this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2024
219 points (94.7% liked)

Technology

59174 readers
4341 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/18305395

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

Is it really worth the cost after 144 Hz, though? Are there applications for a higher refresh rate than the human eye can even see?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

This guy is pretty exited about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqa7QVwfu7s

He says it looks "real"

higher refresh rate than the human eye can even see

There is no fixed limit on refresh rate that we can see, that's not how seeing works.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for the answer!

I know there’s no numbered fixed limit on the human eye, obviously, but it seems like beyond a certain screen refresh rate our eyes wouldn’t really notice a difference, yeah?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Your rods and cones in your eye and the nerves that transmit the information to your brain have signalling limits, they can only fire so fast and they have a time to reset. It depends on lighting and what you're focused on as well.

Which is why film can get away with 24 frames per second because in a dark theatre and a bright screen 24 fps is enough to blur that signalling so that it looks like decent motion. Only thing cinematographers had to watch out for is large panning shots as our peripheral vision is tuned for more rapid response and we can see the juddering out of the corner of our eyes.

I could see the 60Hz flicker of crt monitors back in the day if I had a larger monitor or was working next to someone with 60Hz. Not when I was directly looking at it, but when it was in my peripheral vision. The relatively tiny jump to 72Hz made things so much nicer for me.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

For Joe Everyman with a reaction time of 250-300ms it would probably not be worth the additional cost, but for esports players who have a reaction time of half that already it starts to matter more, especially for games that run synchronously on a tick system.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago

Ah, so like the esports competitions for LoL and the like? That makes more sense. Thanks!