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

[Harry]

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:28:10 +0800 Steve Boak <sboak at westnet.com.au> wrote:

> 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 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?

I think Steve has it. He will recall that we used LP (long persistence)
monitors in the image processing systems we built in a past life because
the video hardware had a fixed 50Hz rate. Low flicker and good colour
representation was more important. Long persisntence was fine since the
images did not vary; unlike video.

All the best
Harry

-- 
Are you a computer angel?	http://www.computerangels.org.au/