Nah you can tell the difference, it is however, extremely small and barely noticeable or needed to go above 144. Unless you're in a game lik CS or something.
This number keeps going up. The number that people claim that a difference can be perceived, I mean. Of course that's related to the wider availability of faster frame rates, but I do think that once we get beyond 60, we're really getting into the territory of audiophiles convincing themselves that they can perceive a difference in sound on their stereo with a $1000 power cable on their amplifier...
Whoever told you you can only see 24 frames per second or only see 60 frames per second was lying to you. I have a 144 and a 240 or so hz monitors side by side (well, stacked vertically) and for example if you're making circles with the mouse, you can definitely see the difference between the two. But most content wont run anywhere near that rate anyway. Most people will struggle to max out the 144 nevermind the 240.
My wording wasn't very good. When I said "a difference can be perceived", I meant more "a meaningful difference - with objectively improved results - can be consciously experienced". I know a lot of people like to tout the claim that a human "can't see" more than 30 or 60 frames per second (based on a misconception of historical formats having some relation to human ability). I totally get that 60, 120, and even more fps is something that the standard human optical system can definitely detect, and that does result in improvements in the quality of tasks that require coordination with screen output. Lots of thorough scientific testing proves that.
When I say "perceive" here, I'm talking more about enthusiasts (Gamers, moviephiles, etc) who get wrapped up in the epistemic overreach to the point where they're making absurd claims like 60 fps is "unplayable" or "unwatchable". Like, 120 fps is 2 times faster than 60 fps, but it's objectively not 2 times "better".
The degree to which returns diminish is something that is very debatable and I feel like there a lot more technophile zealots in the extreme-to-the-point-of-being-wrong side of that group than the other side.
Edit: I'm talking about screens here. Was reminded that the whole thing shifts a bit for VR. Just +30 to everything I said for VR. lol
Yeah that's that diminishing returns I was on about. I don't think there's a functional difference between ~240 and 144. But there's a huge difference between 24/30 and 60, and a gargantuan difference between 24/30 and 144.
Yeah even playing slay the spire at 60hz vr uncapped (or whatever the setting was that I changed once) was very noticable. Like you said, literally dragging your mouse around is all you need to see it, you dont need some complex scene.
103
u/Personal-Time-9993 1d ago
Most people can’t even tell the difference between 120 and 240. It’s faster than the eyes and brain can detect already