On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 10:48 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > I know that, in the dinosaur days of CRT, I could 'see' flicker (and get > flicker-generated headaches) at anything under 80Hz, and I know there > are even more sensitive people than that. So 72Hz may be a bit of a low > 'safe refresh rate' cutoff. I'd like it to be 80 at least. 72/75 were > better than 65 for me, but definitely not acceptable for long-term work. The struggle here is that you may not actually have any modes in the pool with refresh rates that high. I'm remembering 72Hz as some OSHA recommendation but I'm not able to find a reference to it quickly. Both the EU and EnergyStar seem to indicate that CRTs should be measured for power at the largest resolution supported at 75Hz, but that's a power recommendation, not an ergonomic one. There's also a (rather small) power usage argument here. Higher refresh rates require more memory bandwidth, which means more memory cycles, which means more power draw. It's linear on number of pixels, but the coefficient is pretty low, so maybe it's not worth worrying about. I suppose you could successively run the filter() step in the given algorithm until you get a non-empty list. Nggh though. - ajax
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
