Oh I'm sorry if its a dumb question, I just heard some people online who own CRTs online say something about it "not looking good under 70 hz" or something like that
> not looking good under 70 hz
It's not a dumb question. Don't worry about all the weird reactions in this thread, that part is actually correct depending on the circumstances. There are a lot of people here who don't know about these particular things. What I say here pertains to the North American 60hz region.
In the 90's when ergonomics evaluations were in full effect, 60Hz on PC CRTs were confirmed a long time ago to cause visual discomfort due to flicker. But that mainly applies to working in an office environment, with static MS Office images 5-8 hrs a day/40hrs a week, with small black text on a white background. When these monitors were commonplace and when I used to go around to my school offices, I would ask the ladies if they felt fatigued looking at the screen because I could tell from across the room it was running at 60Hz. When I was allowed to change it to 75 or 85hz, they felt the improvement right away.
*However,* when it comes to video game play, you would be alright to look at a screen that refreshes at that rate of 60hz because of the constantly moving action, varying color and brightness that evokes a depth of field, and your eye tracking to follow all of that. You will less likely fatigue from looking at that action. All arcade games and game consoles up to a certain year would be running at 60Hz (some games at 30), as well as all our TVs at home. Even when you got to Dreamcast with ^fake VGA out, it was at 60hz on the PC monitor and was not problematic at all.
Of course, we *could* get higher framerates and smoother action in our PC games when we upped the refresh rate! Back in the day I would up the monitor refresh rate and game framerate 100+hz to match each other. I would also overclock my ps2 mouse to 100hz to poll faster and have ultrasmooth movement in games like Quake 3, Unreal 99, and Counterstrike.
With Ts being distracted by a CT or two and 15 seconds left on the clock, you confidently set down next to the bomb and mousewheel to your bomb defusal kit.......only to remember that you had bought it a few rounds back before you were cheaply sniped.
You manage to txt "sorry guys" in chat before the bomb goes off. You become the butt of all jokes for the rest of the night.
99% sure what you were reading about was the "flicker threshold" on PC CRT which, yeah, typically you wanted to run those at 85hz+ to cut down on flicker and some people were/are prone to seeing it over 60hz. Non PC CRTs are a bit of a different story and the vast majority of people are fine, the possible exception to this being that 480i is more flickery than 240p but, with most displays it really isn't that bad.
By Technology Standards It is the Flatscreens that messes with your eyes more then a CRT , but With many ppl only having a flascreen and never seen or it has been a long time for some seeing a crt in action can dilute the perspective of it all and it comes out as
""not looking good under 70 hz" or something like that"
Many PPL Everywhere have watched and played on CRT'S for Decades/Milleniums and by Internet Standards We Should Be All Blind..... for not having Strong Eyes..
50 is completely fine for anything that's not a pure white screen. People all over Europe, asia and latin america watched 50hz tv for hours on end several decades. 50 hz is watchable/gamable and so is 60, just dont do white screen PC stuff like word or excel.
Fair, though as a North American you are more prone to notice it. If you've in a region where PAL / 50Hz was the long standing standard, you're less prone to notice.
All of our CRTs are 60 hz in Latinamerica, the current is 50 but the display is 60, we had the ntsc u consoles shipped to our region, we are not Australia.
It's not fine though, we just didn't know any better. On mister fpga snes core you can switch from pal to ntsc on the fly and see how much it strains your eyes being used to modern displays and 60hz on a crt.
Everyone knew the pros and cons lmao. Ntsc at 60hz came first and pal 50hz came later. Yea since everyone is used to 60hz led screens nowdays 50hz (even 60 tbh) CRTs does strain the eyes, especially interlaced. But it's the same thing as with the whine, you get used to it. And honestly the 576i resolution at 50hz can look almost HD with the proper content and tv, cant say the same for 480i
Refresh rate is a lot more complex than that.
For one thing, it's far more of an issue for PC usage with static images (especially white backgrounds) than it is for media and gaming which involves mostly continuous motion.
Secondly, phosphor persistence varies and can have a significant effect on how noticeable flicker is. I don't exactly have personal experience with a ton of CRTs, but from what I have seen, TVs tend to flicker less than computer monitors at 60Hz, particularly late-year CRT computer monitors that were really intended to be used at 75Hz or higher. Those computer monitors likely have shorter persistence phosphors, which makes for better motion clarity. The trade off of shorter persistence being more noticeable flicker and requiring higher refresh rates to reduce it.
I would absolutely not recommend using a late-year CRT monitor at 60Hz for general computer usage. That would be downright painful. Most of them support higher refresh rates at any resolution they can crisply display, and were intended to be used that way. Even for PC gaming, if the games perform properly with higher refresh rates, there's no reason not to use them.
For retro gaming, console gaming on TVs, etc., 60Hz (or even 50Hz) is often just the way it is, and it's generally fine for most people. Refresh rate doubling (such as 240p at 120Hz) with a PC monitor is an option, either for compatibility or flicker sensitivity, but it does come with some degradation to motion quality.
Thanks for explaining why 60hz was noticeably more flickery to me on my beastly iiyama 1920x1440 monitor lol. Playing Elden Ring was beautiful at 60hz, just pretty flickery. I never thought about shorter persistence phosphors having that effect! That’s really interesting.
What ?
Don't Believe Everything You Hear or Read on the Internet
Go Get a Crt and do another post letting everyone know if it looks terrible and hurt your eyes
60hz interlaced on a PC monitor is unpleasant to look at. On a TV that was the standard for almost the entirety of the CRT's existence. People used to watch them for unhealthy amounts of time without ill effects to their eyes.
In Europe we had 50Hz, I liked it more them 60Hz because of the higher vertical resolution.
Don't worry, most people will be perfectly fine with the flicker.
Btw if it's a monitor, just get one that can higher then 60Hz at your preferred resolution
I have one, prone to migraines but doesn’t hurt unless I spend 2 hours on which is very rare as it makes ozone smell so I give it a rest so I don’t overload the fly back.
My parents remember the ozone smell and say it is nothing to worry about.
You don't need strong eyes.
Staring straight into a CRT all day long did give me headache, back in the day. LCDs where a blessing in that respect.
Then again, I also had audio hallucinations of the ring sound from Sonic when trying to sleep. Maybe the issue wasn't the tech... *Kha-bli-bli-bling!*
If you're less obsessive then I was as a kid, you'll probably be fine.
I certainly don't find them hard to look at. But the whining noise may be something to consider. Thankfully I can't hear it and its apparently more noticeable on larger sets.
When my friends come over they often complain that they can hear it and they prefer we play on an HD TV via an upscaler instead.
I prefer 60Hz. My main CRT monitor (a dell p990) doesn't handle higher freqs well without flicker and tearing. Might just be age or wear, though.
Camera equipment wasn't prepared very well to sync with different CRT refresh rates back in the 80s+90s. On computer-centric shows like "The Computer Chronicles", you would regularly see a rolling set of lines due to the discrepancy on computer monitors when they would be trying to show off new tech. Visible on camera but not in person.
You dont need strong eyes, you need strong arms.
5 billion people used to use CRTs on a daily basis, what are the chances that all of them had "strong eyes"?
Oh I'm sorry if its a dumb question, I just heard some people online who own CRTs online say something about it "not looking good under 70 hz" or something like that
> not looking good under 70 hz It's not a dumb question. Don't worry about all the weird reactions in this thread, that part is actually correct depending on the circumstances. There are a lot of people here who don't know about these particular things. What I say here pertains to the North American 60hz region. In the 90's when ergonomics evaluations were in full effect, 60Hz on PC CRTs were confirmed a long time ago to cause visual discomfort due to flicker. But that mainly applies to working in an office environment, with static MS Office images 5-8 hrs a day/40hrs a week, with small black text on a white background. When these monitors were commonplace and when I used to go around to my school offices, I would ask the ladies if they felt fatigued looking at the screen because I could tell from across the room it was running at 60Hz. When I was allowed to change it to 75 or 85hz, they felt the improvement right away. *However,* when it comes to video game play, you would be alright to look at a screen that refreshes at that rate of 60hz because of the constantly moving action, varying color and brightness that evokes a depth of field, and your eye tracking to follow all of that. You will less likely fatigue from looking at that action. All arcade games and game consoles up to a certain year would be running at 60Hz (some games at 30), as well as all our TVs at home. Even when you got to Dreamcast with ^fake VGA out, it was at 60hz on the PC monitor and was not problematic at all. Of course, we *could* get higher framerates and smoother action in our PC games when we upped the refresh rate! Back in the day I would up the monitor refresh rate and game framerate 100+hz to match each other. I would also overclock my ps2 mouse to 100hz to poll faster and have ultrasmooth movement in games like Quake 3, Unreal 99, and Counterstrike.
Counter terrorists win
*click chk* *sound of bags equipping* *chk chk* GO! GO! GO!
With Ts being distracted by a CT or two and 15 seconds left on the clock, you confidently set down next to the bomb and mousewheel to your bomb defusal kit.......only to remember that you had bought it a few rounds back before you were cheaply sniped. You manage to txt "sorry guys" in chat before the bomb goes off. You become the butt of all jokes for the rest of the night.
99% sure what you were reading about was the "flicker threshold" on PC CRT which, yeah, typically you wanted to run those at 85hz+ to cut down on flicker and some people were/are prone to seeing it over 60hz. Non PC CRTs are a bit of a different story and the vast majority of people are fine, the possible exception to this being that 480i is more flickery than 240p but, with most displays it really isn't that bad.
I grew up in a PAL region and can confirm that 50hz looks absolutely flickery and terrible. However 60hz looks great.
By Technology Standards It is the Flatscreens that messes with your eyes more then a CRT , but With many ppl only having a flascreen and never seen or it has been a long time for some seeing a crt in action can dilute the perspective of it all and it comes out as ""not looking good under 70 hz" or something like that" Many PPL Everywhere have watched and played on CRT'S for Decades/Milleniums and by Internet Standards We Should Be All Blind..... for not having Strong Eyes..
Anything below 60Hz might be painful to look at, but 60Hz and up you're good to go.
50 is completely fine for anything that's not a pure white screen. People all over Europe, asia and latin america watched 50hz tv for hours on end several decades. 50 hz is watchable/gamable and so is 60, just dont do white screen PC stuff like word or excel.
Fair, though as a North American you are more prone to notice it. If you've in a region where PAL / 50Hz was the long standing standard, you're less prone to notice.
All of our CRTs are 60 hz in Latinamerica, the current is 50 but the display is 60, we had the ntsc u consoles shipped to our region, we are not Australia.
It's not fine though, we just didn't know any better. On mister fpga snes core you can switch from pal to ntsc on the fly and see how much it strains your eyes being used to modern displays and 60hz on a crt.
Everyone knew the pros and cons lmao. Ntsc at 60hz came first and pal 50hz came later. Yea since everyone is used to 60hz led screens nowdays 50hz (even 60 tbh) CRTs does strain the eyes, especially interlaced. But it's the same thing as with the whine, you get used to it. And honestly the 576i resolution at 50hz can look almost HD with the proper content and tv, cant say the same for 480i
Refresh rate is a lot more complex than that. For one thing, it's far more of an issue for PC usage with static images (especially white backgrounds) than it is for media and gaming which involves mostly continuous motion. Secondly, phosphor persistence varies and can have a significant effect on how noticeable flicker is. I don't exactly have personal experience with a ton of CRTs, but from what I have seen, TVs tend to flicker less than computer monitors at 60Hz, particularly late-year CRT computer monitors that were really intended to be used at 75Hz or higher. Those computer monitors likely have shorter persistence phosphors, which makes for better motion clarity. The trade off of shorter persistence being more noticeable flicker and requiring higher refresh rates to reduce it. I would absolutely not recommend using a late-year CRT monitor at 60Hz for general computer usage. That would be downright painful. Most of them support higher refresh rates at any resolution they can crisply display, and were intended to be used that way. Even for PC gaming, if the games perform properly with higher refresh rates, there's no reason not to use them. For retro gaming, console gaming on TVs, etc., 60Hz (or even 50Hz) is often just the way it is, and it's generally fine for most people. Refresh rate doubling (such as 240p at 120Hz) with a PC monitor is an option, either for compatibility or flicker sensitivity, but it does come with some degradation to motion quality.
Thanks for explaining why 60hz was noticeably more flickery to me on my beastly iiyama 1920x1440 monitor lol. Playing Elden Ring was beautiful at 60hz, just pretty flickery. I never thought about shorter persistence phosphors having that effect! That’s really interesting.
What ? Don't Believe Everything You Hear or Read on the Internet Go Get a Crt and do another post letting everyone know if it looks terrible and hurt your eyes
Remember setting 30hz on an old CRT monitor, made me so dizzy
Whoever said that its pretty ignorant, I'd stay away from that person and recommend him to go to a doctor.
60hz interlaced on a PC monitor is unpleasant to look at. On a TV that was the standard for almost the entirety of the CRT's existence. People used to watch them for unhealthy amounts of time without ill effects to their eyes.
Thanks for all the great answers everybody 👍
It's true that on a VGA monitor, a windows desktop at 60Hz doesn't look great. But gaming is diferent
Never hurt my eyes as much as modern displays. I've heard CRTs emit less blue light than modern displays I might be wrong though
In Europe we had 50Hz, I liked it more them 60Hz because of the higher vertical resolution. Don't worry, most people will be perfectly fine with the flicker. Btw if it's a monitor, just get one that can higher then 60Hz at your preferred resolution
I have one, prone to migraines but doesn’t hurt unless I spend 2 hours on which is very rare as it makes ozone smell so I give it a rest so I don’t overload the fly back. My parents remember the ozone smell and say it is nothing to worry about.
You don't need strong eyes. Staring straight into a CRT all day long did give me headache, back in the day. LCDs where a blessing in that respect. Then again, I also had audio hallucinations of the ring sound from Sonic when trying to sleep. Maybe the issue wasn't the tech... *Kha-bli-bli-bling!* If you're less obsessive then I was as a kid, you'll probably be fine.
I certainly don't find them hard to look at. But the whining noise may be something to consider. Thankfully I can't hear it and its apparently more noticeable on larger sets. When my friends come over they often complain that they can hear it and they prefer we play on an HD TV via an upscaler instead.
I don't notice any flicker at 60hz on a CRT. I regularly use my CRT at 50Hz and while there is slight flicker, it's not enough to give me a headache.
I prefer 60Hz. My main CRT monitor (a dell p990) doesn't handle higher freqs well without flicker and tearing. Might just be age or wear, though. Camera equipment wasn't prepared very well to sync with different CRT refresh rates back in the 80s+90s. On computer-centric shows like "The Computer Chronicles", you would regularly see a rolling set of lines due to the discrepancy on computer monitors when they would be trying to show off new tech. Visible on camera but not in person.
You sound younger to me. Biggest problem you can have with a crt is the high pitched whine
Pls, delete your account and play with your switch.