On Wed, 06 Jan 2021 13:13:42 +0100
Axel Berger  wrote:

> Chris Green wrote:
> > that isn't beset by the software and 'anti pirating' stuff that's in
> > HDMI.
>
> Exactly. And there is another thing. Originally video had to be fast,
> for the eye needed at least 70 Hz not to see annnoying flicker. Those

 That number seems to have been creeping up all my life - 24FPS was
once considered good enough for movie cameras.

> days are long gone. Current dispays are static or buffered. Not all
> computing is video or games (though admittedly those are the uses that

 It is rare that any system has no video or similar high update
speed requirement at all, not counting headless machines that have no
monitor.

> bring the revenue in), so cables, buffers and a lot of critical stuff
> could be made much easier by reducing to 10 frames per socond or even
> less. One frame per second is plenty for many use cases, at least all
> those requiring long cables and long distances.

 However if you need *any* video or similar then you need better
frame rates unless you can build a cable that supports high burst rates but
not high continuous rates which seems unlikely without a lot of circuitry
and latency.

--
Steve O'Hara-Smith                          |   Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN                                     | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins.                |    licences available see
You lose and Bill collects.                 |    http://www.sohara.org/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05