of android TV - so if there was an issue across the board, it was probably just a software one back when they tested at rtings.

 

[JeloSWE]

Oh, i'm just rambling lol, I could talk about tvs for hours. I think CES has got me excited too.

Oh no, i've been using a clearness setting of 2 while gaming since the day I bought it, which is 120hz bfi. It adds just as much motion clarity without noticeable duplication as my 900e does, I was just wondering how the oled bfi functions ; the LCDs use the backlight but Oled doesn't have one. I suppose it's just an image processing trick, which would explain why there's a lag hit when using bfi unlike on my lcd which has no lag hit. I just am not 100% sure how it works.

Using it takes the lag from 18ms to 26ms using my leobodnar 4k lag tester, so I hope that by the time QNED or microled is used by Sony/panasonic the lag hit will be much smaller with faster image processing chips, since I suppose there will always be image processing with bfi on self emissive displays. Under 15ms with bfi would be great.

Even with BFI enabled I think the image is ready as normal but waits for the black portion to finishs, the black frame is probably at the beginning part of the displayed frame, that is why leo bodnar reports it with a delay. One way to eliminate the lag is to put the black at the end of the frame instead. But often it's probably happening half at the end and half at the beginning, it simply covers up the transition to the next frame. There are several ways to blank the screen, and it could be done in a minimally laggy way if the TV manufacturers deemed the cost and effort worthy.

On an OLED it will simply just turn the pixels of for a brief moment similar to how an LCD shuts off the leds. And yes future display tech is looking very promissing.

 

[JeloSWE]

As for the sharper image, what if that wasn't the intended artistic look? Games might be constrained by hardware and software engineering, but if done right they should be art, too IMHO and making something sharper isn't always going to be a win, just like certain motionflow settings on my ZD9 turning a 24fps cinematic film and making it look like soap opera at an interpolated 60, or whatever is the very opposite of the look the director intended.

Certain genres like driving simulators, FPS, fighting games lend themselves to highest frame-rate or certainly 60fps, but since the use of inverse kinematics in games, a hallmark of the AC games, that actually increases the delay between the time the user is in control, the talk of 60 instead of 30 feels very much misplaced. Because what people are really saying IMHO is they want finer grain control - like back in the day comparing the rawness of Kickoff 2 to Sensible soccer, or Olympic soccer to International Super Star Soccer Pro Evolution, and gamers claiming they want the former game styles, rather than the latter - which I still don't think they really want that, either, just the average gamer seems conditioned to believe that developers are wrong to choose 30fps.

To be honest, I don't care about this mantra of creators intent, I'm not walking around in some rose tinted admiration, 24 fps is a standard build on very old limitations and now everything is build around it and many are used to the look. I for one would welcome higher frame rates and use interpolation happily, if I don't apply at least some 24 fps content flickers and stutters something awful, it looks okay in a dark cinema of course as low fps suffers when you increase the brightness but at home with HDR and some healthy brightness I cant stand low fps movies. Also, Sony has the best interpolation in the industry so it doesn't look bad at all.

Inverse kinematics isn't really the cause for a non responsive feeling, it's more about how quickly you are willing to divert the animation towards new user input, if it's done too quickly it will look a bit twitchy but will feel great, unfortunately, some developers don't seem to appreciate snappy controls and want the animations to look smooth.

 

[MAX PAYMENT]

What exactly is the difference in the performance modes on Assassins Creed valhalla? Is it just a resolution/performance switch? If its just that, I'll leave it on performance. If it adds a lot of graphical effects, I might use quality mode. Are there any good break downs? I can't seem to find any.

 

[Kuranghi]

Also, just curious, do you have the 75inch or 65inch Z9D? How's the pixel response time on that? I've read on forums that the 75 inch models of the Z9D/F are better than the 65 versions, but nothing concrete. Rtings has the Z9D 65 inch rated at a 30ms 100% response time, which is extremely high.

I have the 65" ZD9 and can confirm the long response time causes smearing for ultra high contrast scenes, like cartoons where the characters have black outlines over a solid colour/solid white. So its very situational but definitely noticeable when it happens if I'm looking for it, the massive benefit for this tradeoff is having ultra low "stutter" for 24/30hz content, which as I understand it, is the time a complete frame is held before the next one starts being drawn.

Sony Z9F vs Sony Z9D Side-by-Side TV Comparison

The Sony Z9F is better than the Sony Z9D, unless you watch movies in the dark from directly in front. The Z9F is much brighter in SDR, and a bit brighter in HDR. The 2018 Z9F has much better motion handling, with significantly faster response time and less input lag, great for gaming. The Z9F...

www.rtings.com

Under mixed usage at the top, press the + for "Response Time" and "Stutter" and you'll see they praise the Z9F/ZF9 for its fast response time because it avoids the smearing I spoke of above, so the frames appear more clear in general during fast camera movement which is especially great for pixelated games, high contrast edges again and for MP games where you don't want any "blur". They say the Z9D/ZD9 is really bad in this respect and mention the problems I spoke of.

The counter to this is the "Stutter" section which shows that the Z9D/ZD9 will give you probably the best motion for 24hz movies because of the insanely long PRT, so watching movies and 24hz TV shows on it is absolutely stunning and worth the sacrifice of some games looking subpar to me. Tbh if it broke down I'd go for a 75" Z9D/ZD9 to see how much better the problematic scenes looked vs. the 65" but I bet its not worth fixing those small number of cases - For me anyway, I do play games like that quite a bit and even then it rarely takes me out of it, the game "I Am Dead" is a prime example of a torture test (That I'm currently playing) for my 65ZD9 since its all solid colour and some black outlined characters over said backgrounds, but even then its still amazing looking 99% of the time - at the expense of making all 24hz movies look just as stuttery as on most other LCDs.

Motion interpolation is godlike on this set as well, so even if you don't find 24hz smooth with Motionflow set to "Off" or "True Cinema" you can engage the Smoothness setting, and even go as high as 4 on the setting (Range is 1-5 on Z9D/ZD9) on a video like these two without adding any motion artifacts and I'm VERY picky about that, these types of content being the ones that benefit the most from motion interpolation imo:







I chose these videoes because they shot at 24fps and they seem to be using a really high shutter speed on the camera so each frame has almost no blur in the source itself, so any blur added will be due to your TV's output and what your eyes do with it. These look really clear and filmic, yet smooth on my TV even with Motionflow off, but I've tested them (Mostly the 2nd one since I worked in a shop with families ha) on many different panels, with wildly different PRTs, from OLED to some of the Samsung and Sony 6/7-series sets which have pretty high PRT and those sets were always preferred by 90% of my customers/colleages and friends when I asked them to rate the smoothness of motion, even with all the other caveats of those low end sets like low contrast, soft IQ and having a 60hz panel + a lower PWM frequency.

Those videoes are literally a torture test so don't think you have a crap set if its stuttery for you without motion settings engaged, its just a good way to show how PRT affects motion imo. Thats the only reason I chose these videoes ofc, no other reason.

Spoiler

Dat ass

edit - Please let me know whether those two music videoes, especially the first one, look really bad on your TV or not. I'd be interested to know if people with motion interpolation set high get tons of artifacts or it looks smooth for you. Or if you don't mind the stutter.

 

[StateofMajora]

I have the 65" ZD9 and can confirm the long response time causes smearing for ultra high contrast scenes, like cartoons where the characters have black outlines over a solid colour/solid white. So its very situational but definitely noticeable when it happens if I'm looking for it, the massive benefit for this tradeoff is having ultra low "stutter" for 24/30hz content, which as I understand it, is the time a complete frame is held before the next one starts being drawn.

Sony Z9F vs Sony Z9D Side-by-Side TV Comparison

The Sony Z9F is better than the Sony Z9D, unless you watch movies in the dark from directly in front. The Z9F is much brighter in SDR, and a bit brighter in HDR. The 2018 Z9F has much better motion handling, with significantly faster response time and less input lag, great for gaming. The Z9F...

www.rtings.com

Under mixed usage at the top, press the + for "Response Time" and "Stutter" and you'll see they praise the Z9F/ZF9 for its fast response time because it avoids the smearing I spoke of above, so the frames appear more clear in general during fast camera movement which is especially great for pixelated games, high contrast edges again and for MP games where you don't want any "blur". They say the Z9D/ZD9 is really bad in this respect and mention the problems I spoke of.

The counter to this is the "Stutter" section which shows that the Z9D/ZD9 will give you probably the best motion for 24hz movies because of the insanely long PRT, so watching movies and 24hz TV shows on it is absolutely stunning and worth the sacrifice of some games looking subpar to me. Tbh if it broke down I'd go for a 75" Z9D/ZD9 to see how much better the problematic scenes looked vs. the 65" but I bet its not worth fixing those small number of cases - For me anyway, I do play games like that quite a bit and even then it rarely takes me out of it, the game "I Am Dead" is a prime example of a torture test (That I'm currently playing) for my 65ZD9 since its all solid colour and some black outlined characters over said backgrounds, but even then its still amazing looking 99% of the time - at the expense of making all 24hz movies look just as stuttery as on most other LCDs.

Motion interpolation is godlike on this set as well, so even if you don't find 24hz smooth with Motionflow set to "Off" or "True Cinema" you can engage the Smoothness setting, and even go as high as 4 on the setting (Range is 1-5 on Z9D/ZD9) on a video like these two without adding any motion artifacts and I'm VERY picky about that, these types of content being the ones that benefit the most from motion interpolation imo:







I chose these videoes because they shot at 24fps and they seem to be using a really high shutter speed on the camera so each frame has almost no blur in the source itself, so any blur added will be due to your TV's output and what your eyes do with it. These look really clear and filmic, yet smooth on my TV even with Motionflow off, but I've tested them (Mostly the 2nd one since I worked in a shop with families ha) on many different panels, with wildly different PRTs, from OLED to some of the Samsung and Sony 6/7-series sets which have pretty high PRT and those sets were always preferred by 90% of my customers/colleages and friends when I asked them to rate the smoothness of motion, even with all the other caveats of those low end sets like low contrast, soft IQ and having a 60hz panel + a lower PWM frequency.

Those videoes are literally a torture test so don't think you have a crap set if its stuttery for you without motion settings engaged, its just a good way to show how PRT affects motion imo. Thats the only reason I chose these videoes ofc, no other reason.

Spoiler

Dat ass

Yeah man, that's the one benefit of having a slower response times ; films without added motion interpolation.

My Sony A8h is impossible to watch with 24fps movies without using interpolation due to high judder. Its response time is just too quick. Not a problem of the set obviously, but yeah I bet that ZD9 looks incredible for watching movies in their purest form with no motion processing. At least for films, that ZD9 is still probably the best tv on the market if you're not using interpolation.

Thankfully, like you said, Sony's motion smoothing is the best in the business with no visible artifacts so I use the lowest smoothness setting of 1 for films and it looks stunning, with no more judder.

Been a while since I watched a movie on my x900e, as I now just watch 4:3 animation on it due to not wanting to burn out the oled lol. I'll have to refresh my memory on if it's judder free with no motion processing turned on, but the motion was incredible on that set all around.

 

[yewles1]

I prefer quality myself, I grew up on movies and lower feamerate games most of my life so I'm used to it. I'd rather have more pixels and detail, I'm glad that's still an option (for now...).

 

[Kuranghi]

I prefer quality myself, I grew up on movies and lower feamerate games most of my life so I'm used to it. I'd rather have more pixels and detail, I'm glad that's still an option (for now...).

Same here mate.

Back in the 90s, when there were a million different Graphics APIs, as discrete GPUs first came in. In a single day I would play a game at locked 75 fps and then later on another at 20fps just depending on whether the dev supported my API properly/efficiently/at all. Back then I always tried to play games at my monitors native res even if that meant 30ish fps instead of 60ish.

We are talking playing at 360p vs 768p so it made a massive difference on a monitor. Now I have a 65" 4K TV and its the same with 1080p and 2160p on that, always trying to hit that native res to get those ultra clean pixels I crave.

 

[Umbral]

Quality mode all the way for me. At least for the first playthrough anyway.

Demons souls and morales Quality modes are just unbelievable on my 75" X900H. This is what I paid for. To be blown away.

There‘s a difference with Demon’s Souls but it is not ”unbelievable.” It’s minimal and not worth halving the framerate to get it, especially when it comes at the cost of motion clarity. I tried cinematic or whatever it’s called and you can see a difference in tessellation on certain objects but it is so small. If you’ve got evidence to support it, I’m down to be proven wrong.

God of War is weird on PS5 for me because it looks way better in Quality mode especially in cut scenes but the combat is way more fun in 60 FPS...I often find myself toggling when I’m exploring and then back into performance for combat.

Just beat Spider-Man Remastered in RT performance and that was great.

If you install God of War without patching it (from disc) you can play in 4K/60. Best of both worlds.

Playing Demon's Souls in Cinematic/Quality 4K was the only way to actually get the visuals from the initial reveal. Being a bit of a graphics whore, I value visuals over performance.

Performance mode is nice for 60fps, but the image is noticeably blurry on my LG C9 OLED. I won't deny that switching from 60fps to 30fps is jarring and I experience the "slideshow" effect that people keep referring to. However, after playing for a minute or two my eyes adjust and I no longer notice it.

There’s also the response in controls you lose by dropping to 30, which in a game that punishes you hard for mistakes, is a bad tradeoff. I’ve yet to see any significant difference in visuals between quality and performance in Demon’s Souls.

 

[anothertech]

Probably also depends on the display you are using

 

[DeaconOfTheDank]

There’s also the response in controls you lose by dropping to 30, which in a game that punishes you hard for mistakes, is a bad tradeoff. I’ve yet to see any significant difference in visuals between quality and performance in Demon’s Souls.

To be honest, I've gotten used to playing most console games at 30fps. 60fps is very nice, but not really necessary and is something that I've only really come to expect from gaming on my PC. The controls don't really feel unresponsive to me either, but I'm also very familiar with Souls gameplay (I've played all games in the series, including Bloodborne and Sekiro). I guess if I was really struggling with the game then I might opt for more responsiveness. As it stands, I value visuals a lot more - especially when playing on a large screen.

 

[Umbral]

To be honest, I've gotten used to playing most console games at 30fps. 60fps is very nice, but not really necessary and is something that I've only really come to expect from gaming on my PC. The controls don't really feel unresponsive to me either, but I'm also very familiar with Souls gameplay (I've played all games in the series, including Bloodborne and Sekiro). I guess if I was really struggling with the game then I might opt for more responsiveness. As it stands, I value visuals a lot more - especially when playing on a large screen.

I’m playing on a 4K OLED. There’s barely a difference at all and certainly not enough to justify cutting the framerate in half. What’s great with PS5 now is that every game I’ve played on it, both PS4 and PS5, have had options for at least 60fps. No need to settle for 30 anymore.

I just want an example, a significant example where using quality makes a difference. I haven’t seen it so far. I’ve looked myself on the games I can. It’s not like you get ray tracing if you switch to cinematic in Demon’s Souls.

 

[Kuranghi]

I’m playing on a 4K OLED. There’s barely a difference at all and certainly not enough to justify cutting the framerate in half. What’s great with PS5 now is that every game I’ve played on it, both PS4 and PS5, have had options for at least 60fps. No need to settle for 30 anymore.

I just want an example, a significant example where using quality makes a difference. I haven’t seen it so far. I’ve looked myself on the games I can. It’s not like you get ray tracing if you switch to cinematic in Demon’s Souls.

What size of OLED is it and how far are you sitting from it? Do you use any sharpening in your TV settings?

I'm just asking this to everyone who doesn't feel a big difference to see if there are any similarities between experiences that could explain it. I do think recommending viewing distances are a factor with 4K because even with good vision you have to be closer than you think to resolve all the detail of a 4K image, to resolve a single black pixel on a white background I need to be like 4' away from my 65" which is too close. I'd say more than 8 feet and you won't get the whole benefit.

If sharpening is used then thats probably most of the reason. Its a bit hard to show you an example because it really has to be seen natively, taking a screenshot even a really high quality png always loses sharpness for me compared to how it looks on my screen IRL.

I think you're right that in DeSo its probably better to use perf as well, since its a game where you don't want to fail because of "lag" rather than just making a bad decision.

 

[Alebrije]

Do not know if its becuase PS5 hardware but played Demons Souls on Performance Vs other modes and noticed the difference on my Qled 65" tv...and loved performance. Meanwhile on PS4 hardly felt the difference on both modes with games that had this feature. Also played some chapters of Days Gone on PS4 time ago and when PS5 arrived continued played it and OMG the game looks and plays great...its 4k 60fps...do not know if 4k dynamic or native...but the game really feels a next gen on the PS5.

Anyway it seems Performance is the way this generarion.

 

[Umbral]

What size of OLED is it and how far are you sitting from it? Do you use any sharpening in your TV settings?

I'm just asking this to everyone who doesn't feel a big difference to see if there are any similarities between experiences that could explain it. I do think recommending viewing distances are a factor with 4K because even with good vision you have to be closer than you think to resolve all the detail of a 4K image, to resolve a single black pixel on a white background I need to be like 4' away from my 65" which is too close. I'd say more than 8 feet and you won't get the whole benefit.

If sharpening is used then thats probably most of the reason. Its a bit hard to show you an example because it really has to be seen natively, taking a screenshot even a really high quality png always loses sharpness for me compared to how it looks on my screen IRL.

I think you're right that in DeSo its probably better to use perf as well, since its a game where you don't want to fail because of "lag" rather than just making a bad decision.

48” sitting less than 6 feet from the tv. No sharpening, neutral. There’s a difference but it’s so incredibly minor it seems a waste to have even included a 30fps mode. It’s not like Miles Morales RT on and off where you notice immediately. You have to really look for the differences and even when you see them they’re unimpressive. I even took some screenshots to compare myself and watched a few comparison videos.

 

[Tygeezy]

Yes, 60hz is tiresome, 120hz is not. Still a mismatch will produce duplicates. And as I can deduce from the measurement from Rtings is that your LCD isn't doing a very strong BFI so the duplicates may not manifest well at all and on the OLED you have 60. Still you I'm surprised you don't see anything if you change speed on this ufo test. https://www.testufo.com/framerates#count=3&background=none&pps=2560

Also, I absolutely don't want to sound condescending here but you are following the ufo with your eyes and not just staring at the screen right?

And looking at Z9D on Rtings it only had 60hz and but looks like a very good and sharp implementation.

---

This here is a very good example, I get two Eifel towers with my 120hz BFI on 60fps side scrolling material, I did my own persuit camera which is not the best with an iPhone but should give an inclination of how it looks.
Test: https://www.testufo.com/framerates-...irection=ltr&framerate=60&compare=2&showfps=1

this is why its impossible for 24 fps film to look good in motion. You either deal with blur on sample and hold displays, duplicate images on impulse displays with refresh rates double or triple that of the framerate, or if you actually matched 24 hz at 24 hz with impulse display you would have seizure inducing flicker.

 

[JeloSWE]

48” sitting less than 6 feet from the tv. No sharpening, neutral. There’s a difference but it’s so incredibly minor it seems a waste to have even included a 30fps mode. It’s not like Miles Morales RT on and off where you notice immediately. You have to really look for the differences and even when you see them they’re unimpressive. I even took some screenshots to compare myself and watched a few comparison videos.

Peasant, I sit 1.8 m from my 75" TV muhaha!... * cough cough* but I whole heartedly agree, it's really not a huge difference, you have to stand still and just stare up close to see any real difference and it's so minor in DS it's not worth it even for 30 fps lovers.

Bluepoint hit it out of the park, and I know from DF interviews that they target 60 throughout the whole development and it's not a last minute slap on to please players. They could certainly increase the visual fidelity by adding raytracing for more accurate lighting such as shadows and global illumination but they said they didn't have time to explore that for the PS5 launch window. Yet the game is incredibly beautiful, at 60 fps, and this is how games should be made.

 

[DeaconOfTheDank]

I’m playing on a 4K OLED. There’s barely a difference at all and certainly not enough to justify cutting the framerate in half. What’s great with PS5 now is that every game I’ve played on it, both PS4 and PS5, have had options for at least 60fps. No need to settle for 30 anymore.

I just want an example, a significant example where using quality makes a difference. I haven’t seen it so far. I’ve looked myself on the games I can. It’s not like you get ray tracing if you switch to cinematic in Demon’s Souls.

Take a look at the "Results" tab and use the slider to try to see the comparisons I'm making:


Alternatively, open up the JSFiddle in a separate tab and go fullscreen (F11 on Chrome): JSFiddle

Maybe it's because I sit so close to my screen (55" display and I sit about 3-4ft away) or that my entire first playthrough was in Cinematic mode, but here are the things that stick out to me when comparing to Performance mode...

• Tessellation - A lot of the materials in Demon's Souls make use of tessellation. I notice less deformation on things like the brick wall to the left (you can literally see how the bricks change by moving the slider back and forth) and the pebbles near the player's feet. This aspect alone causes for a big jump in polygons/geometric detail on screen when switching to Cinematic mode.
• Ambient Occlussion - By the very nature of having more geometric detail and deformation with increased tessellation, you have a lot more corners or edges where two objects intersect. This results in an increased application of AO. The brickwork on the left wall and ground in front of the player have more detailed shading.
• Specular Highlights - For the similar reasons that we see an increase in ambient occlusion, you have a lot more fine-grained detail in specular highlights because additional surface normals generated through tessellation. I can notice this especially in shine from the brick wall to the left and the wood on the broken wagon to the right. You can actually see individual cracks in the wood on the broken wagon at noticeable increase in resolution.
• Texture Details - Because of the bump in texture resolution, certain details are lot more crisp/sharp. In particular, you can notice the ridges and cracks in the Vanguard's horns, increased clarity on the leather work of the arrow quiver, sharper detail on the sword guard and handle, more defined chainmail links, the bricks on the tower in the distance on the right and higher resolution particles (smoke, fire, soul form vapor, etc.).
• Film-grain - I know this setting is pretty subjective, but I happen to like the way it makes shadows/lighting look a lot more diffuse (especially when adding in volumetrics). In Performance mode I can notice a decrease in resolution when looking at things like the clouds behind the Vanguard, the noisy edges on distant background objects like the flags and brickwork, how fog/smoke looks less grainy, etc. I imagine that other screen-space/postprocessing effects are affected by how the increase in resolution causes an increase in samples.

A lot of these things are on the screen pretty much constantly. I can see why some might think these are subtle differences individually, but when you throw them altogether it's hard to ignore. The result is that Performance makes for a less detailed image across the board. Then again, on a fast moving screen I'm not sure if you would notice these things. This is where it all comes down to personal preference. If you're focused entirely on the action, then Performance mode is the way to go. If you're like me and you like slowly making your way through the level while stopping every couple of minutes to take in the scenery or mess around with Photo Mode, Cinematic mode is for you.

I would give you more examples, but these posts take a lot of time and effort to create. I can see why there aren't many people out there trying to produce the same content as NXGamer and Digital Foundry.

Discussion aside, goddamn is this game gorgeous...

 

[Umbral]

Take a look at the "Results" tab and use the slider to try to see the comparisons I'm making:


Alternatively, open up the JSFiddle in a separate tab and go fullscreen (F11 on Chrome):

Maybe it's because I sit so close to my screen (55" display and I sit about 3-4ft away) or that my entire first playthrough was in Cinematic mode, but here are the things that stick out to me when comparing to Performance mode...

• Tessellation - A lot of the materials in Demon's Souls make use of tessellation. I notice less deformation on things like the brick wall to the left (you can literally see how the bricks change by moving the slider back and forth) and the pebbles near the player's feet. This aspect alone causes for a big jump in polygons/geometric detail on screen when switching to Cinematic mode.
• Ambient Occlussion - By the very nature of having more geometric detail and deformation with increased tessellation, you have a lot more corners or edges where two objects intersect. This results in an increased application of AO. The brickwork on the left wall and ground in front of the player have more detailed shading.
• Specular Highlights - For the similar reasons that we see an increase in ambient occlusion, you have a lot more fine-grained detail in specular highlights because additional surface normals generated through tessellation. I can notice this especially in shine from the brick wall to the left and the wood on the broken wagon to the right. You can actually see individual cracks in the wood on the broken wagon at noticeable increase in resolution.
• Texture Details - Because of the bump in texture resolution, certain details are lot more crisp/sharp. In particular, you can notice the ridges and cracks in the Vanguard's horns, increased clarity on the leather work of the arrow quiver, sharper detail on the sword guard and handle, more defined chainmail links, the bricks on the tower in the distance on the rightand higher resolution particles (smoke, fire, soul form vapor, etc.).
• Film-grain - I know this setting is pretty subjective, but I happen to like the way it makes shadows/lighting look a lot more diffuse (especially when adding in volumetrics). In Performance mode I can notice a decrease in resolution when looking at things like the clouds behind the Vanguard, the noisy edges on distant background objects like the flags and brickwork, how fog/smoke looks less grainy, etc. I imagine that other screen-space/postprocessing effects are affected by how the increase in resolution causes an increase in samples.

A lot of these things are on the screen pretty much constantly. I can see why some might think these are subtle differences individually, but when you throw them altogether it's hard to ignore. The result is that Performance makes for a less detailed image across the board. Then again, on a fast moving screen I'm not sure if you would notice these things. This is where it all comes down to personal preference. If you're focused entirely on the action, then Performance mode is the way to go. If you're like me and you like slowly making your way through the level while stopping every couple of minutes to take in the scenery or mess around with Photo Mode, Cinematic mode is for you.

I would give you more examples, but these posts take a lot of effort to create. I can see why there aren't many people out there trying to produce the same content as NXGamer and Digital Foundry.

Discussion aside, goddamn is this game gorgeous...

Thanks for taking the time to write out the details. You sit a little closer than me and your TV is a little larger. The comparison was helpful too but I’m still 60 or higher as far as framerate, if I can get it. You lose so much detail moving the camera in 30fps and most games require moving the camera a lot. There are certainly implementations of 30 I can tolerate, but if I have a choice, performance.That comparison tool is really useful though. I love technology sometimes.

 

[sendit]

Would buy a 1000 dollar PS5 Pro if it effectively meant that I could play all Sony exclusives at 60 FPS. Anything else, I have a PC for.

 

[rofif]

Tv players are too far to see the difference.
I don't have ps5 yet but play on 4k27" monitor. In desk setup if aa is not perfect, i see it. Every detail is visible. Even 1800p vs 4k.
But it's mostly about sharpness, jaggines, shimmering and aa. Dlss been a godsend. Stuff like tesselation and some graphics quality don't show up unless you look for it and I do usually since I am an idiot to the point that I prefer nicer graphics and I am fine with 30fps. Just finished 2077 on psycho rt settings and it played great 30fps