What monitor refresh rate gives you a headache?

I used to have that problem when I had my Performa and iMac, but I moved to LCD the summer of last year and man am I happy little camper. No computer related headaches or eye strain ever since. CRT's have already ruined the vision in my right eye; not gonna give them a chance to ruin my left eye. I'm never going back to CRT.

/me hugs his 17" Apple Studio LCD Display

Usually I don't get headaches from any monitors so the refresh rate doesn't matter to me.

I run my 17" ASD at 1280 by 1024 and it refreshes at a solid 75Hz. I love high resolutions and would have it at 1600 by 1200, but five minutes of a 60Hz refresh makes my sinuses tingle.

I get a headache after looking at my CRT for more than about 45 minutes straight or so, but I just can't stand 1024 by 768 on a 17 inch monitor...a waste of screen space, running it at such a low resolution. I cringe when I go to friends' houses and see them running an iMac at 640 by 480. AHHHH!!!!

[quote]I cringe when I go to friends' houses and see them running an iMac at 640 by 480. AHHHH!!!!<hr></blockquote>

How could anyone actually do that??

People with poor eyesight do it all the time.

A fair number of the people I work with run their 17" monitors at 800x600, and they think I'm crazy for running mine at 1024x768! I'd run it higher if the video card in the Dell didn't suck.

I can't stand any CRT refresh rate below 75Hz, and I prefer to have it near or over 100Hz. That's why I got an LCD for my home computer.

[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>

I used to get headaches a lot sitting in front of CRTs at school, and then by spending hours in front of one while working as a coder. Most of the time, they had reasonable refresh rates too.

When I got my first iMac in 1998, I wanted to run it at 1024x768, but couldn't handle the 75Hz refresh rate. It would give me migraines.

I honestly wouldn't buy a new computer without an LCD now.

[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:
<strong>How could anyone actually do that??</strong><hr></blockquote>Actually, I just got back from visiting family and my grandfather's iMac was at 640x480.

I can't handle lower than 75 Hz for more than just a few minutes. My head hertz just thinking about it.

[ 11-22-2001: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>

Actually, the experts say that 72 is the cutoff but thats not really accurate. Even at 75, if you look out of the corner of your eye, there is flicker, especially with bright colors. That's because the periphery of your eyes is responsible for perceiving color, and motion changes, the macula (center) gives you detail. Thus, when you stare right at the center of the screen at about 72-75 hertz you probably don't notice any flicker, but the periphery of retina senses it, those neurons get fatigued b/c of your unusually still glare, and presto, you get a headache!

85 is better, and the more you use computers, the more sensitive you may become. People that stare at screens for 8-10 hours everyday, will notice flicker where the rest of us don't.

Solutions. LCD's!!! Turning pixels off is much better than flashing them all the time. Or if you're using a CRT, look around, take your eyes off the screen, and shift your focus around the screen. Have you ever noticed that TV, even at 60hz, doesn't really have the same effect, unless you're playing videogames? Why? Because the action is usually moving your focus around the screen, and the sensitive neurons on the outer retina don't get fatigued.

I found out that it depends a lot of a number of factors, not only the quality of the monitor, but also the quality of the video card! 72 Hz in one set up might be unbearable while it could be passable in a computer with a good video card.

That being said, anything above 72 Hz is fine with me.

I'm not what you'd call headache-prone, but anything under 72 Hz is very irritating to mah eyes. Stepping down refresh rates is also irritating for a while. My monitor is set to 85 Hz right now... as high as it goes.

The iMac at 640x480 has a great refresh rate (117 Hz).

1024 by 768! On a 17 inch monitor! What a waste! 1280 x 1024 or above!

One of the best way to get free monitor space is increasing the resolution. I kind of want to get a new monitor so I can pump the res higher...1280 by 1024 is too big.

Damn... you guys are right, just going from 1280 x 1024 at 75hertz to 1056 x 792 at 96 Hertz makes my eyes feel so much better. I guess im running at 1056 x 792 from now on. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

[quote]Originally posted by Joe Cool:
<strong>Damn... you guys are right, just going from 1280 x 1024 at 75hertz to 1056 x 792 at 96 Hertz makes my eyes feel so much better. I guess im running at 1056 x 792 from now on. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

Are all you folks using a Radeon in your machines? I am stuck with my factory-issue Rage 128 Pro. If so, this sounds like a good reason to buy a Radeon...

Depends on the monitor. A good apple monitor is fine down to 70htz, on my PCs NEC Multisync under 100 kills me.

Something more than 80 hz is perfectly fine for me. 75 hz is the minimal, 60 hz give me Headhakes.
LCD i screen are fine but the anle of vision of my powerbook G3 300 first version is far too limited, no headakes with it but pain in my neck by trying to have the best angle of vision

60 Hz makes my eyes pop out. 72 Hz and greater doesn't really bother me. Unless I use my peripheral vision, I won't seen scan lines. I run my monitor at 1280x1024 @ 85 Hz anyway, just to make sure my eyes won't strain. LCDs refresh at 60 Hz, but they don't have scan lines.

Working with the lights off in front of a big bright monitor would induce migraine headaches for me, but I haven't had one in a long time. A telltale sign that I'm going to get a migraine attack is if I start seeing stars (streaking stars...think of a meteor shower...) I get migraines from overexercise and dehydration as well.

i already lost my eyesite due to stupid computer monitors, so when i got a good line on some 21" and above sonys i lept at the chance. now i don't use anything under 85Hz. lol, it's a little overkill to have three of them on one machine, but oh so much fun.

No one has answered my question... I am using a stock g4-500 with the Rage Pro, and do not seem to have all these options. What graphics cards are you all using in order to get these refresh rates?

Mandricard
AppleOutsider

I got 1152x870 at 85Hz (from memory) using a PCI Rage 128 attached to a 17" Radius M1.

A RADEON could probably do much better.

[quote]Originally posted by Mandricard:
<strong>No one has answered my question... I am using a stock g4-500 with the Rage Pro, and do not seem to have all these options. What graphics cards are you all using in order to get these refresh rates?

Mandricard
AppleOutsider</strong><hr></blockquote>
i use a proformance 3 plus video card with my sony F500 : the refresh rate is 100 hz at 1152 per 870 and is 80 hz maximum at higher resolution.
on my G4 533 the maximum refresh rate avalaible with my screen (an blue line apple 17 inch CRT ) is 85 hz.

Any!

My eyes are aching to return to the comfort of an LCD. This Apple 15" is not much fun... too bad there is no emoticon for bleeding eyes

Anything less than 85 Hz and I notice the flicker... I tolerate an iMac maxed out at 75 Hz only because I have too. I prefer running my Sony G400 at 100 or 120 Hz!

The flat panel in my Ti is beautiful, except at 16bit color where I notice the dithering...

Your question Mandricard is related to one that I have had for a long time.

As I understand it, the display is capable of some frequency at some resolution. It cannot refresh any faster, though you can set it to refresh slower (who would want to though?). The video card also has certain refresh rates at given resolutions. The max you can run your monitor at a given resolution is the lower of the refresh frequencies of the monitor and video card.

Is this correct?

In my experience, the monitor has been the determiner of the best refresh rate, as the graphics card (Rage Pro and Radeon for me) can handle resolutions/scan rates far above what the monitor can.

The ATi Radeon supports 200 Hz refreshes up to 1024 x 768, 150 Hz at 1152x864, 130 Hz at 1280x1024, 90 Hz at 1600x1200, and 75 Hz at 1920x1440 and 2048x1536.

My monitor (17" ADC Apple Studio Display (the CRT)) supports 154 Hz at 640 x 480, 120 Hz at 832 x 624, 99 Hz at 1024 x 768, 96 Hz at 1056 x 792, 75 Hz at 1280 x 1024, and 64 Hz at 1600 x 1200.

As you can see, the graphics card provides refresh rates far above what the monitor supports, and I am limited to the monitor's refresh rate. Because of this, I think that unless you have a really crappy graphics card (pre Rage Pro), you would benefit most from a better monitor rather than a better graphics card.

When I upgraded to the Radeon from the Rage Pro, the resolutions and refresh rates of my monitor did not change at all.

If I'm wrong with any of this, let me know. I'm just going from what I've seen from my hardware. I don't know if it's indicative of graphics/monitor hardware in general.

-Ender

I'd also like to say that the Apple's CRT monitors (remember when Apple made CRT monitors? ) are very high quality. Well worth the extra cost IMHO.

I used to have a cheapo 17" monitor next to my high quality ADC 17" CRT. If I ran the two monitors at the same refresh rate (generally 75 Hz, I think it was the max the cheapo would go) I would see the horizontal scan lines move from top to bottom on the cheap 17" monitor, while the Apple monitor was unaffected.

I recently gave the bad monitor away and picked up an Apple 17" CRT before they switched to ADC (the 17" that was offered with the first G4 systems). Because the PCI Rage Pro only has VGA, I couldn't use the ADC connector. Well, the VGA Apple monitor can be run at the same frequency as the ADC Apple monitor without any interference, and it has excellent image quality. Far above the image quality of my old monitor.

I love Apple's old CRTs and will continue to use them until I can justify the cost of their top-end LCD... whatever size it is when I finally get enough cash.

Back in January, my decision was either get a 22" LCD, or get a top-end PowerBook G4 to compliment my desktop G4 (DP 500)... my decision was fairly easy, considering I was going to Hawaii and New York City in the near future.

Hope this helps somewhat.
-Ender

I use 1920x1440 at 75Hz every day and I'm usually fine. Though, I'm having a hard time seeing things today.

It's a 22" Diamondtron. Sweet monitor.

But, yeah, any computer I buy has to have an LCD.

I can't see the thread!!!! :eek:

85 hz @ 1024 x 768 on a 19" crt

tiny icons are no fun!

My NT box run at 1600 x 1200 on a 19" CRT. 85 Hz refresh. It's OK, not as easy as my iBook naturally. While less than 75 Hz hurts (heh), far worse is the late afternoon glare I get on that screen (can't get out of the way).

Someone mentioned the cables used to connect one's display and video card...

I've found that cable quality matters only at high refresh rates and/or at high resolutions. With lesser cables I've observed ghosting and other artifacts, whereas with my Sony's built-in cable I get a crystal clear image even at 120Hz.

Anything plain works fine, except with the crappiest of cables; I'm talking 1024x768@85Hz

I will never buy a CRT with a desktop ever again. Maybe.

[quote]Originally posted by MacAgent:
<strong>I will never buy a CRT with a desktop ever again. Maybe. </strong><hr></blockquote>

I won't either.