3 ms·

Would you rather they explicitly blocked that even though the technology allows for it?

nottorp 5mo ago
It's too easy for display manufacturers to compete on moar pixels, moar fps, moar refresh. You just try to embiggen your numbers compared to your competitor. Meanwhile, features where you can't compete on numbers but can ruin the experience are ignored.
- Night_Thastus 5mo ago
  What are these features that can't be measured? Plenty of people who test monitors also compare things like color coverage, brightness, latency, contrast, viewing angles, etc, etc, etc. If you mean the entire monitor, they generally also cover things like how the display swivels/mounts among other things.
  - nottorp 5mo ago
    Brightness and contrast are also gamed to hell and back. You have to go to some very specialized review sites to read about contrast at low brightness (lights off software development scenario, or maybe even lights off gaming). I must admit I've sometimes seen a description of how wobbly the monitor is when you hit your mechanical keyboard like it's stolen your car and killed your dog. Veeery rarely though.
tosti 5mo ago
No, I just don't think such a high refresh rate accomplishes anything. Not even bragging rights. 120Hz, possibly. But 240? Are you going to introduce a telly into a slow-motion studio, on the set?
- mort96 5mo ago
  The difficult thing for these standards is the data rate. 4k 240Hz is the same data rate as 8k 60Hz (since 8k is 4x the number of pixels as 4k). If you want to support 8k 60Hz, the only reason you wouldn't also support 4k 240Hz would be because you actively choose to disallow that. That seems like a bad idea.
  - tosti 5mo ago
    I guess that would sorta make sense if there was no upscaling involved. With upscaling, I doubt the actual display refresh rate ever hits 240Hz. They could still advertise support for it, but you'd have to use a high speed camera to tell if it really does that.
    - mort96 5mo ago
      I have no idea what you mean. Why would upscaling make it so that a display can't hit 240Hz?
      - tosti 5mo ago
        Because the amount of pixels on a flat display is fixed? So 8K is always 8K and if it does 8K@120, the display is really just 120Hz, no?
        mort96 5mo ago
        Yes, 8k @ 120Hz is 120Hz. Did I ever imply anything else? And who brought up 8k @ 120Hz? I've been talking about 8k @ 60Hz and 4k @ 240Hz, because those are the same data rate; 1 990 656 000 pixels per second. One expressed as 7680 x 4320 x 60, the other expressed as 3840 x 2160 x 240. What does any of this have to do with upscaling?
        tosti 5mo ago
        Because an 8K pixel display is always 8K. So the display on a typical TV always has the same mode. That could mean your 4K@120 signal could (in theory) translate to 8K@60 internally. The data rate over HDMI would still be the same. HDMI is just an interface. What the TV does internally is up to the manufacturer. Besides, it wouldn't be the first time a TV advertises a higher mode than the display can actually handle.
        mort96 5mo ago
- Night_Thastus 5mo ago
  It's diminishing returns, but for those who want it and have the hardware to support it, why not? I have a 360 and when I play something I can actually get a full 360 out of, it's wonderful! Though honestly anything over 100 I'm perfectly fine with.

It's too easy for display manufacturers to compete on moar pixels, moar fps, moar refresh. You just try to embiggen your numbers compared to your competitor. Meanwhile, features where you can't compete on numbers but can ruin the experience are ignored.

Night_Thastus 5mo ago
What are these features that can't be measured? Plenty of people who test monitors also compare things like color coverage, brightness, latency, contrast, viewing angles, etc, etc, etc. If you mean the entire monitor, they generally also cover things like how the display swivels/mounts among other things.
- nottorp 5mo ago
  Brightness and contrast are also gamed to hell and back. You have to go to some very specialized review sites to read about contrast at low brightness (lights off software development scenario, or maybe even lights off gaming). I must admit I've sometimes seen a description of how wobbly the monitor is when you hit your mechanical keyboard like it's stolen your car and killed your dog. Veeery rarely though.

tosti 5mo ago

No, I just don't think such a high refresh rate accomplishes anything. Not even bragging rights. 120Hz, possibly. But 240? Are you going to introduce a telly into a slow-motion studio, on the set?

mort96 5mo ago
The difficult thing for these standards is the data rate. 4k 240Hz is the same data rate as 8k 60Hz (since 8k is 4x the number of pixels as 4k). If you want to support 8k 60Hz, the only reason you wouldn't also support 4k 240Hz would be because you actively choose to disallow that. That seems like a bad idea.
- tosti 5mo ago
  I guess that would sorta make sense if there was no upscaling involved. With upscaling, I doubt the actual display refresh rate ever hits 240Hz. They could still advertise support for it, but you'd have to use a high speed camera to tell if it really does that.
  - mort96 5mo ago
    I have no idea what you mean. Why would upscaling make it so that a display can't hit 240Hz?
    - tosti 5mo ago
      Because the amount of pixels on a flat display is fixed? So 8K is always 8K and if it does 8K@120, the display is really just 120Hz, no?
      - mort96 5mo ago
        Yes, 8k @ 120Hz is 120Hz. Did I ever imply anything else? And who brought up 8k @ 120Hz? I've been talking about 8k @ 60Hz and 4k @ 240Hz, because those are the same data rate; 1 990 656 000 pixels per second. One expressed as 7680 x 4320 x 60, the other expressed as 3840 x 2160 x 240. What does any of this have to do with upscaling?
        tosti 5mo ago
        Because an 8K pixel display is always 8K. So the display on a typical TV always has the same mode. That could mean your 4K@120 signal could (in theory) translate to 8K@60 internally. The data rate over HDMI would still be the same. HDMI is just an interface. What the TV does internally is up to the manufacturer. Besides, it wouldn't be the first time a TV advertises a higher mode than the display can actually handle.
        mort96 5mo ago
Night_Thastus 5mo ago
It's diminishing returns, but for those who want it and have the hardware to support it, why not? I have a 360 and when I play something I can actually get a full 360 out of, it's wonderful! Though honestly anything over 100 I'm perfectly fine with.