Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by johnbro23, Jan 16, 2006.
And while I'm at it, how many FPS does TV have.
...and I know what you'll say...google is my friend.
A computer? 60fps, 75fps, 120fps, it's equal to the refresh rate
A American/Japanese TV is 60hz, but most content are 29fps or 23fps
Wow, thats impressive... up to 120 FPS
NTSC (US) TV has a frame rate of 30/second, I believe the PAL is 25.
As far as a computer goes, that depends on your refresh rate, usually 60, 75, or 85 on most setups.
Up to whatever framerate you want. (notice you can run games at 500fps, 1000fps if your computer can do it). But what you see on screen is limited to how good your monitor is. 150hz? 200hz?
Lord knows what kind of gpu it would take to get 1000fps on source.
A typical Apple Cinema flat-panel has a "typical response time" of 16 milliseconds, which works out to a "frame rate" of about 62.
The standard US NTSC refresh rate is 29.97 Hz, but it's interlaced, meaning that only every other line on the screen will be updated each cycle.
Not quite. The "refresh rate" is approximately 60 Hz (59.94 to be exact), but it's interlaced, so only every other line is updated on each frame. So, the framerate is 60 half frames per second, or 30 full frames per second.
This is correct. I was gonna post it, but ya' beat me to it. 60Hz, interlaced signal, 60 fields per second, 30 frames, in the US and, uh Japan uses NTSC right? Europse uses PAL which is 50 Hz/fields per second, 25 frames, if I recall.
The rest of the talk about DRT monitors refresh rate, LCD response times, etc is all on the spot. I'd be interested to see the math in the average response time to refresh rate, though. I'm not doubting you, just wanted to check it out.
THe question, "how many FPS does a computer have", is a flawed one at best though. It just not semantically a correct thing to ask.
Some places in Europe (France being the main one) use SECAM which is technically superior to both NTSC and PAL. Like most superior technologies, it never really caught on.
Some CRT TV manufacturers developed systems that would update the picture at twice the frequency (100Hz for PAL), effectively drawing the same frame twice. This had the benefit of shifting the flickering effect out of the visual range and producing a clearer, sharper picture. The top brands use a digital processor to make a composite frame between each broadcast frame, which is better for portraying fast movements.
The problem is that superior technologies = more expensive and people vote with their wallets. This is always the case when the cheaper model is nearly as good as the more expensive model. There isn't much incentive to buy the better one.