It's still woefully low of an estimate.
Having seen 1000Hz+ prototype displays the vanishing point is definitely well beyond 790 Hz.
This writer is going into complex math when there's some simpler law-of-physics being overlooked (missing the forest for the trees). You must look at all weak links that deviates a display away from reality -- motion blur, pixel response, stroboscopic artifacts.
FOV actually has a much bigger amplifying factor than 1.11x when it comes to video game material (rather than video material). I argue that the original researcher may have used suboptimal test material (video material) that attenuated the FOV factor.
Here we define "retina refresh rate" as a simple human term for refresh rate where no further human benefits are derived -- as a borrowing from "retina resolution" coined by Apple. We use this terminology because a wider segment of our audience sees it as a self-explanatory term.
Rebuttal Exhibit 1
As a simplified math, imagine a large display showing scrolling fine text such as
www.testufo.com/framerates-versus ... Sample and hold always at least always has a minimum of "Blur Busters Law" worth of motion blur: 1ms of unique frame visibility time translates to 1 pixel of motion blur per 1000 pixels/second: Retina refresh rate is at least about ~1920 Hz for 1920 pxiels/sec motion on a 1920x1080 display.
Rebuttal Exhibit 2
We can emulate a higher-Hz display via knowing
frame visibility time translates to motion blur. There's two ways to reduce motion blur -- flashing a frame briefer (like a CRT), versus adding more frames (higher Hz at higher framerate). The motion blur of 120fps versus a 1/120sec flashed frame, is identical. So we can use briefer pulses, of an adjustable-persistence display (such as one that supports a Strobe Utility). A good test is
TestUFO Panning Map Test which includes tiny 6-point-size text that is easily rendered hard-to-read by 1 pixel or 2 pixel of motion blurring. We already know that sample-and-hold of 1ms persistence is 3 pixels of motion blur per 3000 pixels/sec. So there's already motion blur visible to human eyes at 1000fps@1000Hz confirmed (the motion blur is identical between (A) of 1000fps@1000Hz versus (B) of a 1ms MPRT strobe-flashed display of a lower Hz), assuming framerate=Hz). Here we use MPRT(100%) for mathematical simplicity rather than MPRT(10%-90%) that industry standard MPRT is, and MPRT(100%) is guaranteed at least same or slower than MPRT(10%->90%), so any MPRT errors here will simply raise the retina refresh rate. Now adjust the monitor between MPRT 0.5ms and MPRT 1.0ms (0.5ms backlight flash versus 1.0ms backlight flash, on a good strobe-backlight gaming monitor) and it's a human visible difference in this TestUFO Panning Map Test. We're essentially simulating a difference between a 1000fps@1000Hz display versus a 2000fps@2000Hz display (0.5ms MPRT sample-and-hold), via the use of a strobe backlight display.
Rebuttal Exhibit 3
There's stroboscopics to be aware of -- phantom arrays, wagon wheel, etc --
www.blurbusters.com/stroboscopics .... For eliminating BOTH stroboscopics and motion blur, also the additional need to oversample the Hz (as seen at bottom of the UtlraHFR FAQ --
www.blurbusters.com/ultrahfr ...) because of the need to have blurless sample-and-hold COMBINED with a 360-degree shutter (continuous open for whole frame) -- also raises the retina refresh rate, because of the extra blur induced by a 360-degree shutter necessary to eliminate stroboscopic artifacts. So this creates a necessity of oversampling the refresh rate to eliminate ALL artifacts (blur _AND_ stroboscopics).
Their model neglects to consider other "weak links" such as the
Vicious Cycle Effect -- bigger-FOV displays have a higher retina refresh rate for the reasons explained.
The researcher who wrote this paper may have missed the opportunity to study
www.blurbusters.com/area51 to get the necessary ideas of additional unturned stones to cover, because it's always the weak link that raises the retina refresh rate. ALL weak links must be covered -- in order to compute the retina refresh rate model.
They're essentially popular sciences simplifications but it's pretty much an E=mc^2 simplification of display physics that really makes it easy to extrapolate the retina refresh rate reliably -- we've been successful in accurate estimates.
But I've also
been cited in more than 20 different peer reviewed research papers as well, simply because researchers who experimentally tested our techniques find that we've been reliably correctly. If Scott Daly dismissed Blur Busters earlier, there's even less reason to do so now -- the Blur Busters website was recently reorganized to make basic display research easier to find, via the purple Research tab at the main website.
Doing good complex math and diagrams is all dandy -- it is very important for science -- but if figurative Weak Link #3 has complex math and Weak Link #2 has simple math,
why ignore Weak Link #7 in your refresh rate speculation? Why not make the refresh rate less of a speculation and more based on real science by covering some already-tested weak links that already definitively confirm retina refresh rates are well beyond 790 Hz?
I may have to begin writing rebuttal papers sometime. Usually I let other researchers test my much simpler experiments that I describe (and they find out I'm right -- which is why I have so many citing me nowadays), but I might have to directly author a paper. However, first, I'll attempt to reach Scott Daly and have an academic-to-academic discussion...
I appreciate he acknowledged it as a speculative estimate. However, it's an overcomplication when there's a lot of really simple display physics. I don't like to see the industry set back by incorrect estimates, so it is in both my hobbyist-interest AND business-interests to see correct science.