Had this reflection that 144hz screens where the only type of screen I knew, that was not a multiple of 60. 60 Hz - 120hz - 240hz - 360hz
And in the middle 144hz Is there a reason why all follow this 60 rule, and if so, why is 144hz here
Had this reflection that 144hz screens where the only type of screen I knew, that was not a multiple of 60. 60 Hz - 120hz - 240hz - 360hz
And in the middle 144hz Is there a reason why all follow this 60 rule, and if so, why is 144hz here
60Hz was the original clock rate, determined by US power cycles way back in the day. This was 50Hz in some countries.
With LCD screens, the potential for higher frame rates became easier to achieve. They began to advertise 120Hz TVs and monitors, which set a new bar for frame rates. Some advertise 75Hz monitors, slightly better than 60Hz when crunching numbers. 75Hz is achieved by overclocking standard 60Hz control boards, most can achieve this refresh rate if they allow it. Later HDMI standards, DisplayPort and DVI-D support this frame rate at least up to 2K.
144Hz is the same trick as 75Hz, this time with a 120Hz control board. The true standard frame rate is 120Hz, it is clocked higher to achieve 144Hz. Why 144 exactly? This was most likely due to the lack of standards that originally supported higher frame rates. Dual-link DVI-D was the only one which could push 144Hz at 1080p. Any higher frame rate (or resolution) and the signal would exceed bandwidth. Now 144Hz is simply a new standard number and plenty of 1440p monitors are set to this frame rate.
Clear explanation! I assume the overclocking is the reason why my monitor goes to 165Hz.
Just to point out. I had 120hz on a CRT monitor back in the late 90s/early 2000s. The resolution was terrible though (either 640x480 or 800x600). At good resolutions (1024x768 or 1280x960) you were generally stuck with 75 to 90 at best.
60hz LCD screens were one of the reasons there was resistance among game players to move to LCD. Not to mention earlier units took a VGA input and as such the picture quality was usually bad compared to CRT and added latency. People buying LCDs did it for the aesthetics when they first became available. Where I worked, for example only the reception had an LCD screen.
Also, on a more pedantic point. 50hz is the power line frequency in the majority of the world.
On your pedantic point, I can’t argue. However, I can say 60Hz power cycles are what set in stone the 60Hz standard. This is in spite of the fact that a lot of countries didn’t even have 60Hz screens until screen controller clock rates were decoupled from power line frequencies.
That proves that the USA is 10 better than the rest of the world.
(Except American Samoa, Anguilla, Antigua, Aruba, Bahamas, Belize, Bermuda, Brazil, Canada, Cayman Islands, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guam, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, South Korea, Mexico, Micronesia, Montserrat Islands, Nicaragua, Okinawa, Palmyra Atoll, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Puerto Rico, St. Kitts & Nevis Islands, Saudi Arabia, Suriname, Tahiti, Taiwan, Trinidad & Tobago, Venezuela, Virgin Islands, and western Japan)
Well, we had 100 more lines on TV so. We were 100 better!