flood wrote: ↑15 May 2020, 17:14
i don't think "better" should be defined by ratios.
consider this:
the difference between 20000Hz and 10000Hz is far less than the difference between 60Hz and 30Hz.
This be true.
However, ratios are
far better than incrementals, from the perspective of shopping for a refresh rate improvement.
Exact incremental 30Hz is noticeable at 60Hz, but almost unnoticeable at 240Hz.
30Hz->60Hz = big visible difference
240Hz->270Hz = almost unnoticeable difference
Also, this is part of the
Vicious Cycle Effect. Where all the variables interacts each other, bigger displays, wider FOV, higher resolutions, more HDR, less motion blur, closer viewing distances, etc. Doubling horizontal resolution means twice as many pixels to motionblur over. So you have to double Hz to compensate. At least up to retina resolution, fastest eye tracking speeds, over the widest FOV. This is why motion blur is more noticeable on higher resolution displays. 60fps blur is harder to see at 1024x768 than at 3840x2160. And HDR can make faint ghosting/coronas/crosstalk easier to see due to higher contrast ratios.
The diminishing curve does disappear at beyond roughly 10,000Hz. (There will be a human visible difference between sample-and-hold 1000fps@1000Hz and sample-and-hold 10,000fps@10,000Hz for a retina-resolution 180-degtree FOV virtual reality headset, given a slow head turn can go 10,000 pixels per second, creating 10 pixels of motion blur on a sample-and-hold display that is only 1000fps@1000Hz)
The problem is incrementalism (144Hz->165Hz) and (240Hz->280Hz) hurting the claims ("Human eyes can't see past 144Hz" then "Human eyes can't see past 240Hz!" and so on). By requiring geometricals, you can keep more visibly improving until the diminishing curve disappears. That incrementalism sometimes hurts the refresh rate race if we keep up this incrementalism, because it creates a false sense of "it's over". Blur Busters' job is to educate, so that's why we recommend geometric increases in refresh rate if you're one of those "Wow, 60Hz vs 144Hz is huge!" and "Ugh, 144Hz vs 240Hz is subtle".
But I have seen 360Hz with my eyes, and the leap is more comparable to 60Hz-vs-144Hz upgrade, even if more subtle, but it's more representative of a true upgrade than 240Hz-vs-360Hz.
Geometric differences do disappear, but they disappear much more slowly than incremental absolute differences.
Long term aspiration is that in two or three decades, 1000Hz is a free feature in a display, much like 4K is free -- 4K costs no more than 1080p. 4K isn't a $10,000 invention anymore, you can get 4K at Walmart for $299 to $499 nowadays. Technically, 1000Hz someday can be cheap as a method of strobeless low-persistence. Especially when it becomes power-efficient with the help of various
frame rate amplification technologies to generate 1000fps more cheaply with less power in the future.
