> >> I wonder why films can get away with 48 Hz, but CRTs are annoying at > >> 70 Hz? > > > > I think it has something to do with motion blur. A CCD takes very > > little exposure for a frame, while film, I think, has a longer > > exposure period. So you get more motion blur with film than with a > > CCD. Also, there may be something to the way the TV scans the image, > > while the film projector flashes it all at once. Note that I could be > > totally full of crap here, so you may want to look elsewhere. There > > are people who know the answer to this question. > > > A pro movie camera has a shutter speed adjustment. It is not totally > independent but rather a percent of twice the frame rate. So, at 24 fps > you might shoot action shots at ~1/200 of a second which would reduce > the blur considerably. This does have problems -- we have all seen the > wagon wheels turning backwards in westerns. :-) > > So, I think that it is the nature of a scanned CRT that is the issue. I > don't really see flicker at 60 fps, but it bothers me. 70fps is OK for > me but I understand that others see it flicker. This is odd since the > CRT screen has some persistence and a movie screen has none.
I have a 70 Hz CRT (I'm assuming progressive). I don't consciously see flicker, but I get eyestrain and headaches. 30 Hz interlaced TV is fine, films are fine. I've been looking forward to getting a 1920x1200 LCD and zero flicker, once they fix the dead pixel problem, and ghosting, and the prices come down some more. But if they fix ghosting by adding flicker... _______________________________________________ Open-graphics mailing list [email protected] http://lists.duskglow.com/mailman/listinfo/open-graphics List service provided by Duskglow Consulting, LLC (www.duskglow.com)
