Sure they refresh faster, but what does TV broadcast? 60P? Mostly 60i, but never 120P, so who the fuck cares? I could understand for a computer monitor, but arguing the benefits for TV?

1/8/2010 3:26:18 PM

for movies = 24p = 5x120Hz, 24p does not go into 60Hz equally.

so at LEAST go for 120Hz.

1/8/2010 3:33:29 PM

video games.

and IBSolanaritroll

1/8/2010 3:34:39 PM

^^^ Blu Ray.

And rest assured TV will get there.

1/8/2010 3:37:49 PM

60hz to 120hz i can tell a difference..sometimes

after that it's just bullshit

esp when it's like 'OMG 600HZ!!1!'

1/8/2010 3:44:20 PM

120Hz is obvious with Blueray, and Video games that can run at 120Hz. I can tell a big difference on my Sony Bravia.

1/8/2010 3:46:28 PM

^^ Agreed, 120 to 240 is not as pronounced a difference as 60 to 120. It's there, but small.

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 4:16 PM. Reason : ]

1/8/2010 4:16:01 PM

Quote :

"esp when it's like 'OMG 600HZ!!1!'"

Thats only plasmas IIRC. Which is totally different.

1/8/2010 4:52:27 PM

The TVs do interpolation, so that EVERYTHIGN benefits from the increased framerate. You could hook an NES up and it would look different.

The 120hz or 240hz is NOT a crock of shit. You can go see the TVs in person to confirm this.

However, the 480Hz sub field drive of plasmas is meant to be misleading, and is a different metric entirely than the LCD tvs 120hz/240hz.

1/8/2010 7:47:12 PM

Quote :

"sub field drive"

yea, this is what i was calling bs on, primarily

1/8/2010 8:05:28 PM

i'm so used to the pull down i actually prefer it. i would probably disable 24p playback on most content.

i love how they started with bad image quality and are trying to make up for it with quantity. smooth move (you see what i did there) tv industry.

1/8/2010 8:16:28 PM

3D, people...

1/8/2010 8:22:10 PM

120Hz not making up for bad quality with quantity you dumb shit, its stepping up to the least common denominator between 24fps and 60hz.

1/8/2010 9:37:07 PM

^ how is it not? adding frames that wasn't in the original content will always= distortion, artifacting, etc.movies are filmed at 24 fps so the tv is creating frames that weren't originally there that's why 120/240hz look like absolute shit with anything other than hd content.

1/8/2010 10:03:38 PM

look see I'm trying to be polite here but you idiots keep serving up softballs like retarded little fuckers... I can't really help myself.

The tv isn't "creating any frames" unless you specifically tell it to do so. My tv is set to display each frame five times before moving on to the next for blu rays and it displays every 60Hz frame twice.

How the fuck is that creating something that wasn't originally there you goddamned lunatic?

1/8/2010 10:07:09 PM

How does that produce a better picture? If it's showing the same frame 5 times, what is different than showing it one time? Note, I haven't studied TV...physics?

1/8/2010 10:40:51 PM

AngryOldMan, you're missing the point. You're right, showing the same frame 5 times in a row is not "better" than showing it once. The point is, some content is 24Hz and some is 60Hz, but an LCD or plasma TV can't change refresh rates. The older TVs had a refresh rate of 60Hz, and movies (which are generally 24Hz) looked like shit on them. So the new TVs use a refresh rate of 120Hz, not because it's "better", but because it's a multiple of both 24 and 60.

1/8/2010 10:46:43 PM

^ correct.

So, a tv show which is typically filmed at 30fps will display perfectly on a 60Hz television. However, a 24fps movie will have one frame displayed 3 times and the next displayed 2 times (repeating). This is what describes 3:2 pulldown and it causes a slightly perceptible jitter in the picture due to the fact that one frame is being displayed for 1/60th of a second longer than the next, every other frame.

1/8/2010 10:49:54 PM

I would assume modern TVs can change their refresh rate to 24 Hz vertical? Don't LCD monitors do this?

1/8/2010 10:53:18 PM

You would assume wrong. In fact, most (all?) LCDs have a fixed refresh rate.

1/8/2010 10:53:57 PM

Very nice, I've been seeing these specs for awhile but I won't be in the HDTV market any time soon so I never cared to learn what they meant. Nice to learn something every now and again.

Btw, I thought we generally see at around 30fps as it is, if that is the case, is it true that most people can perceive the jitter or just some people?

[Edited on January 8, 2010 at 11:17 PM. Reason : .]

1/8/2010 11:15:20 PM

If a TV ran at 24 Hz, you'd want to gouge your fucking eyes out. They just duplicate frames to match the refresh. Also, with 120 Hz, I thought the 120 Hz was only purely interpolation. Does it in fact still run at 120 Hz with the smooth motion shit off (of course being better for 24,30,60 FPS sources)?

1/8/2010 11:31:01 PM

You thought wrong and, obviously, yes.

1/8/2010 11:43:16 PM

Quote :

"120Hz not making up for bad quality with quantity you dumb shit, its stepping up to the least common denominator between 24fps and 60hz."

The image quality should be the selling point. Not the refresh rate. I also stated I'm probably in the minority as I prefer the pull down. I honestly do not even own an HDTV. My xbr960 CRT blowed up and I have not seen anything since that has comparable image quality (i almost bought a kuro once if that counts).

Thanks for the kind words.

1/9/2010 12:20:55 AM

If an LCD TV ran at 24Hz, you'd probably not even know. It isn't like the days of the CRT where you had to obey a e^-kx luminosity for each pixel of the screen between refreshes. The only bad thing about a slower refresh rate would be "blurring" of action and the fact that TV would drop frames.

1/9/2010 12:54:59 AM

noobs, ITT

1/9/2010 12:58:32 AM

Quote :

"Btw, I thought we generally see at around 30fps as it is, if that is the case, is it true that most people can perceive the jitter or just some people?"

You will not miss it if you have any eye for video.

1/9/2010 1:09:07 AM

Quote :

"and IBSolanaritroll"

1/9/2010 7:42:45 AM

Quote :

"Btw, I thought we generally see at around 30fps as it is"

In fact, that is not the maximum useful fps, but it was determined by producers who were trying to figure out the minimum number of film frames needed before we could see noticeable stuttering

maximum useful != minimum needed

[Edited on January 9, 2010 at 9:52 AM. Reason : s]

1/9/2010 9:52:11 AM