4 ms·
I was actually thinking about motion over the past few days. High frame rate does matter, but it's for a different reason. Human eyes can track objects extremel
by Scene_Cast2 14y ago
I was actually thinking about motion over the past few days. High frame rate does matter, but it's for a different reason. Human eyes can track objects extremely well.
Here's a simple test to do with the demo. Try tracking that motion-blurred cube on the left with your eyes - it's all blurry. Now, try tracking the one on the right - it will be sharp, but "jumpy". Now, try tracking the one on the right with your 120Hz monitor - the motion should be MUCH smoother - and that's where the need for high frame rates comes in. The higher the frame rate, the better the object will look when you're tracking it with your eyes.
Ideally, if we only account for objects travelling across the screen in 2 seconds, and a screen is ~2000 pixels wide, and we want to have an error of <=1 pixel, then theoretically, we need (2000px)/(2sec) = 1000 Hz frame rate for high motion realism. Unfortunately, I don't see it coming anytime soon...
- nviennot 14y agoSo if the screen is really dense, say 20000px wide, you would need a 10kHz refresh rate. That contradict the contrast experiment.
- Scene_Cast2 14y agoIn order to keep the increase in sharpness that you get from 10x the pixels - yes, you would need 10kHz, 10x the refresh rate. The moving picture would look sharper than the moving picture on the 2000px display. If you use 1000Hz refresh rate, then the crispness of moving objects on the 20,000px display would degrade to approximately the crispness of the 2,000px display. I hope that made sense.
- MattDL 14y agoThis is a very good point, depending upon speed there's really no upper limit to the frame rate necessary for 'smooth' motion. Also it's very, very annoying that Firefox is limited to 60Hz, that's very short sighted in my opinion.