logoalt Hacker News

inigyouyesterday at 12:46 PM2 repliesview on HN

Now that you mention it, 60Hz was considered poor on a CRT. 85 was the target.

But that was because of flicker. AFAIK, 60Hz video frame rate was considered acceptable, but on a CRT the video frame rate was also the flicker rate and 60Hz was too low for flicker.


Replies

AnotherGoodNameyesterday at 5:03 PM

A slow motion capture of CRT show's the issue https://www.reddit.com/r/crtgaming/comments/7w0v02/video_by_...

Almost laser pointer brightness at one point on the screen which you don't consciously see because the your eyes and the hold the image for a few milliseconds but do you really want to be looking at a extremely bright point of light all day. Higher refresh rates on CRTs lowered eye strain since that point could be effectively lower brightness, just refreshing twice as fast.

I honestly don't get eye strain on LCDs nearly as bad under any circumstance. 60hz LCD was a massive improvement over the 120hz CRTs.

mrobyesterday at 5:24 PM

CRT flicker is equally visible when frame rate is the same as refresh rate as when it differs. 60Hz CRTs were never good. 60Hz was only considered "acceptable" because people didn't know any better at the time. At least you didn't suffer with 50Hz CRTs using the same fast phosphors like the PAL regions did.