this post was submitted on 19 May 2024
121 points (93.5% liked)

Technology

34877 readers
5 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] Fenrisulfir@lemmy.ca -1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

And nothing you’ve stated refers to resolution

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 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.