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
Because cameras are not monitors, they do not use those little red/green/blue pixels that monitors use to create an image on the display. It is expensive and difficult to build monitors with such a high amount of pixels that have the ability to get fps that high. Plus, it is not necessary for anyone to need fps speeds that high, so that in and of itself makes it not worth the costs
Cameras have what are known as sensors, which are millions of light sensitive spots that pick up light and convert that signal into an image. That is a very expensive part of the camera and it is small, less than 1/3 the size of a credit card.
Realistically, many cameras have small monitors on the back of the camera for you to see photos or use as a viewfinder, and these are similar to monitors as they are red/green/blue pixels. They also tend to work fairly slow and not as well as, say, desktop computer monitors.
Latest Answers