Originally Posted by Datacide
No...processing is a general term. I didn't say that it was having PQ processing to double the frame. Something has to tell the signal to double...thus a video "process" is required. Regardless of how quick this is, there has to be some delay in this (even repeating the buffer is a delay)...and the doubling of the frame is bound to cause a delay. 1:1 vs 1:2...makes perfect sense to me. Maybe someone with an degree in this field can shed some light on this...but seems like simple physics to me.
If you have a buffer that is checked every 1/120th of a second, you can place something there every 60th of a second, and it will get checked twice. In fact, you could just leave it there for a second an and it will be checked 120 times. You are not doing any
additional work. There is no "cost" for repeating the frame.
I don't know how a TV works, but I have written direct to video hardware and I can attest to this. If I want the screen to be blue for one minute, I do not have to check the monitor's refresh rate and generate enough blue screens. I simply fill the buffer with what I want, and leave it in the buffer as long as I want it there. The display hardware checks the buffer according to its own schedule.
Like I said, I dont know how a TV works. But the point is, it is not safe to assume that doubling a frame increases work. Nor, really, should we assume the opposite
Originally Posted by Datacide
Also...there has been speculation that the Game mode also runs at 60Hz...thus, the reason for the lack of lag in this mode. This is similar to the thoughts on the Game/Text mode on the XBR series (also thought to run at 60Hz in this mode).
If you have a better explanation for why the GAME mode gets no lag when all other modes do...I am all ears.
When you want to speed up a PC game, you do not adjust the refresh rate of your monitor. You turn down the processing that your video card must execute (shaders, aliasing, etc.).
Same idea, except that game mode eliminates
processing, instead of adjusting it.
Suppose that you need to load a buffer every 1/60th of a second. Your ability to get that done would not be impacted were I to check the buffer once each 1/60th of a second or twice. You might not even know what I am doing with it.
Now suppose that you, Lestat and Studdad each have to check the image and possibly adjust it before putting it on the buffer. Even if each of you can get your job done in 1/60th of a second, there will be lag. Once you get rolling, you may be able to get a frame onto the buffer every 1/60th of a second. But it will take a couple of moments before the first one is ready.
Now I say, "Don't bother passing it to Lestat and Studdad." Your lag is reduced, because there is less stuff you must do before putting the first frame on the buffer. The bottleneck is eliminated. (No offense to Lestat or Studdad.)
But anyway, I don't know why we are arguing about this. The fact of the matter is that game mode eliminates lag. Does it display one image every 60th of a second, or two identical images? Makes no difference to me.
All I know is this:
- The set can do 5:5 if AMP is off
- The set has a game mode that eliminates lag
That is enough to make me happy. For all I know, Jazzbass and Metal are in that black box, mucking about with my frames. But what comes out in the end looks good to me.
(With apologies to Lestat, Studdad, Jazzbass, Metal and Datacide....)