Hertz

[thedarkages]

I'm just about in the market for a new monitor, if it isn't X making everything crazy. My received wisdom about refresh rate is that 60 Hz is the lowest acceptable rate, and that over the long term it can be bad for the eyes. This dogma dates back to the CRT days, and I don't know how it translates into the world of LCD displays. What I've found in researching my purchase is that once you get above 1280x1024, no monitor manufacturer offers a refresh rate higher than 60 Hz. As a matter of fact, Samsung says that, across the board, the recommended refresh rate for all its monitors is 60 Hz. Is 60 Hz on an LCD screen still hazardous to eyesight over the long term? Are the monitor manufacturers colluding to set expectations low? Or is there a 1920x1200 monitor out there that is manufactured so that, under standard operating conditions, it can be run at 70 or 75 Hz?

Comments

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

In LCD displays, 60Hz is actually optimal.

[mcohenmn.livejournal.com]

To understand this more fully, see the Wiki on Refresh Rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refresh_rate):

In a CRT, the scan rate is controlled by the vertical sync signal generated by the video controller, ordering the monitor to position the electron gun at the upper left corner of the raster, ready to paint another frame. It is limited by the monitor's maximum horizontal scan rate and the resolution, since higher resolution means more scan lines. Increasing the refresh rate decreases flickering, reducing eye strain.

Much of the discussion of refresh rate does not apply to LCD monitors [because they have no electron gun]. A phosphor on a CRT will begin to dim as soon as the electron beam passes over it. LCD cells open to pass a continuous stream of light, and do not dim until instructed to produce a darker color.