Screens keep getting faster. Can you even tell? | CES saw the launch of several 360Hz and even 480Hz OLED monitors. Are manufacturers stuck in a questionable spec war, or are we one day going to wo…::CES saw the launch of several 360Hz and even 480Hz OLED monitors. Are manufacturers stuck in a questionable spec war, or are we one day going to wonder how we ever put up with ‘only’ 240Hz displays?

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
38 points

Umm, well, there is something like motion blur experienced by humans, in fact, your brain creates the time bending effect based on picture 1 and picture 2

https://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/12/05/3647276.htm

There is a trick where you watch a clock that counts seconds and turn your head fastly away and back there (or something like that) and you will see, that the rate of seconds seem to be inconsistent

See “1. CHRONOSTASIS” https://bigthink.com/neuropsych/time-illusions/

permalink
report
parent
reply
16 points

Alright. I didn’t know, thanks. Though the human motion blur is vastly different to camera blur in my experience. And games that have motion blur look really unnatural.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

More realistic blur smudges things based on how the object is moving rather than how the camera is moving. For example, Doom Eternal applies some blur to the spinning barrels and the ejected shells on the chaingun while it’s firing, but doesn’t blur the world while you’re sprinting.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yup this is called per-object motion blur and is more common in modern games. I’m still not that big of a fan but I’ve heard good things about it from other high framerate enjoyers

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

I don’t know if there is scientific proof that every human experiences “motion bur” the same way. I would bet not.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points
*

On the other hand, humans don’t see in defined frames. The signals aren’t synchronized. So a big part of perceived blurring is that the succession of signals isn’t forming a single focused image. There isn’t really a picture 1 and 2 for your brain to process discreetly. And different regions in your vision are more sensitive to small changes than others.

A faster refresh rate is always “better” for the human eye, but you’ll need higher and higher panel brightness to have a measurable reaction time difference.

But hitting really high refresh rates requires too many other compromises on image quality, so I won’t personally be paying a large premium for anything more than a 120hz display for the time being.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

I agree, human eyes register only change in light in an analog style way (no framerate more something like waves as I understood) compared to cameras, which register all light on every frame. I simplified that part with the “pictures” because I thought it was more understandable like that I guess better would have been something like „your eyes kinda shut down during fast movements of the head and your brain makes up for that by generating a nice transition“

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 17K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 543K

    Comments