4 ms·

What about the other very large group, like me, who can easily tell the difference but it's very much not worth the price of admission?

crazygringo 3y ago
Exactly. I can easily tell the difference and couldn't care less. Brightness, pixel density, and contrast/blacks (including glossiness) are what I care about in terms of image quality. Maybe if I were a gamer it would matter, but I couldn't care less about how smooth scrolling or cursor movement is. It doesn't change my productivity or affect my comfort at all.
- dumpsterdiver 3y ago
  I'm in the same boat, except that I recently discovered that in my advanced years (early 40s) I am now one of those people who are "sensitive to certain flashing light patterns or textures". It's not often that it happens, but every blue moon I will be looking at a screen and suddenly begin sweating profusely right before I lose consciousness for a brief bit. Most recently when that happened I passed out on top of my left arm and I was really concerned that it was numb for a good 40 minutes after the event. I called an emergency nurse line and explained the symptoms, and they assured me it wasn't a heart related event, but a reaction to the chaotic light patterns I was subjecting myself to. Edit: I never got around to my point, which was even though I'm part of the group who doesn't really care about refresh rate, it appears that my body might care.
  - iSnow 3y ago
    You probably should get yourself checked for photosensitive epilepsy.
- chihuahua 3y ago
  Same here. I don't care about any of those things. All I want is a large monitor (currently 43" + 27"), so I can get my work done, then turn off the monitors and collect my paycheck.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
rjh29 3y ago
I think it must be a visual processing difference in people's brains. I find 30/60/120 equally playable in gaming, but other people here are calling 30fps intolerable. Similarly I've used a 1080p monitor for years and I'm fine with it. I don't need tiny pixels for coding and messing around with pixel scaling on Linux seems more trouble than it's worth.
- alpaca128 3y ago
  > I find 30/60/120 equally playable in gaming, but other people here are calling 30fps intolerable. I think many people only remember "30FPS" as a stuttery mess between 15 and 40FPS on low-end hardware, which indeed is a terrible experience. In many games a stable framerate is actually more important than a high framerate, but people associate it the other way around because the only number they see in the corner of the screen is the framerate and those two metrics tend to coincide depending on how performant the hardware is. And in some games low input latency is very important, which requires high framerates.
- crote 3y ago
  I think it depends a lot on the way you use it. 30fps might be fine for playing Solitaire, but it is definitely a limiting factor for first-person shooters. Personally, after a year or two of programming on 30hz, I absolutely want 60hz for office use. Having lag while dragging around windows is not fun. Having a 1080p+ monitor is more about screen real estate than it is about precision: you just can't fit three windows side-by-side on 1080p while still having stuff remain readable.
  - rjh29 3y ago
    > I think it depends a lot on the way you use it. That makes sense. For programming I use a tiled wm so don't drag windows around at all, I disable all animations so haven't felt any need for high framerates personally.
stephen_g 3y ago
Yeah, we’ve been in an awkward spot for the last few years where the interfaces haven’t quite been there to eliminate the trade off. I’d like 120Hz, but I don’t need it if I have to forgo resolution to get it. Once I can get both for a reasonable cost, then I’m all for it. I’m still annoyed there are no 5K 27” monitors in the ~$500-800 bracket. I’d rather that kind of pixel density with decent quality in that price bracket first, and then let’s talk higher refresh rates.
dirtyid 3y ago
I feel like productivity increase stopped at 1080p-1440p@60 for most office work, 4k was diminishing return point for art work. Extra real estate / pixel density hasn't added much to the process, maybe 5k for video people who want to work in 4k. There's some peole with sufficient visually acuity that "feels" better working with more density and refresh rate, but it's hard to rationalize the cost on performance grounds now.

crazygringo 3y ago

Exactly. I can easily tell the difference and couldn't care less. Brightness, pixel density, and contrast/blacks (including glossiness) are what I care about in terms of image quality. Maybe if I were a gamer it would matter, but I couldn't care less about how smooth scrolling or cursor movement is. It doesn't change my productivity or affect my comfort at all.

dumpsterdiver 3y ago
I'm in the same boat, except that I recently discovered that in my advanced years (early 40s) I am now one of those people who are "sensitive to certain flashing light patterns or textures". It's not often that it happens, but every blue moon I will be looking at a screen and suddenly begin sweating profusely right before I lose consciousness for a brief bit. Most recently when that happened I passed out on top of my left arm and I was really concerned that it was numb for a good 40 minutes after the event. I called an emergency nurse line and explained the symptoms, and they assured me it wasn't a heart related event, but a reaction to the chaotic light patterns I was subjecting myself to. Edit: I never got around to my point, which was even though I'm part of the group who doesn't really care about refresh rate, it appears that my body might care.
- iSnow 3y ago
  You probably should get yourself checked for photosensitive epilepsy.
chihuahua 3y ago
Same here. I don't care about any of those things. All I want is a large monitor (currently 43" + 27"), so I can get my work done, then turn off the monitors and collect my paycheck.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

rjh29 3y ago

I think it must be a visual processing difference in people's brains. I find 30/60/120 equally playable in gaming, but other people here are calling 30fps intolerable. Similarly I've used a 1080p monitor for years and I'm fine with it. I don't need tiny pixels for coding and messing around with pixel scaling on Linux seems more trouble than it's worth.

alpaca128 3y ago
> I find 30/60/120 equally playable in gaming, but other people here are calling 30fps intolerable. I think many people only remember "30FPS" as a stuttery mess between 15 and 40FPS on low-end hardware, which indeed is a terrible experience. In many games a stable framerate is actually more important than a high framerate, but people associate it the other way around because the only number they see in the corner of the screen is the framerate and those two metrics tend to coincide depending on how performant the hardware is. And in some games low input latency is very important, which requires high framerates.
crote 3y ago
I think it depends a lot on the way you use it. 30fps might be fine for playing Solitaire, but it is definitely a limiting factor for first-person shooters. Personally, after a year or two of programming on 30hz, I absolutely want 60hz for office use. Having lag while dragging around windows is not fun. Having a 1080p+ monitor is more about screen real estate than it is about precision: you just can't fit three windows side-by-side on 1080p while still having stuff remain readable.
- rjh29 3y ago
  > I think it depends a lot on the way you use it. That makes sense. For programming I use a tiled wm so don't drag windows around at all, I disable all animations so haven't felt any need for high framerates personally.

stephen_g 3y ago

Yeah, we’ve been in an awkward spot for the last few years where the interfaces haven’t quite been there to eliminate the trade off. I’d like 120Hz, but I don’t need it if I have to forgo resolution to get it. Once I can get both for a reasonable cost, then I’m all for it. I’m still annoyed there are no 5K 27” monitors in the ~$500-800 bracket. I’d rather that kind of pixel density with decent quality in that price bracket first, and then let’s talk higher refresh rates.

dirtyid 3y ago

I feel like productivity increase stopped at 1080p-1440p@60 for most office work, 4k was diminishing return point for art work. Extra real estate / pixel density hasn't added much to the process, maybe 5k for video people who want to work in 4k. There's some peole with sufficient visually acuity that "feels" better working with more density and refresh rate, but it's hard to rationalize the cost on performance grounds now.