Manu_PTAnd yet some people still say that 144hz/240hz

Vya DomusThere you go again. The phrase "144hz/240hz" wasn't even mentioned but by some convoluted logic you see this as some sort way to forward your outrageous claim that 240z is commonplace yet again, as you did in the other thread. Why, is beyond me.

Just let go of this absolute nonsense already.

Manu_PTThe ones that deny it are those that:

- cant afford it
- can afford it but dont want to bother
- can afford it but never experienced it so think it is useless

Vya DomusYou are scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of arguments with this "can't afford it" crap. Not only you sound like every 13 year old on the internet trying to flex on somebody when all else fails but you don't even get that right. 240hz gaming is not even close to being the most expensive thing out there, 4K takes that spot easily because that's where the money is at. As a matter of fact 240hz monitors can be had for not much more than the cheapest 4K ones despite them offering an "objectivity better experience".

Wanna know why ? Crappy TN panels that are cheap to make, the bane of every monitor's existence. That being said enjoy your premium, common and "objectively" better monitors while the rest of us that can't afford them have to make do with those shitty color accurate 4K displays with great viewing angles, HDR and all that horrible stuff that the industry keeps making in overwhelmingly higher quantities because what do they know, right ?

Manu_PTEven 1080p 240hz has more detail than 4k 60hz as long as you have moving images

Manu_PTEducate yourself then talk.

Vya DomusYou are genuinely delusional to even think that. You are running out of arguments buddy and have resorted to making stuff up. Hilarious.



You know so little you don't even know what you don't know.

Also, it's a vicious circle -- higher resolution amplify motion clarity limitations of Hz massively. 4K 120Hz LCD degrades motion clarity on a relative-percentage more than 1024x768 60Hz LCD.
For one-screen-width-per-second horizontal panning motion, measured in the length of TestUFO blur trailing size behind moving UFO objects:
--> 1024x768 60fps motion -- motionblurs 1024/60ths screenwidth (motion blur trail length of 17 pixels -- roughly 17x blurrier than stationary graphics), 17:1 degradation in image sharpness between motion-vs-stationary
--> 3840x2160 120fps motion -- motionblurs 3840/120ths screenwidth (motion blur trail length of 32 pixels -- roughly 32x blurrier than stationary graphics), 32:1 degradation in image sharpness between motion-vs-stationary.
So you see, higher resolution amplifies sample-and-hold motion blur visibility. Naturally de-blurring (stroblessly, since real life doesn't strobe/flicker) retina graphics in fast motion will require extremely high frame rates at refresh rates. The more Retina a display becomes, the lower the persistence you need to completely eliminate display motion blur. And the only way to do strobeless low persistence is ultra-high-fps at ultra-high-Hz.

Manu_PTSource

Manu_PTNah I wont because it is objectively better experience and will be mainstream in the near future. I had this kind of debates already when 85hz were a thing and overclockable LCDs. Then 120hz and now 240hz. Time always shown I was right and Im right again. The ones that deny it are those that:

- cant afford it
- can afford it but dont want to bother
- can afford it but never experienced it so think it is useless

Been there done that. Thing is that high refresh is getting more and more common.

240hz is the best gaming/browsing/movie experience I ever had in my life.
I dont believe that someone who tried 240hz can ever feel confortable with his lower refresh rate monitor.

Manu_PTYou mean 4k 60hz panels that have awful motion clarity as soon as you move the mouse around? Yeah sure, enjoy your high resolution perfect colour for static images. Have fun looking at photos or landscapes on Witcher 3, while I have fun moving around with perfect smoothness, no blur and instant response.

In fact when you move around with the mouse at 60hz 4k it has worse image detail in movement due to the amout of pixels getting blur. Even 1080p 240hz has more detail than 4k 60hz as long as you have moving images. Educate yourself then talk. Also HDR monitors? What you mean, those 400cdm? Laughable really, if you think that´s good HDR.

Must be a great gaming experience, buying a great 4k 60hz 400cdm HDR monitor with 3000:1 Contrast, plus a RTX 2080 ti for RTX effects and then admire static landscapes/images. Every gamer´s dream

INSTG8RManu you’d actually have an argument if it weren’t for your argument is for shitty TN panels. I’m on my second 144hz panel. First IPS and now VA but I would never sacrifice 240hz for shit TN EVER! Get into the now of panels and then you might actually be taken seriously.

StrayKAT60Hz works out better on a TV/10 feet away. Just saying.

Vayra86It goes for monitor viewing too. Most people tend to crawl inside their monitor to resolve the detail over time, and that is when you start noticing all the flaws a panel has. At typical viewing distance (about an arm's length), most of that gets eliminated, because that is what the monitor is calibrated for.

StrayKATMaybe you're right (although I look forward to getting a 4K monitor soon). It's just that I haven't tested it yet.

Vayra86That is where PPI comes in, and why high PPI isn't really always an advantage. What size/diagonal are you looking at? Personally I'd not go much higher than 140~160 PPI. Going over that is wasting a lot of performance on detail you can barely distinguish (for gaming that is).

StrayKATMaybe just 28". It's not going to be heavy on gaming exactly. And I planned on just going with Samsung to match the TV (I doubt I'll get QLED though).