[JoeAltmaier]

I fear that such comments are similar to the old 'a monster cable makes my digital audio sound more mellow!'

The eye percieves at about 10 hz. That's 100ms per capture. All the rest, I'd have to see a study that shows how any higher framerate can possibly be perceived or useful.

[KapKap66]

Well if you believe that, start up a video game with a framerate limiter and set your game's framerate limit to 10 fps and tell me how much you enjoy the experience. By default your game will likely be running at either 60 fps or 120 fps if you're vertical synced (depends on your monitor's refresh rate). Make sure to switch back and forth between 10 and 60/120 to compare.

Even your average movie captures at 24 hz. Again, very likely you've never actually just compared these things for yourself back to back, as I mentioned originally.

[JoeAltmaier]

Sure, that can all be true, and it still doesn't make 500hz make a particle of use.

[zahlman]

>The eye percieves at about 10 hz. That's 100ms per capture. All the rest, I'd have to see a study that shows how any higher framerate can possibly be perceived or useful.

It takes effectively no effort to conduct such a study yourself. Just try re-encoding a video at different frame rates up to your monitor refresh rate. Or try looking at a monitor that has a higher refresh rate than the one you normally use.

[dahart]

> The eye perceives at about 10 hz.

Not sure what this means; the eye doesn’t perceive anything. Maybe you’re thinking of saccades or round-trip response times or something else? Those are in the ~100ms range, but that’s different from whether the eye can see something.

This paper shows pictures can be recognized at 13ms, which is faster than 60hz, and that’s for full scenes, not even motion tracking or small localized changes. https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-013-0605-z

[JoeAltmaier]

From that, then, we conclude that somehow 500Hz is important or meaningful?

[dahart]

Is it only 500 or 10, and nothing in between? You could have argued against 500 with the GP comment instead of countering with something that’s demonstrably untrue. I handed you the study you asked for.

Movies’ 24Hz is too slow, just watch a horizontal pan. 24Hz is good enough for slow things, but it was chosen that low for cost reasons, not because it’s the limit of perception. US TV’s 60hz interlace isn’t the limit either, which is also shown with horizontal pans. 60hz progressive looks different than 30hz, just watch YouTube or turn on frame interpolation on a modern TV.

The limit of meaningful motion tracking perception might be in the 100-200Hz range. The reason 500Hz is meaningful to gamers is, I think, because of latency rather than frequency. Video systems often have multiple frames of latency, so there actually is a perceptible difference to them between 60Hz and 500Hz.

[ajolly]

I find a big difference between running my desktop at 60 HZ versus 144 HZ in how smooth the mouse moves and how easy it is to click on a small area of the screen with fast mouse movement.

[dahart]

Yep, and I think a lot of people who’ve tried it would agree. I’ve heard the same from others too, and I believe it.

I don’t know what typical display latency of just browsing files with a monitor these days. I’d guess it’s probably a few frames, and I’d bet we would be able to feel the difference between 3 frames of latency at 144hz and 1 frame of latency at 144hz. I’m also curious if mouse cursor motion blur would make any difference.

[Cthulhu_]

Modern operating systems run at 120 or 144 hz screen refresh rates nowadays, I don't know if you're used to it yet but try and go back to 60, it should be pretty obivous when you move your mouse.