I have never bought and will never buy an apple thing (because it’s a super-enshittified walled garden), but honestly I’m just fine with 60Hz. My phone supports 120Hz and I have switched it back to 60Hz because it gives me a couple extra hours of battery. I can tell the difference but it doesn’t bother me one bit. I’d even be OK with 30Hz if it was an option and had a significant battery life advantage.
Maybe having all the animations in the OS and apps turned off helps keep it not noticeable.
Whatever is the standard going forward, I hope that there’s always an option to cut back the refresh rate in exchange for battery life, either at the time of purchase or in the settings.
Id rather 144hz at 1080p than 60hz at 4k. My eyes arent good enough and my brain isnt quick enough to see those tiny details you lose at 1080p, but god i hate low framerates.
I hate interpolation even more, and upscaling makes me wanna kill a guy. Just rawdog 1080p 144 times a second please
I’m with you on this one. 1080p is perfect for me, higher might technically be better but I’m not sitting close enough for that to matter. What does matter though is framerate, but I will rather settle for a low fps if it is stable rather than high fps with low 1%.
I have a shitty walled garden phone and turned the refresh to 60 and cut down motion and my battery life went from a few hours to a day. It really drained the battery for a bit of smoothness
I didn’t even realize the 60Hz option existed. I’ve trimmed all functions on the phone, like background refresh, to lower battery usage, but the refresh rate is a new one. TYM.
Latest phones have screens that go to 1Hz when nothing is moving and other low framerates depending what is happening. So you can get, nearly, the best of both worlds.
As I type this, my (“older”) phone is at 60Hz, but when I start scrolling it’s at 120Hz.
My favorite apple update so far is the Honeycrisp, deliciously sweet and doesn’t turn brown within 2 minutes. Perfect for turning into a pipe and smoking meth out of and then turning into a candy apple once done. I like to keep all the candy apples and give them out to the elves on Christmas Eve as a thank you for helping Santa fulfill the Christian prophecy of toy socialism for children.
It’s not socialism since “naughty” kids don’t get toys, it’s a meritocracy.
ur mom’s a meritocracy
Gottem
Damn, foiled by definitions again
Hold the fucking orchard.
There’s variability to doing drugs off different apple varieties? Damn, it should have been glaringly obvious, in retrospect. I’m gonna be asking a whole new set of questions at the next farmer’s market.
You never smoked the devil’s lettuce out of cored apple?
I’ve only smoked it out of one kind of apple, red delicious. But now… Honey Crisp carved artisan piece, paired with the finest pine apple express, and a glass of fresh pressed and infused cider? Could even mix and match the strains and varieties on the cider. And the desserts!
Everything needed, sold just a couple of stands down, in a legal state. I am going to change this farmer’s market forever.
Apples brown at different rates??
Yes. Certain varietals are resistant to oxidation. Ambrosia and Arctic Silver I believe are 2 of them as well
So funny how you don’t hear that anymore now that even consoles cracked almost 60
I mean, it’s still true, but everyone who cited it didn’t understand what it was saying. 24 is the minimum where your brain easily puts the motion together and it actually feels like motion. It’s also roughly near where your brain can still process each frame individually. Think the film blotches. Too much faster, and most people wouldn’t see a blip of a blotch and go, “oh a film blotch”, though they might still see it and go, “huh what was that?” up to some pretty significant framerates.
Though that’s because your eyes don’t see in frames. They’re always receiving info. That’s why even non-framerate related things improve visual smoothness, like how some monitors/technologies (sorry I forgot which ones specify it!) will flash the backlight for the frame instead of keeping it on. Then your eyes don’t get all the muddy colored photons from when the screen was actively changing pixels. It can massively reduce artifacts and makes 120hz feel like 240hz, even though at those speeds, you cannot “see” each frame.
TL;DR: It’s the Avatar kind of “see”, not the literal kind of “see”.
Hum… The minimum to make it feel like motion is something closer to 15 Hz.
I have no idea where people pulled the 24 Hz number from, but 60 Hz is clearly enough for everybody. Anyway, if you go inserting random noise you can disrupt the people’s perception at any frequency, the noise just needs enough total energy.
Whenever i upgraded monitors, i was always disappointed, because i expected something amazing. I’m now on 200hz. But stepping down, oh boy you can tell. Maybe not from 20 to 165, but back to 60, from 60 to 30 becomes unplayable
Yes, because games usually synchronize with the monitor clock, and need several clock cycles to update their world model.
24 fps was the capture rate of old film cameras. The reason for that is because of how sound was stored on the edge of celluloid tape. Because of how the sound waves where imprinted on the tape, the max fidelity was at sample rate of at most 10,000 Hz per 18inches of tape. So, 18 inches of tape has to move through the projector and sound head every second.
Consider a 35mm film reel which was popular at the same time. On a 35mm reel, the height of a single frame is about 19mm. So we have 18 inches (457mm) going across the projector screen, which shows a new frame of film every 19mm. That tells us the frame rate: 457/19 = 24.
And that is why films run at 24 fps. Because it was the natural result of technical constraints when sound started being added to film. This is why older silent movies could use lower frame rates. Super 8 cameras recorded at 18fps because they could get away with it, but once Sound Super 8 hit the scene, it got brought back up to 24fps for much the same reasoning as the 1930s had with 35mm film.
But film projectors, even in the late silent era, didn’t just flash the image once per frame. They had two or three bladed shutters so the image on screen would actually flash 48 to 72 times per second even though the film frame was only advancing 24 times per second. The whole point of the extra shutter flashes was to push the flickering of the light on screen above the flicker fusion threshold of your eye where you are able to differentiate between individual flashes of light. For most people, it’s about 50-90 Hz in the center of their field of vision.
Strangely enough, the flicker fusion threshold in the center of your vision is lower than at the edges, which is why you can usually notice the blinking of LED headlights more easily in your peripheral vision than when you’re looking straight at them.
didn’t just flash the image once per frame
Hmm… I’m detecting that we may be operating with different definitions - made no more clear by the fact that you are talking about projectors while I’m answering a question about cameras. To me, a frame is a single still image on a reel of film.
I think I see your point that a projector would insert more black transitions from on frame to the next so that the black transition from one frame to the next isn’t as noticeable. However, I don’t see the connection to original discussion about frames per second or where the film industry standard of 24fps came from.
The original discussion was whether the human eye sees more than 24 frames per second, and the answer is that it absolutely does. Your context about where the 24fps standard came from is correct, but in the context of the broader discussion, it’s relevant to point out that throughout the 20th century, nobody ever watched those films on displays that refreshed 24 times per second.
Until the the telecine allowed for television broadcast of film in the 1950s, projectors were the ONLY way to view motion picture film, hence their relevance to the discussion. In the 1800s, there were single-bladed projector shutters that flashed the image once per frame and the flickering was highly noticeable and distracting, which is how movies got the nickname “flicks.” The multi-bladed projector shutters give the screen an effective refresh rate of 48-72 Hz, despite the image only changing at 24 Hz. Even when films started being broadcast on TV via telecine, TVs in the NTSC region were operating at 60 visual field scans per second, meaning that 24fps film frames had to be shown on an alternating 3-2 repeating pattern to fit the 60Hz scans.
60 Hz is clearly enough for everybody
You should try VR sometime…
VR has a lag problem, not a frame rate problem.
Basically every argument against low frame rate displays you can find have the form of “we linked responsibility to the display frame rate and now we have a lag problem! low frame rates are the Devil!”
You might be talking about the same thing.
If you are talking about how much time it takes to render an image, that is frame lag. It’s the hard limiting factor of frame rate. A computer can’t display images faster than it can draw them.
If you are talking about time between a change in the world state, and the display showing that change, that is latency. Latency is affected by a few factors including frame rate. A frame rate of 24 adds an average latency of 21ms, and a frame rate of 60 adds an average latency of 8ms. This is because as frames linger for longer, they become increasingly outdated from the actual world state.
Latency and lag mean exactly the same thing.
I’m not talking about frame lag. I’m talking about people synchronizing their entire system with the display clock and then complaining that they need a faster display because it takes 5 clock cycles to update their world model.
When it’s low enough, for VR, they’re effectively the same problem.
24 is not the minimum. I personally can see the frames on a 24 or 24*(1000/1001) fps video if it changes quickly enough.
Same. Going to the theatre has always been kind of rough for that reason.
On a smaller tv its less annoying, but I still wish we could do away with 24p
700 bucks for 60hz is something.
128gb, 60Hz, they cannot be serious.
They should go back to making a CRT g3 then I’ll be interested 😉
nah man, they’re just cheap
Shitpost aside, this is cool to see at least…won’t be buying one myself ever though.
iPad mini and the Environment
iPad mini was built with the environment in mind and drives progress toward Apple’s ambitious plan to be carbon neutral across its entire footprint by 2030. It is made with 35 percent recycled content overall,9 including 100 percent recycled aluminum in the enclosure and 100 percent recycled cobalt in the battery. iPad mini is manufactured with 40 percent renewable energy, like wind and solar, across the supply chain. It is designed to be durable and repairable, and meets Apple’s high standards for energy efficiency and safe chemistry. As with all Apple products, its paper packaging is 100 percent fiber-based10 and designed to be recycled.
They’ve been claiming that for their products for a while now, whether or not it’s true… who the hell really knows, it’s pretty damn hard to audit a large corpo’s entire supply chain.
Oh is that so? I see, and yeah I do understand it’s easy to make lip service with how large the corpo is – unfortunately.
deleted by creator
