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
)
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram