Originally Posted by none74
You are not trying to *help*. You are trying to make someone feel stupid, using "facts" gleaned from the internet that you've never tried yourself. Yes I have run a G90 at this resolution. Yes it looks BETTER than 1920x1080 at 60Hz. Yes it is smoother and more realistic than any other setup. There is a greater imitation of reality and it has greater depth and LOOKS
Also, as MP pointed out, personal preference has more to do with one's judgment of the "quality" of an image than statistics and ratings. Just because the "best" college football team plays every year, doesn't mean it wins...
I've just recently been experimenting with running my Marquee at 1280x1024 at 120Hz refresh, and I LOVE the way it looks. And no it doesn't look "soft" and no there isn't any "streaking". It is smooth, smooth smooth, and lifelike with great depth of field and a solidness to the image that was never there before.
I know what my eyes tell me, and they tell me faster refresh rates which are exact multiples of film look BETTER.
If you guys want to think differently, without trying it, go right ahead, and you're even allowed to think you prefer the lower refresh rates, but to say I'm stupid for LIKING the way the image looks is ludicrous.
And 96Hz looked BETTER than 72Hz, which is why that was used...
Compare the same movie clip using the same software player and the same output characteristics, but change the refresh rates and look at the differences, perhaps you'll be surprised...Or don't, I don't care. Keep watching your juddery, jerky approximation of film.