Which is the best Hz when view 24p on Blu-ray?

[mugupo]

Plasma 48hz
Plasma 60hz
Plasma 72hz
Plasma 96hz
LCD 60hz
LCD 120hz
LCD 240hz

[gekke henkie]

I would say:
1. Plasma 96Hz (with 4:4 pulldown)
2. Plasma 72Hz (with 3:3 pulldown)
3. LCD 240Hz (with 10:10 pulldown), when reviewed as such
4. LCD 120Hz (with 5:5 pulldown, NOT 3:2 pulldown to 60Hz and doubled to 120Hz)
Forget the rest, IMHO ()

See also this VERY nice thread:
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=5155

[luscious]

Be careful when buying 120Hz/240Hz LCDs. The true 120Hz and true 240Hz offer the best picture since they eliminate judder (PAL btw has no judder but the audio is sped up, ruining all the music) and properly implemented interpolation will be awesome when it comes. There is already interpolation done by your TV or player when it upscales standard definition content. Some upscaling interpolation doesn't get implemented well, but everyone knows it is a good thing in principle (and great on high end Sony sets and the customizable PS3)

Examples of consumer confusion.

Toshiba does not make true 240Hz sets. Neither does LG. What they do is use 240Hz backlight scanning ... and there's a good explanation of this in an LG ad in the latest Sound and Vision ... LG admits that all it is doing is interspersing blank frames (turning the backlight off for an instant) with the true frames ... this is supposed to encourage your own eyes to do biological interpolation ... nice theory but I think it's bonkers.

Samsung and Sony are the only ones I know of that make true 240Hz. I think there's a rumor that Vizio may eventually make them too.

PS I don't know too much about plasma since I hate plasmas but if those frame rates are accurate then nothing on plasma can match a true 120Hz or true 240Hz LCD. 96Hz frame rate for example would eliminate judder for 24p blu-ray sources but for 60p or 30p sources (from things shot on video or from a video game, etc.) -- judder would be introduced (for DVDs of movies it also kind of matters -- the DVDs won't be in 24p like the film so they introduce judder at the DVD source -- but then the 96Hz frame rate will effectively introduce even more judder unless the TV is able to calculate the original frames from the judder-infested DVD ... which I doubt tvs do).

240Hz is also not perfect. Perfect would be 600Hz since then all frame rate sources would not have any judder added to them by the TV. For video games, the higher the better since video game frame rates are variable unless you have them v-sync

[gekke henkie]

Originally Posted by luscious

Some upscaling interpolation doesn't get implemented well, but everyone knows it is a good thing in principle

Let's agree to disagree then.
By the way, the TS (Topic Starter) only asks for 24p, not for PAL, not for 60i/p, not for 30p. Since many 120Hz LCD's use 3:2 pulldown or interpolate without the ability to turn that off, they are useless in experiencing 24p (or, 'filmic' content). Since there are no professional reviews as of yet mentioning the pulldown process used in the new 240Hz displays, we don't know for sure yet if these LCD's are currently useless/pointless or not (from a 24p-perspective, that is). So again, please follow the link and read this excelent piece of info on the thread mentioned in my former post.

[luscious]

Originally Posted by gekke henkie

Let's agree to disagree then.

Upscale interpolation is just the algorithm used to upconvert dvds or standard def content on bds. Interpolation is also done in photoshop when resampling images to a higher resolution. Every one in the world believes this interpolation is better than the alternative (there should be a setting to stretch images proportionally without interpolation in photoshop -- the quality becomes poor).

Interpolation for motion in videos however doesn't have good algorithms yet. But eventually, there will be good ones. Since the algorithms aren't good yet, it's largely a matter of taste.

[Zman2k2]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

This has got to be the stupidest thread/poll I've ever read on this site.

+1 Refresh rates are only one part of the puzzle when it comes to displays.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by luscious

PS I don't know too much about plasma since I hate plasmas but if those frame rates are accurate then nothing on plasma can match a true 120Hz or true 240Hz LCD.

...which is very obvious based on your post. Nothing can match the picture of true 120/240Hz? And the reason for this is why? Because the refresh (not frame) rates are higher? Hardly. As long as you refresh at a multiple of 24, there will be no discernable difference. Now, add an order of magnitude faster response time with plasma in addition to 900-1080 lines of motion resolution and significantly higher true contrast ratios, and the clear winner will be plasma. Oh, and 24p is a setting on plasma that is only used with 24p sources. The rest of the time the set refreshes at 60Hz.

[Sammy]

I cannot vote in the pole as there is so much more that goes into the display than just refresh rate.

[luscious]

The rest of the time the set refreshes at 60Hz.

Assuming the video is actually processed by the plasma at 60hz, that still would make for a discernible difference when playing PAL when compared to a true 240Hz LCD. And for gaming 240Hz is the way to go since frame rate for games is variable. Vertical syncing can alleviate judder for games but you pay a cost of a lower frame rate -- but that cost is reduced dramatically when you have a higher refresh rate.

[Spyder-97]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but won't any flat panel TV that can process 24fps video from the compatible BDs show basically the same motion detail irregardless of its maximum refresh rate (e.g. 600Hz plasma, 240Hz or 120Hz LCD)?

[btf1980]

Originally Posted by luscious

PS I don't know too much about plasma since I hate plasmas but if those frame rates are accurate then nothing on plasma can match a true 120Hz or true 240Hz LCD.

[Mr. Joshua]

Originally Posted by btf1980

Isn't that Francis dad from Pee Wee's Big Adventure?

[cravistaz]

LCD 60hz