My bro and I were discussing why would someone wants to have more than a 60 frames per second as their refresh rate, and in the middle of the discussion he sayd that eyes get tired less with a higher refresh rate, is this true? ----------------------> Nothing in the world is the way it should be; that''s why we, the champions, exist and live for: HOPE.

I notice eye strain with a 60 fps refresh monitor. Partly because I notice the flicker, kind of like having a flourescent light blinking quickly. It's REALLY annoying.

75 refresh is much better.


[edited by - Waverider on April 30, 2003 1:58:20 PM]

Yes, a higher refresh rate helps. And here''s why. A standard light (flourescent being the norm) flickers on and off 60 times a second due to standard electrical AC current cycles at 60 Hz. So your monitor being at 60Hz won''t cycle at the same interval. That makes the monitor slightly off according to your brain. You can''t see it very visually, but it is very apparent with what I call the Crunch TestTM. Take a crunchy food, chip or whatever, stand back about 10 to 15 feet, look at the monitor and crunch. You''ll see the monitor move around. Then raise your refresh rate and repeat. The shake is usually much less visible. So at the higher refresh rate you have less missed intervals between the lights and your monitor.

Or you can run an LCD which has no refresh rate and just deal with the crappy blurring



Always remember, you''''re unique. Just like everyone else.
Greven

I don''t notice a difference... maybe my monitor only supports one refresh rate...

-~-The Cow of Darkness-~-

I remember reading somewhere that the human eye has a capture rate of 72 hertz (digital representation, actually the human eye is bio-analog, so it's infinite in theory, but entire images sent to the brain for processing is around 72). A single eye has a blind spot something like 30 degrees from center, but that same angle is visible from the other eye... The ratio of cones to rods is most in favor of cones in the center (cones detect hues, rods detect luminance). So we're all colorblind on the edges of our 120 degree vision cone. At the brain, we've got some amazing bioprocessing going on. Filtering, motionblur, edge detection, group organization, colorizing, image merging.

So, anyways, the Motion Picture standard is 24fps, which is 1 third of 72. 60 however is not a perfect divisor of 72, so we notice some degree of flashing. Look at the underside of the monitor running at a low refresh rate and you'll notice the glow coming off the monitor is flashing. Television standard is 59.999~ fps, but the images are half-res and interlaced, so half of the screen is lit at any particular moment in time (unlike computer monitors).

Taking this all into account, when drawing to a screen, video modes at 72 hertz are the ideal (any faster and we won't notice all of the animation). On TV screens, 60hertz interlaced.

[edited by - inmate2993 on April 30, 2003 6:22:29 PM]

That''s a nice theory you have there Inmate, too bad I can''t adjust my monitor to 48Hz to see if it really works.

Current project: A puzzle game.
% completed: ~0%
Status: Active.

Thanks for the replies ;D

---------------------->
Nothing in the world is the way it should be; that''s why we, the champions, exist and live for: HOPE.

quote: Original post by alnite
That''s a nice theory you have there Inmate, too bad I can''t adjust my monitor to 48Hz to see if it really works.

Current project: A puzzle game.
% completed: ~0%
Status: Active.

Am I sensing some animus on this message board towards me?

quote: Original post by Inmate2993
Am I sensing some animus on this message board towards me?

No, I am serious. lol. You say:

quote:
So, anyways, the Motion Picture standard is 24fps, which is 1 third of 72. 60 however is not a perfect divisor of 72, so we notice some degree of flashing.

So I assume, if I run my monitor at 48hz, I wouldn''t notice the flickers. In other words, higher Hz doesn''t always mean it''s better. But since I can''t do that, I can''t test if your theory is correct.

Current project: A puzzle game.
% completed: ~0%
Status: Active.

Yes, that is ridiculous. Being a perfect divisor of the approximate number of times an approximate amount of visual data enters the brain doesn''t seem to be a likely candidate for any significant difference.

I''d guess it just has something to do with how fast the screen gets repainted (which is related to the refresh rate). If it gets repainted too slow, then you notice it, if not then you do.

Whatever the case, I''ve heard a lot of people say that rock-solid display (90-100 Hz) is much better for your eyes, and I''m inclined to believe it.