[plug] [OT] Changing refresh rate to something higher than 85Hz??

[Steve Boak]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:15 am, James Devenish wrote:
> In message <200411142118.43198.sboak at westnet.com.au>
>
> on Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 09:18:42PM +0800, Steve Boak wrote:
> > Probably just your phosphor is slower, i.e. it retains the picture
> > for longer between screen refreshes...
>
> I thought of that, but why would other CRTs have less retentive
> phosphor? I.e. if you can get a steady image at 60Hz, why choose an
> alternative design that flickers below 100Hz, presumably wastes more
> energy in radiation, and presumably requires components with tighter
> tolerances? I assume 60Hz is necessary for fidelity of 30fps video, but
> I think it would be more uncomfortable for me to be scrolling text that
> fast than to be having the lower refresh rate ;-)

I thought it was to handle fast-moving images such as games or live video. The 
faster you can pump screens of data at the monitor the smoother any movement 
of images on the screen would be. Remember the opposite end of the scale with 
early LCD screens where the mouse left a trail when you moved it?
At least that's my theory. Maybe someone else has a better one?

Steve

-- 
Ph: +61 8 97560662, IP-Phone: FWD# 454566, e164.org# 61897560662 

"Most men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves
up and continue on as if nothing had happened." - Winston Churchill