Comment on I can barely tell the difference between 60 and 165 hz on my monitor
GiveMemes@jlai.lu 10 months agoSeeing a solid color frame change is completely different from the minor changes generally occurring per frame, especially in media such as movies and games which are continuous.
Vlyn@lemmy.zip 10 months ago
The Hobbit movies at 48 instead of 24 fps still looked much smoother and better.
foggenbooty@lemmy.world 10 months ago
Yup, while I do see the point some people make about it breaking the immersion of film for being too fluid (everybody has their preferences) it definitely WAS more fluid.
I will say though that when I first moved from 60-144hz I wasn’t blown away by the change either. Things seemed a bit smoother maybe but not that big a deal. It wasn’t until I accidentally went back to 60 that something felt horribly wrong. I can ABSOLUTELY see the difference now and for some reason I had to get acclimated.
Vlyn@lemmy.zip 10 months ago
The problem with the movie was that a lot of TV watching people see it as a “soap opera effect” because those are shot in 60 fps. So they don’t like it and want a “cinematic” feel.
For me who doesn’t usually watch TV it was glorious. Yes, you notice every tiny mistake on the screen at 48 fps, but it actually feels real. Like that’s a real dwarf there talking with an elf for example. More lifelike if you get what I mean? It’s a damn shame you can’t buy the movies with HFR :-/
Well, 144hz has more than one benefit. You get a smoother image output of course, but also less input lag (seeing actions you take faster on the screen). But switching between the two is very obvious usually, even when just moving around a window on the desktop.
Tavarin@lemmy.ca 10 months ago
I vastly preferred them in 24 fps, they looked awful in 48 fps to me.