Comment on Apple’s engineers carefully designing the last 60 Hz OLED screens on the planet

• spankysalmon@fedinsfw.app ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  I mean, it’s still true, but everyone who cited it didn’t understand what it was saying. 24 is the minimum where your brain easily puts the motion together and it actually feels like motion. It’s also roughly near where your brain can still process each frame individually. Think the film blotches. Too much faster, and most people wouldn’t see a blip of a blotch and go, “oh a film blotch”, though they might still see it and go, “huh what was that?” up to some pretty significant framerates.

  Though that’s because your eyes don’t see in frames. They’re always receiving info. That’s why even non-framerate related things improve visual smoothness, like how some monitors/technologies (sorry I forgot which ones specify it!) will flash the backlight for the frame instead of keeping it on. Then your eyes don’t get all the muddy colored photons from when the screen was actively changing pixels. It can massively reduce artifacts and makes 120hz feel like 240hz, even though at those speeds, you cannot “see” each frame.

  TL;DR: It’s the Avatar kind of “see”, not the literal kind of “see”.

  source

  • marcos@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Hum… The minimum to make it feel like motion is something closer to 15 Hz.

    I have no idea where people pulled the 24 Hz number from, but 60 Hz is clearly enough for everybody. Anyway, if you go inserting random noise you can disrupt the people’s perception at any frequency, the noise just needs enough total energy.

    source

    • DaleGribble88@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      24 fps was the capture rate of old film cameras. The reason for that is because of how sound was stored on the edge of celluloid tape. Because of how the sound waves where imprinted on the tape, the max fidelity was at sample rate of at most 10,000 Hz per 18inches of tape. So, 18 inches of tape has to move through the projector and sound head every second.

      Consider a 35mm film reel which was popular at the same time. On a 35mm reel, the height of a single frame is about 19mm. So we have 18 inches (457mm) going across the projector screen, which shows a new frame of film every 19mm. That tells us the frame rate: 457/19 = 24.

      And that is why films run at 24 fps. Because it was the natural result of technical constraints when sound started being added to film. This is why older silent movies could use lower frame rates. Super 8 cameras recorded at 18fps because they could get away with it, but once Sound Super 8 hit the scene, it got brought back up to 24fps for much the same reasoning as the 1930s had with 35mm film.

      source

      • Thunderbird4@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        But film projectors, even in the late silent era, didn’t just flash the image once per frame. They had two or three bladed shutters so the image on screen would actually flash 48 to 72 times per second even though the film frame was only advancing 24 times per second. The whole point of the extra shutter flashes was to push the flickering of the light on screen above the flicker fusion threshold of your eye where you are able to differentiate between individual flashes of light. For most people, it’s about 50-90 Hz in the center of their field of vision.

        Strangely enough, the flicker fusion threshold in the center of your vision is lower than at the edges, which is why you can usually notice the blinking of LED headlights more easily in your peripheral vision than when you’re looking straight at them.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • gnutrino@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      60 Hz is clearly enough for everybody

      You should try VR sometime…

      source

      • marcos@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        VR has a lag problem, not a frame rate problem.

        Basically every argument against low frame rate displays you can find have the form of “we linked responsibility to the display frame rate and now we have a lag problem! low frame hates are the Devil!”

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • FatVegan@leminal.space ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Whenever i upgraded monitors, i was always disappointed, because i expected something amazing. I’m now on 200hz. But stepping down, oh boy you can tell. Maybe not from 20 to 165, but back to 60, from 60 to 30 becomes unplayable

      source

      • marcos@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Yes, because games usually synchronize with the monitor clock, and need several clock cycles to update their world model.

        source
  • LodeMike@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    24 is not the minimum. I personally can see the frames on a 24 or 24*(1000/1001) fps video if it changes quickly enough.

    source

    • RaccoonBall@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Same. Going to the theatre has always been kind of rough for that reason.

      On a smaller tv its less annoying, but I still wish we could do away with 24p

      source