• noride@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    I think It’s more like the bandwidth needed to support 12k at 120hz also allows for 4k at 480hz, soo… por que no los dos?

    • skisnow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      19 hours ago

      yeah that’s what I was wondering. There doesn’t seem to be a widely agreed upon maximum human perception fps, but all the articles I’ve been able to find on it suggest it tops out way below 144Hz, and that these supposed pro gamers insisting on higher are like those wine connoisseurs who can’t tell a red from a white blindfold.

      • Kogasa@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 hours ago

        It doesn’t top out below 144Hz. There are benefits with diminishing returns up to at least 1000Hz especially for sample-and-hold displays (like all modern LCD/OLED monitors). 240Hz looks noticeably smoother than 144Hz, and 360Hz looks noticeably smoother than 240Hz. Past that it’s probably pretty hard to tell unless you know what to look for, but there are a few specific effects that continue to be reduced. https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-future-1000hz-displays-with-blurfree-sample-and-hold/

        • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          17 hours ago

          Yea, I think the limits are going to top out around that 300Hz mark, it’s going to be really hard to convince people they can see or feel a difference between 300Hz and 480Hz. I have no preference between 240Hz and 300Hz already.

          For computer monitors, I also wouldn’t be surprised if we top out at 4k for regular consumers, with a few niche 8k products available.