Glasses-less 3D TV for $20K

[pixelthis]

[QUOTE=GMichael;363429]Hi T,

I think I get what you are saying. Films are recorded at 30 frames per second, which is not the same thing as saying that a display has a refresh rate of 30 (or 60, 120, 240...)Hz.

My question is, how do these correlate to each other?

THEY are the same, and are interchangable. THE panel, or whatever, "refreeshes" when a new frame is painted.
THE frequency is the refresh rate.
Refresh rate is actually an obsolete term

Part 1) How does fps compare to Hz? Does 30 fps work out to 60, 120, 240 Hz, or is there no relationship?

THEY are the same, if a set is 60hz, then you see sixty frames
a sec. UNLESS you have one of the last interlaced sets on the planet, in which case you get 60 fields, each field being
interlaced with another to create one frame.
THIS IS where reading instead of experiencing mess you up.
IN AN INTERLACED SET, one "field" is displayed, and already fading when the second is interlaced with it. THIS IS why you
lose up to half your res whenever theres movement, the pic just falls apart, which is what I HAVE BEEN SAYING.
In a sixty hz progressive scan set you get a full 60 frames, either
the pic comes that way or two "fields from a 1080i pic are
deinterlaced .
A HUNDRED and twenty hz set produces a higher freq picture by
interpolating fake frames between real ones, on the fly.
THIS IS TO GIVE SMOOTHER MOTION, and works pretty well.
BUT when you do the same with 240hz, THE PIC COMES ACROSS looking like cheap video, we just don't have the tech
to create 75% of the picture on the fly, which makes 240hz a gimmick

Part 2) Does buying a TV with 240 or 480 Hz make a difference in motion blur if the 30fps is less than those?

BUYING a set with 240hz will eliminate "motion" blur, just like
nuking a city kills the lawyers. YOU WANT your beautiful film
to look like cheap computer video, go with 240hz, where 75% of the pic is interpolated(60hzx4= 240hz)

[QUOTE]

Part 3) Does the recording rate affect motion blur at all, or would it just make the film look more choppy if the rate was lower?

.
THE LOWER the frame rate the
"chopier" the video, but sometimes neither has anything to do with the other.
YOU WILL never get rid of "motion" blur, its mostly used by
plasma fanboys to slam LCD, but "motion" blur occurs even in
real life when your eyes can't catch up to motion sometimes.
ITS A FACT OF LIFE.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

[QUOTE=pixelthis;363444][QUOTE=GMichael;363429]Hi T,

I think I get what you are saying. Films are recorded at 30 frames per second, which is not the same thing as saying that a display has a refresh rate of 30 (or 60, 120, 240...)Hz.

My question is, how do these correlate to each other?

THEY are the same, and are interchangable. THE panel, or whatever, "refreeshes" when a new frame is painted.
THE frequency is the refresh rate.
Refresh rate is actually an obsolete term


THEY are the same, if a set is 60hz, then you see sixty frames
a sec. UNLESS you have one of the last interlaced sets on the planet, in which case you get 60 fields, each field being
interlaced with another to create one frame.
THIS IS where reading instead of experiencing mess you up.
IN AN INTERLACED SET, one "field" is displayed, and already fading when the second is interlaced with it. THIS IS why you
lose up to half your res whenever theres movement, the pic just falls apart, which is what I HAVE BEEN SAYING.
In a sixty hz progressive scan set you get a full 60 frames, either
the pic comes that way or two "fields from a 1080i pic are
deinterlaced .
A HUNDRED and twenty hz set produces a higher freq picture by
interpolating fake frames between real ones, on the fly.
THIS IS TO GIVE SMOOTHER MOTION, and works pretty well.
BUT when you do the same with 240hz, THE PIC COMES ACROSS looking like cheap video, we just don't have the tech
to create 75% of the picture on the fly, which makes 240hz a gimmick


BUYING a set with 240hz will eliminate "motion" blur, just like
nuking a city kills the lawyers. YOU WANT your beautiful film
to look like cheap computer video, go with 240hz, where 75% of the pic is interpolated(60hzx4= 240hz)


THE LOWER the frame rate the
"chopier" the video, but sometimes neither has anything to do with the other.
YOU WILL never get rid of "motion" blur, its mostly used by
plasma fanboys to slam LCD, but "motion" blur occurs even in
real life when your eyes can't catch up to motion sometimes.
ITS A FACT OF LIFE.

The amount of misinformation in this post is staggering. As I have said before, the only thing you know how to do better than anyone else, is to be wrong 100% of the time.

[GMichael]

Actually Gman, film uses 24fps, and video sources use 30fps.



There really is no relationship. Frame rates are produced by camera's, and refresh rates are used by display devices.



To be honest, 240hz and 480hz are just marketing on steroids. 120hz is really all you need in the end. Motion blur is caused by the pixels themselves, and no refresh rate will change that much. You can use video processing to mitigate motion blur and it can be quite effective if properly implemented.



Yes the frame rates do effect motion blur, which is why Peter Jackson is using 48fps for the Hobbit, and James Cameron is looking to shoot Avatar 2 at 60fps. 48fps will "perceptively" eliminate blurring, but 60fps eliminates it altogether.

Thanks T.

Can you 'spain to me the difference between film and video source? Is that analog vs digital?

[GMichael]

THEY are the same, if a set is 60hz, then you see sixty frames
a sec. UNLESS you have one of the last interlaced sets on the planet, in which case you get 60 fields, each field being
interlaced with another to create one frame.
THIS IS where reading instead of experiencing mess you up.
IN AN INTERLACED SET, one "field" is displayed, and already fading when the second is interlaced with it. THIS IS why you
lose up to half your res whenever theres movement, the pic just falls apart, which is what I HAVE BEEN SAYING.
In a sixty hz progressive scan set you get a full 60 frames, either
the pic comes that way or two "fields from a 1080i pic are
deinterlaced .
A HUNDRED and twenty hz set produces a higher freq picture by
interpolating fake frames between real ones, on the fly.
THIS IS TO GIVE SMOOTHER MOTION, and works pretty well.
BUT when you do the same with 240hz, THE PIC COMES ACROSS looking like cheap video, we just don't have the tech
to create 75% of the picture on the fly, which makes 240hz a gimmick


BUYING a set with 240hz will eliminate "motion" blur, just like
nuking a city kills the lawyers. YOU WANT your beautiful film
to look like cheap computer video, go with 240hz, where 75% of the pic is interpolated(60hzx4= 240hz)


THE LOWER the frame rate the
"chopier" the video, but sometimes neither has anything to do with the other.
YOU WILL never get rid of "motion" blur, its mostly used by
plasma fanboys to slam LCD, but "motion" blur occurs even in
real life when your eyes can't catch up to motion sometimes.
ITS A FACT OF LIFE.

Your post is sprinkled with a few correct facts but somehow manages to be completely wrong at the same time. You must work very hard at that to be so good at it.

[Vinylly]

Quit expensive for going without glasses. I think I'll still opt for the glasses at that price.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Thanks T.

Can you 'spain to me the difference between film and video source? Is that analog vs digital?

Easy..Film camera's use film, and video camera's use video tape. Film has very difference visual characteristic than video tape. Color saturation is more distinct and profound with film.

Today film camara's can be digital or film based. One shoots the source and it is recorded as a series of 0 and 1 and stored on a hard drive or server. The other stores the visual source on film that a lab develops into prints.

[pixelthis]

Thanks T.

Can you 'spain to me the difference between film and video source? Is that analog vs digital?

HE CAN'T "spain" what he doesnt understand.

[pixelthis]

Easy..Film camera's use film, and video camera's use video tape. Film has very difference visual characteristic than video tape. Color saturation is more distinct and profound with film.

Today film camara's can be digital or film based. One shoots the source and it is recorded as a series of 0 and 1 and stored on a hard drive or server. The other stores the visual source on film that a lab develops into prints.

GOD, what an ignoramus.
"FILM" cameras use just that ...film. This is some kind of emulsion, and is basically what EDISON invented.
Digital is VIDEO, there is NO such thing as "digital" film, all digital
is recorded on either a hard drive, tape, or some kind of memory.
THERE is NO such thing as "digital" film, there is however digital VIDEO.
and color saturation, etc, while good with film, is also good with video of decent quality. Sometimes you can't tell the difference between HD VIDEO and film, even experts are fooled
sometimes. NON EXPERTS like TALKY are fooled all of the time.

[pixelthis]

Now you guys starting to confuse me



I thought deinterlaced video (progressive) have 60 frame per second.

If you watch on a 60hz set, you are seeing 60fps. EVERY TIME A
picture "refreshes" it paints a new frame. SOMETIMES
frames are repeated to make 30fps 60 fps.
HERE IS THE MAGNITUDE OF Talkys dumbassry, if when a
picture "refreshes" then what is it refreshing the screen WITH
if not "fresh" frames?
a VIDEO image is composed of fields, two of which make up a "frame", which is "interlaced" if interlaced video(one field, than
another painted "between" the first).
If "deinterlaced" both fields are shown at once.
IF A natively progressive image is shown you see one frame after another, each one painted onscreen, and this is 30fps, OR
60fps.
BUT there are no 30fps displays on the planet, so enough
frames are shown to create a 60hz refresh rate.
IF THIS WERE not true then your 60hz panel would be showing
30HZ, or frames a second.
MODERN TV sets are basically computers, and like with computers have variable refresh rates. WHEN WE WERE
all lookin at analog video did youi ever notice just how good
computers looked compared to TV sets? THIS IS because
they run at 60 to 72hz refresh rate, while TV show'ed 30fps,
hence the lines crawling down computer monitors on TV shows,
they were running at 60hz, the tv was running at 30fps.
SINCE software was a bit more primitive, when you would display
analog video on a computer it would sometimes have to change the monitors refresh rate to 30hz(or fps) to match the video.
TODAY it just up converts to a progressive 60hz rate, usually on the fly.
BUT THE long and short is, if you are watching a 60hz set, you
are watching SIXTY FRAMES A SECOND, because when the set
REFRESHES it CREATES A NEW FRAME, that is
WHAT "REFRESH" means. doesn't matter if the video starts out 30fps, or whatever, you watch on a 60hz set, you are seeing
SIXTY FRAMES A SECOND, maybe some repeating, but theres
sixty of em, if there were thirty you would be watching a
30HZ SET. Would like to know where you can get one of those.
BTW on BLU discs the rate is 72hz, each frame is shown three
times (24x3) so it comes out to 24fps , or the film rate.
THIS ELIMINATES 3:2 PULLDOWN.
TALKY doesnt know what hes talkin bout, in other words,
needs to go back to GOOGLE.

[pixelthis]

When it comes to all things audio or video, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. First, there is no such thing as 60fps ANYWHERE in film or video. Film is based on 24fps, and video 30fps. Refresh rates refer to how many times the display draws the data on the screen. Frame rates refer to how fast the entire frame is shown on the screen. These two processes are quite different.

Now just to show you how stupid you are, this is from wikipedia:

This is distinct from the measure of frame rate in that the refresh rate includes the repeated drawing of identical frames, while frame rate measures how often a video source can feed an entire frame of new data to a display.

As you can see idiot, the two are quite different processes, and perhaps somebody needs to introduce you to google. This way we do not have to read your oversimplified, inaccurate responses and explanations of things you know nothing about.

every "frame" shown is "new" data, it might be a copy of
a pre-existing "frame" but its still new as far as the display
is concerned.
BASICALLY the "refresh" rate is the FRAME rate, which is what I WAS SAYING.
A "frame" might be a "repeat" of another to make refresh rates
match, but its STILL A FRAME.
REFRESH RATES and FRAME RATES are , for all pratical purposes...THE SAME.
A 60hz "refresh rate"... SIXTY FRAMES.
Some are copies? DOESNT MATTER, Talkys a copy of a human.

[pixelthis]

Your post is sprinkled with a few correct facts but somehow manages to be completely wrong at the same time. You must work very hard at that to be so good at it.

SO GEE, everything I HAVE READ, and was taught in school,
was "wrong" and you are "right".
Well, guess again, and tell me what you are watching between
"frames" when you watch 30hz video on a SIXTY HZ SET.
A 486 computer is 486mhz because it "flips" or runs at 486
million times a sec. A THREEG fone receives a three gig signal,
which flips at three billion times a sec.
AND YOUR 60HZ TV refreshes or creates a frame every sixtieth
of a second, doesnt matter real or fake, the "refresh" rate
is the same as the FRAME rate, otherwise what is your set "refreshing " itself with, a nice beverage?

[pixelthis]

Thanks T.

Can you 'spain to me the difference between film and video source? Is that analog vs digital?

ONE MORE THING, all film is analog, but not all video is digital.
Video used to be analog exclusively, and lagged a great deal
behind film. YOU COULD TELL THE DIFF between tv shot on film
and tv shot on video.
TODAY some HD is shot on tape, but mostly hard drives and
other media are used because they are instant access, and easier to work with.
FILM , on the other hand, has always been "HD".
Even today HD VIDEO HAS A HARD TIME KEEPING UP.

[GMichael]

Easy..Film camera's use film, and video camera's use video tape. Film has very difference visual characteristic than video tape. Color saturation is more distinct and profound with film.

Today film camara's can be digital or film based. One shoots the source and it is recorded as a series of 0 and 1 and stored on a hard drive or server. The other stores the visual source on film that a lab develops into prints.

OK, so film camera's are for pro use, while video is for commercial or personal use?

[GMichael]

SO GEE, everything I HAVE READ, and was taught in school,
was "wrong" and you are "right".
Well, guess again, and tell me what you are watching between
"frames" when you watch 30hz video on a SIXTY HZ SET.
A 486 computer is 486mhz because it "flips" or runs at 486
million times a sec. A THREEG fone receives a three gig signal,
which flips at three billion times a sec.
AND YOUR 60HZ TV refreshes or creates a frame every sixtieth
of a second, doesnt matter real or fake, the "refresh" rate
is the same as the FRAME rate, otherwise what is your set "refreshing " itself with, a nice beverage?

You see Pixy, the thing is this. You rant on and often quote correct facts. But those facts have nothing to do with the subject being talked about. Or, they seem to matter, but really are slightly off topic. Then other times you do go on about things you only think are correct. You'll seem all sure of yourself, but you'll be dead wrong, and never give in. (remember how you trashed Emo for example)

The difference between refresh rate and frame rate have been spelled out for you, but you once read something that makes you believe that you are more of an expert than someone who actually works with this stuff for a living. It's pretty simple to understand that frame rate has to do with how something was recorded while refresh rate has to do with how it is displayed. Granted, both are very similar, but not the same.

I'm not saying that everything you read or was taught was wrong. Only that you are applying the information incorrectly. You jump to conclusions instead of taking in all the information and analyzing it (like I was taught in Systems Analysis and Design in college) Then you refuse to listen to reason and stick to the conclusion you started with no matter what facts are submitted.

It's all OK though. It does lead to some pretty interesting threads. Rant on my friend.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

OK, so film camera's are for pro use, while video is for commercial or personal use?

No, you can use a film camera if you like, anyone can if you can afford them. The professionals are switching from film camera's to digital camera's these days. Cheaper to buy, easier to use, and you don't have to pay for film processing.

[GMichael]

No, you can use a film camera if you like, anyone can if you can afford them. The professionals are switching from film camera's to digital camera's these days. Cheaper to buy, easier to use, and you don't have to pay for film processing.

Just trying to understand the difference(s) between film camera's that use film, and video camera's that use video tape? If pros switch from film to video, will than mean that they will be using 24fps?

[pixelthis]

You see Pixy, the thing is this. You rant on and often quote correct facts. But those facts have nothing to do with the subject being talked about. Or, they seem to matter, but really are slightly off topic. Then other times you do go on about things you only think are correct. You'll seem all sure of yourself, but you'll be dead wrong, and never give in. (remember how you trashed Emo for example)

The difference between refresh rate and frame rate have been spelled out for you, but you once read something that makes you believe that you are more of an expert than someone who actually works with this stuff for a living. It's pretty simple to understand that frame rate has to do with how something was recorded while refresh rate has to do with how it is displayed. Granted, both are very similar, but not the same.

I'm not saying that everything you read or was taught was wrong. Only that you are applying the information incorrectly. You jump to conclusions instead of taking in all the information and analyzing it (like I was taught in Systems Analysis and Design in college) Then you refuse to listen to reason and stick to the conclusion you started with no matter what facts are submitted.

It's all OK though. It does lead to some pretty interesting threads. Rant on my friend.

"Jump" to conclusions? This is what I KNOW.
What is really funny is that almost none of this matters, for all practical purposes. And BTW, you might be taking in data and "analyzing" it, but I am not, I LEARNED this stuff decades ago.
Funny that the two jobs I trained on had something in common, mainly a lot of counter intuitive facts that drive people who think
the world should fit into their little preconceptions nuts.
Frame rates, display parameters, its all a little loopy, and you believe a guy who has stated that "film is analog and video is digital" when video can be either digital or analog, and used
to be wholly analog during the pre-digital age, and is still analog
on occasion.
Heres the punch line on the whole mess, mainly that the starting
frame rate of video can be anything, the monitor will change
it to match its REFRESH RATE, so it hardly matters.
THE "DISCUSSION" was weather or not the "refresh" rate was the same as the frame rate, and since the display paints a new
frame EVERY time it refreshes, the frame rate AND refresh rate
are ONE AND THE SAME. All I AM SAYING.
Does it matter that the King James was originally in GREEK?
Changes were made when it was translated to ENGLISH,
but the fact is that its now in ENGLISH.
A monitor might deinterlace, up convert, add or subtract frames,
that doesnt change what I AM SAYING, mainly that every
time it "refreshes" it paints a different frame, so the REFRESH
RATE is the SAME as the FRAME rate of what you are watching.
Which is a bit too much for some on this board to grasp, I GUESS. But they tell ya in class that for all PRACTICAL
purposes, frame rate is same as REFRESH rate.
DOESNT matter if the video started out with that frame rate or not,
if you watch a set with a 60hz refresh rate, you are watching
SIXTY FRAMES A SECOND.
This is like arguing that since cheese is no longer milk it is no longer a dairy product.
GOD.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Just trying to understand the difference(s) between film camera's that use film, and video camera's that use video tape? If pros switch from film to video, will than mean that they will be using 24fps?

Currently they are sticking with 24fps for digital video. It is the standard in Hollywood production and post production. As Jackson and Cameron up the ante on frame rates, we'll see how that affects consumer video formats.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

"Jump" to conclusions? This is what I KNOW.
What is really funny is that almost none of this matters, for all practical purposes. And BTW, you might be taking in data and "analyzing" it, but I am not, I LEARNED this stuff decades ago.
Funny that the two jobs I trained on had something in common, mainly a lot of counter intuitive facts that drive people who think
the world should fit into their little preconceptions nuts.
Frame rates, display parameters, its all a little loopy, and you believe a guy who has stated that "film is analog and video is digital" when video can be either digital or analog, and used
to be wholly analog during the pre-digital age, and is still analog
on occasion.
Heres the punch line on the whole mess, mainly that the starting
frame rate of video can be anything, the monitor will change
it to match its REFRESH RATE, so it hardly matters.
THE "DISCUSSION" was weather or not the "refresh" rate was the same as the frame rate, and since the display paints a new
frame EVERY time it refreshes, the frame rate AND refresh rate
are ONE AND THE SAME. All I AM SAYING.
Does it matter that the King James was originally in GREEK?
Changes were made when it was translated to ENGLISH,
but the fact is that its now in ENGLISH.
A monitor might deinterlace, up convert, add or subtract frames,
that doesnt change what I AM SAYING, mainly that every
time it "refreshes" it paints a different frame, so the REFRESH
RATE is the SAME as the FRAME rate of what you are watching.
Which is a bit too much for some on this board to grasp, I GUESS. But they tell ya in class that for all PRACTICAL
purposes, frame rate is same as REFRESH rate.
DOESNT matter if the video started out with that frame rate or not,
if you watch a set with a 60hz refresh rate, you are watching
SIXTY FRAMES A SECOND.
This is like arguing that since cheese is no longer milk it is no longer a dairy product.
GOD.

Wow, this dude is sure loopy Now it is clear you don't know a cow's utter from a dog's tit.

So the frame rate is established by the television set and not the film camera? This is like saying a baby establishes what the parents will look like.

[GMichael]

"Jump" to conclusions? This is what I KNOW.
What is really funny is that almost none of this matters, for all practical purposes. And BTW, you might be taking in data and "analyzing" it, but I am not, I LEARNED this stuff decades ago.
Funny that the two jobs I trained on had something in common, mainly a lot of counter intuitive facts that drive people who think
the world should fit into their little preconceptions nuts.
Frame rates, display parameters, its all a little loopy, and you believe a guy who has stated that "film is analog and video is digital" when video can be either digital or analog, and used
to be wholly analog during the pre-digital age, and is still analog
on occasion.
Heres the punch line on the whole mess, mainly that the starting
frame rate of video can be anything, the monitor will change
it to match its REFRESH RATE, so it hardly matters.
THE "DISCUSSION" was weather or not the "refresh" rate was the same as the frame rate, and since the display paints a new
frame EVERY time it refreshes, the frame rate AND refresh rate
are ONE AND THE SAME. All I AM SAYING.
Does it matter that the King James was originally in GREEK?
Changes were made when it was translated to ENGLISH,
but the fact is that its now in ENGLISH.
A monitor might deinterlace, up convert, add or subtract frames,
that doesnt change what I AM SAYING, mainly that every
time it "refreshes" it paints a different frame, so the REFRESH
RATE is the SAME as the FRAME rate of what you are watching.
Which is a bit too much for some on this board to grasp, I GUESS. But they tell ya in class that for all PRACTICAL
purposes, frame rate is same as REFRESH rate.
DOESNT matter if the video started out with that frame rate or not,
if you watch a set with a 60hz refresh rate, you are watching
SIXTY FRAMES A SECOND.
This is like arguing that since cheese is no longer milk it is no longer a dairy product.
GOD.

Your childish insults and ranting aside, you are still missing the trees for the forest. 30 fps and 30 Hts are the same thing mathematically, but (and that's a very big but) are not the same thing in the context of the conversation.
That's where your rants fall short of being correct. You ramble on and on and throw in the occasional correct fact, but you always seem to miss the point or bigger picture.
The biggest problem just may be that you think you know everything. Anyone who knows everything (or thinks they do) has no chance of ever learning anything new.

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Your childish insults and ranting aside, you are still missing the trees for the forest. 30 fps and 30 Hts are the same thing mathematically, but (and that's a very big but) are not the same thing in the context of the conversation.
That's where your rants fall short of being correct. You ramble on and on and throw in the occasional correct fact, but you always seem to miss the point or bigger picture.
The biggest problem just may be that you think you know everything. Anyone who knows everything (or thinks they do) has no chance of ever learning anything new.

I will provide another chance for him to go to school and learn something.

http://hometheater.about.com/od/tele...evsrefresh.htm

If he can read and understand what he reads, he will stop repeating his foolishness.

[E-Stat]

SO GEE, everything I HAVE READ, and was taught in school,
was "wrong"

No, you just never learned what the terms mean.

A 486 computer is 486mhz because it "flips" or runs at 486
million times a sec.

The Intel (80)486 is the fourth version of the 8086 based CPU following the 286 and 386. It's clock ran from 25 mhz to 100 mhz during its product life.

A THREEG fone receives a three gig signal,
which flips at three billion times a sec.

'3G" stands for "Third Generation" and has nothing at all to do with the transmission frequency.

AND YOUR 60HZ TV refreshes or creates a frame every sixtieth
of a second, doesnt matter real or fake, the "refresh" rate
is the same as the FRAME rate, otherwise what is your set "refreshing " itself with, a nice beverage?

As been noted before "frames per second" refers to film motion.

rw

[Woochifer]

The Intel (80)486 is the fourth version of the 8086 based CPU following the 286 and 386. It's clock ran from 25 mhz to 100 mhz during its product life.

'3G" stands for "Third Generation" and has nothing at all to do with the transmission frequency.

As been noted before "frames per second" refers to film motion.

rw

He must have a side bet with someone, because this trifecta of misinformation is quite a stretch even by his standards!

[GMichael]

He must have a side bet with someone, because this trifecta of misinformation is quite a stretch even by his standards!

I think that we are just being "Punked."

He's sitting back and laughing at us for believing that he's serious.

[pixelthis]

Wow, this dude is sure loopy Now it is clear you don't know a cow's utter from a dog's tit.

So the frame rate is established by the television set and not the film camera? This is like saying a baby establishes what the parents will look like.

SO WHEN YOU are watching a 30hz video on a 60hz set, what are
you "watching" between frames? THE SAME NOTHING that
is between your ears?
Like teaching physics to orangutan's. YOU SIT and watch a 60hz set, and don't understand that every 1 sixtieth of a sec a new frame is painted. Again, the REFRESH rate is the same as the frame
rate you are watching. THE frame rate of the original video
hardly matters, except in extreme circumstances, like trying
to run 30fps video at 240hz, which is like spreading paint too
thin, and overtaxing your microscopic brainpan.