There are commercially available video cameras that can record at 100s of thousands of FPS, and scientific cameras in the millions of FPS. Yet the fastest monitors are around 500fps. Of course, there is much more utility to a fast camera than a fast monitor, but I get the sense that there are also technical restrictions. Why has no one made a 1 million FPS monitor to show off as a tech demo?
In: 21
1. Monitors have a response time of how fast the pixels can change colors. While a current gaming monitor may have a response time as little as 1 millisecond, they often employ tricks to reach that rating such as a strobing backlight. So the true response time of a monitor’s panel is the first limitation.
2. Monitors have to have a processor in them that can decode/display the actual video feed. Higher framerates require more data, meaning bigger/more/power hungry processors.
3. I don’t think a human could differentiate between 500fps and 1,000 fps to begin with. What even would be a use for a million FPS displayed on a monitor?
4. The monitor would be absurdly expensive.
5. You also need content to display on that monitor that display’s the million FPS, meaning to get any use of that high FPS, you need to custom make content for that one, single monitor.
I think it’s mostly economics, and the lack of any practical use for it.
Latest Answers