109
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Nov 2023
109 points (87.1% liked)
Technology
55692 readers
2542 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I've never seen any difference with the top two with that test. My monitor is 144hz and TBH I might as well have saved my money and got 60Hz ones.
We're not all hardcore gamers trained to see miniscule differences.
Humans can see a single solid color frame changing at 1000 fps. So if you don't notice a difference between 60 and 165 fps something isn't working. It's not your eyes.
Seeing a solid color frame change is completely different from the minor changes generally occurring per frame, especially in media such as movies and games which are continuous.
The Hobbit movies at 48 instead of 24 fps still looked much smoother and better.
Yup, while I do see the point some people make about it breaking the immersion of film for being too fluid (everybody has their preferences) it definitely WAS more fluid.
I will say though that when I first moved from 60-144hz I wasn't blown away by the change either. Things seemed a bit smoother maybe but not that big a deal. It wasn't until I accidentally went back to 60 that something felt horribly wrong. I can ABSOLUTELY see the difference now and for some reason I had to get acclimated.
The problem with the movie was that a lot of TV watching people see it as a "soap opera effect" because those are shot in 60 fps. So they don't like it and want a "cinematic" feel.
For me who doesn't usually watch TV it was glorious. Yes, you notice every tiny mistake on the screen at 48 fps, but it actually feels real. Like that's a real dwarf there talking with an elf for example. More lifelike if you get what I mean? It's a damn shame you can't buy the movies with HFR :-/
Well, 144hz has more than one benefit. You get a smoother image output of course, but also less input lag (seeing actions you take faster on the screen). But switching between the two is very obvious usually, even when just moving around a window on the desktop.
I vastly preferred them in 24 fps, they looked awful in 48 fps to me.
Your usecase may be different, but I am usually not required to catch solid color frames in my day to day computer use.
The difference shouldn't be miniscule, though. If you've never been able to see a difference, my money's on not setting the refresh rate in Windows. It's not automatic.
It's mostly marketing. Films are perfect at 24fps and gamer bros think they can see framerates ten times that.
Really? Movies at 24 fps are tolerable because we're used to it and there's a lot of motion blur, but any motion or panning shot still looks incredibly jerky. You have to get way up into the 100s of fps before you hit diminishing returns of smoothness, and even then it's still noticeable.
…240FPS is insanely noticeable.
You dont have to be a hardcore gamer to see the difference. A lot of people who use phones see the difference 90/120hz makes over 60.
Do you have it enabled in Windows under display settings tho? It sounds like you aren't actually having it enabled. Other possibility is that your monitor has very low response time and everything blurs.
I'm not sure it it's possible to not see a difference in refresh rate jump this big until about 160Hz.
You’re either trolling or you have a 60hz monitor lawl
Or it just doesn't work right in their browser. It says in big bold letters "VSYNC is not available on the Linux platform" and at 960 pixels per second I actually can't tell the difference between the 100hz and 50hz lines. If I slow it to 480 pixels per second it becomes apparent, but I still feel like that's browser funkiness rather than a true frame rate difference. I don't think it's actually running at 100fps.
It's not my eyes, btw. I can usually tell the difference very easily. I had a problem with my Nvidia drivers for a while that would often make it reset to 60hz on reboot, instead of my display's max of 100. It was always immediately obvious to me just from the mouse cursor, even without consciously looking for it.
LOL as I was writing this, I reloaded the page and now it's very very obvious at 960. Something's definitely inconsistent on my device. Go figure.
I have a 60 Hz monitor and it doesn't even try and display any UFOs above 60 Hz, just 15, 30, and 60. So if they see a row with 144 Hz, then they have a 144 Hz monitor.
I've really upset the gamer bros here..
I use 165hz for art and productivity lawl
Twice the refresh rate means twice the frames, so I'm twice as productive.
Or at any rate, that's what I'm telling my job to try to get them to buy me a high spec gaming monitor.
Precisely!