60hz or 75hz refresh rate?

[JavaMomma]

I can't really notice the difference. Is there less eye strain at 75hz? Is it harder on the screen?

I just got a new LCD yesterday.

 

[RayEarth]

If it gives you the option to run at 75hz, use it.

 

[Peter]

LCDs don't refresh. All pixels are being lit all the time. If you're on a DVI connection, then it'll run at its optimal rate anyway. And if you're on an analog VGA signal, then the lower frequency is easier to sync up to and resample, possibly getting you sharper edges on the finer detail, like text.

 

[MrPabulum]

Each LCD comes with a recommended refresh rate, which can often be 60hz. My Viewsonic VP171B provides both options on DVI, but the manual recommends 60hz.

 

[Bateluer]

Run it at 60Hz. At 75Hz, an LCD will actually cause more eye stress because it makes the images blurrier. Refresh rate on an LCD is a nonissue, LCDs don't cause any eyestrain at 60Hz like a CRT will do.

 

[TStep]

My NEC w/ vga adapter looks much better at 60 than 75. My Hitachi w/DVI adapter does not seem to care, looks great either way.

 

[Sylvanas]

75, there is a difference to the trained eye.

 

[Supa]

60hz on LCD.


---

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Peter
LCDs don't refresh. All pixels are being lit all the time. If you're on a DVI connection, then it'll run at its optimal rate anyway. And if you're on an analog VGA signal, then the lower frequency is easier to sync up to and resample, possibly getting you sharper edges on the finer detail, like text.

Yes they do, or the image would never changed. The entire image is refreshed at once unlike CRTs.

 

[Viper96720]

Originally posted by: Sylvanas
75, there is a difference to the trained eye.

Nope The response time of the lcd is more like the refresh rate of a crt. Determines how fast the pixels turn on and off. LCD's don't refresh like a crt. Point a vid camera at one notice no scanline like a crt.

 

[edmundoab]

yeah use the 75Hz option.

 

[kamranziadar]

75HZ

 

[Peter]

Yet again explained: Yes, LCDs do have the capability of CHANGING a pixel. Duh. Yet, if a pixel has already been set to its intended state, it need not be REFRESHED. On a CRT, you need the ray beam to come by every pixel as often as you can, to make the phosphor glow again. LCDs have a backlight surface that is on all the time, lighting all pixels all the time, and each pixel has its individual transistor triplet that also is active all the time.
And no, there is no difference "to the trained eye". This is because LCDs don't have a realtime connection between input signal and actual display unit. The LCD logic does the same thing at the same speed out of the LCD's internal frame buffer all the time, regardless of the input signal's properties. Only the signal resampling unit will have to work harder on the input signal into that buffer. See below.

Now, switch times. LCDs have a pixel switching latency of X milliseconds. That means that driving more than 1/X images per second into them makes no difference anymore. E.g. a 16 ms panel can change its pixels 60 times per second.

Finally, analog input signals. The LCD being digital, the VGA input needs to be resampled. The higher the signal frequency, the more washed out the signal edges are, the harder the resampling becomes, the blurrier the finer detail.

So. Anyone still think "75 Hz is better"?

 

[biostud]

75Hz unless it looks blurry, then 60Hz

 

[Peter]

You get absolutely NOTHING from 75 Hz, except for less sharp signal processing.