Hacker News Reader

Comment by andersa | Hacker News Reader

Actually, more is always better. What do you think why we try to run PC games at 144, or even 240 and 360 fps?

Games are different. Interactive media requires responsiveness. Saying that higher framerate is always better in cinema is a pretty bold statement, one that would fail a simple survey among moviegoers. What does "better" even mean, in this context? Fidelity is just one of many axes of expression when creating art. Higher isn't better than lower, or vice versa.

For me the higher frame rate is not really about response time, it is all about smooth motion. Panning the camera at 60Hz is just barely acceptable. 120Hz is where it starts looking real nice and I can really see things during the pan. 24Hz pans are unwatchable garbage.

A movie properly authored at 120Hz (not interpolated with potential artifacts) would be objectively better than a 24Hz one in every possible way.

Also with higher frame rate I can see subtle patterns in the movement and flow of things (clothes, water, humans). Also the eye can see more details and can recognize the texture of things, the different kinds of fabrics, all kind of details like this.

PC gamers pushing for higher framerates is mostly about reducing latency, which doesn't matter for a movie.

Only some people try to run at 144/240/360. I set my max FPS on my PC games to 60 because it 1) feels right and 2) uses less electricity/generates less heat. I only bump it for competitive FPS where a higher FPS makes target acquisition easier.

Need some way to justify an overpriced graphics card, is what I always assumed.

What's the point? Can people even tell?

Of course they can. If you ever try to go back, it looks like garbage. There is no limit to improving the illusion of smooth motion, but it scales non-linearly (you need to double the frame rate each time to improve it noticeably). I can't personally tell apart whether it is running at 144 or 120 fps, but the larger jumps are very obvious.

Yea 120 v 144 isn’t too big of a difference for me. Actually until I got a new GPU that could actually output 120fps at 1440p, I left my monitor on 120hz. When AMDs AFMF drivers came out I actually went ahead and bumped the refresh to 144hz as I was definitely starting to see screen tearing but it was still pretty fluid. I’d be curious on whether the next jump for meto will be 4k 144hz or 1440p 240hz

Absolutely they can, though I found anything above 240hz to be indistingushable for myself personally. Though the monitor I'm writing this on is 300hz; it's motion clarity is only bested by OLEDs and the $2000 AUD (twice what I paid for this) 360hz bigger brother PG27AQN.

I’ve never had a display refresh rate higher than 144, but maybe because I play games but I can definitely tell the difference between 30/60 and even 60/120. After 120 the difference between 120/144 starts to diminish but there’s still a slight difference though it’s more pronounced in very fast moving objects like moving a mouse.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com