Title says it all (i have turned on 165hz on settings). Its a cheap monitor, do some 165hz monitors not truly give you that experience? Or are my eyes fucked

  • foggenbooty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yup, while I do see the point some people make about it breaking the immersion of film for being too fluid (everybody has their preferences) it definitely WAS more fluid.

    I will say though that when I first moved from 60-144hz I wasn’t blown away by the change either. Things seemed a bit smoother maybe but not that big a deal. It wasn’t until I accidentally went back to 60 that something felt horribly wrong. I can ABSOLUTELY see the difference now and for some reason I had to get acclimated.

    • Vlyn
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem with the movie was that a lot of TV watching people see it as a “soap opera effect” because those are shot in 60 fps. So they don’t like it and want a “cinematic” feel.

      For me who doesn’t usually watch TV it was glorious. Yes, you notice every tiny mistake on the screen at 48 fps, but it actually feels real. Like that’s a real dwarf there talking with an elf for example. More lifelike if you get what I mean? It’s a damn shame you can’t buy the movies with HFR :-/

      Well, 144hz has more than one benefit. You get a smoother image output of course, but also less input lag (seeing actions you take faster on the screen). But switching between the two is very obvious usually, even when just moving around a window on the desktop.