What I found puzzling...

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #5,621 by CRConrad 8/17/01 11:52:41 AM Reply	What I found puzzling... ...in [link\|http://www.siliconstrategies.com/story/OEG20010810S0063\|the article] was this bit: Display refresh times were said to be measured in milliseconds, when they should have been measured in microseconds. Huh? Since when is a display refresh time in the milliseconds not fast enough to satisfy the human eye?!? (Or, what were they designing this in-car display for -- hawks and eagles?!?) Christian R. Conrad The Man Who Knows Fucking Everything
Post #5,670 by tablizer 8/17/01 4:32:03 PM Reply	2000 milliseconds ________________ oop.ismad.com
Post #5,713 by a6l6e6x 8/17/01 9:42:49 PM 8/17/01 9:43:49 PM Reply	Nah, that's 2 seconds. TV frame rate (in US) is 30/sec, i.e. 33.3 ms. Actually TV is done in two passes, 1/60 second for odd raster lines and 1/60 second for even raster lines. This is called interlacing. Motion picture frame rates are generally 24/sec, i.e. 41.7 ms. Computer monitors generally have greater frame rates, usually called vertical scan rates. Typical rates are 40-120 hz. Gamers like 100hz (i.e. 10 ms.) or better. In any case, the millisecond is a good unit to use. Alex Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel. -- Anne Frank Edited by a6l6e6x Aug. 17, 2001, 09:43:49 PM EDT Expand All History

Who do you believe: the engineers or the marketeers? - (tonytib) - (4) - Aug. 10, 2001, 06:29:20 PM EDT

Blame Firestone. Everybody else does -NT - (tablizer) - Aug. 10, 2001, 09:41:35 PM EDT

What I found puzzling... - (CRConrad) - (2) - Aug. 17, 2001, 11:52:41 AM EDT

2000 milliseconds -NT - (tablizer) - (1) - Aug. 17, 2001, 04:32:03 PM EDT

Nah, that's 2 seconds. - (a6l6e6x) - Aug. 17, 2001, 09:43:49 PM EDT

cf. Amway - same phenom; effective too.
197 ms