Writer that dismiss high-Hz: NotebookCheck / WindowsCentral

[Chief Blur Buster]

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.

[Chief Blur Buster]

To writers:

Writing the equivalent of "the benefits of ultra-Hz is worthless in specific thing X" -- writers need to balanced this out with information to prevent readers from assuming it also automatically means "the benefits of of ultra-high-Hz is worthless in everything".

This is the very thing we try to advocate against -- even the inclusion of a final paragraph acknowledging the benefits of the refresh rate race, can be sufficient to balance things out.

A lot of us were against 1080p in laptops because it was slow and expensive. Until 1080p became cheap and fast. And Windows DPI scaling became really good. Even back in the day, not even notebook writers completely called 1080p crazy (well, at least not the reputable ones anyway).

And now we at least acknowledge 4K is useful because it's retina in a laptop, for those people who really like the crisp text over everything else. My problem is the categorical dismissal of various ultra-high-Hz benefits (even if unintentional by tone), which hurts the refresh rate race. We need higher quality 144Hz and higher quality 240Hz, as well as GPUs that can do frame rate amplification technologies.

There will come a time where ultra-Hz is fast and effortless, thanks to a variety of technologies such as NVIDIA Temporally Dense Ray Tracing (see Page 2, NVIDIA mentions me in their paper!) and other things like frame rate amplification technologies (that Oculus Rift already now uses). The tech progress is needed and we can't categorically completely dismiss ultra high Hz, just because of marginalness of benefits due to current bottlenecks, without at least explaining fully definite benefits are there but are bottlenecked.

Right now, Blur Busters 1000Hz is almost like talking about 8K back in the 720p days, but still -- we weren't dismissing 8K as strongly as some silly sites were dismissing ultra-high refresh rates.

Thank you for reading! And taking this into due consideration for future writings. We truly appreciate it everyone!

[Ranran]

I think the writers ought to consider doing their due diligence with research. Just simply searching terms such as critical fusion flicker frequency yields quite a bit of literature. My field isn't quite neuroscience (it is somewhat related), and I've seen literature regarding this and other aspects of human vision dating back to the 1950s with tachistoscopic experiments. Human vision is definitely able to perceive distinct visual effects out to 500hz at least and more in high contrast viewing conditions (which I think corner peeking in fpses is somewhat close to)

If they can't find some of the older material (which is admittedly somewhat difficult) here's something newer and https://www.nature.com/articles/srep07861