Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

LCD industry cannot make 16- ms response time for 19+ in LCD

Last response: in Systems
Share
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 12, 2005 9:34:22 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

LCD industry leaders like Samsung and Sony cannot make 16-
ms response time a reality for 19+ in LCD.

Do you see any LCD with a 16ms response time or better for
19+ inch LCD from them? No. The industry isn't capable to
make it.

When coming to 19+ in monitor, buy a CRT.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 12, 2005 11:43:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"angry" <angry@lcd.com> wrote in message
news:vais01hp9jlka2f2ve7docp92ntq5d1uue@4ax.com...
> LCD industry leaders like Samsung and Sony cannot make 16-
> ms response time a reality for 19+ in LCD.
>
> Do you see any LCD with a 16ms response time or better for
> 19+ inch LCD from them? No. The industry isn't capable to
> make it.
>
> When coming to 19+ in monitor, buy a CRT.

Veiwsonic has one.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 13, 2005 1:26:16 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 18:34:22 GMT, angry <angry@lcd.com>
wrote:

>LCD industry leaders like Samsung and Sony cannot make 16-
>ms response time a reality for 19+ in LCD.
>
>Do you see any LCD with a 16ms response time or better for
>19+ inch LCD from them? No. The industry isn't capable to
>make it.
>
>When coming to 19+ in monitor, buy a CRT.

When they finally DO have 16ms for the 19" models, wouldn't
someone just complain that there's no 14ms, 12ms, 10ms, etc,
etc?
Related resources
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 13, 2005 12:03:24 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"angry" <angry@lcd.com> wrote in message
news:vais01hp9jlka2f2ve7docp92ntq5d1uue@4ax.com...
> LCD industry leaders like Samsung and Sony cannot make 16-
> ms response time a reality for 19+ in LCD.
>
> Do you see any LCD with a 16ms response time or better for
> 19+ inch LCD from them? No. The industry isn't capable to
> make it.
>
> When coming to 19+ in monitor, buy a CRT.

The 19" LCD monitor I'm using is the Hyundai L90D+. It has a 8ms response
time.

Have a look at
http://www.cclonline.com/product-info.asp?product_id=22...
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 13, 2005 12:07:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"TheDysk" <spam@nospamno.spam.com> wrote in message
news:wJEPd.1212$ma4.1104@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "angry" <angry@lcd.com> wrote in message
> news:vais01hp9jlka2f2ve7docp92ntq5d1uue@4ax.com...
> > LCD industry leaders like Samsung and Sony cannot make 16-
> > ms response time a reality for 19+ in LCD.
> >
> > Do you see any LCD with a 16ms response time or better for
> > 19+ inch LCD from them? No. The industry isn't capable to
> > make it.
> >
> > When coming to 19+ in monitor, buy a CRT.
>
> The 19" LCD monitor I'm using is the Hyundai L90D+. It has a 8ms response
> time.
>
> Have a look at
>
http://www.cclonline.com/product-info.asp?product_id=22...
>
>
>

In fact here one from Iiyama at 20.1" and 16ms.


http://www.cclonline.com/product-info.asp?product_id=17...
February 13, 2005 6:12:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Indeed, I'm looking at one. ViewSonic VX912 12ms. Blows my old Iiyama VM
Pro 450 away in every respect. Love it.


"PWY" <pyork22@*mail.com> wrote in message
news:0UtPd.69455$K72.9773582@twister.southeast.rr.com...
>
> "angry" <angry@lcd.com> wrote in message
> news:vais01hp9jlka2f2ve7docp92ntq5d1uue@4ax.com...
>> LCD industry leaders like Samsung and Sony cannot make 16-
>> ms response time a reality for 19+ in LCD.
>>
>> Do you see any LCD with a 16ms response time or better for
>> 19+ inch LCD from them? No. The industry isn't capable to
>> make it.
>>
>> When coming to 19+ in monitor, buy a CRT.
>
> Veiwsonic has one.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 13, 2005 7:06:40 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:03:24 GMT, "TheDysk"
<spam@nospamno.spam.com> wrote:

>
>"angry" <angry@lcd.com> wrote in message
>news:vais01hp9jlka2f2ve7docp92ntq5d1uue@4ax.com...
>> LCD industry leaders like Samsung and Sony cannot make 16-
>> ms response time a reality for 19+ in LCD.
>>
>> Do you see any LCD with a 16ms response time or better for
>> 19+ inch LCD from them? No. The industry isn't capable to
>> make it.
>>
>> When coming to 19+ in monitor, buy a CRT.
>
>The 19" LCD monitor I'm using is the Hyundai L90D+. It has a 8ms response
>time.
>
>Have a look at
>http://www.cclonline.com/product-info.asp?product_id=22...
>
>
How's their dot pitch? The pages don't have their dot pitch
posted. I'd be surprised and happy if they are smaller than
..294mm.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 13, 2005 7:06:41 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Interesting...

a 19" LCD with an 8ms respose time for somewere is the $350-$450 range???

I've never run across a LCD screen that fast at that price.

I Went to Hyundai's own web site to look at the specs, and there is no
mention of the response time at all.
http://www.hyundaiq.com/pro_l90d%2B.asp#

and yes the dot pitch is spec'd at .294

"angry" <angry@lcd.com> wrote in message
news:tluu01tpubikpg6gablevvn3sbh9je628m@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:03:24 GMT, "TheDysk"
> <spam@nospamno.spam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"angry" <angry@lcd.com> wrote in message
>>news:vais01hp9jlka2f2ve7docp92ntq5d1uue@4ax.com...
>>> LCD industry leaders like Samsung and Sony cannot make 16-
>>> ms response time a reality for 19+ in LCD.
>>>
>>> Do you see any LCD with a 16ms response time or better for
>>> 19+ inch LCD from them? No. The industry isn't capable to
>>> make it.
>>>
>>> When coming to 19+ in monitor, buy a CRT.
>>
>>The 19" LCD monitor I'm using is the Hyundai L90D+. It has a 8ms response
>>time.
>>
>>Have a look at
>>http://www.cclonline.com/product-info.asp?product_id=22...
>>
>>
> How's their dot pitch? The pages don't have their dot pitch
> posted. I'd be surprised and happy if they are smaller than
> .294mm.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 13, 2005 7:29:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"angry" <angry@lcd.com> wrote in message
news:tluu01tpubikpg6gablevvn3sbh9je628m@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:03:24 GMT, "TheDysk"
> <spam@nospamno.spam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"angry" <angry@lcd.com> wrote in message
>>news:vais01hp9jlka2f2ve7docp92ntq5d1uue@4ax.com...
>>> LCD industry leaders like Samsung and Sony cannot make 16-
>>> ms response time a reality for 19+ in LCD.
>>>
>>> Do you see any LCD with a 16ms response time or better for
>>> 19+ inch LCD from them? No. The industry isn't capable to
>>> make it.
>>>
>>> When coming to 19+ in monitor, buy a CRT.
>>
>>The 19" LCD monitor I'm using is the Hyundai L90D+. It has a 8ms response
>>time.
>>
>>Have a look at
>>http://www.cclonline.com/product-info.asp?product_id=22...
>>
>>
> How's their dot pitch? The pages don't have their dot pitch
> posted. I'd be surprised and happy if they are smaller than
> .294mm.

If you want the lowest dot pitch it's 17" @ 1280x1024 or 20" @ 1600x1200.

The 19s have the same resolution as the 17", but spread over a larger area,
so the dot pitch is greater.

--
Derek
February 13, 2005 9:10:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Timothy Drouillard wrote:

> Interesting...
>
> a 19" LCD with an 8ms respose time for somewere is the $350-$450 range???
>
> I've never run across a LCD screen that fast at that price.
>
> I Went to Hyundai's own web site to look at the specs, and there is no
> mention of the response time at all.
> http://www.hyundaiq.com/pro_l90d%2B.asp#
> and yes the dot pitch is spec'd at .294
>

Don't know about the dot pitch, but I think the price should have been
£340.74 instead of $350-450 range. Here's a listing:

http://uk.nextag.com/Hyundai_19_HYUNDAI_L90D~68269565z1...
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 14, 2005 12:32:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

angry writes:

> LCD industry leaders like Samsung and Sony cannot make 16-
> ms response time a reality for 19+ in LCD.

You don't need anything better than 50 ms or so.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 14, 2005 12:32:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:baev015so0dc1t0r28so0ooptl2jebevcr@4ax.com...
> angry writes:
>
>> LCD industry leaders like Samsung and Sony cannot make 16-
>> ms response time a reality for 19+ in LCD.
>
> You don't need anything better than 50 ms or so.
>

Yeah, if you don't play games, don't watch DVDs and don't scroll text too
quickly. ;) 

--

Derek
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 14, 2005 12:32:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:
> angry writes:
>
>
>>LCD industry leaders like Samsung and Sony cannot make 16-
>>ms response time a reality for 19+ in LCD.
>
>
> You don't need anything better than 50 ms or so.
>

How did you arive at a 20 Hz refresh rate being the best anyone needs?
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 14, 2005 12:32:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:38:19 -0600, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
wrote:

>Mxsmanic wrote:
>> angry writes:
>>
>>
>>>LCD industry leaders like Samsung and Sony cannot make 16-
>>>ms response time a reality for 19+ in LCD.
>>
>>
>> You don't need anything better than 50 ms or so.
>>
>
>How did you arive at a 20 Hz refresh rate being the best anyone needs?

Response time has nothing to do with refresh, which LCD's don't use.

MT
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 14, 2005 12:32:38 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:01:53 -0800, Michael Thomas
<mtNOSPAMMING@armory.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:38:19 -0600, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Mxsmanic wrote:
>>> angry writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>LCD industry leaders like Samsung and Sony cannot make 16-
>>>>ms response time a reality for 19+ in LCD.
>>>
>>>
>>> You don't need anything better than 50 ms or so.
>>>
>>
>>How did you arive at a 20 Hz refresh rate being the best anyone needs?
>
>Response time has nothing to do with refresh, which LCD's don't use.
>
>MT

Correction: Didn't finish that thought, mean't to say:

Response time has nothing to do with refresh, which LCD's use
(obviously) but are not effected by as much as CRT's.

Response time is the time interval between the change of the signal in
a particular cell and the change of the state of this cell. Refresh
rate is the maximum number of frames that can be displayed on a
monitor in a second.

MT
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 14, 2005 1:36:08 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Michael Thomas wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:01:53 -0800, Michael Thomas
> <mtNOSPAMMING@armory.com> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:38:19 -0600, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>
>>>>angry writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>LCD industry leaders like Samsung and Sony cannot make 16-
>>>>>ms response time a reality for 19+ in LCD.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You don't need anything better than 50 ms or so.
>>>>
>>>
>>>How did you arive at a 20 Hz refresh rate being the best anyone needs?
>>
>>Response time has nothing to do with refresh, which LCD's don't use.
>>
>>MT
>
>
> Correction: Didn't finish that thought, mean't to say:
>
> Response time has nothing to do with refresh,

It most certainly does.

> which LCD's use
> (obviously) but are not effected by as much as CRT's.
>
> Response time is the time interval between the change of the signal in
> a particular cell and the change of the state of this cell. Refresh
> rate is the maximum number of frames that can be displayed on a
> monitor in a second.

And there is little use in refreshing the cells faster than they can
respond to it.

If the cells cannot respond faster than in 50ms then refreshing faster than
once per 50 ms, as in 20 Hz, is wasted effort since they will not respond
to it. Which means you cannot display any 'changing' picture faster than 20
Hz; because the cells will not respond to it.

>
> MT
>
February 14, 2005 3:33:41 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

angry wrote:
> LCD industry leaders like Samsung and Sony cannot make 16-
> ms response time a reality for 19+ in LCD.
>
> Do you see any LCD with a 16ms response time or better for
> 19+ inch LCD from them? No. The industry isn't capable to
> make it.
>
> When coming to 19+ in monitor, buy a CRT.

Im using a 19" LG Flatron monitor 12ms response time 0 dead pixels FAN
BLOODY TASTIC :) )
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 14, 2005 11:07:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 16:06:40 GMT, angry <angry@lcd.com> put finger to
keyboard and composed:

>On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 09:03:24 GMT, "TheDysk"
><spam@nospamno.spam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"angry" <angry@lcd.com> wrote in message
>>news:vais01hp9jlka2f2ve7docp92ntq5d1uue@4ax.com...
>>> LCD industry leaders like Samsung and Sony cannot make 16-
>>> ms response time a reality for 19+ in LCD.
>>>
>>> Do you see any LCD with a 16ms response time or better for
>>> 19+ inch LCD from them? No. The industry isn't capable to
>>> make it.
>>>
>>> When coming to 19+ in monitor, buy a CRT.
>>
>>The 19" LCD monitor I'm using is the Hyundai L90D+. It has a 8ms response
>>time.
>>
>>Have a look at
>>http://www.cclonline.com/product-info.asp?product_id=22...
>>
>>
>How's their dot pitch? The pages don't have their dot pitch
>posted. I'd be surprised and happy if they are smaller than
>.294mm.

Well, it's a 19inch monitor with a native resolution of 1280 x 1024,
so the viewable width is 1280 / sqrt(1280^2 + 1024^2) x 19 x 25.4 =
376.8mm. The horizontal resolution is 1280, so the dot pitch is equal
to (or better than???) 376.8/1280 = 0.294mm. In other words, all
19inch *digital* monitors with a native resolution of 1280 x 1024 have
the same dot pitch, or am I missing something? Ask yourself, if the
dot pitch were 0.1mm, then what would a white screen look like at 1280
x 1024? I think you really would be surprised, but you would not be
happy.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 14, 2005 1:16:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

The main reason I bought a 25ms monitor instead of a 16ms or 12ms one
was for the 8-bit true color. What do people think of the emulation,
or dithering, of the 6-bit required by these faster monitors? I
believe the limit is 256k colors but I'm not sure.

I am not a gamer, so the color clarity was more of a factor for me.

MT
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 14, 2005 7:51:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:20:41 -0800, Michael Thomas
<mtNOSPAMMING@armory.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:

>On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:01:53 -0800, Michael Thomas
><mtNOSPAMMING@armory.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:38:19 -0600, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>> angry writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>LCD industry leaders like Samsung and Sony cannot make 16-
>>>>>ms response time a reality for 19+ in LCD.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You don't need anything better than 50 ms or so.
>>>>
>>>
>>>How did you arive at a 20 Hz refresh rate being the best anyone needs?
>>
>>Response time has nothing to do with refresh, which LCD's don't use.
>>
>>MT
>
>Correction: Didn't finish that thought, mean't to say:
>
>Response time has nothing to do with refresh, which LCD's use
>(obviously) but are not effected by as much as CRT's.
>
>Response time is the time interval between the change of the signal in
>a particular cell and the change of the state of this cell. Refresh
>rate is the maximum number of frames that can be displayed on a
>monitor in a second.
>
>MT

True, the two parameters are different, but there is little point
using a refresh rate that exceeds the response time.

For example, let's assume the pixel response time is 16msec, and let's
also assume that the refresh rate is 60Hz, ie once every 16.7msec. We
paint the screen by illuminating pixel #1 in the first column of the
first line, and then switch it off immediately. Then we proceed to do
the same for all remaining pixels. As each pixel requires 16msec to
decay in brightness, this would mean that pixel #1 is just going dark
and getting ready to be repainted when the next frame arrives. AFAICS,
faster response times at the same refresh rate would add no benefit,
and slower response times would result in blurring of moving images.
In my example I'm assuming that the time required to light a pixel is
much less than that required for it to decay. I don't know if that's
realistic, though.

This excerpt from Viewsonic's glossary suggests that a 16msec response
time limits the monitor to an effective 62.5Hz refresh rate:
http://www.viewsonic.com/monitoruniversity/glossary.htm

ClearMotiv™ Technology

"A fast video-response technology that allows video speed up to 62.5
frames per second for true broadcast-quality full-motion video."


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 14, 2005 7:51:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 16:51:25 +1100, Franc Zabkar
<fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:20:41 -0800, Michael Thomas
><mtNOSPAMMING@armory.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>
>>On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:01:53 -0800, Michael Thomas
>><mtNOSPAMMING@armory.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 15:38:19 -0600, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Mxsmanic wrote:
>>>>> angry writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>LCD industry leaders like Samsung and Sony cannot make 16-
>>>>>>ms response time a reality for 19+ in LCD.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't need anything better than 50 ms or so.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How did you arive at a 20 Hz refresh rate being the best anyone needs?
>>>
>>>Response time has nothing to do with refresh, which LCD's don't use.
>>>
>>>MT
>>
>>Correction: Didn't finish that thought, mean't to say:
>>
>>Response time has nothing to do with refresh, which LCD's use
>>(obviously) but are not effected by as much as CRT's.
>>
>>Response time is the time interval between the change of the signal in
>>a particular cell and the change of the state of this cell. Refresh
>>rate is the maximum number of frames that can be displayed on a
>>monitor in a second.
>>
>>MT
>
>True, the two parameters are different, but there is little point
>using a refresh rate that exceeds the response time.
>

I see your point. I was just responding to David's assertion that a
50ms response time meant that the monitor was using a 20Hz refresh
rate, which is false.

>For example, let's assume the pixel response time is 16msec, and let's
>also assume that the refresh rate is 60Hz, ie once every 16.7msec. We
>paint the screen by illuminating pixel #1 in the first column of the
>first line, and then switch it off immediately. Then we proceed to do
>the same for all remaining pixels. As each pixel requires 16msec to
>decay in brightness, this would mean that pixel #1 is just going dark
>and getting ready to be repainted when the next frame arrives. AFAICS,
>faster response times at the same refresh rate would add no benefit,
>and slower response times would result in blurring of moving images.
>In my example I'm assuming that the time required to light a pixel is
>much less than that required for it to decay. I don't know if that's
>realistic, though.
>

Hence the ghosting instead of flickering.

>This excerpt from Viewsonic's glossary suggests that a 16msec response
>time limits the monitor to an effective 62.5Hz refresh rate:
> http://www.viewsonic.com/monitoruniversity/glossary.htm
>
>ClearMotiv™ Technology
>
>"A fast video-response technology that allows video speed up to 62.5
>frames per second for true broadcast-quality full-motion video."
>
>
>- Franc Zabkar

It seems to me that these 12ms and 8ms response time monitors might be
so fast that you would need to set the refresh rate higher than 60Hz,
or they could be susceptible to flickering caused by a slow refresh
rate and fast cell response time. Has anyone ever seen flickering on
an LCD before?

MT
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 15, 2005 4:37:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Derek Baker writes:

> Yeah, if you don't play games, don't watch DVDs and don't scroll text too
> quickly. ;) 

Even if you do. Motion pictures have been using 40 ms for decades.
Most people see anything less than 50 ms or so as smooth movement.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 15, 2005 4:38:45 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard writes:

> How did you arive at a 20 Hz refresh rate being the best anyone needs?

The physiology of human vision. Motion pictures have only a 24 fps
refresh rate. Television is no more than 30 fps.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 15, 2005 4:38:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:
> David Maynard writes:
>
>
>>How did you arive at a 20 Hz refresh rate being the best anyone needs?
>
>
> The physiology of human vision.

Which methinks you are misinterpreting.

> Motion pictures have only a 24 fps
> refresh rate. Television is no more than 30 fps.

That is sufficient for an 'appearance' of motion, not the 'best' the eye
can see.

And, even so, 20 Hz isn't sufficient for either 24 or 30.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 15, 2005 8:42:54 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:38:45 +0100, Mxsmanic
<mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:

>David Maynard writes:
>
>> How did you arive at a 20 Hz refresh rate being the best anyone needs?
>
>The physiology of human vision. Motion pictures have only a 24 fps
>refresh rate. Television is no more than 30 fps.

Interlacing and phosphor fade makes up for the difference,
but not on a modern computer. For example on a CRT monitor
a 30 fps video is NOT as fluid as 40, 50 fps, to anyone
critically observing, it need not be a pro to see the
difference.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 15, 2005 10:41:22 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:11:12 -0800, Michael Thomas
<mtNOSPAMMING@armory.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:

>It seems to me that these 12ms and 8ms response time monitors might be
>so fast that you would need to set the refresh rate higher than 60Hz,
>or they could be susceptible to flickering caused by a slow refresh
>rate and fast cell response time. Has anyone ever seen flickering on
>an LCD before?
>
>MT

Google searches suggest that some people are experiencing this, but I
suspect these may be the same people that claim to hear performance
differences with monster cable, etc.

Viewsonic's website claims that LCD monitors are flicker free:
http://www.viewsonic.com/monitoruniversity/lcd.htm

"There is no flicker on an LCD display because, while a CRT must be
refreshed, the LCD has a constant source of light over the whole
screen. Once a pixel is on, it stays on until turned off."

I could be wrong, but this is my take on the situation. In a CRT
monitor each pixel would decay naturally after the electron beam
passes over it. However, in an LCD monitor a slowly decaying pixel
could be kept turned on until just before it is repainted. For
example, a 60Hz refresh rate would require that a pixel remain alive
for about 16.7msec. Anything less would mean that it would go dark
well before it becomes due to be relit. This would result in lower
overall image brightness. In the case of a 12ms display running at
60Hz (16.7ms), each pixel would need to remain on for 4.7ms before it
is turned off. For a 75Hz (13.3ms) refresh rate, the pixel is turned
on for 1.3ms before being allowed to decay.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b Ô Samsung
February 16, 2005 12:12:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:42:54 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> put finger to
keyboard and composed:

>On Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:38:45 +0100, Mxsmanic
><mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>David Maynard writes:
>>
>>> How did you arive at a 20 Hz refresh rate being the best anyone needs?
>>
>>The physiology of human vision. Motion pictures have only a 24 fps
>>refresh rate. Television is no more than 30 fps.
>
>Interlacing and phosphor fade makes up for the difference,
>but not on a modern computer. For example on a CRT monitor
>a 30 fps video is NOT as fluid as 40, 50 fps, to anyone
>critically observing, it need not be a pro to see the
>difference.

During the 80's, I used CRT CAD monitors that operated at 56Hz refresh
rates. These CRTs had long persistence phosphors to eliminate flicker.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
!