| > And many pro gamers were using 120hz monitors over 144hz at one point. This was done solely in order to enable strobing as 144 Hz panels at the time were too slow to support strobing which requires scanout speeds equivalent to ~200 or so Hz at 144 Hz. And strobing is solely used because S&H displays have too much transition and motion blur at 1xx and 2xx Hz. > Realistically I think the two sweet spots are 120hz and 240hz - not necessarily because they are the best of the best but because they are each divisible by both 24 and 30 (the most common FPS of films and television) Principally I agree that 120/240 Hz are more suited to general purpose use for this reason [1], but on the other hand this really has nothing to do with the hardware and is purely so because of software limitations. Really what one would like to see is that video playback causes the variable-display refresh to adjust to a multiple of the exact video frame rate instead of janky ad-hoc frame-rate conversions. This is a common theme; hardware is generally much more capable than what the software/drivers allow everywhere you look. > All of this however is nothing compared to the improvement that a true HDR display brings Many people would probably already be quite happy with something that doesn't turn shadows into a foggy, cloudy mess like all IPS panels do, and VA panels as well (but less so). [1] though 120 Hz does not solve the 50p problem, as content produced by broadcasters in 50 Hz countries, which is basically all of the world that isn't the US, cannot easily be converted at playback time. 25p can just be handled like 24p with 1:1 playback, basically nobody notices the slight speed-up / slow-down and that's how films have been shown in television in 50 Hz countries since always. |