I was reading an article on the new LG display with a refresh rate of 7680Hz and it says:

While a typical refresh rate for a monitor might be 60Hz-240Hz, an outdoor display designed to be viewed from a distance needs to be much higher

The idea that there’s an intrinsic link between refresh rate and viewing distance is new to me and feels unintuitive. I can understand the need for high brighteness for far view distance. I also could understand refresh rate mattering for a non-persistent (CRT) display. But for an Led display surely you can see it far away even if it refreshes once a second?

Refresh rate normally needs to be high enough to avoid pixels “jumping” between refreshes on high resolution displays, so wouldn’t higher view distances allow you to decrease the refresh rate?

Is the article just spouting bullshit? Or is there an actual link between refresh rate and view distance?

  • tristan@aussie.zone
    1·
    11 months ago

    So this study was done:

    https://opg.optica.org/jdt/abstract.cfm?uri=jdt-10-8-635

    And the summary result was:

    The results indicated that the moving picture quality improved more with an increase in frame rate from 60 to 120 frames per second (fps) than from 120 to 240 fps when viewing from a distance of 3 H (three times the image height).

    This article goes into the depth of it: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8531714

    And if I’m understanding the study correctly (which there’s a high chance I am as it’s 4 am and I haven’t had more than an hour sleep in 2 days) but essentially the brain perceived higher frame rates to be higher quality across all participants but with diminishing returns

    This is all probably only part of the answer you’re looking for but hopefully it helps you to find the full answer