• grrgyle@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Genuine answer is that it’s just not necessary. Current displays are sharp and smooth enough. I’d rather a display that lasts for a few decades, since the only reason to replace these is when they break down.

      • madcaesar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Your eyes can’t possibly tell the difference. We’re past the max eye resolution at this point.

          • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            I imagine it was a typo*, but this article in Nature reports that in specifics circumstances the median maximum that people can perceive a difference may be around 500hz, with the maximum in their test possibly being as high as 800hz.

            Normally though it seems closer to 50-90hz, but I’m on the road and haven’t delved too deeply into it

            Edit: Type to Typo

              • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                7 months ago

                Not the original you replied to. And I had a typo when trying to spell typo 😂 just adding to the conversation. Wasn’t disputing you, just meant the may have meant refresh rate instead of resolution. Easy mistake. It’s still quite disputed how well eyes can tell the difference in refresh rates.

    • Dippy@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’m hoping that people stop giving an actual fuck at around 400 so that they can just simply produce that and stop.