1 hour ago, AnkH said:

Besides the fact that the test setup with a 75Hz monitor is embarassingly wrong as mentioned above

That’s because you don’t understand the experiment.

49 minutes ago, Adamski_NZ said:

be careful where you get your information from. Most of the posts above refer to modern/digital displays and the figures quoted are correspondingly different/accurate.

Eye/Brain image recognition … the actual refresh rate of devices used were not relevant (as it should be) to perform this type of experiment.

23 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

That’s because you don’t understand the experiment.

Eye/Brain image recognition … the actual refresh rate of devices used were not relevant (as it should be) to perform this type of experiment.

The conclusion of the study at MIT is that the participants were capable of recognizing the images if shown as short as 13ms. With a monitor of 75Hz, this is the lowest possible measurement, you cant go any lower. They do nowhere state that they tested shorter times (because they couldnt with the test setup) but they also never jumped to the conclusion you do, that it is impossible to recognize images when shown even a shorter time than the 13ms they tested. 

But even more important, in no way the study concludes that 75Hz is some sort of a cutoff and that using a 144Hz monitor provides no benefit. As a matter of fact, when you play games or watch movies, your brain does not even need to process single images. So the link from your statement to the conclusion of the MIT article does not even exist...

8 minutes ago, AnkH said:

With a monitor of 75Hz, this is the lowest possible measurement, you cant go any lower.

When they said refresh rate was irrelevant in the experiment, I realised there was no point trying to discuss with a brick wall. They fundamentally don’t understand how a monitor refresh rate functions.

4 pages and only two people have replied back with, “wow, that helped” or “hey, that didn’t help me”. 
 
This thread wasn’t meant to start an argument over GSYNC, what the eye can or can’t see, or studies done on refresh rates. It’s literally a couple clicks to try this back and maybe another minute or so to report your findings. At the end of the day I made it pretty clear this wasn’t a magic fix, but just something I noticed to help folks. 

Edited December 6, 20241 yr by Keirtt

Helped what?  Improve FPS even further beyond eye/brain recognition?  Hence the debate which some clearly didn’t read or understand the experiment even though they admit that the eye/brains doesn’t work in terms of FPS yet go on to state it’s irrelevant due to 75 Hz … they successfully contradicted themselves.

I would recommend to only use image compromises (DLSS/FSR, etc.) if you’re lowest FPS drops below 60 and your monitor is operating at 60Hz refresh.

54 minutes ago, CO2Neutral said:

even though they admit that the eye/brains doesn’t work in terms of FPS yet go on to state it’s irrelevant due to 75 Hz … they successfully contradicted themselves.

 

You dont get, right? A 75Hz monitor can not display anything for a shorter timeframe than those 13ms in the study. Technically impossible. That is why the authors of the study themselves did not jump to the conclusion that it issimpossible to recognize a picture when shown shorter than 13ms. In contrast, in their discussion, they cite a publication from another group that showed animals being recognized when presented for only 6ms. That would equal 166Hz. Now put this into perspective of your statement that the eye cant see anything above 75Hz... sorry to say, but the only one not understanding the results of this study is you...