3 ms·

> high enough values (to humans), and we know experimentally that for humans, "high enough values" > 500Hz https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-highest-frame-rat

• jug 8y ago
  It was shown that a system won’t even rum with 640K, so this (disputed) quote became an example of shortsightedness in tech. However, a system does not need to meet the maximum detectable frame rate of the human eye to be usable, or even close to it. There is a difference in use, yes, but a mere luxury. That’s why I think this comparison doesn’t hold.
  • jcelerier 8y ago
    > However, a system does not need to meet the maximum detectable frame rate of the human eye to be usable, or even close to it. for me it's really the same thing. It's physically painful to go back to 60hz screens after getting used to 120hz, just like it would be to go back to 640k systems, even if I have used 60Hz screens for many years and my first computer only had a 5 1⁄4 drive and no disk - and back then I managed just fine (though I was quite young :p).