This moderator's funny ways to see things :)


#23

You are right that I am trying to help. I first noticed the flamewar going, but it was about a subject I don’t know about much. Not even a little bit. So I let it go. But it got my attention a few times and now I am wondering what the buzz is about. In my eyes, Heliosurge is a patient and even understanding person. But he is no saint. None of us are. And I see you cursing and swearing. Trying to hold your own. Now that might be an easy decision whose side to take, but maybe it isn’t easy at all. You still persevere. That’s why I am asking. You are protesting vehemently. So I thought, maybe @Lillo can tell what he is after. What makes him tick. The ‘truth’ is a bit philosophical, but you present it as right versus wrong. No other options on the table.

You gave links to many tech info. which I may or may not understand at all. So bear with me if I make mistakes in interpretation here. What is the core of your truth? Is it even possible to capture the sole idea/proof of your truth in 1 concept?


#24
  • The rude attitude and replies toward myself started way before what you see me writing here (truth burns to ignorants and weak characters).

  • There is no sides here, and no need to take one…truth about something is the truth…(1 Millisecond is 1/1000 of a second ?? Truth…that’s almost the same I talked about until now…)

  • If you want to contest that maybe 1 ms is less than that…great, I’m listening…but you’re going to be ready to be pointed as a FOOL if you fail, even if you insist after being shown the proof and university material, and if you then start trying to slip a Freudian Transfert on who told you, to save face, then you will be surely started to be viewed as an insane, until you maybe can prove your point in exact scientific form, and explaining your theory on it. (Perfectly depicts Heliosurge).

If you are unable to discern what was presented until now, I’m sorry…will not even try, as I don’t see any dispute here, what I should prove anyway ?? It’s written in the tech books, and school university material, it’s there for you, go see…

The IJARCCE journals are a good source and some of the most advanced material you can find on computing and research that are available to the public.


#25

I admire @George for taking the opportunity to turn this ridiculous conversation into something actually good and productive by revealing pros,cons, future display by people claiming to have great knowledge on that matter. Unfortunately even after a couple of honest attempts, he failed. But Lilo made his point cristal clear by even bluntly admitting that his only purpose is to prove to be a pain in the ass. So honesty I suggest to consequently ignore those with overwhelming pitiful “I could not care less” points to prove and let em rott in their own piss.


#26

I am sorry to let you down. When I was younger, I knew the truth myself. I knew everything in the world. Everybody was stupid, but me. I knew the truth. (There must be more people thinking that way when they were younger, I think). But some day a world was opening to me.

I strongly believe in scientific progress. And one day two of the sources I mostly trusted to convey science were actually contradicting eachother on exactly the same subject. My world fell apart. How can you have two truths, two sources that are trustworthy to me. How was that even possible? I was the one discerning the truth, because it was in a text I trusted to be the truth. And it was not! And all the time ‘others were stupid’, I thought. How sad really. But that is also a part of me. Since then I know there is not one truth. There are many. As sung by the Dire Straits in their famous song: Brother in arms.

Dire Straits - Brothers in arms
There’s so many different worlds
So many different suns
And we have just one world
But we live in different ones

We are brothers. We both have love for science. But we live in different worlds, my @Lillo
I’d love to hear your truth. If you ever manage to convey it with a single concept. I really do.
But untill then. I am sorry to let you down.


#27

I know nothing of screen technology except I like the advancement since my 1960s Sony Trinitron.

To any and all:
In all this arguing what lcds are capable of…are there studies of simply providing direct power to a diode to measure black to black, or is this impossible as I don’t actually know what I’m talking about enough to formulate my question properly?

I’m trying to break it down to what I think I have some understanding of. If you have the actual lcd tech that is going to be used in a product, couldn’t you isolate the parts which light up and go dark, removing the pipeline of what feeds them (as much as possible), and simply turn them on and off and time it. My thoughts say if that can be done then you are now approaching physical limits of this tech - no matter how much you work on the pipeline feeding the light, you can’t make the end element light up and darken any faster until you change that end element to something else. My naive mind says there must be a way to measure the physical limit of the actual part that lights up, and in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics Lisa!

Sorry to reduce it to us people with no background.

In fairness to Lillo it does seem people responded to a more scientific article with more marketing articles and I can relate to only being able to throw your hands up. I work in medicine and I can tell you that people who read memes from porn stars understand the material so much better than I, they tell me all the time. That’s an extreme example admittedly.

The person claiming that the paper presented is old information bears the responsibility to prove that. It is impossible for anyone to prove that there is no more recent, relevant and reliable information available. However it’s damn simple to disprove. If you claim it as outdated then you have the burden of proof.


#28

No I’m done. You will not bother me. You don’t want to try. & yes ypu originally said 60 then 72 & now 75(at least that’s progress).

As for banning you? That will fall on how you interact with others & pimax’s decision if users press for you to be banned. Most I will do is give you time outs.

I just reccommend users to use Settings tab on profile to mute you instead of reacting to your inflexibility & abrasiveness.


#29

WTF did i just come back to!! go skiing for a week and all this shit happens, Holy Crap! where is that ignore button…


#30

It’s not that mate…you’re still missing the real point, it’s simply about offending someone’s intelligence, because when you talk to someone and engage in a discussion, it’s your responsibility to listen, read, ponder what has been told you, and use your brain, like an adult, responsible people, otherwise if you just don’t listen, reply in a loop fashion, even repeat something that one has just telling you like it is coming from your mouth and not his and like it is a different thing, just contest and act like a deaf…then you ARE just acting like an automaton that repeats “no, no, no…” in a loop.

THIS IS PLAIN INSULT TO SOMEONE’S INTELLIGENGE…and is what this moderator has done, again and again, and could happen to you as well.

If he was just saying “I don’t agree” all the whole time…well…okay !!! It would have been a TOTALLY DIFFERENT MATTER !! And I would have agreed and respecting his point of view…but it’s not what happened, and I can’t believe no one is even noticing it.


#31

C’mon…It is explained in depth in that article and study in the long post I made at the start of this thread… what you’re asking can be done with a suitable oscilloscope, and a photodiode sensor instrument for measuring the tested screen, the authors of that research used the same exact method.

Why everyone is just talking and asking again if not having read what has been presented ?..it’s just very offensive…

I’m very well updated on these matters, but it can’t be discussed with the likes of this moderator and some other retarded individuals, continuously interfering and ostracizing, and probably not anyone here, because if someone you talk to does not understand or even read what you write, it is clear that such a discussion can not be done.

I could give you scientific material that to your eyes would seem science-fiction, from academic studies…but what do you think would happen after the level of the people here has been shown with their simple reactions to even this basic material ?..I will don’t ever bother try, at this point.


#32


#33

No offense intended. It’s not related to my field and I have no background in which to critically analyse publications on the matter, so hadn’t read the article with the oscilloscope measurements. I have now.

Thanks for the answer that measuring physical limits can be done well with the methods in that paper. Again their method is not something I can critically analyse given my lack of knowledge, so need such advice.

I’ve certainly been exposed to enough scientific information as to have come across what seems like science fiction initially, just in completely different fields.

Don’t feel you need to answer this Lillo, my postings are to anyone and I know it can be frustrating suddenly dropping to the level of audience as myself with no knowledge on the topic.

Are there variations in the materials being used in lcd technologies which would make it possible to have a different grey to grey time than that measured on the Asus monitor in this study? Not the pipeline running it, but the end piece which provides light.


#34

Thanks, this is a good, intelligent question, because you hinted at the possibility that the problem could be in the control logic and what is controlling (or artificially limiting, that is what really happens in any commercial display) the whole thing, something I tried to point out since months.

I’ll try to answer you as best as I can: Not that I know, and haven’t tested any such panel until now, even I had chance to test prototypes still not on the market…it’s something related to intrinsical physical limits of the liquid crystals when used in a field of application like gaming, the only exception would be if you’re going to use these with very simple monochrome imaging, coupled with overdriven panels and without the current logic that is commonly used in commercial panels, and special software to control them in a “bare to the metal” fashion, so to say…then you can have as little as 1ms response with them, but still…only in these niche applications.

That’s why Nvidia and AMD have been pushed by the market to create G-Sync and Freesync, that, yes, make things a little better bypassing some limiting features integrated in electronics until now, but can’t go as far as totally eliminating the problem, only push to the LCD’s limits…but you will still have some tearing and glitching because the monitor will always be left behind compared in relation to the Gfx card ability to push frames out.

Except of course you’re going to use a pure Oled panel, without any restraining features, or that can give out 150-200Hz with ease, as many panels now can.


#35

What paper are you talking about ? Please give reference, if you’re talking about the IJARCCE journal, it mostly only talks about Oled, and is from 2014 not 2006…so I’m just wondering.

But if you’re talking about the article you originally linked, there are references and brand names and models of the gaming panels used in the tests…actual and current modern gaming monitors.

I see…I NEVER said that either, Heliosurge is affirming I said that, maybe I once, at the very beginning of my interventions in the forum, months ago, I could have said that most standard LCD panels have a medium refresh rate operation set at that value (and just the fact that almost any phone, OS or device in the graphic panel sets it to this number by default, with sometimes options for 72 or 75, should make you think…).
And if you try to use an utility to push the monitor to overclocked values , say for example at 90Hz it will go black screen in protection mode cause out of range… (not every monitor, but most models yes)

Absolutely ! I’m one of the more prone to that here, and all my posts show this…but this is not the matter here, like I already explained in detail (to a level that even my cat understand it now…)

The two papers are update and still current, IJARCCE journal is from 2014 and still valid for the points that were being discussed.
The study you linked…well…it’s from THIS SAME YEAR. I don’t see your point at all.
It’s not about contesting new tech discoveries, I could cite more actual discoveries that are still kept hidden and that one day will render actual panel tech (including Oled) looks like junk, but I will not go in that terrain at this point, for the reasons I already explained over and over.

Of course…but still…I’m not seeing your point, both these tech are just great and will do, until new ones will be introduced.

Sure, golden rule…I see but…

I’ll make you an example as simple as is humanly possible, using you as example:

  1. You describe some new tech to the forum, and make some points.

  2. I say "Okay, but there’s something more you maybe don’t have noticed and it is that this tech can’t go over xxx because of yyy.

  3. You say: Not true, here some links who prove that it can very well go over xxx - LINK

  4. I go to see that link but that is not what I was trying to explain, so I am explaining here in some more little detail.

  5. You say: It’s not even that way…look here: LINK

  6. I go to look that link and, WTF ?!?!? It is saying EXACTLY what I was trying to explain, almost 100% (to this point I’m begin to feel there’s something wrong with you, or that you’re just insulting my intelligence)

  7. I stay cool and again even try to go some more in depth with the discussion and try make you notice it was the same I was trying to explain.

  8. You: NO WAY…give me proof ! Give me links ! (even that the proof proving what I was saying was already presented by YOURSELF in your links!)

  9. I say: Okay, you asked for it. I give some advanced material explaining in depth the matter and point at the specific points I was just trying to make you notice (although at this point I seriously doubted the ability to be understood by you, but still trusting to broaden the understanding of other, maybe interested people)

  10. You: NO, NO, NO, it’s different, and you go back to 1) to the start of the all above, repeating the process, and linking other things that again, confirms what I was talking, and even contradicting you.

  11. I get convinced you’re totally insane or just have some serious character or learning problems, or just suffering from a narcissistic complex.

That’s PRECISELY what this moderator Heliosurge has done. Not sure about you, but to me it is insulting someone’s intelligence, and any person with a sane mind and a minimum dignity for himself would have felt this way.

Not about tech talk, or having fun or having own opinions, I am very well open and prone to that, so stop saying it.


#36

I would give you a big huge if I could - but you are to far away.

Edit: so 2 post from my person lead you to conclusions Nr. 11 - I am impressed and a bit hurt :disappointed:.