Retina has 100 million photoreceptors per eye.
Also, need higher FPS. Maybe 120 is good enough?
I played breath of the wild and it was almost bad enough to keep me from playing. I think 60fps is fine for this, but in the future hope to see higher refresh rates as an option.
My main use case from VR has been escaping reality. Having multiple monitors floating in space allows me to prevent distractions. I fell asleep in VR once. I woke up looking at the stars, it was very confusing but interesting.
Almost everyone I've met or talked with that can notice the difference between those kind of framerates seems to either be diagnosed with it, or at the very least clearly show the associated traits.
I think most people I associate with are diagnosed ADD, but they're also high skill gamers.
That's not true for everyone. For me and a few others, there's even a clear difference between 120 and 144 Hz, and to 60Hz it a gulf. A Refresh rate of 60Hz in a high paced, close up, fight becomes a bit of a where's Waldo situation. It's as if my brain stop doing motion estimation because the frames doesn't really fit together, so I kind of stitch together the individual frames and try to guess what next 'slide' is going to show up.
I know there are a few other with the same issue, and anecdotally it might be a trait that occurs with some forms of ADHD/ADHD-PI. But I don't have a good reference on that, only experience and people I've met.
Edit: Thanks for the feedback, I guess it is perceptible. Nevertheless, I think my argument becomes valid at some N. Sure, N !== 60, but N = 144 or 120 may be more reasonable. I'm not too concerned with what N is, more so with the fact that "doubling the refresh rate" eventually becomes an act of futility.
But really, when you achieve 120Hz, it’s beautiful, it reminds me of when retina displays came out. We are a bit closer to realistic rendering.
Yes, what I was trying to get at is that just because the hardware is capable of 60 frames in a second, that doesn't mean the software was delivering 60 frames a second. The iPad Pro has a different processor than the iPad (A10X Fusion vs A10 Fusion), and in a lot of tests it's significantly faster.[1]
The iPad pro does have more pixels to push around, but that doesn't exactly negate the CPU difference, it just makes it more complicated to draw an actual comparison. That that's before we even get to the actual graphics processor, which itself could do a better job of offloading some processed to hardware (better OpenGL/Metal/whatever support). For all we know, you were seeing a average of 35 updated frames a second on the iPad, and you're now seeing an average of 55 updated frames on the iPad pro. In that case, the doubling of the screen refresh might help a little (in reducing noticeable laggy frames a bitas it can update between what would be frames at 60Hz), but it wouldn't be earth shattering. I doubt it's that bad, but as an example, this should show how a Hz rating on what a screen is capable of doesn't mean much.
The real benefit of higher screen refresh rates is to better support different lower native refresh rates. Much video content is at 24 FPS. A 30Hz or 60Hz screen can't represent that faithfully, and will need to double some frames. A 120Hz screen can perfectly represent 24 FPS content[2], and that's the real reason screens (and TVs) ship with that refresh rate. Different media (television, internet video, DVDs, Blu-Rays, video game systems, etc) all have different refresh rates they want to deliver.
1: https://www.notebookcheck.net/A10-Fusion-vs-A10X-Fusion_8178...
2: I'm ignoring that it's often actually 23.976 FPS or something.
Its painful to go back.
[0] https://www.pcgamer.com/how-many-frames-per-second-can-the-h...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/Competitiveoverwatch/comments/5mhqh...
It's an interpolation thing; it's much easier for your brain to do the tracking of an object when it smoothly moves around, instead of it having to do interp / extrapolation, and this should demonstrate why
Can I ask why you think it sounds like a placebo? I don't really see why there's any logic behind 144hz being the ceiling of how well your eyes can see, and 144hz -> 240hz is a big jump
144-200 was not very noticeable. 144-240 was absolutely noticeable. A couple of games that dual 980 ti's cant reach 240 in currently, hopefully Volta changes that. The monitor was also on sale, so I got it for a crisp $300 with no tax.
Using my iPhone immediately after makes the phone display feel cheap for a bit.
Even on your current 60Hz monitor, you can see how the image is blurry in the 60Hz band. On 144Hz I could see the pixel-level details (on 1080p) almost as clear as a motionless image.
In reality though, all LCD displays have persistence issues. (You end up seeing bits of the previous frame suspended over the current frame).
Higher quality monitors designed for higher display frequencies tend to also be tuned to have less persistence per frame. There are also tools/tricks some brands employ to remove / reduce the persistence (and blurring), which can be effective (or annoying, depending on how they do it) even at 60hz. There are also "120hz" and higher displays with such bad persistence issues that they are way worse off on the ufo test than a good low persistence 60hz display.
As an easy example. IPS panels tend to have a lot more trouble switching between frames quickly than VA or TN panels, so they also tend to exhibit more persistence issues per frame. This is then directly noticeable on the UFO test between these kinds of panels. IPS panels have of course been getting a lot better in this regard in recent years!
There has been a bunch of research involving VR induced nausia indicating that having a framerate of 90 or higher reduces the incident of nausia over 30 and 60.
For example: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320742796_Measureme...
There is also a misconception of treating visible motion details and temporal artifacts as the same thing ("what human can see?"). There are diminishing returns around 100 FPS for motion details, but it's still far too low to eliminate artifacts like blurring or judder (in VR usually connected to vestibulo-ocular reflex). This is why current VR headsets already have effectively 300+Hz-like persistence. We may need something like 1000 FPS if not more to achieve clean vision at full persistence, so obviously strobing tricks are necessary to get around it. And you don't need a fighter jet pilot pilot to see it. Everyone can notice these problems.
The most important quality issue is for the image update to match the display strobe. That's why FreeSync/Gsync is such a big deal.
Doubtless there is some refresh rate where it ceases to matter, but the point here is that we're still struggling to push an acceptable frame rate in VR (and 4k, and other high resolution "formats") without making significant sacrifices in other aspects of the video quality. Assuming that image quality and available processing power both continue to increase, it will continue to be important to include framerate in the balance, i.e. we want to draw enough but not be wasteful.