120hz vs 240hz....any real noticable difference?

[Steelmaker]

I'm noticing all the new 2009 LCD's are sporting 240hz motion resolution. Is there honestly a big difference between this and last year's 120hz tv's?

[Fors*]

Originally Posted by Steelmaker

I'm noticing all the new 2009 LCD's are sporting 240hz motion resolution. Is there honestly a big difference between this and last year's 120hz tv's?

I don't think there is a big enough difference between 120 hz and 240 hz that would make it a "must have" if you currently already have a 120 hz set. I just think the human eye can't really detect enough improvement to appreciate the difference.

What I want to see are response times less than 4ms, then you would surely start to have noticeably better PQ IMO.

[Sonny]

Originally Posted by forsberg21

I don't think there is a big enough difference between 120 hz and 240 hz that would make it a "must have" if you currently already have a 120 hz set. I just think the human eye can't really detect enough improvement to appreciate the difference.

What I want to see are response times less than 4ms, then you would surely start to have noticeably better PQ IMO.

I feel the same. Response times on LCDs have improved, but are really at a stand still now. I don't know what it would take to get the RT to 1ms and below. That would change things greatly for LCDs as far as motion! 240hz is just a waste I feel. There's just NO marketing in RT, only the 120hz/240hz draw people in along with motion flow crap...

[dereksworl]

Originally Posted by Sonny

I feel the same. Response times on LCDs have improved, but are really at a stand still now. I don't know what it would take to get the RT to 1ms and below. That would change things greatly for LCDs as far as motion! 240hz is just a waste I feel. There's just NO marketing in RT, only the 120hz/240hz draw people in along with motion flow crap...

I did notice Sammy managed to get the RT down to 2ms this year, improved from 4ms last year. I'd imagine they'll get it down to 1ms-.5999ms next year. That, in conjuction with 240Hz might be worth it. but as of right now, to me its now that fantastic.

[BluLobsta]

Yeah, anything but 60 Hz, where you have to use that 3:2 pulldown garbage. At least 120 and 240 is an even multiple of 24 so you can repeat frames evenly, and you can also display 60 fps sources on 120/240 sets, but you do have to wonder if it's noticeable at all from 120 to 240. Each frame is repeated 10 times instead of 5. Who knows if you notice that. I haven't done a comparison but the human eye was designed to see fleeing prey, not a judder-free Indy 500 A lot of arguments, too, are involved between people who want film to have judder (as intended) and people who like their movies judder-free (like video).

[Tru2theBlu]

The biggest difference that you will EVER notice would be the jump from 60hz to 120hz. Beyond that it will be less and less noticable, unless you are a cyborg. But if you can afford a 240hz, then why not?

[yankees3]

there is a thread on this already

[steve1971]

Originally Posted by BluLobsta

Yeah, anything but 60 Hz, where you have to use that 3:2 pulldown garbage. At least 120 and 240 is an even multiple of 24 so you can repeat frames evenly, and you can also display 60 fps sources on 120/240 sets, but you do have to wonder if it's noticeable at all from 120 to 240. Each frame is repeated 10 times instead of 5. Who knows if you notice that. I haven't done a comparison but the human eye was designed to see fleeing prey, not a judder-free Indy 500 A lot of arguments, too, are involved between people who want film to have judder (as intended) and people who like their movies judder-free (like video).

I am one of those people who dont mind the judder because it is the way it was intended and not the fake looking judder free video crap. Its nice to know alot of the general public dont mind it as well.

[BTBuck1]

I can tell you that it really appears that the "Software" seems to be improving. the Motion enhancement settings seem to do less of the artifcating when it is smoothing out "Judder" on newer sets.

some like it, some don't.

On my SXRD i use it but only on "Standard"

on my LCD (B-series 750 samsung) I use it on "Custom"
with both settings set to (5)


The samsung seems more refined, "Smoother" with less issue.

[terryallenjones]

I see the posts about refresh rates, 120hz vs 240hz and then those referring to pixel response times and you can't have one without the other. Having a refresh rate of 120Hz tells me that you don't need a LCD response time greater than 1/120 or 8.3mSec. Any faster and you'd never drive the pixel clock at that rate since you can only change the whole screen, therefore any given pixel, every 8.3mSec. In order to support a faster pixel rate, you need the faster pixel elements as well as the supporting rendering and clocking hardware within the set itself and all input devices also. So in order to have that 4mSec pixel you need 1/.004Sec, or 250Hz refresh rate, non-interleaved. Running a 1mSec LCD, which you will pay extra for, at 120Hz, or 60Hz is a waste of money since you will only be using a fraction of the bandwidth you paid for. Likewise, driving a slower dot with a faster screen rate would also not work out well either.