Re: Headache, bad for eyes LCD displays
- From: "dasra" <asdfdsf@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 21:31:33 +0100
Well Mark,
You definetly should use at least 70 or 85hz on your CRT.
The higher the better!
greetz
dasRa
"Mark Dunakin" <md@xxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit dans le message de news:
9oQBf.13735$JT.5972@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Once again Jeff, you rule!!!
> Your info is ALWAYS soo good, even if I didn't need any of this
> info right now, I was glad to read up on what you had to say about it.
>
> I'm on a CRT Flat Screen Display Sony Monitor and am currently
> running at the default 60hz, so am I running too low or can I speed mine
> up?
>
> BTW, thanx a zillion for all the help you gave me with info about my MoBo
> and RAM issue.
> I truely appreciated that more then you know :)
> I did decide to just leave things alone and not bother with changing
> anything.
> I'm just going to split up the left over RAM sticks between my other
> machine and maybe a little one for just render node use.
>
> Anyway, this topic was a good one, as some day I plan on moving into a
> flat panel monitor.
>
> Thanx!...................................md :)
>
>
> DarkScience wrote:
>
>>"Steve Reeves" <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:dr7f6j$931$1$8300dec7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>>Does the refresh frequency make any difference to LCDs if they are
>>>running from analogue signal?
>>>
>>
>>Refresh on an LCD panel is a different animal... You have the backlight,
>>which is a 60Hz fluorescent lamp and that is a constant that doesn't
>>change. The panel itself will also have one or two refresh rates and the
>>typical are 60Hz (all LCDs operate at 60Hz, or at least all I know about)
>>and occasionally 48Hz. Some LCD displays have the ability to accept
>>signals at higher scan rates, for compatibility reasons, but they still
>>refresh the displayed image at 60Hz. A few of the very new HDTV LCOS
>>displays (like the new 65" model from Brillian and the >$20K pro models
>>from JVC and Sony) now have 120Hz refresh rates. But don't plan to see
>>that on large panel desktop monitors anytime soon. These are 1/2 to 2/3
>>inch LCOS chips. 120Hz for LCD and other non scan-line generating
>>displays is the ultimate target. 120Hz will provide smooth video playback
>>for 120, 60, 48, 30 and 24 frames per second. Current 60Hz displays have
>>playback "judder" on 24 and 48 frame/sec media. Makes it hard to edit
>>24fps HD and film sources without having a CRT display or one of those
>>super-expensive LCOS displays. Some studio-grade LCD desktop monitors
>>also support 24Hz and 48Hz refresh to facilitate this sort of editing...
>>
>>LCDs don't need the high refresh rates in order to deliver a smooth image
>>in normal circumstances because there is no horizontal or vertical
>>scanning, the entire display simply refreshes at once, all pixels
>>simultaneously. The response time you see (6, 8, 11, 12, 16 milliseconds
>>as industry norms) is measured differently from one manufacturer to the
>>next, but it is usually the time it takes for the display pixels to go
>>from 0 black to 100% white and back down to 0. Obviously, the faster the
>>better as it eliminates motion blur. Anything faster than 16ms is ideal
>>for video and gaming and the eye can still detect differences down to
>>about 8ms. Faster than that is somewhat of a waste. On a CRT this same
>>effect is called phosphor persistence. Trinitron style displays have
>>phosphor rise/fall times approaching in the 3 to 5 ms range. Shadow mask
>>displays are usually in the 6 to 9 ms range. But just as with LCDs
>>there's exceptions to these... I've seen junk LCD monitors that have 22ms
>>respnses and they're blurry as all *%&#$ when playing Quake.
>>
>>
>>>I must admit, I assumed that it didn't because of the refresh rates of
>>>the screen - 12ms and so on. I am running my secondary monitor off a DVI
>>>port with an adapter so that I can fit the second monitors VGA cable into
>>>it and so it is not digital. Will increasing the frequency (when I
>>>install the right driver!) make a difference?
>>>
>>
>>No difference for the on-screen refresh. However, it may make a
>>difference as to how the monitor processes the incoming video signal and
>>how that translates to what transitions to the screen.
>>
>>You also have to figure that on digital connections (DVI/HDMI), there are
>>limitations to refresh rates within the standard. Partially due to
>>conformance, but also bandwidth limitations. The current top resolution
>>for DVI/HDMI is 1920x1200 @ 60Hz. A dual-link connection supports up to
>>double that and for 16:10 aspect, a 2560x1600 @ 60Hz is about the best you
>>can get. Looks damn nice too on the Dell and Apple 30" displays.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> --
> Check out my Tutorials:
>
> MD arts
> Mark Dunakin
> md@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.md-arts.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Headache, bad for eyes LCD displays
- From: Mark Dunakin
- Re: Headache, bad for eyes LCD displays
- References:
- Headache, bad for eyes LCD displays
- From: LVanRoy
- Re: Headache, bad for eyes LCD displays
- From: Hanson
- Re: Headache, bad for eyes LCD displays
- From: Steve Reeves
- Re: Headache, bad for eyes LCD displays
- From: DarkScience
- Re: Headache, bad for eyes LCD displays
- From: Mark Dunakin
- Headache, bad for eyes LCD displays
- Prev by Date: Re: Headache, bad for eyes LCD displays
- Next by Date: Re: Headache, bad for eyes LCD displays
- Previous by thread: Re: Headache, bad for eyes LCD displays
- Next by thread: Re: Headache, bad for eyes LCD displays
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading