1366 x 768
in [Customize Windows]
|
From: J. P. Gilliver (John) on 17 Jan 2010 08:54 In message <BC93A838-2AFF-480C-90EB-CEBBE173F737(a)microsoft.com>, Anteaus <Anteaus(a)discussions.microsoft.com> writes: [] >No display has a 50Hz vertical rate. The standard values are 43,60,73,75,85 I've certainly seen monitors with a 50 rate, though that may have been in the days before VGA; we had at least one (computer system) where you could choose - I couldn't see the difference, but at least one of my colleagues found the 60 much easier to view. (The 43 always seemed an oddball; I presume it was a way of getting higher resolutions without upping the actual dot clock, i. e. pixel rate. ISTR it tended to be an interlaced display too, which doesn't work as well with computer displays which have significant amounts if information that are different between the two fields.) >or 100Hz. LCDs typically support 60 or 75Hz only, but this is of no >significance as unlike a CRT a low rate doesn't induce flicker. Certainly _less_ significance, for that reason; however, if the material is actually being _updated_ (generated) at the higher rate, rather than just _refreshed_, then you will, in theory at least, get smoother motion. I suspect this applies mainly to games, since 50 (or 60 in the other half of the world) has been acceptable for 80 years or so. (In fact an _update_ rate of 24 or 25 has been, in the normally-assumed-higher-quality world of the cinema; they use a double-bladed shutter to give a flicker rate of twice the frame rate. And even there that speed was only used to make the film move fast enough to give a usable soundtrack: 16 or 18 [standard 8, 9.5, and 16 mm, and super 8] were adequate in silent times. And very low update - as opposed to refresh - rates are still used in news reporting.) [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar(a)T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. ** Hit any user to continue.
From: thanatoid on 17 Jan 2010 14:54
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG(a)soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:7Q$vyT1lOwULFwxK(a)soft255.demon.co.uk: > In message <Xns9D02EA1F48767thanexit(a)188.40.43.245>, > thanatoid <waiting(a)the.exit.invalid> writes: <SNIP> >>in the UK. It's 50HZ there, or 200 or 400, or possibly 3200 >>in a year or two. Like ANY difference will be visible. > > Hmm. I don't think even our HD transmissions are anywhere > near 200 Hz frame or field rate It's purely a marketing gimmick having nothing to do with the signal as it enters the monitor. There MAY be a minor improvement with 200 Hz Vs. 50Hz or 240Hz Vs. 60Hz but frankly I am skeptical, although I have no doubt there WILL be LCD shitboxes with 3200Hz refresh rates just like there will be 13.3 surround sound systems - sooner or later. > Indeed. (Though sometimes you have to use the latest > version of something, not necessarily DirectX, to view some > YouTube videos, even if you're not a must-have-latest sort > of person.) Well, we were talking about DirectX. Of course my affinity (and yours) for older (and better ) software has to take into consideration minor adjustments (or temporaryy major adjustments) due to new technology, assuming there is one that is actually worth anything. -- There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives and those that will break later. - Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/, not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got the quote. But it's true.) |