Has any non pro consumer ever noticed a display greater than 60 hz. I can barely get the regular people in my life to nice anything above 30 hz or turning off motion smoothing. I really don't see how any of this stuff matters for most people
60fps is basically fine as long as you are unaware that it can be any better, but once you find out you are forever spoiled by the knowledge.
I'm sure a lot of people now would feel odd if you gave them a 60Hz phone after high refresh has become so common, even if they don't pay conscious attention to that kind of stuff
I know there's a sizable contingent of people who just think a bigger number is better, but realistically this is a device for passively consuming text and video content that is typically around 30 fps anyway. Why waste the battery power on faster refresh?
Does the page look and feel glued to your finger as you scroll?
Try rapidly dragging up and down to scroll a web page.
For some people, it’s motion sickness inducing of it gets too laggy
Yes, for me issues with apps have mainly been in poorly optimized code causing lag, slow loading and the like. The 60hz/120hz thing has never really been a practical issue.
Not a blind test, but the smoothness when tracking a moving object is very obvious
But maybe it's because I'm 40+ with relatively bad eye vision and 20 years earlier I'd be noticing the difference much more.. But I'd say going from 1080p to 4k was a lot more obvious than that...
But if you really don't want it, Settings > Accessibility > Motion > Limit Frame Rate will cap it at 60.
There's also an option to prefer page rendering updates near 60 hz buried in Safari's feature flags settings. This one defaults to on, presumably to protect the battery life from asshole web developers and advertisers.
Frustratingly, built in Mac displays kinda force enable it. You can at least reduce the max nits to be the same as max screen brightness, rather than the insane "XDR" default where HDR can go nearly 3x the max brightness. You can also make a custom color profile that disables HDR, but this disables the screen brightness controls, which isn't worth.
Convincing them they need more than 60hz is going to be a hard sell.
Imagine if someone said "this food won't really taste better to you when you first eat it, but after 6 months you'll find other food tastes worse". To me, this would not be a selling point.
I've often had new phones that are 'faster' but I barely notice the fastness until I go back to my old phone and realise that my finger-memory needs adapting because things take just a bit longer to load.
I'd assume it's similar for screen refresh rates.
When I got the phones, I did not notice any benefit related to screen refresh. I also did not notice any detriment when I went back to my 13 mini after two weeks on a 120 Hz screen.
But if it was as GP said, and it's only something you notice when you go back to a "lesser" screen, then that would not be a selling point in my book.
"It's sometimes said that glass in very old churches is thicker at the bottom than at the top because glass is a liquid, and so over several centuries it has flowed towards the bottom. This is not true. In mediaeval times, panes of glass were often made by the "Crown glass" process. A lump of molten glass was rolled, blown, expanded, flattened and finally spun into a disc before being cut into panes. The sheets were thicker towards the edge of the disc and were usually installed with the heavier side at the bottom. Other techniques of forming glass panes have been used, but it is only the relatively recent float glass processes that have produced good-quality flat sheets of glass." https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glass/glass.h...
And I would disagree that only the story matters. If that were the case, people wouldn't go to the theater (a trend that has started happening in the last 15 years as people have been able to rig their living rooms to give an experience that is nearly theater quality, especially when considering cost and convenience. When we had 20" TVs, they were no substitute for going to the movies.
Either way, a larger screen is not the same improvement as higher resolution. And more importantly, the reason people may not go to the movies when they have a home theater system is partly due to justifying the cost of the theater system.
That’s not my memory of it at all. They were often set to 60Hz by default, and increasing the setting to 75Hz would make it noticeably less flickery.
> and now we are trying to do the same? you want to feel headache again?
The headaches were from when it was too low.
The kids make me watch Transformers - completely devoid of suspense or consistency. That 4k 120Hz OLED is the only thing getting me through that gauntlet.
With food also you could be incrementally getting better and better food and when you then try v1 it would taste bad.
It seems that we might also be noticing slight degradation more than slight improvement in general? No idea if that's true.
Conventional film projectors don’t show each frame continuously, they transition the shutter blade smoothly between frames, and projectors often flash each one a couple of times (48 or 72hz). A cinema projector is going to demolish a LCD in smoothness and motion quality even if it technically has a higher refresh rate on paper.
Either way, DVDs were digital 29.97 fps at most.
I don't really get the obsession with smooth movement for desktop use (as opposed to gaming). Possibly this is a generational thing? Why is anyone intentionally using a computer primarily via slow analogue inputs?
Depends a lot on the usage I guess. In a tablet where you may draw etc you can notice the difference definitely. Or if you play games on the phone. But otherwise I don't think the difference is that important as it is sometimes claimed.
There's a minority of people who really do notice stuff like this, which is fine. The problem is that for some reason, they sometimes have difficulty accepting that they're a minority.
Screen flicker on CRTs with low refresh rates was terrible for me, but with modern flat panels.. nope, can't really tell the difference.
Not sure I'd notice it much on a phone.
And for decades we've had people claiming that 30fps is just fine for gaming...
Without this, it'd be very hard for an average user to "feel" a performance difference between an A18 Pro in the Neo and say as far as the M5 Max in a MacBook Pro unless they had a "special" use case which really needed the extra CPU/GPU cores.
Of course, they can't stay forever on that. E.g. with the iPhone 17 they finally flipped the non-Pro over. Probably because it was starting to make the iPhone seem sluggish/stuttery compared to other phones more than it was making the iPhone 18 seem fast. Tablets have never seemed to be as fierce a market in terms of your average Joe comparing them, but I'd expect the same switch to being a liability instead of a tool will happen there as well (if they aren't already late to the game).
Actually surprised to learn Apple did the OLED swap and didn't use the opportunity to bump it up at least to 90 hz like the OLED Steam Deck.
20 years ago I was gaming at 30fps and called it smooth. Now 120Hz feels like bare minimum.
Outdated comparison now that Liquid Glass is lagging my phone.
It will be buttery smooth between the chops.
Whether the hardware can keep up with Liquid Glass and push 120 frames a second is a different story, of course.
If only "pro consumers" noticed or cared... well, those "pro consumers" are the ones who think it looks like shit and would rather have a TV without it.
There is an argument to be made on battery life 60-120 but my god i can instantly tell between 60-120. The key part is the input responsiveness more than anything else. If you tell someone to look at “frame rate” few will notice the dif but have them grab a window and wiggle it around, obv dif with responsiveness
"I don't have an issue with it, so most people also don't have an issue with it"
False Consensus Effect (or false consensus fallacy):
It happens when someone overestimates how much other people agree with them, assuming that their own personal beliefs, values, or experiences are the default for everyone else.
It's a very small minority who cares.
Cite your sources, please or you're just echoing "trust me, bro".
You want them to cite sources for something they can't possibly cite. I'm telling you that you are doing the same thing they are: confidently asserting that you're correct even though you cannot possibly prove that.
It is not a difficult concept.
Where did you see this? The acoustics in your head must be wild:))
Source?
It's probably not actually as hard to go back as we think it is, but holding on to stuff is in our genes.
My personal experience is that I do notice the difference - for like a minute - and then I adjust and never care anymore.
I don't know how "mobile" gamers are using iPads (or tablets), but considering the size of the market, I doubt it's particularly niche.
I thought that basically fits the definition of "gamer" so I'm clearly mistaken. How do you define "gamer"? Someone who "always" plays games? (for some definition of "always"?)
Regardless, non "gamer" game players can still benefit from higher refresh rate screens, and they're not insignificant in number.
Mobile gacha/micro-transaction games often encourage frequent/repetitive play (e.g. via dailies, limited time quests etc). Would someone engaging in this likely consider the game to be a hobby?