Purely from a comfort standpoint, which would you rather have: a high resolution, color accurate, [insert adjectives benefiting screen image quality] monitor with a max refresh rate of 60hz, or a low still-quality monitor with a max refresh rate higher than 60hz? Why? What pains your eyes less, low fidelity or low fluidity?
Incorrect brightness is worse than any of those. My monitor has horrible brightness control, so I use xrandr to lower the brightness by software. It's suboptimal but I haven't had any issues with it so far.
>>3077 >What pains your eyes less, low fidelity or low fluidity?
That was never even a meme. Refresh rate only ever mattered for progressive scan CRTs. Under 85Hz and some people would see flicker. The only thing higher refresh rate on an LCD does is reduce motion blur. However, the other day I tried a 240Hz TN LCD and it was still unreadable while scrolling, while a 60Hz CRT is perfectly readable while scrolling (with a tiny bit of difficulty depending on how fucked your vsync is). High resolution doesn't make anything better either. Only the really old CRTs from the 90s were so bad that stuff would be fuzzy/blurry. Just get a CRT and turn off your gay subpixel rendering and other """modern""" font bullshit that does nothing but waste CPU. It's extremely ironic also that people pretend to care about "sharpness" when they use an LCD which goes to 640x480 or worse as soon as motion blur kicks in (i.e any moving content whatsoever).
>>3079 This. Brightness has always been the number one annoyance on any monitor for me.
Oh and I should admit that higher refresh rate does make faster motion content appear smooth. But if you really care about quality motion animation you'd be using a CRT or strobed-backlight LCD in the first place so you can actually see anything whatsoever that's in motion in the first place.
And for comfort my general opinion right now is that a nice gentle CRT glow is a million times better than blasting a flashlight with shutters in your face.
>brightness
Spend an evening with ArgyllCMS and a color calibrator (eg, Spyder 4 or 5) to create a custom icc profile. I think you will be surprised at how much this can improve even cheap displays.
High refresh rate monitors are for larping vidya faggots. I'll have an HD monitor any day of the week. That said most software is either buggy, too small or looks like shit on high DPI. 1080p is good enough for pretty much anything.
My craptop can't handle any display over 1080p60hz. Doesn't matter since the only things I do are web browsing and watching anime in 360p.
Brightness is the main issue, I keep fiddling with my autobrightness scripts but they don't work well because my laptop has no light sensor, and the camera has auto-exposure.
Does anyone here know whether running a 60hz display in a room with 50hz lightbulbs is a problem? Because xrandr shows a 50hz config mode as well, I could change to it.
>>3154 >>3155 The fuck you idiots talking about. The monitor is not flashing at 60Hz and even if it was, and even if you had lights flashing at 60Hz (you don't), they still would not be synchronized so you'd see some annoying as fuck effects. LCDs don't flash. The backlight is constantly lit. You probably got this from the "old TV CRTs run at the mains frequency which is 60Hz" which I have no idea if it is true or not, but only mattered back when people watched 480i video. If your lights were flashing at 50Hz, you'd notice right away. Now if you had a CRT monitor, and it was running at 60Hz, it would "flash" at 60Hz. LCDs can only flash if they have PWM (but then it's usually 200Hz-300Hz) or if you use a new strobed-backlight LCD (which usually only let you go down to something like 100Hz or maybe down to 80Hz).
How i say how the fuck do you set the frame rate of firefox or any of its forks?
With the monitor at 60Hz, scrolling pages is nice and smooth, but at 85Hz it's not only no longer smooth but text becomes almost as unreadable as on an LCD (because double images).
Also lol no vsync so a tear travels slowly across the scrolling image, but it's still much nicer to see 60FPS at 60Hz than 60FPS at 85Hz.
Purely from a comfort standpoint, which would you rather have: a high resolution, color accurate, [insert adjectives benefiting screen image quality] monitor with a max refresh rate of 60hz, or a low still-quality monitor with a max refresh rate higher than 60hz? Why? What pains your eyes less, low fidelity or low fluidity?