Wayne Morellini
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 6,157
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Depends on how you look at it, the refresh rate is an easy to understand way of explaining persistence for novice readers here, potentusl say 9 to 99 out of ten might not be posting here. I thought I covered that the eye picks up fast and slow sampling at the same time. I'm walking around a busy target store at the moment on my phone, so I'll make it quick.
Refresh rate also depends on brightness. Early tests on pilots showed they could perceive flashes as bright as tpg sun in darkness as short as 500th a second. However, for viewing applications we only need much less than that. In cinema anything bright enough to feel painful to watch had better be a special effect.
If the strobe rate is low enough the signal will strain, but do we have scientific data on the range of negatively resonance frequencies? High enough and the brain will stop percueving too much of a difference. We already use 60hz lighting sources.
What I was getting at is the shorter the pulse the energy is delivered at in the short time period the more distinct a strobing might be compared to showing the energy over the entire time period. In CRT they used long persistence phosphors to get over this effect at 50 kHz etc (except Americans still see it) but my eye strain smooth out closer to 70hz, which is the refresh rate akedgedly many peoples perception of flick stops on monitors years ago. However, in LCD you can show one color 1/3rd of the total time and at 200fps on bluphase LCD alledgedly ( I still want to see proper figures on this). So it looks promising, but I imagine at 100 fps it will be acceptable for consumer content usage, but allows potential to do 5 color, maybe even in 3d. Anyway have to get back to shopping.
Refresh rate also depends on brightness. Early tests on pilots showed they could perceive flashes as bright as tpg sun in darkness as short as 500th a second. However, for viewing applications we only need much less than that. In cinema anything bright enough to feel painful to watch had better be a special effect.
If the strobe rate is low enough the signal will strain, but do we have scientific data on the range of negatively resonance frequencies? High enough and the brain will stop percueving too much of a difference. We already use 60hz lighting sources.
What I was getting at is the shorter the pulse the energy is delivered at in the short time period the more distinct a strobing might be compared to showing the energy over the entire time period. In CRT they used long persistence phosphors to get over this effect at 50 kHz etc (except Americans still see it) but my eye strain smooth out closer to 70hz, which is the refresh rate akedgedly many peoples perception of flick stops on monitors years ago. However, in LCD you can show one color 1/3rd of the total time and at 200fps on bluphase LCD alledgedly ( I still want to see proper figures on this). So it looks promising, but I imagine at 100 fps it will be acceptable for consumer content usage, but allows potential to do 5 color, maybe even in 3d. Anyway have to get back to shopping.