Technology

59243 readers

3428 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

190

submitted 10 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

130 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Screens keep getting faster. Can you even tell? | CES saw the launch of several 360Hz and even 480Hz OLED monitors. Are manufacturers stuck in a questionable spec war, or are we one day going to wo...::CES saw the launch of several 360Hz and even 480Hz OLED monitors. Are manufacturers stuck in a questionable spec war, or are we one day going to wonder how we ever put up with ‘only’ 240Hz displays?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Jumi@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I splurged on a 4k 144hz monitor when I worked constant night shifts in covid times and I don't think I will ever need something else.

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 4 points 10 months ago (3 children)

What is the idea behind 144? It seems to particular a number to be arbitrary. 24, 60 and 120 seem to be based on other techs and related media.

[–] Darthjaffacake@lemmy.world 11 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I found people online saying it's because it's 24 frames (standard frame rate) higher than 120 meaning it can be used to watch movies using integer scaling (1:6 ratio of frame rate rather than 1:5.5 or something strange), take that with a massive grain of salt though because lots of people say there's other reasons.

[–] Humanius@lemmy.world 9 points 10 months ago (1 children)

If consuming media with integer scaling is the main concern, then 120Hz would be better than 144Hz, because it can be divided by 5 to make 24Hz (for movies) and divided by 2 or 4 to make 30/60Hz (for TV shows).

144Hz only cleanly divides into 24Hz by dividing it by 6. In order to get to 60Hz you need to divide by 2.4, which is not an integer.

And with either refresh rate 25/50Hz PAL content is still not dividable by a nice round integer value

[–] Darthjaffacake@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Yeah as I said take what I said with a massive grain of salt, some people are saying it's because of a limit of hdmi data sending so it could be that.

[–] Squizzy@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Oh man those maths didn't click with me, of course it's just another 24 frames.

[–] Darthjaffacake@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

Me neither to be honest, 24 is kind of a weird number when added up.

[–] Lojcs@lemm.ee 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I think it's because 120hz + overclock can get to 144 so someone probably started selling factory OCd 120hz screens at 144hz and then it caught on. Then someone did the same to native 144hz and we got 165hz. I'm more curious about why 165 was chosen, its not a nice number like 144. Maybe since vrr is widespread now they didn't need nice numbers

[–] Jumi@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago

I honestly have no idea but so far I never really reached 144 fps or 4k, much less both simultaneously.