| |
| ▲ | nottorp a day ago | parent | next [-] | | It's too easy for display manufacturers to compete on moar pixels, moar fps, moar refresh. You just try to embiggen your numbers compared to your competitor. Meanwhile, features where you can't compete on numbers but can ruin the experience are ignored. | | |
| ▲ | Night_Thastus a day ago | parent [-] | | What are these features that can't be measured? Plenty of people who test monitors also compare things like color coverage, brightness, latency, contrast, viewing angles, etc, etc, etc. If you mean the entire monitor, they generally also cover things like how the display swivels/mounts among other things. |
| |
| ▲ | tosti a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | No, I just don't think such a high refresh rate accomplishes anything. Not even bragging rights. 120Hz, possibly. But 240? Are you going to introduce a telly into a slow-motion studio, on the set? | | |
| ▲ | mort96 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | The difficult thing for these standards is the data rate. 4k 240Hz is the same data rate as 8k 60Hz (since 8k is 4x the number of pixels as 4k). If you want to support 8k 60Hz, the only reason you wouldn't also support 4k 240Hz would be because you actively choose to disallow that. That seems like a bad idea. | | |
| ▲ | tosti an hour ago | parent [-] | | I guess that would sorta make sense if there was no upscaling involved. With upscaling, I doubt the actual display refresh rate ever hits 240Hz. They could still advertise support for it, but you'd have to use a high speed camera to tell if it really does that. |
| |
| ▲ | Night_Thastus a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | It's diminishing returns, but for those who want it and have the hardware to support it, why not? I have a 360 and when I play something I can actually get a full 360 out of, it's wonderful! Though honestly anything over 100 I'm perfectly fine with. |
|
|
