Page 1 of 1

Modern tech journalism

PostPosted: 30 Sep 2018, 11:40
by ko4

Re: Modern tech journalism

PostPosted: 01 Oct 2018, 05:21
by RealNC
LOL. That was seriously bad. When they tested with a high speed camera, one would assume they'd do that to test if there's any VRR going on, not just tearing. You don't need a high speed cam to check for tearing; you have your eyes for that.

Even the title was weird. "TR's FreeSync monitors." Is TR a manufacturer that makes monitors?

Re: Modern tech journalism

PostPosted: 06 Dec 2018, 01:15
by zivko
https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/29/181 ... tor-review
What a waste it was giving the monitor to that reviewer

Re: Modern tech journalism

PostPosted: 06 Dec 2018, 01:27
by RealNC
zivko wrote:https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/29/18117241/msi-oculux-nxg251-monitor-review
What a waste it was giving the monitor to that reviewer

Isn't that the same people who did that now infamous "PC build" a while ago? These people are simply not qualified to do any of this :-/

Re: Modern tech journalism

PostPosted: 06 Dec 2018, 03:19
by Chief Blur Buster
They have their target audience different from Blur Busters -- more mainstream -- so the Verge article cater to the audience they're writing to. The editor subheadline is a little baity ("Is there any reason to buy a 240Hz monitor?") -- but oftentimes that's the master editor's choosing rather than the article writer's (Sometimes to the article writer's chagrin!).

There are good points at the end like "...provided you have a graphics card capable of hitting these kinds of frame rates, of course." which is a pretty reasonable thing to say for 240Hz monitors. There's more acknowledgement of 240Hz benefits within that article than the subheading.

So I shall let that one slide -- it's the "There's zero benefit to "X Hz" articles" and the "1000Hz is useless" and the "Humans can't see X frames per second" that I reserve my true disdain for. The science is more complicated (blur effects, stroboscopic effets, etc) than just that.