Hacker News Reader

Comment by thedanbob | Hacker News Reader

I guess most people can’t see the flicker on a CRT set at 60Hz, but I can. It’s especially bad in a room with fluorescent lights. First thing I’d do upon sitting down at a new computer with a CRT monitor was to bump up the refresh rate to 75Hz so I didn’t get a headache.

Taking standardized tests in the early 2000s on locked down computers in fluorescent-lit test centers was torture.

View on HN

I found the flickering at 60HZ unbearable, but at 75HZ it was barely noticeable. My sweet spot wast at 80-85HZ. I tried until 90HZ, but you had to sacrifice resolution and past 90HZ, I didn't notice much difference.

I think for today's LCD/OLEDs 90-120hz should be the sweet spot, especially for gaming and motion. More than that is a waste of computing. (there are monitors that offer 144-200Hz refresh rates, but that is mostly a waste).

But the fundamental difference is that LCDs are static. Like, if you have a static image on screen, it does not refresh. A CRT is always refreshing at x Hz.

On LED backlit displays, it's the cheap PWM brightness controllers that can be noticeable. They're supposed to pulse hundreds of times a second to maintain the brightness setting, but as you go lower, it can be noticeable and tiring on the eyes.

On LCDs, refresh rates matter only in constantly changing pictures, like movies and games.

On a CRT, you're exposed to the constant refresh flicker even if you're editing a file or reading an article.

All in all, I'm happy with LCDs. Even in games, they're enough for me, I'm not that competitive.

An LCD with 20hz won’t give you a headache - an LCD pizel is always on (but only changes on refresh).

A crt pixel is on for only a very short time, while picture results from eye’s persistence of vision (which is also why in movies CRT screens flicker)

Any kind of Motion, scrolling, movies, games... etc... refresh rate matters.

Sure, cinema movies are 24fps, and they do manage, but you are usually not 2 feet away from the screen.

I’ve had a 240hz monitor for a while now and I wouldn’t say 144hz is a waste.

I do agree 100-120hz is the sweet spot, good balance of refresh rate and graphical quality.

I would not suggest a 240hz monitor if you are not playing competitive shooters a majority of the time.

I agree. By 'a waste', I didn't mean that it is not better, but I meant that it is a diminishing returns curve, and you will end up sacrificing a lot to achieve it (resolution and graphical quality, as computing is not free) and it doesn't feel that much better. Going from 60HZ to 120, or even 90HZ is very noticeable by everyone, even in normal 2D content. Past 120 it is like, eh, just a bit better.

Between 120HZ 4k, and 240HZ HD, I'd take the 120HZ 4k Between 120HZ 4k, and 90HZ 4k but with fully Ray Casting, I'd take the 90HZ (unless it is a competitive FPS)

etc...

BlurBusters argues even 1000Hz worth, interesting.

https://blurbusters.com/blur-busters-law-amazing-journey-to-...

most people absolutely can see the 60hz, the effect is simply subtle. if you look at a CRT from an angle it's more visible, or you can wave your hand in front of you and observe the strobe effect.

i definitely do not miss 60hz CRTs, they made me miserable.

I was so happy when I figured out how to switch to 60 Hz. Living in a PAL region I was stuck at 50 Hz. Later on PC I cranked up the Hz as high as it would go while still display something.

And yes, the flicker is easy to spot if you just sit in front of the screen and look just above it, prefferably in a dark room. Or wave your hand in front of it. With LED lightbulbs you can also use your phone camera, move it realy close to the lamp and if you see banding, it's not good.

Yeah, I used the highest refresh rate I could force, usually 75-80 Hz. Some monitors could handle 90, and it made a difference, but it was still worse than LCD PWM flicker.

60Hz wasn't really a default for long though? Most CRTs in Windows 9x era would do 75Hz or 85Hz if you didn't push them above their native resolutions.

I'm pretty sure Windows 9x defaulted to 60 Hz even when the monitor could handle more, and most people just kept the default. I recall walking past computer labs in high school, seeing row after row of blinking rectangles.

I’m fine with 60 but I’m in a PAL region so all of my 90s consoles run at 50Hz. That is seriously uncomfortable to look at now and I have no idea how we all put up with it.

May not have been bad in the earlier sets as they would have used phosphors that persisted longer to compensate, but later on, manufacturing costs were driven down and the same tubes/coatings from 60hz sets were being used in 50hz sets, making the flicker much more apparent.

I'm using a PVM so it's high end kit, however perhaps because it also supports 60Hz they are unable to use the longer-glowing phosphors?

Presumably the phosphors in the PAL CRTs glowed for longer?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com