Re: LCD refresh rates - don't understand

On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 22:49:43 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
<nobody@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

So obviously the term "refresh rate" is wrong for LCDs, because they don't
actually refresh.

So what does "refresh rate" actually refer to? My guess is that an LCD TV
screen image is *updated* fifty times per second (or 100 times per second on
some modern ones). In other words, for LCDs, when the marketing mob talk
about a "refresh rate" they really mean an "update rate". Is that right?

Yes but I think you're being too pedantic. To track video changing at
50Hz, obviously they do have to update the screen at least at that
rate. If they can't get out of the habit or for legacy reasons still
want to call it refresh rate, I can't see a problem with that.

Or is it that 100Hz LCD TVs all extrapolate the intermediate frames, to make
pans look smoother.

I suspect noone really knows because it would be a commercial secret
of each manufacturer. But perhaps we can guess that they don't, for
if a TV had a feature like that, wouldn't the manufacturer think it
was a selling point to shout from the rooftops about?

Perhaps what's happened is an example of Darwinian evolution in action
- in an effort to compete with the steady picture of LCDs, CRTs have
upped their refresh rate, and use it as a selling point, so LCD
manufacturers have adopted it as well, just to counter the CRT blurb,
even though, like the male pea***'s tail, it's functionally
redundant.

FWIW, neither of mine mention this in their specifications anyway, But
then specs ain't what they used to be, are they? Anyway, I can guess
from their date of manufacturer that they're 50Hz.
.

Quantcast