5 ms·
> I don’t notice going back to 60 Hz displays on computers. However, on phones, where a lot more animations are a key part of the user experience, I think 120 H
by jofzar 1y ago
> I don’t notice going back to 60 Hz displays on computers. However, on phones, where a lot more animations are a key part of the user experience, I think 120 Hz displays are more interesting.
I'm always so jealous of these people, 60hz is just so bad for me now and even make me a bit motion sick.
I can see it in everything, moving the window, scrolling, the cursor.
- ksec 1y agoThe curse of high standards. I wish I dont notice a lot of things. I wish I can stop thinking about why something that is clearly better hasn't been done. I would live a much happier life.
- msh 1y agoI don’t think on this case it’s high standards, my eyes are just unable to really notice the difference.
- kccqzy 1y agoIt's interesting how different people pick up different details. I can't really see the difference between 60Hz and 120Hz for example, but I'm unusually sensitive to bad kerning. The nano texture screen also screams smearing and low resolution to me.
- kcrwfrd_ 1y agoCrazy. I switch between my work’s M4 MacBook Pro and my personal M3 MacBook Air all the time and I forget that the displays are even different.
- rigrassm 1y agoI'm right there with you, 60hz feels like a flip book to me now.
- hu3 1y agoSame. I currently have a 160hz and a 240hz monitor. And I can tell the difference between them when scrolling pages with tons of text. There's less ghosting in 240hz. And scrolling on 60hz to me looks blurry. I'd like to think that those who don't notice the difference have improved brain GPUs that can compensate for ghosting.
- andyferris 1y ago> I'd like to think that those who don't notice the difference have improved brain GPUs that can compensate for ghosting. Wow. My perspective was those that did notice the difference were more perceptive. Thank you - now I realize there is a completely different take. (I'm not sure that it's helpful mind you... but it gives me something to chew on).
- smileybarry 1y agoWait until you try an OLED computer monitor, that screws with the "higher refresh rate => less ghosting" thought process completely.
- hu3 1y agoOh yeah I have an Oled LG C4 TV with 120hz refresh rate. Can't go back to non-oleds.
- prmoustache 1y agoHow can you know it is not bias? For what its worth you might have never noticed any difference if you didn't knew they weren't refreshing at the same frequency.
- hu3 1y agoOh for me it's very clear. Specially between 60hz and 120+. Scrolling looks blurry/ghosted in 60hz. I guess I could vibe code an app to set monitor Hz randomly in either 60 or 280 and test. But it would be a waste of time from how clearly I can tell the difference.
- ksec 1y agoFor those of us who can see it, they are very noticeable. And could be told in blind testing 100% of times. After all 240Hz is still 4.1ms per frame, Again I have to point to this Microsoft Research Video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOvQCPLkPt4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOvQCPLkPt4
- dontlaugh 1y agoI can tell the difference between 120 and 60 just fine and of course prefer better, but it doesn’t bother me. It’s unfortunate if it bothers you. I have the same reaction to 30Hz.
- tobi_bsf 1y agoSame, thankfully its now completely gone in phones. But i like the MBA 13 for its form factor but the screen feels broken to me.
- adastra22 1y agoHow do you watch movies or TV without throwing up?
- weiliddat 1y agoMajor difference is one you're watching something without interacting with it and the other is responding to your action; one you have your gaze relatively still, taking in the entire frame, the other your eyes are tracking an object as you interact with it via some sort of input device. In tracking motion your eyes/brain can see improved motion resolution (how clear the details are in an object moving across the screen) up to 1000Hz.
- adastra22 1y agoYour body & nervous system processing has input lags on the order of 100ms and variance on the order of 10’s of ms though.
- rogerrogerr 1y agoBut your eyes can track a moving object (like a car, or a ball, or a cursor or text on a scrolling webpage); they don’t stay 100ms behind it.
- adastra22 1y agoThat is predictive motion isn't the same thing.
- neogodless 1y agoDistance to screen matters. Personally I've had concussions and bad screens do make me sick. Even 60hz TVs if I'm sitting somewhat close, particularly for certain content. All the chaos of Dr. Strange / Multiverse was too much for me to watch.
- mixmastamyk 1y agoMotion blur mitigates the issue to some extent, why 24fps films are watchable.
- vbezhenar 1y agoI've made a test for myself. Screen split into two parts, two small squares moving and bouncing. First square moves every frame, second square skips every second frame, but moves 2x. So basically one half of the screen is full FPS, another half of the screen is half FPS. And I implemented it as a "blind test", so I could make a guess and then check it. For screen with 60 FPS, the difference between 30 FPS and 60 FPS was pretty obvious and I could guess it 100% of the time. For screen with 144FPS, the difference between 72FPS and 144FPS was not obvious at all and I couldn't reliably guess it at all. I also checked it with a few other persons, and they all failed this simple test. So now I'm holding firm opinion, that these high-FPS displays are marketing gimmick. https://pastebin.com/raw/hwR62Yhi https://pastebin.com/raw/hwR62Yhi here's HTML, save it and open. left click reveals which half is "fast" (full FPS) or "slow" (half FPS), scroll changes speed, F5 generates new test.
- hnarn 1y ago> So now I'm holding firm opinion, that these high-FPS displays are marketing gimmick. While I agree the jump from 60 -> 140 hz/fps is not as noticeable as 30 -> 60, calling everything above 60 a ”marketing gimmick” is silly. When my screen or TV falls back to 60hz for whatever reason I can notice it immediately, you don’t have to do anything else than move your mouse or scroll down a webpage.
- knollimar 1y agoIf I hook up an LED to a microcontroller and blink it at increasing frequencies until I stop being able to see it (for me about 85Hz), then if brain hardware is optimized, I shouldn't notice a difference at twice that frequency ala Nyquist sampling theorem?
- trostaft 1y agoPretty cool test, but I wonder how fast you ran them at? I was able to distinguish between full and half after increasing the speed to around ~2000 units.
- rsanek 1y agoThanks for sharing the test. I'm surprised you aren't able to tell the difference -- I can pretty consistently (90%+) get the right answer to both sides at 120 fps "fast," speeds as low as ~500. At higher speeds it's much easier.
- npteljes 1y agoThis is such a weird experience for me. On my phone, I instantly notice going back to 60 from 90 hz. But on my computers and handheld consoles, I don't mind, or even notice, at all.
- QuiEgo 1y agoAgree completely with this. When I use a desktop display, my pattern is: load page, read content for 10-30 seconds, scroll, repeat. When I use a phone, the read-time-before-scroll is more like 1-5 seconds due to the much smaller display. I notice the scrolling blur in both places on 60 Hz displays, but it bothers me way more on a phone because I'm scrolling so much more.
- aucisson_masque 1y agoI regularly switch between Android 120hz and iPhone 60 hz. It's bad for maybe 2 or 3 minutes then the brain get used once again to it. There is nothing groundbreaking about 120hz.