On Sat, 22 Jul 2017 07:25:27 -0400 rhkra...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, July 21, 2017 11:49:04 PM Gene Heskett wrote: > > Not hardly, the vesa standard, and the cards that support it cannot > > do more that 15 frames a second, at nowhere near the resolution we > > need, which these days is 1920P @ 60 fps. You can buy $90 monitors > > at wallies that can do that today. I just did 90 days ago. > > Why do you need 1920P @ 60 fps? I thought you were referring to the > needs of your machine shop, but, clearly, the next paragraph > contradicts that...
That's 1080P. 1920 is the horizontal resolution, the standard is named for the vertical resolution. A monitor has a lot less work to do than the rendering software which is producing the picture, and the video card it runs on. > > > Define accelerated Ric. That 1920P @ 60 fps is nominally twice as > > fast as the human eye can discern. I can be quite happy at 30fps, > > interlaced, But that's the point of interlace, to refresh at twice the full picture rate, with alternate sets of lines. 60Hz is around the minimum necessary for flicker-free viewing, 50Hz is nearly good enough, and 30Hz interlaced gives you two half-pictures at 60Hz. Interlace causes jitter on stationary pictures, but is best for showing smooth movement for a given bandwidth, so computer systems generally produce non-interlaced pictures, and broadcast TV is interlaced. A computer system producing moving video should be working interlaced for cleanest motion, but generally isn't because the static parts of the screen display would show jitter. Many modern TV receivers will interpolate the interlaced signal to give 'complete' pictures refreshing at 60Hz, and some even standards-convert to higher refresh rates, though at the cost of some motion artefacts. -- Joe
