I just don't remember anyone I've known using the same scan rate displays and computers as myself back in the day complaining about flicker or headaches caused by their displays. Were we too young? Don't know.

1/3 of calls could be a pretty low number or percentage of incidents. I don't know how many Nokia monitors were sold nor how many calls you received. But you must have seen offices of hundreds, if not a thousand or more displays all running at 60Hz, no? Besides, 1/3 of calls still puts the number in the minority. Which only helps substantiate my claim of "for most people" - 66% is well into the "most" camp.

Brighter display = longer persistence of image = less perceived flicker. At least that's what I've always learned. Other strains are caused by looking at a dim display. Try it yourself. I can adjust display brightness at my fingertips, and a dim display gives me eye strain very quickly. This has nothing to do with flicker of course, which is what I was saying initially.

I was under the impression that it was fluorescent lighting that caused the really bad flicker in 60hz CRTs. It was explained to me as the 120hz flicker from the fluorescent lights interfered with the 60hz CRT and cause the flicker to be much more noticeable. This gets really bad if the lighting is old and drops to the main circuit's frequency (60hz). It wasn't as bad in areas that have incandescent lighting instead.

This I can believe. No one I knew was using their computers in an office environment "back in the day." And by the time I was using colour CRTs in an office, we were on fast electronic ballasts. Now if you can see fluorescent flicker on a properly working and well built electronic ballast, you're super-human.

Thats what I remember as well. I tended to notice monitors at work at 60Hz giving me problems much more then a 60Hz CRT at home. That includes a 27 inch CRT monitor that I used frequently at home.

Are you yanking my chain?

Assuming not, let me explain the situation. Not all people who called had problems with refresh rate. Not all people who called had their video output running at 60Hz. Not all people who called had 21" monitors. And, most importantly, most people wouldn't call computer monitor tech support with a complaint about their eyes burning.

I know very little about Amigas, so I'll quote Wikipedia here:

(For others like me, "AGA" was apparently the most advanced graphics chip put in an Amiga.) Based on the time and the specs, I would expect that the largest monitor intended to be used with that system was 15".

If you still have one, hook it up and look at it through the corner of your eye. To most people, it really does flicker badly.

My Amigas were all pre-AGA and couldn't even display 640x480, only up to 640x240. That is without the specialty add-in board I had for primarily editing of still images. In any case it was also limited to 60Hz, not the fancy 72 of the AGA models (the Amiga 1200 and Amiga 4000)

Unfortunately I don't have any CRTs other than my TV (32") anymore. I also don't have any incandescent bulbs which I used to use exclusively years back.

I really am surprised you're arguing this, Bruno. I guarantee you that I could go a "blind" comparison between a 60Hz monitor and something like a 72Hz. The difference is incredible.

The other thing you're not thinking about is that most people with CRT monitors didn't/don't KNOW that they can improve it. They probably just assume that that's the way the computer is and they live with it because they have to. There's plenty of people who live with Clippy and Norton too, but they're just as ecstatic when I tell them I can fix those.

*edit*
in addition to Bitt's comparisons between monitors and TV, I'd point out that you watch a lot more motion on TV, so any flicker would be less noticeable. If you mentioned that, Bitt, sorry I forgot it. You just had so many good points as to why we're right :p

Which is interesting because last time I had my eyes tested I was told my convergence was crap. Although apparently it can be exacerbated by stress and I was little frazzled at the time, so maybe I'm all better now!

We'll have to chalk it up to my eyes having been developed in a secret lab to be perfectly in tune with a 60Hz scan rate then. And when I said I "didn't know anybody" I wasn't talking about the clueless drone office worker of the time. Everyone I knew back in the day was at least partially a computer junkie of some kind. We're talking hundreds of ppl btw.

On my Nanao I could only tell the difference when I WAS doing something with motion.

I don't get my eyes tested, so I can't tell you how bad/good they are. I did have them tested 5 years ago, and was told he could give me glasses but I could manage fine without them. At that point I figured that was a total waste of money, and until I start bumping into things I won't be going back.

Everyone's eyes are slightly different distances apart, right? Do you think this has any bearing on how good the effect is for that individual? There has to be many many factors like this that could cause problems with 3D films.

And a brief comment on the off topic thread here, I had my Amiga 500 plugged into a 14inch portable TV, now that thing flickered like a bitch at any output When I got my first PC monitor 72Hz was better for me, but my mate at the time couldn't tell the difference and saw no flicker at either. Everyone is different I guess.

Cheers

Cris.

Trying........so.........hard......not......to.........comment........

lol

Cheers

Cris.

Doesn't seem fair telling someone who hadn't seen the movie what to look out for. Forcing them to spend the whole movie being distracted by what could/should be unnoticeable.

How can the 3D depth of field issue be made unnoticeable ? It is an intrinsic part of 3D.

Unless you have eye tracking for each viewer and a separately generated image that somehow simulates a reduced depth of field then the depth of field issue is always going to be there.

You mean like those little reel-change blit marks in the corners?

I've never noticed those. If I had I most likely would have ignored them as flaws in the negative.

With respect to pointing out things to people that are not necessarily obvious.

I don't care for noise canceling headphones, primarily because they create a kind of tension that I find annoying. After wearing a pair for 20 mins I feel the same as if I'd been listening to white noise.

When I've pointed this out to fans, typically a few days later, I'm told that they had stopped using them for the same reason.

So, Are you doing someone a favor by telling about that, or not?

Red Letter Media review of Avatar in two parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJarz7BYnHA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLzKwTcGO_0&feature=related

This is the same guy who did the 7-part Phantom Menace review a while back.

Ugh, I really hate the delivery. Like, really hate it. It completely gets in the way of what are some interesting insights about halfway through (when he starts talking like a reviewer and stops with the annoying stuff).

Not to defend the movie too much, but technically it wasn't "the" military, was it? I was under they impression that they were essentially an organized group of hired guns, paid for by the corporation. "The military" as he says it implies governmental oversight, but the leader of the troops in Avatar reported to a company man. I guess that wasn't as funny.

In summary, I couldn't stand the guy and stopped listening after about 6 minutes (don't know how I got that far).

The delivery is the best part of the whole schtick. It's what makes a potentially otherwise dry dissection into something you can smirk at while watching it. His points have so-far been valid for every review I've watched (this one, Phantom Menace and a couple of Star Trek ones). BUt mostly I watch it for how dead-pan (and twisted) the presentation is.

Anyway, let'e not add any spoilers about Avatar to the thread, I still haven't seen it. But I do want to. It will probably be on the small screen though as I don't think I'd like to have anyone take care of my daughter while my wife and I go out to a movie. Though we're stepping out this Saturday to go hear Kevin Smith speak.

Uhhh... yeah. What Bruno said. (Never thought I'd ever say that! )

tanstaafl.

That's the thing, I don't like any part of the schtick. It's not a funny schtick. It's annoying.

And I didn't give any spoilers. I didn't say anything that he didn't say in his review, unless you count correcting him.

Fair enough, you don't like the reviewer's comedy. I wouldn't have posted it if I hadn't found it funny though. BTW, I only said let's not add any spoilers, not that any had already been added.

The movie is cliche in many respects, certainly derivative and formulaic, but it still looks good for what it is. And the review doesn't disagree with that either (I watched the whole thing).

Shades of the British East India Company there, then?

Saw Avatar. Phenomenal. I found it easy to look past the holes. It could have gone on another 20 minutes and I would have been quite comfortable watching it.

I saw it recently at the IMAX. Great film, great story, liked it a lot. Jerky movement was very distracting for me, quite sure I would have enjoyed it more in 2D.

Avatar was robbed at the Academy awards. As usual, the Oscars represent political and social trends, having little to nothing to do with film making.

You didn't like The Hurt Locker at all?

I liked The Hurt Locker. I also liked Up in the Air, The Blind Side, Inglorious Basterds, District 9 and Up. I've yet to watch the other three nominated films.

Avatar was robbed. I'm not a "James Cameron" fan (even though I've enjoyed some of his movies), but he deserved, without question, to win best director, even if Avatar hadn't won for best film. As decent as The Hurt Locker was, it wasn't close to being the top war-time movie I've seen, and it wasn't of the same calibre as Up nor Inglorious, let alone Avatar. Frankly, I would have cut that list down to 5 nominations rather easily.

I mean, if the Academy wanted to give that movie another award so badly, they could have created the "Best Slow-Paced War Picture Directed By a Woman" category. Then I'd agree it was the top of the year.

Avatar got just as many awards as it deserved. There's more to directing than special effects. It was a technical achievement. If anyone other than the winner deserved it it was Tarantino.

But I don't really have a problem with the winners. Besides, I don't consider the Oscars or any of these Awards ceremonies to be the last word on what is actually the best.

The only award I took a bit of issue with was with Sandra Bullock, but at least she gave one of the better acceptance speeches of the evening.

Did you watch The Blind Side? Her performance was definitely Oscar-worthy.

I normally don't watch the Academy Awards at all, instead usually letting my wife record them so she can skip through them later. This year I made an exception because I was enjoying my brand new 55" Vizio VF551XVT. I've been recording HD for months, but this was my first weekend with my new TV, having moved up from a 32" JVC CRT.

I'm not going to argue about Avatar's merits, but I'l say that while watching it, I never once thought, "wow, what a technical achievement." That's an insult, the movie was much better than Titanic, IMO - in every way.

Well that's where we differ once more. That's all I thought for about half the movie.


Heh, and you'll never win me over with that argument. I thought Titanic was alright, but I thought that was by far the least deserving movie that year, from the given nominees, to win best picture. Just look at the others:

As Good as It Gets
The Full Monty [I admit, I haven't seen this one]
Good Will Hunting
L.A. Confidential

Of the three of those I saw, I consider them all to be much better movies than Titanic.

In fact, thanks for bringing up Titanic. I actually feel about Avatar a lot like I did about that movie. The characters are all written and played out the same way. I never really know these people. They seem sort of distant to me. I don't connect with them like real people.

Ah, whatever, it's subjective anyway. You liked Avatar, I'm happy. I haven't even seen The Hurt Locker yet. I wasn't arguing for that winning, I was just saying that Avatar wasn't my favorite movie I saw last year. I'm glad you enjoyed it so much.