Re: A89: Re: Frame Rates

To: <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
Subject: Re: A89: Re: Frame Rates
From: "Hatch" <hatch@cyberport.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000 19:06:46 -0700
References: <Pine.SOL.4.21.0006101151520.17899-100000@conquest.OCF.Berkeley.EDU> <395208BF.F986024D@oregontrail.net> <39516438.10046085@drrobin.yi.org> <002301bfdbe5$190c6660$15ec5c18@twcny.rr.com>
Reply-To: assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org


i heard somewhere that they eye is around 120 fps...

and a tv is 16 fps (interlaced though)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sebastian Reichelt" <SebastianR@gmx.de>
To: <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: A89: Re: Frame Rates


>
> | > What is the eye's persistence of vision, anyway?  Around 50 Hz?  Can't
> | > be much higher than that else I would see my 60 Hz lamp blinking...
>
> 24 Hz, I think.  However, monitors running at 60 Hz do flicker, I think
> mainly because they can't hit a multiple of the eye's frequency exactly.
I
> don't know how long a pixel turned on on an LCD stays visible; you just
have
> to test out what works and what doesn't.
>
>

Follow-Ups:

Re: A89: Re: Frame Rates

From: "Daniel Wood" <thedew@usit.net>

References:

Re: A89: Re: Frame Rates

From: Patrick Davidson <pad@ocf.Berkeley.EDU>

Re: A89: Re: Frame Rates

From: Cassady Roop <croop@oregontrail.net>

Re: A89: Re: Frame Rates

From: Robin Kirkman <misty@drrobin.yi.org>

Re: A89: Re: Frame Rates

From: "Sebastian Reichelt" <SebastianR@gmx.de>