that tweeter obviously has no idea what a placebo is
well, he is a pajeet so i guess it's only fitting considering that nations relationship with health and hygiene
Untitled
Zachary Gonzalez
Easton Cox
Dumb H1-B pajeet
Adam Gutierrez
Those are obvious baits, but obviously there is an upper limit to how much change the human brain/eye can perceive per second. So no, thinking of it in terms of FPS is not wrong.
Jayden Walker
>120 - 165 is placebo, yeah.
only if your panel is incapable of the response times to reach 165hz. I will say that between 120hz and 144hz, and between 144hz and 165hz, I would have trouble telling the difference, but the jump from 120hz straight to 165hz is noticeable. My rule for "can I tell the difference" is that every 2ms change in response times is perceptible. So you can tell the difference between 100hz and 120hz (10ms-8ms) and 120hz to 165hz (8ms to 6ms) but it's difficult to tell 6-7-8ms independently.
It also means you have to jump to 240hz for the next jump (4ms) and then 500hz for 2ms. 360hz monitors are only worth looking at over 240hz if response times of the monitor and BFI come into play. Once you have 240hz the actual refresh rate of the montor matters way less than the rest of the panel for blurring does. Here's an example of why 240hz is actually better than 360hz because the blur reduction features of the monitor matter more than the 1ms less theoretical max response time.
youtube.com
Jacob Smith
On sample&hold monitors the human eye can see a difference to several thousand herz, it's only a matter of the speed of motion you're attempting to track.
The reason you don't see much difference between 120 and 165 is because both are blurry shit.
Levi Harris
that's a 13.333ms response time vs a 16.666ms response time. It fits my rule of what refresh rate jumps are worth it.
Kevin Brown
>Google CEO is a tech retard
doesn't surprise me