Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Toys/Lag: Jerk Monitor

nothing.pcarrier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 63 posts

Re: Toys/Lag: Jerk Monitor

#51

Post by ptramo »

pvg wrote: post #42
andai wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The effects you describe are specific to CRTs only, right? Caused by the electron beam effectively illuminating one pixel at a time?

Yes this a (computer) CRT thing. The commenter might be misremembering the exact numbers, 60 Hz baseline is a flat panel thing, by the mid to late 90s, 75 Hz was something a typical computer CRT would generally aim for and was part of various standards and recommendations.

> 60 Hz baseline is a flat panel thing

It's so many things, starting with the North American electric grid, NTSC, etc.

Yes my graphics card + monitor could theoretically run at more than 60 Hz. When I got to choose between resolution and refresh rate, I picked resolution. Hence 60 Hz.

Re: Toys/Lag: Jerk Monitor

#52

Post by sillysaurusx »

chrisweekly wrote: post #27
tofof wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So tired of defending against this same, old, completely wrong intuition from people especially those saying "do the science" to justify their ignorance instead of looking themselves since the science has already been done and it's coming up on a full century old. From this one paper alone, humans can perceive information from a single frame at 2000 Hz. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1945.9917254 Humans can read nu…

Best comment in the threads, IMHO. Thanks for the details.

Agreed!

Re: Toys/Lag: Jerk Monitor

#53

Post by tuna74 »

tverbeure wrote: post #16
sillysaurusx wrote: post #10

I can buy that humans can see at least 120hz at a minimum. 60Hz is the generally accepted threshold, but I’ve long suspected that 120Hz has mostly imperceptible effects that are still noticeable, if rarely. I can’t buy this: > I've also learnt I do benefit from the 8 kHz setting of my mouse, as even at 3200 DPI with fast & smooth motion, some frames still miss a pointer update It may be true that pointer updates were…

Higher refresh rates don't have to be perceptible to be useful: they can shift the balance in head-to-head gaming. Imagine 2 identical gaming setups with 2 players that have the same skill set. In an FPS game, you'd expect each of those players to win 50% of the games. Now switch one monitor from 120Hz to 240Hz. On average, the player on the 240Hz monitor will see their adversary 4ms earlier than the player on the 12…

You also have higher motion clarity so you are more efficient in seeing what happens on the screen.

Re: Toys/Lag: Jerk Monitor

#54

Post by BearOso »

mrheosuper wrote: post #44
BearOso wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a recent invention. Only the latest gaming mice can poll at that rate, and not particularly well on USB2. They're usually limited to 1000. Neat tool, though. I'm also very sensitive towards latency.

most of 8k dongle is usb 2

Of course, that's necessary. Many USB ports "designated" for keyboard and mice are still only USB 1.1, and my post should have said unless on USB 2. You need USB 2 in both the mouse/adaptor and port to get full performance.

Re: Toys/Lag: Jerk Monitor

#55

Post by Xss3 »

brookst wrote: post #25
tverbeure wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Higher refresh rates don't have to be perceptible to be useful: they can shift the balance in head-to-head gaming. Imagine 2 identical gaming setups with 2 players that have the same skill set. In an FPS game, you'd expect each of those players to win 50% of the games. Now switch one monitor from 120Hz to 240Hz. On average, the player on the 240Hz monitor will see their adversary 4ms earlier than the player on the 12…

Do any competitive FPS games actually render 240 different frames in a second? Because if both players’ hardware is doing 60FPS, that monitor difference changes nothing.

[flagged]

Re: Toys/Lag: Jerk Monitor

#56

Post by Xss3 »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #10

I can buy that humans can see at least 120hz at a minimum. 60Hz is the generally accepted threshold, but I’ve long suspected that 120Hz has mostly imperceptible effects that are still noticeable, if rarely. I can’t buy this: > I've also learnt I do benefit from the 8 kHz setting of my mouse, as even at 3200 DPI with fast & smooth motion, some frames still miss a pointer update It may be true that pointer updates were…

60hz isnt a generally accepted threshold by anyone. This entire opinion is based on junk.

Why do you think the brain has such limits? Youve drawn them from where exactly?

Re: Toys/Lag: Jerk Monitor

#57

Post by sillysaurusx »

Xss3 wrote: post #56
sillysaurusx wrote: post #10

I can buy that humans can see at least 120hz at a minimum. 60Hz is the generally accepted threshold, but I’ve long suspected that 120Hz has mostly imperceptible effects that are still noticeable, if rarely. I can’t buy this: > I've also learnt I do benefit from the 8 kHz setting of my mouse, as even at 3200 DPI with fast & smooth motion, some frames still miss a pointer update It may be true that pointer updates were…

60hz isnt a generally accepted threshold by anyone. This entire opinion is based on junk. Why do you think the brain has such limits? Youve drawn them from where exactly?

On the contrary, if you ask a random person how fast the fps needs to be before it doesn’t really matter, the vast majority will say either 60 (because that’s usually the cap) or 24 (because it’s what movies use).

If it wasn’t generally accepted, the world wouldn’t use it in well over 9 out of 10 cases.

You’re correct that the rest of my comment was mistaken; see the sibling comment that presents a paper from nearly a century ago showing that humans can perceive up to 2,000 Hz.

Re: Toys/Lag: Jerk Monitor

#58

Post by Xss3 »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #57
Xss3 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

60hz isnt a generally accepted threshold by anyone. This entire opinion is based on junk. Why do you think the brain has such limits? Youve drawn them from where exactly?

On the contrary, if you ask a random person how fast the fps needs to be before it doesn’t really matter, the vast majority will say either 60 (because that’s usually the cap) or 24 (because it’s what movies use). If it wasn’t generally accepted, the world wouldn’t use it in well over 9 out of 10 cases. You’re correct that the rest of my comment was mistaken; see the sibling comment that presents a paper from nearly…

Doesnt matter for enjoyment of a product Vs is some sort of threshold of noticeability are very different.

Re: Toys/Lag: Jerk Monitor

#59

Post by dmonitor »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #57
Xss3 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

60hz isnt a generally accepted threshold by anyone. This entire opinion is based on junk. Why do you think the brain has such limits? Youve drawn them from where exactly?

On the contrary, if you ask a random person how fast the fps needs to be before it doesn’t really matter, the vast majority will say either 60 (because that’s usually the cap) or 24 (because it’s what movies use). If it wasn’t generally accepted, the world wouldn’t use it in well over 9 out of 10 cases. You’re correct that the rest of my comment was mistaken; see the sibling comment that presents a paper from nearly…

> If it wasn’t generally accepted, the world wouldn’t use it in well over 9 out of 10 cases.

This is driven by standardization, not any kind of human perception limit.

Re: Toys/Lag: Jerk Monitor

#60

Post by ptramo »

sillysaurusx wrote: post #46
eviks wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where did you get 60 as generally accepted from?

People were skeptical that 120Hz vs 60Hz made any difference in gaming. I’m still not sure how skeptical I should be. The threshold seems somewhere between 60 and 240, and it’s really hard to believe that 240 makes a measurable difference in real world performance (e.g. competitive games). But I can believe 120Hz matters vs 60Hz. There’s also confusion over human response time vs whether you can perceive something. E…

Being truer to reality where movement is continuous is not a subjective assessment. It doesn't look different, it looks more like what it's supposed to if realism is the goal. That's not a matter of taste.
Post reply on HN