> Frames have never been delivered "instantaneously" all at once to the > displays. Never has been before. For over 75 years, back to the first televisions, > we've always had finite speed delivery of images to the screen. Yes, it's > dissapointing.
Thanks Mark, yes I know that trasferring the picture information to the screen is actually a *process* that consumes time, those are very basic concepts. Now I see what you meant about the 6.9ms frame transition to monitor, you're talking about a bandwidth limitation. I understood you were suggesting the monitor was actually working at a fixed rate of 144 Hz, so unless an integer quotient of that frequency was used, say 36 or 72, you'd still be in a situation where some frames would be on screen twice as long as others. On the other hand, I see no reason why it couldn't work as you say, with truly arbitrary non-granular frame spacing. Indeed, LCD monitors don't need to be "refreshed" like CRT monitors, and I consider the fact that till today they've been designed with fixed refresh cycles is a technological paradox.
|