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
> there is much more utility to a fast camera than a fast monitor
Because the cameras are used for filming and/or studying things that move very quickly. The monitor output is to be viewed by human eyes. Edit: Though it is debatable what the limit for human eyes is, it is pretty clear that there is a reason to push from 10000 fps to 50000 fps and so forth on a camera. Also the [Phantom TMX 7510](https://www.phantomhighspeed.com/products/cameras/tmx/7510) lists 76,000 fps at 1280 x 800 which is on the small side. /edit
Pretty much.
I started searching “cmos speed image capture limit” and found a few papers like https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/9/1/430 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7070596/ From what I can tell it’s “just” physics and deals with photons and electrons.
“fastest display technology” didn’t yield as good of results. It’s possible that LCD technology (VA, IPS, etc) and OLED have a limit that is reached at slower rates than an image sensor. There is digital micromirror device (like TI’s DLP) but I haven’t found anything about its upper limit on how fast it can go from gtg. LCDs add some chemistry; your pixel has to react to an applied electrical field. https://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?t=795 is the best I got.
That’s the limit of research I’mm doing here out of curiosity for free, but it should either satisfy your curiosity or point you down the right path on what you can start digging into about the fundamentals of both technologies.
An underlying question with companies spending money on R&D is that they are spending a limited amount of money and not just for fun.
Latest Answers