Samsung first on the block with 240Hz LCD prototype, 100% better motion

[dereksworl]

Originally Posted by Branden

so whats the point of 240Hz? i get the impression 240Hz is just a selling gimmick.

To further reduce motion blur, which even at 120Hz, LCD still has. I say forget the freakin' Hz and concentrate on getting the response time under 2ms.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Grumpz

Feel free to attack me because it's seems to be the norm around here, but my 120hz Sony is no where near the best LCD out there, yet I don't see motion blur.

To me, this is just another gimmick.

Isn't telling people they are gimmicked also attacking?

- There were people that were driven crazy by 60Hz flicker on computer monitors. Others didn't see it.

- There are people who see rainbows with DLP. Others don't.

- Some see 3:2 judder. Others don't.

- There are people driven completely mad by screen door effects of LCD. Others don't see it.

- Perhaps some people are more sensitive to motion blur than others.

Gary

[Branden]

Originally Posted by dereksworl

To further reduce motion blur, which even at 120Hz, LCD still has. I say forget the freakin' Hz and concentrate on getting the response time under 2ms.

motion blur is the apparent streaking of moving objects, it's part of the film. i get how 240Hz is superior to 120Hz, you could actually get 240fps on your video games or further reduce flicker (assuming it's even still noticeable at 120Hz). and i understand the importance of response time and how poor response time can leave tracers (one big selling point of my 3 year old 2.5ms SXRD), but regarding displaying a 24fps film, how does 240Hz help? on a 120Hz TV a single frame will use up 5 cycles, on a 240Hz TV a single frame will use up 10 cycles, it'll still be the same 24fps to the eye:

120Hz 1-1-1-1-1-2-2-2-2-2-3-3-3-3-3-
240Hz 111111111122222222223333333333

[Grumpz]

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Isn't telling people they are gimmicked also attacking?

- There were people that were driven crazy by 60Hz flicker on computer monitors. Others didn't see it.

- There are people who see rainbows with DLP. Others don't.

- Some see 3:2 judder. Others don't.

- There are people driven completely mad by screen door effects of LCD. Others don't see it.

- Perhaps some people are more sensitive to motion blur than others.

Gary

I guess you could say I'm attacking 240hz TV's. I've got a 3 yr old lcd and trust me, I do see motion on blur. However it's a 60hz set and I didn't expect much of it.

The one thing I can assure you, I don't hear many people complaining about motion blur on 120hz sets that have been bought in the last yr, so to come out with and 240hz TV, then hike up the price to put 46" sets back up over 3g's sounds like a gimmick.

[dereksworl]

Originally Posted by Branden

but regarding displaying a 24fps film, how does 240Hz help? on a 120Hz TV a single frame will use up 5 cycles, on a 240Hz TV a single frame will use up 10 cycles, it'll still be the same 24fps to the eye:

[/FONT]

From what i can figure, there will be little to no difference as far as 24p is concerned. all increasing the Hz would do is reduce flicker, which 120Hz has none of anyway. so i'm with you on that one.

[Branden]

Originally Posted by dereksworl

From what i can figure, there will be little to no difference as far as 24p is concerned. all increasing the Hz would do is reduce flicker, which 120Hz has none of anyway. so i'm with you on that one.

thanks derek.
as far as my understanding of how different specs affect image properties i didn't see the point of 240Hz, just wondering if i was missing something.
so i guess i'm right in assuming 240Hz is just a marketing gimmick to get people to ignorantly spend more $$ on a TV that'll produce a picture no better than 120Hz would.

[[1080-p]]

Originally Posted by Branden

i don't understand the point in having a 240Hz display, maybe someone could enlighten me.

here in N.A. we use a 60Hz AC power grid, all appliances (including televisions up till now) have worked within those limits.
NTSC runs at 30fps, it is easy for a 60Hz TV to replicate 30fps fluidly (60/2=30). movies have always been filmed in 24fps (whatever the reason being), but even then they were remuxed at 30fps when they reached the DVD. all was well.
then blu-ray came along with the intention of accurately presenting film, which meant keeping 24fps, that caused a problem on our 60Hz sets. 60/24 does not reveal an integer. 120Hz sets are the obvious solution. 120/5=24, 120/4=30, 120/2=60. 120Hz sets are capable of displaying all common framerates thrown at it without use of pulldowns or interpolation. that's a good thing.

so whats the point of 240Hz? i get the impression 240Hz is just a selling gimmick.

what about 600hz for panasonic?

[Branden]

Originally Posted by [1080-p]

what about 600hz for panasonic?

same thing. as long as the refresh rate is a multiple of 24, 30 and 60 then there is no need for 3:2 pulldown or interpolation, 120hz has it covered. refresh rates beyond 120hz are pointless.
seems to me the point of 240/600hz is purely to sell a more expensive TV to people who mistakenly believe 240/600hz actually does something.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Branden

same thing. as long as the refresh rate is a multiple of 24, 30 and 60 then there is no need for 3:2 pulldown or interpolation, 120hz has it covered. refresh rates beyond 120hz are pointless.
seems to me the point of 240/600hz is purely to sell a more expensive TV to people who mistakenly believe 240/600hz actually does something.

The Panasonic "600Hz" is a sub-field drive number, not the refresh rate of the set. The way I understand it, each pixel is divided into 10 sub-fields that each refresh at the standard 60Hz. 10x60Hz=600Hz. Mostly marketing hype in order to have a bigger Hz number to counter the LCD hype. It is supposed to improve motion resolution. For 24p content, the new V and Z series have true 96Hz refresh modes for 4:4 cadence. The G and S series are standard 60Hz sets still using 3:2 pulldown for 24p.

[Branden]

i googled '600hz panasonic' and got this, not that bestbuy knows anything. 600hz sub-field makes more sense.

[SeanMF]

Originally Posted by Branden

thanks derek.
as far as my understanding of how different specs affect image properties i didn't see the point of 240Hz, just wondering if i was missing something.
so i guess i'm right in assuming 240Hz is just a marketing gimmick to get people to ignorantly spend more $$ on a TV that'll produce a picture no better than 120Hz would.

I agree...I really don't think it will be much of a difference over 120hz. At least nothing that I'd probably notice. Why I opted for the 120 over 240 in my new tv selection...couldn't justify the price difference.

[zicmubleu]

Originally Posted by seanfarley2

I agree...I really don't think it will be much of a difference over 120hz. At least nothing that I'd probably notice. Why I opted for the 120 over 240 in my new tv selection...couldn't justify the price difference.

Are the 240HZ displays also 3D ready? If so, the double refresh rate would be very useful if you can find interlaced video to watch and have the shutter glasses.

[[1080-p]]

Originally Posted by mjbethancourt

This should work nicely with Samsung's 3D-TV program, which needs high frame rates and independent alignment. I want to know why we have to wait so long.

hope it looks better then this ugly thing http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/10/philips-3d-hdtv/

and more like this without glasses
http://www.rapidtvnews.com/index.php...ig-for-tv.html