Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (
More info?)
Thank you for the explanaition phil
i always mix up the pal and ntsc
frequencies.
"Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed@example.com> schreef in bericht
news:rDjXe.256$q1.101@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> 'Flow' wrote, in part:
> | 85hz and 100hz seem most common.
> | I use 100hz for most resolutions,but 85 is fine also,when using higher
> | settings the image could get a bit more blurry.
> | Remember that a television operates at 60hz or 100hz in europe.
> | I believe 50hz and 100hz in US ?Television (PAL or SECAM) in Europe is
25
> frames per second (50 fields per second.)
> _____
>
> Television (NTSC) in the USA is 30 frames per second (60 fields per
second.)
> But television images (PAL, SECAM, or NTSC) are interlaced signals and
> television CRTs are optimized for slower phosphor decay than computer CRT
> monitors, so the viewing experience isn't directly compatible.
>
> Some newer, more advanced television monitors digitize the video signal,
> buffer it, and display the image non-interlaced at double or quadruple the
> original frame rate. This produces a better viewing experiece (viewers
> accustomed to NTSC find PAL and SECAM to have objectional flicker at the
> normal 25 frames per second/ 50 fields per second because of phosphor
decay.
> Optical film projection is normally at 24 frames per second, but no
flicker
> is apparent because the illumination of the screen is at a constant level
> during each frame with a very brief black interval between each frame as
the
> film is advanced. Rotating prism projecters can vitrually eliminate the
> black interval.
>
> CRT omputer monitors are optimized for the highest frame rate the sweep
> electronics can accomplish.
> Increasing the frame rate increases the required high frequency response
for
> circuits in the display adapter, monitor and connecting cables even though
> the resolution of each frame is not increased. Higher frame rates can
> result in lower detail on the screen.
>
> Phil Weldon
>
> "Flow" <Flowing@zonnet.nl> wrote in message
> news
QeXe.1421$le5.238@amstwist00...
> > 85hz and 100hz seem most common.
> > I use 100hz for most resolutions,but 85 is fine also,when using higher
> > settings the image could get a bit more blurry.
> > Remember that a television operates at 60hz or 100hz in europe.
> > I believe 50hz and 100hz in US ?
> > Anyway,no need to run your pc at higher settings for this,or only if you
> > are
> > a graphics designer with a very big monitor screen,then it could be
> > usefull
> > to have the highest setting possible.
> > In general,the bigger the screen the higher the frequency can be set.
> >
> > "Richard Dower" <richarddower@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
> > news:dgji4m$j02$1@reader01.news.esat.net...
> >> Which setting would you think would be better, my monitor supports
> >> refresh
> >> rates upto 150Hz.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>