I suggest you do some research around the concepts I've mentioned instead of remaining ignorant and going off on tangents (hint - visual acuity is not particularly important to this discussion). I've got a very good article on the topic on my website which you and other users here should really read. To briefly summarise:
- Typical LCDs are sample and hold displays and do not 'flicker' on and off at a rate matching their refresh rate. They are fundamentally different to imulse-type displays such as CRTs.
- Most of the blur you see on a screen comes from the movement of your eyes as they track motion on the screen. The eye movement type is called (smooth) pursuit tracking and is
easy to demonstrate. Pixel response times also play a role, but like FFTs they're not relevant for this 'discussion' (a term I use loosely).
- Increasing refresh rate (and frame rate at the same time) decreases the amount of time your eyes spend tracking motion on the screen, reducing perceived blur. Most users who have used 60Hz LCDs and those with higher refresh rates will clearly have witnessed this benefit.
- Increasing refresh rate (and frame rate at the same time) greatly improves 'connected feel', which is again something that is very easy to feel for users with experience of both 60Hz LCDs and those with higher refresh rates.
Fortunately many users here have actually used high refresh rate LCDs. So even if they don't understand
why the experience is superior, they know from experience that it is. I have used dozens of high refresh rate LCDs now and reviewed many of them. Before I even fully understood why the refresh rate was beneficial, I quite clearly saw and felt it first hand. Science and experience forms a thicker backbone than your very weak and fundamentally flawed counter-argument.
