this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
190 points (96.6% liked)
Technology
59377 readers
3673 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
On one hand, 360hz seems imperceptibly faster than 240hz for human eyes.
On the other hand, if you get enough frames in, you don't have to worry about simulating motion blur.
I never worry about motion blur, because I turn it off. The stupidest effect ever. If I walk around I don't see motion blur. Cameras see motion blur because of shutter speed, not the human eye.
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/
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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Motion blur in games gives me bad motion sickness and garbles what I'm seeing. I already have a hard enough time processing information fast enough in any kind of fast paced game I don't need things to be visually ambiguous on top of that
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
I'd much rather they invest efforts into supporting customisable phones. Instead of just releasing a few flavours of the same hardware each year, give us a dozen features we can opt into or not. Pick a base size, then pick your specs. Want a headphone jack, SD card, FM radio, upgraded graphics performance? No problems, that'll cost a bit extra. Phones are boring now - at least find a way to meet the needs of all consumers.
Not exactly what you are talking about, but slightly related: the company Fairphone makes phones with parts that can easily be replaced. The philosophy is that you will not have to buy a new phone every 3 years. They do have some customized options aswell (i.e. ram, storage, models) but its limited.
But going full on optimization with phones, laptops and tablets, similar as a desktop, is just incredibly hard due to the lack of space in the device for the components. As such it makes more sense to offer a wide variety of models, with some customizable options, and then have the user pick something.
On Fairphone, they flat out refuse to even discuss adding a headphone jack (check the posts in their forums - it's a "hands over ears" no) so I'm sticking with Sony/ASUS (the latter atm as they've been slightly less anticompetitive recently but I'd much rather go to a decent company) until they do... It's not like you notice a phone being 1mm thicker when you have a 3mm case on it anyway
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
I wish a company would build 4.5"-5.5" and 5.5"-6.5" flagship phones, put as many features that make sense in each.
Then when you release a new flagship the last flagship devices become your 'mid range' and you drop the price accordingly, with your mid range dropping to budget the year after.
When Nokia had 15 different phones out at a time it made sense because they would be wildly different (size, shape, button layout, etc...).
These days everyone wants as large a screen as possible on a device that is comfortable to hold, we really don't need 15 different models with slightly different screen ratios.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Reminiscent of the hi-res audio marketing. Why listen at a measly 24bit 48khz when you can have 32/192?!
These have an actual perceivable difference even if subtle. Hires audio, however, is inaudible by humans.
I tend to agree, but the audiophiles always have an answer to rebuttal it with.
I'm into audio and headphones, but since I've never been able to reliably discern a difference with hi-res audio, I no longer let it concern me.
I've bought pretty expensive equipment, tube amplifier, many fancy headphones, optical DACs. A library full of FLAC files. I even purchased a $500 portable DAP. I've never been able to reliably tell a difference between FLAC and 320k MP3 files. At this point, it really doesn't concern me anymore either, but I at least like to see my fancy tube amp light up.
I will say, though, $300 seems to be the sweet-spot for headphones for me.
load more comments
(5 replies)
Imo the biggest bump is from mp3 to lossless. The drums sound more organic on flacs whereas on most mp3s they sound like a computer MIDI sound.
The biggest bump for me was the change in headphones. It made my really old aac 256kbps music sound bad.
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
They have tests you can take to see if you can hear the difference. A lot of people fail! Lol
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Well no, because most people aren't getting them. It's nice but it's difficulty to justify spending hundreds on a lightly better screen
This tech trickles down to mainstream in a few years. That's always how it is.
Cool, so in a few years we'll have a screen which isn't better in any noticeable way?
Don't be so negative, imagine a phone screen at 480 Hz. It'll be great for when you have too much charge left in your battery and need to drain some.
Well it's more like you'll get the usable parts without a huge premium. The was a time when monitors faster than 60hz were premium but now it's pretty common to see 120hz and beyond on even basic monitors.
There's still diminishing returns as you go higher, but there's definitely a noticeable difference between 60hz and 120hz, as well as a less noticeable but noticeable difference between 120hz and 240hz.240hz is becoming more standard now on regular high end monitors and beginning to trickle down too.
Beyond that in terms of response times, you might not notice a difference between 240hz and 360hz, but image clarity will be better because you'll get less ghosting just from the virtue of the pixels changing so quickly, so it's not entirely useless.
Part of the reason you're seeing this is because they can. The panel technology (OLED in this case) is super fast due to it's design, so it's not too costly to add the necessary hardware to drive those speeds. For LCD tech, you do get to drive the panels faster and harder, that's why older screens required shitty TN panels to get those refresh rates, but everything else has been around for a while.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Finally, a screen with the refresh rate that my cat can enjoy! He sure is gonna love that Tom & Jerry like no other cat that ever lived.
I don't need or want a phone over 90hz, and a pc screen over 180hz. A phone is a waste of battery and a pc screen over that is a waste of money.
Then don't buy them? With better screens coming out the ones you do want to buy get cheaper.
Back in the day 144hz screens cost a premium, now you can have them for cheap.
I stopped buying tvs from 2000 until like two years ago, when i saw them on sale for like $200. Been living off of projectors & a home server. I skipped so many "innovations" like curve, flat, HD, 4K, trueColor.
Weird that it has a OS and that was a shocker.
I look forward to what TVs bring in 2040.
I mean OLEDs are damn amazing image quality wise, but I'm also not a fan of "smart" TVs. The apps can be useful (like native Netflix, Amazon video and so on), but 90% of the time I use my PC over HDMI.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
This says "can you tell?" Like I don't get a new screen once every 10 years maybe and even then the last one I got was used.
load more comments
(2 replies)
All I want is a 27/28 inch oled 4k monitor with good hdr. I don't care about the refresh rate as long a it's 60Hz+
Minimum for me would be 120hz, i've been using 120hz since 2012 (12 years... man) and anything less feels like a massive step backwards. My old S10+ and my cheapie laptop feel sluggish in any animated / transmission scenario.
load more comments
(5 replies)
So when are 144hz, 1440p, hdr oleds going to come down in price?
360hz no scope
Isn't the point that you're not supposed to be able to tell?
I splurged on a 4k 144hz monitor when I worked constant night shifts in covid times and I don't think I will ever need something else.
load more comments
(8 replies)
It won't matter until we hit 600. 600 integer scales to every common media framerate so frametimings are always perfect. Really they should be focusing on better and cheaper variable refresh rate but that's harder to market.
Well, not really, because television broadcast standards do not specify integer framerates. Eg North America uses ~59.94fps. It will take insanely high refresh rates to be able to play all common video formats including TV broadcasts. Variable refresh rate can fix this only for a single fullscreen app.
load more comments
(2 replies)
The bigger the screen, the more you notice because it covers more of your field of view. I would say 240Hz is the sweet spot. You can definitely feel the improvement from lower rates, but rates above it start to be barely noticeable. However I am fine with 144-165Hz if I wanted to save money and still get a great experience. Bellow 120Hz is unusable for me. Once you go high refresh, you cannot go back, ever. 60Hz feels like a slideshow. For gaming 60 is fine, but for work use and scrolling around I can't have 60. Yes people, high refresh rate is useful even outside of gaming.
Funny thing is, while gaming, even if my monitor and PC can do it, I rarely let my fps go above 120-140. I limit them in the game. PC gets much quieter, uses less power, heats up less and its smooth enough to enjoy a great gameplay. I will never understand people who get a 4090 and play with unlocked fps just to get 2000 fps on minecraft while their pc is screaming for air. Limit your fps at least to your Hz people, have some care for your hardware. I know you get less input lag but you are not Shroud, those less 0.000001ms of input lag will not make a difference.
I went from 1080p60 as my standard for literal decades to 3440x1440 @144hz over the last 2 years and I can't go back, mostly for non-gaming activities, find the ultrawide better than multi monitor for me, would love a vertical e-ink display though for text. I also limit my fps to 120, I don't like feeling like my PC is going to take off and the place I rent is older so the room I use for my office is smaller, heats up quickly.
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›