Time display is blinking

[DomenRupnik]

Hello, I preparing customized stopwatch applications. I want refresing time a hundredth of second. In front panel I am using numeric front panel where is displayed time in hundredth of second. Time value is blinking and this is not so friendy for users, could anybody know where is reason for that. 

[mcduff]

You are updating too fast. The max your eye can see is 10-20Hz, slow down that loop and you will be fine. (Add a 20 ms wait or more) Also you are updating faster than your display can respond.

mcduff

[billko]

---

@mcduff wrote:

You are updating too fast. The max your eye can see is 10-20Hz, slow down that loop and you will be fine. (Add a 20 ms wait or more) Also you are updating faster than your display can respond.

mcduff

---

I kind of disagree with the first part.  Not technically, but "aesthetically".  Anything beyond the "eye" rate that you mentioned is going to seem more "realistic" because the eye has a harder time distinguishing it from reality.  The faster the refresh rate, the more convincing (and less strain) it is to the eye.

To avoid tearing, you shouldn't be updating faster than your monitor's refresh rate.

[mcduff]

@billko

You are probably right about the aesthetics, but that being said, standard videos are about 25 FPS,  which is usually pretty smooth to my old eyes. This is about a frame every 50 ms. Obviously the young gamers like frame rateas in the hundreds.

Check out  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate the horse animation is supposedly 12FPS.

mcduff

[billko]

Check this link out: https://boallen.com/fps-compare.html.  even the difference between 24 fps (standard film rate) and 30 fps (video tape) is easily distinguishable.  I can instantly tell you if a video sequence was shot on tape or film.  But then again, being a photographer does train your eyes to see details no one else will ever notice.

[mcduff]

The 15 fps looks the worse on the link you set, and the 60 fps does look the best. But for updating a stopwatch I rather spend my CPU cycles elsewhere.  (For bouncing cubes, I'll spend those cycles.) Anyway, 60fps is 16.7 ms, which as an update rate should not stress the CPU, I believe the OP had an unthrottled loop.

Cheers,

mcduff

[billko · Accepted solution]

---

@mcduff wrote:

The 15 fps looks the worse on the link you set, and the 60 fps does look the best. But for updating a stopwatch I rather spend my CPU cycles elsewhere.  (For bouncing cubes, I'll spend those cycles.) Anyway, 60fps is 16.7 ms, which as an update rate should not stress the CPU, I believe the OP had an unthrottled loop.

Cheers,

mcduff

---

I'd rather have bouncing cubes than a stopwatch!  😄

Yes, I do agree that making a stopwatch hundredths update smoothly would not be my top priority.  🙂