What possible benefit does that have? It’s so far beyond the realm of human perception that it feels rather pointless.
this post was submitted on 14 Mar 2026
13 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
6352 readers
336 users here now
Which posts fit here?
Any news that are at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies or tech policy.
Post guidelines
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The quicker the panel receives the signal to change, the less ghosting. Even if you can't perceive the individual frames the overall image will be more crisp because it transitions to the correct image sooner. Pixel changes aren't instantaneous, especially when going between opposite ends of the spectrum.
that "bigger number better" ~~mindset~~ delusion
line go up
The human eye doesn't work via a pulsed frequency and is working on purely organic electrical signals. Quite a few sensory neurons will spot each frame. Article says the eye can sense up to 20,000Hz.
If you measure response curves of individual cones and rods you won't see any of the parameters go below the ms range, probably not even below 10ms. However the retina does receive bright short pulses as longer averaged signals. All the very high Hz vision cases see information of the same "object" spread over many cells in the retina. A trail showing up as many distinct images vs a long smear.
If you couldn't move your eyes the limit would be lower, but because you can't the rendering cannot anticipate those effects and emulate them. Motion blur is what happens when you always "anticipate" the eye to remain static. If you could measure eye movement extremely well and react within well under a ms, you might be able to match motion blur to eye movement of a single person. Add a second observer and it already breaks down. Not that our sensors are anywhere remotely near making this possible.
Edit: I suppose this would mean if you integrated a display into contact lenses and got the latency right you would max out at lower Hz.
It really isn't. There's a whole lengthy explanation of it here but tldw motion breaks it. Lower refresh rates leave single images instead of smooth trails, while if you track motion then slower refreshrates make stuff blurry while in motion.
I don't think the video mentions it, but you could flicker the backlight to make tracked motion smooth, but then eye movements will see many individual images end up on your retina instead of motionblur.
If you wanna wiggle you mouse at high speeds while maintaining image quality, say for fps 180 noscopes, then you will easily see improvements into the 10s of kHz.
One easy way to see this of you are equipped for it is to drag a window around on your desktop at 60hz and then do it again at 120hz. The difference on smoothness is obvious.
Why was this ever a hardcoded limitation?
Refresh should be handled by the hardware and should not need OS support once the video mode is set. This sounds like they added support for decoding higher refresh rates reported by monitors in their EDID so that those video modes can show up and be selected by users.
Because, somewhere, somehow, the operating system probably did not allocate the slices of time for monitor refresh rates to be pushed to hardware that fast...
..
That or the code didnt give you the option as its internal enums didnt include such high refresh rates.
Take your pick, either are legit things that could have been the reason and are very normal things to come across in this scenario
Shouldn't be enums as refresh rates can be floating-point and in practice there also is a lot of weirdness out there, like 59.94Hz.
The timing really needs to be matched to the monitor, you don't want a 60Hz monitor using the resources of a 1000Hz monitor at any point. It should also be handled by the gpu and gpu driver more than the os.
I don't think it's that easy and I struggle to think of a legitimate reason. To me it seems more like an arbitrary bounds-check on monitor info received via hdmi/displayport. Bad coding for sure, but also potentially a point where people are pushed to newer more problematic versions of windows as the older ones "don't support new hardware".
If there are potentially buggy or broken monitors that sometimes report the wrong value, then a bounds check that enforces sane values makes sense. If the range of sane values changes decades later, then you'll have to update things, but you'll likely need to update other things on that timescale anyway, e.g. to support newer display connectors that support the new limits.
I'd expect any current displayport port to handle very high refreshrates when the resolution is reduced correspondingly. The limit to my knowledge is in bitrate.
I'd also expect connector support to sit in the gpu driver.
A basic sanity-check might be the answer though. Still why not improve it instead of just increasing the number? You could check if the rate is an outlier or there are many profiles offered that climb up to that rate for example.
Either you'd be accessing the internet to query which monitor parameters are sensible each time a monitor connects, or you'd be periodically updating a list of sensible monitor parameters which is exactly what this update was.
lol. Who runs windows? 🐡