Conversation

Notices

1. 🇳🇴 Thor — backup account (thorthenorseman@octodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 27-Oct-2018 11:42:19 EDT 🇳🇴 Thor — backup account

   You know, common wisdom for decades was the human eye can't see super high refresh rates, so we don't need them...

   Cue next generation of LCD monitors with 144 Hz refresh rates. Saw one of those sideways motion demos in a shop, and the difference was super obvious. We may not have 144 FPS eyes when fixating on an object, and our vision might perceive 60 FPS as smooth most of the time, but not when *tracking* moving objects.

   1. 🇳🇴 Thor — backup account (thorthenorseman@octodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 27-Oct-2018 11:45:05 EDT 🇳🇴 Thor — backup account

      in reply to

      However, there is a crucial difference between LCDs and CRTs that explains why LCDs seem to jitter more: CRTs plot the image one pixel at a time and only part of the image is visible on screen at any given split second, while LCDs display the full image constantly. Film projectors do something similar with 24 FPS: They actually flash the same image twice in short succession, effectively performing a crude up-convert to 48 FPS.

      1. 🇳🇴 Thor — backup account (thorthenorseman@octodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 27-Oct-2018 11:48:44 EDT 🇳🇴 Thor — backup account

         in reply to

         I've always felt that we wouldn't really need such extremely high frame rates if LCDs had strobed backlights. This would of course require those LCDs to have backlights that are twice as bright. This wouldn't consume more power, because they'd be off about half of the time, but it would increase cost, because they'd need to be twice as strong, and many users would probably just want to use a 100% duty cycle to get the extra brightness, and then it *would* consume twice as much power...