Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Whatifim80lol t1_it8r6cd wrote

Reply to comment by vinraven in 8K Industry Faces Challenge with New EU Regulatory Ruling by SalmonellaTizz

Lol no. But that doesn't stop people from feeling like they can. We don't need 144hz monitors either, human flicker-fusion threshold is like 60hz. Anything over 90 makes very little difference for our eyes.

Edit: your eyes aren't seeing those higher refresh rates, they're just seeing a crispy picture and less blur as the frames change. The way frames are drawn by games make this difference, not the monitor itself per se. Gamers always take this news hard for some reason, I guess because of marketing or something? The difference you see isn't what you think it is. Your eyes physically don't work that way.

Basically, if there is a LOT of change between frames in what needs to be drawn from frame to frame (like spinning around 360⁰), the change between those frames appears muddier as they are quickly drawn across the monitor. Higher fps/hz just spread this muddiness across more frames, so each frame looks slightly crisper than it would otherwise.

Your eyes do not see more frames in a second just because you're playing at a high frame rate.

−16

tycoon282 t1_it8rpmr wrote

Nah, high refresh is 👌🏼 once you see 165hz, 60 is 🤢

10

NerdMouse t1_it8rorl wrote

You say that but doesn't VR say that 90hz is the bare minimum needed to have a smooth experience? Cause I have a VR headset and I can definitely tell when it's just at 90hz

7

rbnhd_f t1_it8s7zm wrote

Yes, this person is just plain wrong - talking out of their ass. There is diminishing returns the higher you get, but 30fps is absolute trash compared to 120 or 144.

7

that_other_goat t1_it8urke wrote

If I am remembering correctly it's to avoid the issues with early VR like eye strain, headaches and nausea. I could be misremembering but I'm not sure.

The virtual boy was terrible and there were often vomit buckets beside the hang glider sims at the arcade.

2

Diggsey t1_it8s6ln wrote

This is not true at all - high refresh rates are very easily detectable, and the human eye doesn't operate at any particular "refresh rate". Humans can detect very tiny difference in reaction times (eg. when you move a mouse and seeing that movement reflected on a screen). A 30hz computer monitor is almost unusable with a mouse. 60hz is fine for normal usage, but for eg. gaming you can get a measurable advantage with 144hz instead and feels smoother. There's probably no reason to ever go above 200hz.

Regarding resolution - yeah 8k is pointless for most usecases, but it really depends on how it's going to be viewed. 8k projected on the side of a building could make sense if you expect people to be looking at it up close. Meanwhile anything above 1080p is completely pointless if it's a watch face...

6

thecist t1_it8rtj4 wrote

It’s just you who can’t see a difference

4

elkarion t1_it8spip wrote

The high rephrase is not for our eyes its to more accurately syncing to what's happened. The game say runs at 300 fps. You get 1 frame ever 60say but if you go to 120 time since last frame is reduced so your display will be more up to date.

120 should be standard. Stop with this blurry shit that Hollywood put on us as 24.

I own a 144 hz monitor and notice when it's not smooth and see the dips to sub 60 when game is stressful to the hardware.

2

nero519 t1_it8tau6 wrote

You either have never used a 144hz monitor or you could have an actual eye problem, is pretty much impossible not to notice the difference.

1