Writer that dismiss high-Hz: NotebookCheck / WindowsCentral
Posted: 08 Sep 2019, 18:58
The Internet IQ is raising about ultra-high-Hz, but....
I have noticed fewer writers dismissed the new ASUS 300 Hz laptop than dismissed 480 Hz display a couple years ago. That is in great deal to Blur Busters advocacy successes as we're very loud about it.
However, two hugely popular websites wrote in a very dismissive way about the benefits of ultra-high refresh rates, "common misconception".
WindowsCentral.com
300Hz gaming-laptop displays are coming...but we're not sure why
"THIS IS DUMB": The latest gimmick to woo gamers doesn't cost much, but it's also just ridiculous
NotebookCheck.net
Do you really need a 240 Hz or 300 Hz laptop display?
The common misconception about high refresh rate monitors
My commentary:
The performance and use of 300Hz in laptop format may be far more incremental than average (due to the need to double refresh rates to keep milking the diminishing curve of returns) -- it is still human visible. The problem is when a site completely dismisses the benefits of ultra-high-Hz. This is where commentators say "Human eyes cannot see X fps" and such. Many scientists and researchers, including those at NVIDIA and Oculus, have already confirmed benefits >1000Hz, including many ergonomic benefits.
It is the responsibility of major editors, NotebookCheck.net and WindowsCentral, included, to be nuanced. Instead of writing a tone that essentially screams "X Hz is worthless", it is important to write "While 300 Hz is a bit overkill for a laptop for the average person, we realize there are a lot of unrealized benefits in the refresh rate race" kinda of way. Let the reader know about actual science!
Why Call Out NotebookCheck and WindowsCentral?
Both WindowsCentral and NoteBookcheck catches my attention because they are hugely popular sites.
One of the most popular research sites for laptops. Trusted. Reliable. Etc.
Reputable writers of reputable sites carry an important baton as informers that are above class. When such writers write about something they've never properly A/B tested before -- and just glance at convention demo machines -- and start writing dismissals -- that causes their readers to start commentatoring about the worthlessness of the refresh rate race. That is very bad.
We need to fight fake science with facts.
Sure, some things are marginal. Sure, one may "benefits of 300Hz laptop is marginal at best, though it's useful to understand benefits of the progression of high refresh rates". Like all of us editors, we used to dismiss 4K and 8K in the past, but now 4K TV is the best thing now that it's cheap and that we have personal experience with it. In the next ten years, there are actually cheap ways to increase the refresh rate race now that resolutions have gone retina, and now we need the retina refresh rates. Lots of components (GPU tech etc) understandably need to cach up.
Even other mainstream sites now write that way -- like IGN, PCGamer, etc -- thanks to Blur Busters advocacy (along with other scientists). Kudos to them. They're learning, and even seeing-for-themselves with brand new 240Hz-specific TestUFO tests and things like the special tests I designed for the 480Hz monitor that almost everyone agrees they see the difference.
So for trusted sites that start to post some information that readership understanding of high-Hz science -- it is important to respond loud when information is being written in a way that makes readers perpetuate false information. Even if they didn't call out "high Hz is useless" directly, they wrote in a way to make readers disbelieve benefits of ultra-high-Hz.
There certainly are points about the less use of ultra-high-Hz when there are limiting factors (frame rate, etc) but this article borders on the outright dismissal of the benefits of high Hz.
The high Hz mythbusters to the rescue...
I've already posted a 10-tweet Twitter thread gently reminding NotebookCheck (a very popular website) of the errors of their ways. Feel free to scroll through, as many of you readers and technical staff at companies are getting familiar with the writings of high-Hz advocates including Blur Busters.
Today -- thanks in a huge part to Blur Busters -- an increasing number of sites write in a more respectful way about high-Hz. It's okay to dismiss X line item but not categorically. The editorial & web knowledge of ultra high refresh rates is now higher thanks to the work of Blur Busters advocacy -- There is far less laughing today than during the "who needs 240Hz" and "who needs 480 Hz" articles of 2016 and 2017. Many careers have been launched in the last few years by many people I know, towards the refresh rate race.
More reading
Many researchers, Blur Busters included, have been mythbusting ultra high Hz via several articles.
-- Journey To Future 1000Hz Displays (explaining the benefits of ultra-high-Hz)
-- Frame Rate Amplification Technology (solving the GPU problem)
-- GtG vs MPRT: FAQ About Pixel Response (pixel response issues affecting high Hz)
Check them out if you haven't yet.
I have noticed fewer writers dismissed the new ASUS 300 Hz laptop than dismissed 480 Hz display a couple years ago. That is in great deal to Blur Busters advocacy successes as we're very loud about it.
However, two hugely popular websites wrote in a very dismissive way about the benefits of ultra-high refresh rates, "common misconception".
WindowsCentral.com
300Hz gaming-laptop displays are coming...but we're not sure why
"THIS IS DUMB": The latest gimmick to woo gamers doesn't cost much, but it's also just ridiculous
NotebookCheck.net
Do you really need a 240 Hz or 300 Hz laptop display?
The common misconception about high refresh rate monitors
My commentary:
The performance and use of 300Hz in laptop format may be far more incremental than average (due to the need to double refresh rates to keep milking the diminishing curve of returns) -- it is still human visible. The problem is when a site completely dismisses the benefits of ultra-high-Hz. This is where commentators say "Human eyes cannot see X fps" and such. Many scientists and researchers, including those at NVIDIA and Oculus, have already confirmed benefits >1000Hz, including many ergonomic benefits.
It is the responsibility of major editors, NotebookCheck.net and WindowsCentral, included, to be nuanced. Instead of writing a tone that essentially screams "X Hz is worthless", it is important to write "While 300 Hz is a bit overkill for a laptop for the average person, we realize there are a lot of unrealized benefits in the refresh rate race" kinda of way. Let the reader know about actual science!
Why Call Out NotebookCheck and WindowsCentral?
Both WindowsCentral and NoteBookcheck catches my attention because they are hugely popular sites.
One of the most popular research sites for laptops. Trusted. Reliable. Etc.
Reputable writers of reputable sites carry an important baton as informers that are above class. When such writers write about something they've never properly A/B tested before -- and just glance at convention demo machines -- and start writing dismissals -- that causes their readers to start commentatoring about the worthlessness of the refresh rate race. That is very bad.
We need to fight fake science with facts.
Sure, some things are marginal. Sure, one may "benefits of 300Hz laptop is marginal at best, though it's useful to understand benefits of the progression of high refresh rates". Like all of us editors, we used to dismiss 4K and 8K in the past, but now 4K TV is the best thing now that it's cheap and that we have personal experience with it. In the next ten years, there are actually cheap ways to increase the refresh rate race now that resolutions have gone retina, and now we need the retina refresh rates. Lots of components (GPU tech etc) understandably need to cach up.
Even other mainstream sites now write that way -- like IGN, PCGamer, etc -- thanks to Blur Busters advocacy (along with other scientists). Kudos to them. They're learning, and even seeing-for-themselves with brand new 240Hz-specific TestUFO tests and things like the special tests I designed for the 480Hz monitor that almost everyone agrees they see the difference.
So for trusted sites that start to post some information that readership understanding of high-Hz science -- it is important to respond loud when information is being written in a way that makes readers perpetuate false information. Even if they didn't call out "high Hz is useless" directly, they wrote in a way to make readers disbelieve benefits of ultra-high-Hz.
There certainly are points about the less use of ultra-high-Hz when there are limiting factors (frame rate, etc) but this article borders on the outright dismissal of the benefits of high Hz.
The high Hz mythbusters to the rescue...
I've already posted a 10-tweet Twitter thread gently reminding NotebookCheck (a very popular website) of the errors of their ways. Feel free to scroll through, as many of you readers and technical staff at companies are getting familiar with the writings of high-Hz advocates including Blur Busters.
Today -- thanks in a huge part to Blur Busters -- an increasing number of sites write in a more respectful way about high-Hz. It's okay to dismiss X line item but not categorically. The editorial & web knowledge of ultra high refresh rates is now higher thanks to the work of Blur Busters advocacy -- There is far less laughing today than during the "who needs 240Hz" and "who needs 480 Hz" articles of 2016 and 2017. Many careers have been launched in the last few years by many people I know, towards the refresh rate race.
More reading
Many researchers, Blur Busters included, have been mythbusting ultra high Hz via several articles.
-- Journey To Future 1000Hz Displays (explaining the benefits of ultra-high-Hz)
-- Frame Rate Amplification Technology (solving the GPU problem)
-- GtG vs MPRT: FAQ About Pixel Response (pixel response issues affecting high Hz)
Check them out if you haven't yet.