3 ms·
Regarding CRT flicker: for monitors, you don't want to drive a CRT below 90Hz (120 Hz is pretty stable), even TVs were at the end 100Hz (refreshing frames multi
by masswerk 3y ago
Regarding CRT flicker: for monitors, you don't want to drive a CRT below 90Hz (120 Hz is pretty stable), even TVs were at the end 100Hz (refreshing frames multiple times). The problem was "cost effective" office PCs with graphics hardware just capable of 60Hz refresh, which isn't a great idea, unless you have a monochrome monitor with slow phosphor. (Meaning, this was just an abuse of technology – and workers.)
- toast0 3y ago> even TVs were at the end 100Hz (refreshing frames multiple times) Maybe in Europe? But 100Hz is a terrible thing to do with 60Hz signals. Possibly US bound HD CRT TVs did 120Hz? But I don't recall hearing about those ever.
- masswerk 3y agoYes, my experience was definitively European, as in PAL. It was rather neat, until the image panned… (The problem being, apparently you still have to alternate between fields in order to maintain the illusion of interlaced video, so you get an A-B-A-B C-D–C-D… sequence. Some attempts were made to improve the resulting interlace clash by comb filters, etc, but this only started to work somewhat properly, when the days of CRTs were already numbered.) I actually don't know if there were similar developments with 60Hz standards.