Why very high refresh rate is so important? I have 100hz at 1024x768 and it is so great. what for higher tha 85hz? I know exdactly what refresh is but still don't get it... OK I heard people saying FOR GAMES THAT NEED MANY FPS! and ah..so? Human can see 30fps (24fps on the TV), but some dude gave a huge explanation that in 3d games on computers 24 is barely 40 is OK, and 60 and higher can't be noticable? well minimum refresh rate for most monitors is 60Hz and it is 60 updates per second, am I right? I know eyes hurt when u have lower than 75hz but why do ya care if it is 166hz or 138hz (or whatever)???
why refresh rate is important?
- Thread starter Guest
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Phoenix
hammerhead
Distinguished
- Mar 5, 2001
- 531
- 0
- 18,980
A fair point, but you can't compare with TV's etc...
There is a trade-off with refresh and persistance (how long the beam scan remains visible).
I have an old VGA CCTV monitor (on a print/net server which I hardly ever have to look at), although the refresh rate is 56hz no flicker is apparent, because the persistence of the tube is so high.
The downside is of course, that whenever you move the mouse or whatever, image trails are left behind for a second or so.
Modern monitors have a very low persistence, hence they need a higher refresh rate.
(Just lowered my monitors refresh to 75hz. Yep, flickers).
There is a trade-off with refresh and persistance (how long the beam scan remains visible).
I have an old VGA CCTV monitor (on a print/net server which I hardly ever have to look at), although the refresh rate is 56hz no flicker is apparent, because the persistence of the tube is so high.
The downside is of course, that whenever you move the mouse or whatever, image trails are left behind for a second or so.
Modern monitors have a very low persistence, hence they need a higher refresh rate.
(Just lowered my monitors refresh to 75hz. Yep, flickers).
There several different issues in your post. I'm by no means an expert, but I'll try to shed some light on it (or increase confusion 
):
-Human vision:
It is a quite common misconception that the human eye can see just 30 fps (actually I think the common image rate is 24 in the theater and 30 on tv). The human eye "checks" reality over 1000 times per second (I think is over 2000) - but our vision isn't a camera (we see with our brains), and there is a "memory" effect particularly in the relatively slow color sensors (cones?). To further complicate things, eye sensitivity varies among the human race (like auditive abilities) - so I may not perceive the difference between 85hz and 100hz but other person could.
-Refresh rate (RR) vs FPS: RR is the number of times the image is updated - it is needed to create the ilusion of an image. The FPS is the number of frames - needed to create the ilusion of movement. Obviously, the RR limits FPS (frames not shown do not help the ilusion of movement).
-RR - sore eyes:
Low RR do stress our eyes - the higher the better, but 85hz is generally enough. Some people feel improvements over 100hz. I can't remember why they get sored but I *think* that in lower refresh our eyes have to focus more to mantain the image - we don't blink as often and get sore eyes. Note: not many monitors can do better than 120 at over 1024x768.
FPS - films vs games:
24 is enough in the movies. Why do we need 60 in games? We see with our brains - with a bit of help from our eyes. A movie, in a dark environment, indirect light and blurred images, 24 FPS is enough to fool the brain to think there is movement. A game, direct light, small field of vision, well defined and different images at a high speed movement (like a 90º turn in Quake) may need twice the FPS to fool the brain. A slower paced game wouldn't need as many FPS to create the ilusion of smooth movement.
Hope this helps, and please feel free to correct anything not true.
Arbee
):-Human vision:
It is a quite common misconception that the human eye can see just 30 fps (actually I think the common image rate is 24 in the theater and 30 on tv). The human eye "checks" reality over 1000 times per second (I think is over 2000) - but our vision isn't a camera (we see with our brains), and there is a "memory" effect particularly in the relatively slow color sensors (cones?). To further complicate things, eye sensitivity varies among the human race (like auditive abilities) - so I may not perceive the difference between 85hz and 100hz but other person could.
-Refresh rate (RR) vs FPS: RR is the number of times the image is updated - it is needed to create the ilusion of an image. The FPS is the number of frames - needed to create the ilusion of movement. Obviously, the RR limits FPS (frames not shown do not help the ilusion of movement).
-RR - sore eyes:
Low RR do stress our eyes - the higher the better, but 85hz is generally enough. Some people feel improvements over 100hz. I can't remember why they get sored but I *think* that in lower refresh our eyes have to focus more to mantain the image - we don't blink as often and get sore eyes. Note: not many monitors can do better than 120 at over 1024x768.
FPS - films vs games:
24 is enough in the movies. Why do we need 60 in games? We see with our brains - with a bit of help from our eyes
. A movie, in a dark environment, indirect light and blurred images, 24 FPS is enough to fool the brain to think there is movement. A game, direct light, small field of vision, well defined and different images at a high speed movement (like a 90º turn in Quake) may need twice the FPS to fool the brain. A slower paced game wouldn't need as many FPS to create the ilusion of smooth movement.Hope this helps, and please feel free to correct anything not true.
Arbee
Actually I have to disagree that 24fps is enough for movies. I sometimes can't stand watching a movie in the theatre, because of that slow fps. For instance, whenever the camera would pan left or right at a moderate speed, I notice the "choppiness" of the frames. It is very annoying and I hate it. There was a company that came out with a backward compatible system that used 48fps, but I don't think it will ever be adopted as a standard.
The reason why filmmakers "like" 24fps, is because it gives their films a dreamy feel, according to replies I've had to questions about the slow fps. And because it is still the standard. I really wish filmmakers would get their act together and go with the 48fps. It would make films so much more lifelike and fast action a lot smoother.
The reason why filmmakers "like" 24fps, is because it gives their films a dreamy feel, according to replies I've had to questions about the slow fps. And because it is still the standard. I really wish filmmakers would get their act together and go with the 48fps. It would make films so much more lifelike and fast action a lot smoother.
As I've said, "...eye sensitivity varies among the human race..."
Well, it seems you have a rather rare vision - most people doesn't complain about movie image quality. 24fps is enough for the majority - unfortunatelly not all.
The reason filmmakers like 24fps instead of 48fps or something higher is simply because it is cheaper - nothing to do with dreamy feel. Twice the fps means twice the film - more expensive projection and recording systems but, above all, more (or bigger) movie reels and according storage space (both for recording and projection).
Maybe with the imminent (I wonder) introduction of trully digital systems you'll get lucky - hope so.
Well, it seems you have a rather rare vision - most people doesn't complain about movie image quality. 24fps is enough for the majority - unfortunatelly not all.
The reason filmmakers like 24fps instead of 48fps or something higher is simply because it is cheaper - nothing to do with dreamy feel. Twice the fps means twice the film - more expensive projection and recording systems but, above all, more (or bigger) movie reels and according storage space (both for recording and projection).
Maybe with the imminent (I wonder) introduction of trully digital systems you'll get lucky - hope so.
I don't mean to start an argument or anything. I just wanted to let people know that a company is working to provide smoother looking movies for those of us that will notice the difference. Now I don't always see choppiness in movies, mostly in fast action scenes where the camera pans at a moderate speed.
Here is a link to <A HREF="http://www.maxivisioncinema.com" target="_new"> Maxivision</A> which is working on the 48fps standard. It's not much of a site, just a quote by Ebert and a PDF file of the 48fps format. It's been awhile since I've read the specs of the format. But, it doesn't use twice as much film. It uses only a little more than normal 24fps, because the frames are spaced very close together on the film. Current film is wasteful because it has gaps between each frame. Also, they were able to make each frame a little larger, which should produce a sharper image when projected. Only drawback to this format, is that all theatres would need to purchase a new 48fps projector. But these projectors are backwards compatible with 24fps film.
It looks promising, but as you said, digital projectors will probably totally do away with film in the long run. Perhaps, that's why everyone is waiting, instead of jumping on this Maxivision.
Here is a link to <A HREF="http://www.maxivisioncinema.com" target="_new"> Maxivision</A> which is working on the 48fps standard. It's not much of a site, just a quote by Ebert and a PDF file of the 48fps format. It's been awhile since I've read the specs of the format. But, it doesn't use twice as much film. It uses only a little more than normal 24fps, because the frames are spaced very close together on the film. Current film is wasteful because it has gaps between each frame. Also, they were able to make each frame a little larger, which should produce a sharper image when projected. Only drawback to this format, is that all theatres would need to purchase a new 48fps projector. But these projectors are backwards compatible with 24fps film.
It looks promising, but as you said, digital projectors will probably totally do away with film in the long run. Perhaps, that's why everyone is waiting, instead of jumping on this Maxivision.
hehehe - maybe I should have said it would take twice as much film without other improvements to the 24fps standard 
. The Maxivision improvements cause savings of 25% on the quantity of film used - therefore 75% of the standard. Switching to 48FPS from 24FPS duplicates the use of film - as they use their new film-saving standard, their 48fps system "only" increases film consumption by 50% (150% of "old" standard = 2x75%)
I *believe* everyone is waiting for a perfected digital projection system (I *think* the initial field tests with the first generation of digital projectors weren't too positive) - for now, digital is the future.
. The Maxivision improvements cause savings of 25% on the quantity of film used - therefore 75% of the standard. Switching to 48FPS from 24FPS duplicates the use of film - as they use their new film-saving standard, their 48fps system "only" increases film consumption by 50% (150% of "old" standard = 2x75%)I *believe* everyone is waiting for a perfected digital projection system (I *think* the initial field tests with the first generation of digital projectors weren't too positive) - for now, digital is the future.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Can´t open BIOS because no keyboard input is received.
- Started by Blatscher
- Replies: 11
-
-
-
-
News US sanctions transform China into legacy chip production juggernaut — production jumped 40% in Q1 2024- Started by Admin
- Replies: 35
-
Question And old 6+2 PCI-E connector of my PSU does not fit my newer 8pin graphics board.- Started by Pianissimo
- Replies: 2
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram