LCD Refresh Rate

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

I know on CRTs the higher the refresh rate, the better.
Is it the same on LCD flat panels? Just got a new one. My lcd (viewsonic
vx910 ... video card is ati x700pro) can be set at either 60 hertz or 70
hertz.
Which one to use?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

60 Hz is probably the best setting, though it doesn't hurt to try 70 Hz to
see if it gives you better image quality.

The pixels in an LCD change only when the screen content changes. There's no
flicker. With LCD panels you should be looking at pixel response times,
contrast ratios, max brightness, etc.

A CRT's electron beam will scan back and forth *even if the screen content
does not change*, so you need a high refresh rate to eliminate flicker on a
CRT. Even then, once you go higher than 85 Hz, there's no benefit.

--
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


"CaptNemo" <captnemo_rn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fPKdnZQHIcqke2PcRVn-2w@comcast.com...
> I know on CRTs the higher the refresh rate, the better.
> Is it the same on LCD flat panels? Just got a new one. My lcd (viewsonic
> vx910 ... video card is ati x700pro) can be set at either 60 hertz or 70
> hertz.
> Which one to use?
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"CaptNemo" <captnemo_rn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fPKdnZQHIcqke2PcRVn-2w@comcast.com...
> I know on CRTs the higher the refresh rate, the better.

Nope...not always.

If you set the refresh rate too high it can blur the pixels.

> Is it the same on LCD flat panels? Just got a new one. My lcd (viewsonic
> vx910 ... video card is ati x700pro) can be set at either 60 hertz or 70
> hertz.
> Which one to use?

The one that looks better.

 

[augustus]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"CaptNemo" <captnemo_rn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fPKdnZQHIcqke2PcRVn-2w@comcast.com...
>I know on CRTs the higher the refresh rate, the better.
> Is it the same on LCD flat panels? Just got a new one. My lcd (viewsonic
> vx910 ... video card is ati x700pro) can be set at either 60 hertz or 70
> hertz.

Every LCD monitor has ONE optimal resolution and refresh rate. Mfgtr's specs
will tell you this. If your run at anything else, visual quality will suffer
a lot.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

CaptNemo wrote:
> I know on CRTs the higher the refresh rate, the better.
> Is it the same on LCD flat panels? Just got a new one. My lcd
> (viewsonic vx910 ... video card is ati x700pro) can be set at either
> 60 hertz or 70 hertz.
> Which one to use?

70Hz, definitely. Or maybe 60Hz? Yeah, 60Hz I reckon. Probably. But you
might like to try 70Hz, just in case. I bet 70Hz is best. Hmmmm. Tell you
what, why not try both? I imagine you'll be able to tell in less time than
it's taken me to type this.
--

/mel/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"CaptNemo" <captnemo_rn@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fPKdnZQHIcqke2PcRVn-2w@comcast.com...
> I know on CRTs the higher the refresh rate, the better.
> Is it the same on LCD flat panels? Just got a new one. My lcd (viewsonic
> vx910 ... video card is ati x700pro) can be set at either 60 hertz or 70
> hertz.
> Which one to use?
>


The highest

prolly 75Hz for many 17"-19" tft

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

CaptNemo wrote:

>I know on CRTs the higher the refresh rate, the better.
>Is it the same on LCD flat panels? Just got a new one. My lcd (viewsonic
>vx910 ... video card is ati x700pro) can be set at either 60 hertz or 70
>hertz.
>Which one to use?

First of all you should buy a DVI-cable and connect the card to the
monitor via DVI-port. Then you can set the refresh rate to 60Hz and the
picture will be rock stable. Having DVI and not using it is a waste...


Thomas

 

[augustus]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

..
>> Which one to use?
>>
>
>
> The highest
>
> prolly 75Hz for many 17"-19" tft

Bad answer. The best to use is the native resolution. Which is never 75Hz
for a 17-19" TFT.

 

[shawk]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Augustus wrote:
> .
>
>>>Which one to use?
>>>
>>
>>
>>The highest
>>
>>prolly 75Hz for many 17"-19" tft
>
>
> Bad answer. The best to use is the native resolution. Which is never 75Hz
> for a 17-19" TFT.
>
>

Agreed. Native on my 17" is 60Hz and it's rock steady.

--
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and
conscientious stupidity."

Martin Luther King, Jr.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

You guys are confusing totally different things.

Resolution is number of pixels xxxx horizontally x yyy vertically

Refresh rate is the number of times per second that each pixel is rewritten.

The two have no interdependent relationship, and monitors, while they do
have a "native" resolution, do not have a native refresh rate.

For a progressive scan system (which computers are) there is very little
reason to go above 60 Hz refresh rate. The usual reason for higher
refresh rates are to reduce flicker, but that only applies to CRTs. In
a CRT, at any given instant, only one point on the screen is "lit", that
point "scans" the screen, you perceive seeing the entire screen due to
both the persistance of the screen phosphor and your eye's persistance
of vision. But in a LCD panel, each pixel is "latched" and is
continuously lit, thus there will never be "flicker", at any refresh
rate, no matter how low. And there's not much reason to raise it above
60 Hz, either.


Shawk wrote:
> Augustus wrote:
>
>> .
>>
>>>> Which one to use?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The highest
>>>
>>> prolly 75Hz for many 17"-19" tft
>>
>>
>>
>> Bad answer. The best to use is the native resolution. Which is never
>> 75Hz for a 17-19" TFT.
>>
>
> Agreed. Native on my 17" is 60Hz and it's rock steady.
>

 

[augustus]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:420039A9.9000604@neo.rr.com...
> You guys are confusing totally different things.
>
> Resolution is number of pixels xxxx horizontally x yyy vertically
>
> Refresh rate is the number of times per second that each pixel is
> rewritten.

When talking about TFT/LCD screens, it's meant that "native resolution" has
both a specific resolution and a specific refresh rate. For most 17 and 19
inch ones, it's 1280x1024 @ 60Hz. I am aware of the difference between the
two and how LCD/TFT monitors operate vs CRT's.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

There's no "native refresh rate", although any given monitor will
support only a limited number of specific video formats (each specifying
refresh rate as one of many parameters).


Augustus wrote:

> "Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:420039A9.9000604@neo.rr.com...
>
>>You guys are confusing totally different things.
>>
>>Resolution is number of pixels xxxx horizontally x yyy vertically
>>
>>Refresh rate is the number of times per second that each pixel is
>>rewritten.
>
>
> When talking about TFT/LCD screens, it's meant that "native resolution" has
> both a specific resolution and a specific refresh rate. For most 17 and 19
> inch ones, it's 1280x1024 @ 60Hz. I am aware of the difference between the
> two and how LCD/TFT monitors operate vs CRT's.
>
>

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 02:31:57 GMT, "Noozer" <dontspam@me.here> wrote:

>If you set the refresh rate too high it can blur the pixels.

On my 15" it is very clear at the maximum of 75, anything less is very
noticeably blurred.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[augustus]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4200BDC1.2020802@neo.rr.com...
> There's no "native refresh rate", although any given monitor will support
> only a limited number of specific video formats (each specifying refresh
> rate as one of many parameters).
>

You are wrong. LCD/TFT monitors have one optimal refresh rate and
resolution. Every other resolution and refresh is emulated. Read under
"native resolution" heading in this article. Thee are dozens of other
references all saying the same thing.

 

[Thomas]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Andrew wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 02:31:57 GMT, "Noozer" <dontspam@me.here> wrote:
>
>> If you set the refresh rate too high it can blur the pixels.
>
> On my 15" it is very clear at the maximum of 75, anything less is very
> noticeably blurred.

But then, 75 is nothing... My 19" Dell CRT also has a problem on lower
frequencies, even at 85 Hz it's a bit 'shaky'. But well, it will take my
preferred setting; 1280x960 @ 100Hz. It's quite crisp, though at a lower
frequency it's sharper. It's just a bit shaky, very tiresome for my eyes.
--
Thomas

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 08:33:04 +0100, "Thomas" <thomas_@lycos.nl> wrote:

>But then, 75 is nothing... My 19" Dell CRT also has a problem on lower
>frequencies, even at 85 Hz it's a bit 'shaky'. But well, it will take my
>preferred setting; 1280x960 @ 100Hz. It's quite crisp, though at a lower
>frequency it's sharper. It's just a bit shaky, very tiresome for my eyes.

Get a clue, this is a thread about LCD's where you don't need such
high refresh rates as CRT's.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[Thomas]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Andrew wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 08:33:04 +0100, "Thomas" <thomas_@lycos.nl> wrote:
>
>> But then, 75 is nothing... My 19" Dell CRT also has a problem on
>> lower frequencies, even at 85 Hz it's a bit 'shaky'. But well, it
>> will take my preferred setting; 1280x960 @ 100Hz. It's quite crisp,
>> though at a lower frequency it's sharper. It's just a bit shaky,
>> very tiresome for my eyes.
>
> Get a clue, this is a thread about LCD's where you don't need such
> high refresh rates as CRT's.

Get a clue yourself The comment "If you set the refresh rate too high it
can blur the pixels." was about CRT's, not about LCD's... Hence my response
that 75 Hz was not 'too high' for CRT's.

--
Thomas

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 08:44:20 +0100, "Thomas" <thomas_@lycos.nl> wrote:

>Get a clue yourself The comment "If you set the refresh rate too high it
>can blur the pixels." was about CRT's, not about LCD's... Hence my response
>that 75 Hz was not 'too high' for CRT's.

Again, everyone apart from you is talking about LCD's where the wrong
refresh rate can blur the pixels.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[Thomas]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Andrew wrote:
>> Get a clue yourself The comment "If you set the refresh rate too
>> high it can blur the pixels." was about CRT's, not about LCD's...
>> Hence my response that 75 Hz was not 'too high' for CRT's.
>
> Again, everyone apart from you is talking about LCD's where the wrong
> refresh rate can blur the pixels.

Grr... this is very uninteresting, but let me show you what i replied to:

START
> I know on CRTs the higher the refresh rate, the better.
Nope...not always.
If you set the refresh rate too high it can blur the pixels.
FINISH

Tadaaaa.... that's what i replied to, i wasnt the first to mention
CRT's.......................
--
Thomas

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 09:47:35 -0000, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
wrote cluelessly:

>Therefore refresh rate doesn't matter a jot with LCD.

There is very noticeable image degradation on my LCD if I run it at
anything other than 75.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 09:47:56 -0000, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Therefore refresh rate doesn't matter a jot with LCD.

Hmmm, you repeat the same BS three times in a thread, *plonk*.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

In article <ofh601hldsib141a6uaguvfmo89k0qh9rn@4ax.com>, Andrew says...
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 09:47:56 -0000, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Therefore refresh rate doesn't matter a jot with LCD.
>
> Hmmm, you repeat the same BS three times in a thread, *plonk*.
>
ROFLMAO. Why did you feel the need to post "plonk"? Do you think I give
a toss about allegedly being killfiled by a halfwit?

--
Conor

An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan.
-- George Patton

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

In article <cch6011sl06gj8afe6dq5psg224e416bn7@4ax.com>, Andrew says...
> On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 09:47:35 -0000, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
> wrote cluelessly:
>
> >Therefore refresh rate doesn't matter a jot with LCD.
>
> There is very noticeable image degradation on my LCD if I run it at
> anything other than 75.
>
That'll be the slight image ghosting most noticable on text. Try
altering the "phase" adjustment on the monitor controls. If you were
using the DVI output on the graphics card it wouldn't matter.

--
Conor

An imperfect plan executed violently is far superior to a perfect plan.
-- George Patton

 

[augustus]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

> Clue: CRT..the "dots" fade. If they're not refreshed then they
> disappear altogether.
> LCD..the dots stay on until their state is switched.
>
> Therefore refresh rate doesn't matter a jot with LCD.

There must be a special on clueless twats today. Refresh rate on an LCD is
the time required for the LED's to change from a specific color to another.
Converted from milliseconds to Hertz. Idiot.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 15:32:34 -0000, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
wrote:

>In article <ofh601hldsib141a6uaguvfmo89k0qh9rn@4ax.com>, Andrew says...
>> On Fri, 4 Feb 2005 09:47:56 -0000, Conor <conor.turton@gmail.com>
>> wrote:

>> >Therefore refresh rate doesn't matter a jot with LCD.

>> Hmmm, you repeat the same BS three times in a thread, *plonk*.

>ROFLMAO. Why did you feel the need to post "plonk"? Do you think I give
>a toss about allegedly being killfiled by a halfwit?

Hey Irish, - you having a bad day son ? you are better than that !
just stick with it - transfer of knowledge can be hard work at times.

¸ô¶ó