GADGET GURU
Expert advice on high-refresh TVs, hi-res music and low-tech loft storage options
AWhite coat Guru here, with your spurious science report. ‘The human eye can only discern around 60 frames per second’ whine the naysayers, forgetting that the eye and brain are, in fact, in squishy organic harmony rather than quartzclock activated machines. Yes, persistence of vision is a thing. We notice the jump from 25 to 30 to 50, and then again to 60Hz: while 144Hz content may not make such a marked difference, that’s not really the reason that higher refresh rates are a thing.
It’s all about the persistence of the in betweens. A 144Hz screen can update its picture (in theory) 144 times per second; a 60Hz display can only manage 60. If the transition between those 60 updates is a little mucky, it’ll affect the image’s crispness. A screen updating at 144Hz, even if it’s fed a source running at a lower rate, offers each frame more breathing room, and presents a clearer picture.
That said, 144Hz (which isn’t really hitting TVs so much as Big Format Gaming Displays) isn’t super well suited to general media consumption, and barring a moment of insanity from those behind the camera it’s likely to stay that way. GaGu would recommend running at a refresh rate that’s a multiple of the source (generally 30 or 60fps), so sticking to 120Hz displays for now. This sidesteps the screen’s need to pull frames down, thus increasing smoothness further – note, though, that films generally run at 24fps, which multiplies into 144 very nicely, so there may be a case for 144Hz displays yet.
A screen updating at 144Hz, even if it’s fed a source running at a lower rate, offers each frame more breathing room