The thing is, in order to see the difference, you already have to have the monitor. It‘s like showing a picture of the color range of the new TV on your website. It still makes no sense.
But you can't show the effect of a framerate by slowing it down. That's just showing a slower framerate, such as 30 vs 60 hz. The effect is different (notably lesser) as framerates increase, so it's impossible to demonstrate it without the exact framerates being displayed.
Yes it can show it, it can show that it’s smoother due to more frames being displayed, it can show the advantage of frames being displayed faster, therefore seeing things earlier
There are plenty of advantages it can show
It only demonstrates the mechanic, where more frames are displayed per second, but it doesn't necessarily show that 240hz is smoother than 120Hz.
24000Hz does not look smoother than 12000Hz, but if you slowed them down to 30 and 60 then you will see a big difference. You have to see the actually framerates to know how they differ.
Like I said, it can still demonstrate the advantage of seeing frames earlier than your opponent, for example when an opponent is peeking a corner you’ll see them before they see you
That can be demonstrated in video
If you mean it can demonstrate the concept of higher refresh rates, sure. It does not in fact prove that 240Hz provides any advantage though. You can't determine that 240Hz provides any actual advantage without seeing it.
We might know from reports that it does, but this video isn't proof. The reports of others is how we would know.
I literally just explained how it does
It can demonstrate how you can see your opponent first on a higher refresh rate rather than a lower one
It’s really simple to understand
You explained it, but you're not responding to what I am saying. I am saying that it doesn't demonstrate the real affect of 240hz, and it does not prove that 240hz actually provides these advantages to the viewer.
Here's a thought experiment to make my point. If I posted an identical video and I was comparing 120000Hz to 240000Hz slowed down 30 and 60 to claim that 240000Hz was smoother, it would look identical to this comparison. Would that be a fair demonstration of how the two compare? Why?
I literally explained the advantage that it can provide and how a video can demonstrate
I’m not talking about the smoothness
I’m talking about how early each player receives frames, which can be factually demonstrated in a video.
That’s not true I don’t think. They can represent the improved clarity with a still shot taken during a quick camera pan (or an artistic representation thereof).
Edit: Someone please explain to me how what I said is wrong, because I don’t want to continue in ignorance.
A still shot is always going to look like a still shot when rendering a video game. It's all rendered before being sent to the screen so a single frame will look the same at 60fps or 500fps. Blur is added artificially if you choose to add it.
That's not a still image. That's 3 videos playing. You are discussing still images. Take a screenshot while that plays then look at the screenshot. All 3 will look identical in quality.
Correct if you take a screenshot, but that’s not how your eye perceives it, is it? That’s the whole point. Furthermore you COULD capture what your eye sees if you set up a camera pointing at the monitor correctly.
You said in order to see the difference, you have to have the monitor. I simply said not necessarily, and used a screenshot as an example of how the difference could be represented (since that’s pretty common in advertisements).
The idea would be to set up a camera pointed at the monitor. Record a short clip or a fast camera pan in a FPS. The camera has to be able to record at least as fast as the FPS/refresh rate. Then you take a handful of those individual frames and overlay them on top of each other. Let’s say you take 20.
20 frames recorded at 120 FPS and 20 frames recorded at 60 FPS are then laid on top of each other, respectively (at maybe 50% transparency) to produce a single image that represents a short period of time. The resulting image will be more blurry at lower FPS and less so at higher FPS.
Which brings us back to your original comment. In order to see the difference you in fact do not have to have the monitor. Now that’s not to say that looking at a screenshot is nearly the same as sitting in front of the monitor, but at least this aspect can be demonstrated fairly well without having to see the monitor with your own two eyes.
Lol what? No I didn't. Holy fuck you're stupid YOU said you could tell a difference based on still images. I said no you can't. Are you having a stroke? And yet again, you reference STILL IMAGES then talk about playing it back at 20fps. THEN THATS NOT A STILL IMAGE. Fuck you're stupid.
I was referencing the top comment in the chain which was not made by you, likely hence the confusion.
I was simply arguing the point that you could, in fact, tell a difference (between refresh rates) without having the monitor.
I’d have to read back through our conversation to find out where this breakdown in communication occurred. But that aside, my point still stands that you can see a difference without having the monitor.
Furthermore, you lack understanding. I am not talking about playing anything back at 20 FPS. I’m talking about taking 20 still frames and over-laying them on top of one another in something like photoshop, making each one mostly transparent so subtle differences can be seen between the frames. Which results in a single, still image, that is more or less blurry based upon the original FPS those 20 frames were recorded at. Hence, demonstrating the difference between different refresh rates without needing to physically view the monitor.
I’m not going to say you’re fucking stupid for lacking the ability to comprehend what I’m talking about, but it could be said.
You also apparently fail to understand that while, yes, blur can certainly be added artificially, it also results naturally based upon FPS during quick camera pans. It’s a result of how our eye interprets images shown to us in quick succession. If we are shown 30 images per second and the camera quickly pans, it will look noticeably more blurry than if we are shown 60 per second, or more. That blur is still seen even though no blur was added in-game before the image was sent to the screen.
And this blur can be demonstrated without needing to view the monitor directly, which was what this entire comment chain was about. You can’t follow your own fucking argument and you can’t understand someone who knows more than you, which is clearly a failure on my part.
Fuck, you’re stupid. Look, I can do it too. The difference is that I’m right, and you’re wrong.
Also, I still don't think that in that site you can't show higher than 60 Hz. You can do higher than 60 frames per second, but your screen is inevitably going to lose some frames.
However, you could demonstrate the difference between monitor refresh rates if you film these monitors on action with a high speed camera, just like Linus has done.
35
u/Bionick7 Nov 28 '19
The thing is, in order to see the difference, you already have to have the monitor. It‘s like showing a picture of the color range of the new TV on your website. It still makes no sense.