120Hz suck?

[Cpt_Dylan_Hunt]

Originally Posted by Rob J in WNY

The most important aspect of screen refresh rates is to produce an "even" pulldown scheme.

120Hz = 5:5 pulldown on 24p movies.
96Hz = 4:4 pulldown on 24p movies.
72Hz = 3:3 pulldown on 24p movies.
48Hz = 2:2 pulldown for 24p movies (becoming too slow, producing some visible screen flicker).

It's when we move into an uneven frame-cadence, such as 3:2 (or 2:3) on a 60Hz screen that is playing a 24p movie that we are not seeing motion as natural as it was originally filmed.

What's funny is that we've been putting up with uneven 3:2 pulldown for a lot of years now - really decades. Our old, consumer grade CRT TVs all ran at 60Hz (there may have been some very high-end exceptions), and the motion judder was there. Today's fixed-pixel displays tend to reveal judder more because we are looking at larger, and (generally) more resolute imagery.

24 frames-per-second motion is reasonably smooth, but not extraordinarily so. It was standardized, way back when, as the best compromise between what is more-or-less enough motion resolution for the human eye to follow and the most efficient use of film material. Steady pans often reveal a touch of the "stop motion" effect of limiting the frame rate to 24 per second.

Higher frame rates have, of course, come to pass, which is where we get the smooth motion of "live" video, which can arise from frame rates between 30 and 60 per second. It is the interpolated frames which are added by today's 120Hz TVs which can make film look like "video."

I am an advocate for turning off the frame interpolation feature of 120Hz TVs in order to maximize picture quality on movies. Interpolated frames, being "non-native," are not going to be 100% accurate to the source material, and I feel that for all the smoother motion they do produce, the picture quality relaxes a bit. I have yet to observe frame interpolation software which does not produce picture-degrading video artifacts as well.

Very good post. Also, let it be said that that most people would never notice the "judder" effect from the 3:2 pulldown on most decent 60hz lcds in their lifetimes, especially without it being specifically pointed out to them.

I think the detrimental effect of the motion enhancement technologies (which yes, can be turned off), is WAY more noticeable, than the postive benefits of 5:5 pulldown, which only occurs during BR watching anyway and probalby accounts for only 20-30% of most people's overall tv usage.

Some people can't even stand the interpolation during VIDEO GAMES, which is really bad, since without it, there is no advantage of gaming on a 120hz lcd vs 60hz.

Besides, any CCFL backlit lcd 120hz or not, can only produce at best about 600 lines out of 1080 lines of motion resolution, and down to around 300 lines without certain settings on.

Only LED backlit LCDs can produce comparable motion resolutions to plasmas which are usually between 900 lines, and a full 1080 on the newer ones, and even then, on the "LEDs" one "wrong" setting and you're back down to 300 lines. Not to mentioned an LED backlit LCD costs WAY more than a "comparable" plasma.

The only time I would even buy an LCD nowadays, is if it's LED backlit (which makes way more of a postive difference than the 120hz alone), and if it was cheaper than let's say a Panasonic g15 plasma of equal size.

When good Sony or Samsung LED backlit lcds are down to around $1300 CAD for a 46 to 50 inch, I might pick up one up for use as a good computer monitor for PC gaming.

[Cpt_Dylan_Hunt]

Originally Posted by Derb

120hz refresh rate is needed to view 24P natively.

The manufacturers just took advantage of this tech so they can better sell their product. In Sony's case, Motionflow. The most common response from people who view it say it looks more like video instead of film. Maybe thats alright if you have 0 intentions of watching HD.

96hz, 72hz, 48hz will work as well.

and

indeed, if I was forced to watch HD, or anything for that matter with motionflow or the equivalents on for an extended time, I would probably end up having 0 intentions of watching it ever again. Hell I already do.

[tbizzle]

I was in Best Buy the other day and noticed that all of their display models still have AMP on. Looks so terrible and synthetic, doesn't look like a film anymore. I don't know why they insist on leaving it on.

[SDBlu]

Originally Posted by tbizzle

I was in Best Buy the other day and noticed that all of their display models still have AMP on. Looks so terrible and synthetic, doesn't look like a film anymore. I don't know why they insist on leaving it on.

Cuz alot of people like it...including myself

[Cpt_Dylan_Hunt]

Originally Posted by MarcosG

Cuz alot of people like it...including myself

People often like what is new. Even when it is inferior.

[Derb]

Motionflow does look alright for gaming.

I didn't notice any lack of detail on my set.

The main point I'm trying to send is that these techs (adding frames) can easily be turned off at any point in time. Its a special feature which you choose to view it or not. And when you do not view this feature you still can view native 24p

I think a lot of confusion about hz is due to companies adding an unnecessarily option. I watched The Matrix Reloaded without Motionflow & had Cinemotion on. (basically means tv will refresh 24p content)

Skipped right to the billion Smith's against Neo battle. I didn't detect any slow down of the image & in fact it was so much better I could make out fast fine details (puch, kick, flip) without a single pixelation. The perfect test for 24p period. Hate the film, cool, but until you try that scene out on 120hz, you have no idea what you are missing.

[demonspeed7]

I also noticed that 120hertz makes movies look all soap opera like and fake looking. I hate 120 hertz. This is why I ended up going with a panasonic 65 inch plasma and it blows lcd outta the water. My plasma has 600 hertz and I cant see anything wrong with anything picture wise. Excellent picture.This is coming from a SAMSUNG LCD owner. Burn in is not a problem anymore. Not with panasonics anyway. Samsung plasmas suck. Believe me I speak from experience. First TV I picked up was a 58 inch SAMSUNG plasma and it buzzed like crazy and had image retention after I turned off the TV. Took it back for the Panasonic. I am very pleased with my Plasma, and Panasonic.

[Systemlord]

That means my 240Hz is doing 10:10 pulldown, the thing I like about my LCD is the Judder Reduction is adjustable from 1-10 separately from the Motion Blurr setting. A setting from 1-3 for Judder Reduction gives a realistic motion without any soap opera effect. Does anyone think turning off the Judder Reduction processing is best for 240Hz displays when viewing 1080p24 Blu-rays? I imagine 10:10 pulldown would be smooth without the video look, mmm?

[Derb]

Originally Posted by demonspeed7

I also noticed that 120hertz makes movies look all soap opera like and fake looking. I hate 120 hertz

No idea what you are talking about.

Films are shot 24 frames per second. Any hz that can be divided equally into 24 frames allows native 24p without the "video look" 3:2 pulldown makes. There is 0 judder with or any sense of fake looking images.

Also it doesn't matter if your hz is 120, 240, 1200, the set will play 24p film based content. The higher the refresh rate does not matter.

[Systemlord]

Originally Posted by demonspeed7

I also noticed that 120hertz makes movies look all soap opera like and fake looking. I hate 120 hertz.

It's the interpolated frames that are added by 120Hz, 240Hz TVs which makes film look like video. Some LCDs allow for you to adjust this setting to your liking or you can turn it off therefore loosing that video look.

[Cpt_Dylan_Hunt]

5:5, 3:3, 10:10 and whatnot pulldown is WAY over-rated. It's hyped up on message boards and in the stores but the average person would never be able to tell the difference between a good tv doing 3:2 pulldown and one doing 5:5 pulldown, (with motionflow off, so it's not confused as the 5:5 pulldown benefit).

Even the people who can tell the difference, have to search for certain scenes in certain movies in order to really be able to notice it.

I'm just saying, a good plasma doing 3:2 pulldown, imo, is by far superior to any CCFL lcd, 120hz or 240hz, doing 5:5 or 10:10 pulldown. And yeah, maybe in certain scenes there will be a tiny bit of judder on a plasma doing 3:2 pulldown, but you'd be getting almost double the motion resolution.

[Monkey]

Soap opera's are fake looking?

If anything footage shot at higher frame rates are closer to real life than footage shot at the lower archaic 24fps. Well maybe in some peoples mind 12 fps would be even more real, or even better 1 frame per second, that is as reall as can get

[Derb]

http://www.futureshopforums.ca/t5/Te...-p/171875#A926

Originally Posted by Reviewer

Motionflow 120Hz
Sony's Motionflow 120Hz is designed to reduce jitter and create a smoother picture. Put succinctly: it works. The W5100 uses frame interpolation - that means that it processes a pair of frames and inserts a digitally created frame between the two that smooths action out. I took the time to watch some sports and some high action TV - I found the 120Hz mode to be a vast improvement for sports. When it came to action TV my results were mixed; 24 looked fantastic, whereas Alias looked too slick.

You'll see this mode advertised in some venues as a great way to watch action movies. I heartily disagree - if you're watching Blu-ray discs that support 24p mode, please - for all that is good and right - turn 120Hz off. Doubling the frame rate on a film that has already undergone 3:2 pulldown makes it look like video tape - it's a sad and cruel thing to do to your favourite movies. Instead you should use...

24p True Cinema
Ahhh... 24p feels so good to watch. Sony's implementation of 24p on the W5100 is a relief to home cinema lovers. Movies are filmed at a rate of 24 frames per second; previously displays would have to upsample those frame rates using a processed called 3:2 pulldown - it fixed the issue to a degree, but it still wasn't quite right. 24p True Cinema, on the other hand, is the real deal: you get 24 progressive frame per second that matches what you saw in the theatre.

I've spent the better part of a week testing this out and I can say without hesitation that it's worth the money you pay for it. Seeing 65" of 24p cinema is breathtaking.

[Cpt_Dylan_Hunt]

Regardless of how "beathtaking" 24p may be according to that reviewer, I'd much rather enjoy the deeper blacks, better colour, and smoother more natural overall motion quality of a plasma, even if it's doing 3:2 pulldown, over a CCFL lcd.

It really is true that the average person can't detect 3:2 pulldown at all, and has to be literally taught to see it. 5:5 is totally overrated in the real world.

[MattW]

I can't watch a tv or blue ray unless it's 120hz or 240hz anymore. It doesn't look right to me. When I first saw these t.v's I thought this ain't right, but now I find it much more life like. Like I'm looking through a window and I'M Part of what I'm watching. It's intoxicating.

[SDBlu]

Why do all the Plasma FANBOYS feel the need to come over to the LCD threads to stir the pot??? I think if people on here want to talk about plasmas they will go to that particular section...Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is why there is a LCD section and a PLASMA section, right?

It happens on almost every thread.

[ChrisV]

Originally Posted by tbizzle

I was in Best Buy the other day and noticed that all of their display models still have AMP on. Looks so terrible and synthetic, doesn't look like a film anymore. I don't know why they insist on leaving it on.

Let me tell you why I insist on leaving it on. Because it makes EVERY CGI animated movie and Nature movies look BETTER. Anyone who doesn't think that Planet Earth looks better with AMP on needs to have their eyes and head examined! On my Samsung LCD there is an option to have a split screen showing AMP on and off simutaneously, and the difference is astounding! AMP makes the picture smoother, clearer, sharper and more realistic especially fast moving scenes. Most people who don't like it say it makes film look like video. This may be true but in my opinion this is not a bad thing. I understand and respect the film "purists" point of view but you can't tell me that the film looks better with AMP off. It doesn't! it just looks like film and that is what you are used to. Most music purists still think LP records sound the most natural and best but clearly CD's sound much better. The same with film. EVERY person I ever showed a movie to with AMP on was in awe over the picture quaility. At first I thought the movies looked odd because it looked TOO GOOD. It looks so realistic you feel like you are on the set. So how can something that looks more realistic be bad? you are just used to the 24 fps. After watching all my movies with AMP on I can never go back, regular film at 24 fps now looks choppy and is almost unwatchable.

[Cpt_Dylan_Hunt]

Originally Posted by MarcosG

Why do all the Plasma FANBOYS feel the need to come over to the LCD threads to stir the pot??? I think if people on here want to talk about plasmas they will go to that particular section...Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is why there is a LCD section and a PLASMA section, right?

It happens on almost every thread.

Actually, if it's me you're referring to. I own two lcd's and only one plasma. If anything I think that makes me an LCD fanboy.

The title of this thread is "120hz suck?". And the point I am hinting at is, it only sucks when you compare a CCFL 120hz lcd to an equal priced plasma. So in that regard, yes it does "suck". Compared to a 60hz lcd, sure there is some benefits.

Like I said before, the LED backlight, does way more for improving LCD image quality than the jump from 60hz to 120hz did.

But if this thread is just for LCD fanboys and not real discussion, I will gladly leave you be.

[Cpt_Dylan_Hunt]

Originally Posted by ChrisV

Let me tell you why I insist on leaving it on. Because it makes EVERY CGI animated movie and Nature movies look BETTER. Anyone who doesn't think that Planet Earth looks better with AMP on needs to have their eyes and head examined! On my Samsung LCD there is an option to have a split screen showing AMP on and off simutaneously, and the difference is astounding! AMP makes the picture smoother, clearer, sharper and more realistic especially fast moving scenes. Most people who don't like it say it makes film look like video. This may be true but in my opinion this is not a bad thing. I understand and respect the film "purists" point of view but you can't tell me that the film looks better with AMP off. It doesn't! it just looks like film and that is what you are used to. Most music purists still think LP records sound the most natural and best but clearly CD's sound much better. The same with film. EVERY person I ever showed a movie to with AMP on was in awe over the picture quaility. At first I thought the movies looked odd because it looked TOO GOOD. It looks so realistic you feel like you are on the set. So how can something that looks more realistic be bad? you are just used to the 24 fps. After watching all my movies with AMP on I can never go back, regular film at 24 fps now looks choppy and is almost unwatchable.

If you perceive it as "better", than that's great and all the power to ya. But watching a movie the way it was INTENDED to be seen, is entirely another story!

[tbizzle]

Originally Posted by ChrisV

Let me tell you why I insist on leaving it on. Because it makes EVERY CGI animated movie and Nature movies look BETTER. Anyone who doesn't think that Planet Earth looks better with AMP on needs to have their eyes and head examined! On my Samsung LCD there is an option to have a split screen showing AMP on and off simutaneously, and the difference is astounding! AMP makes the picture smoother, clearer, sharper and more realistic especially fast moving scenes. Most people who don't like it say it makes film look like video. This may be true but in my opinion this is not a bad thing. I understand and respect the film "purists" point of view but you can't tell me that the film looks better with AMP off. It doesn't! it just looks like film and that is what you are used to. Most music purists still think LP records sound the most natural and best but clearly CD's sound much better. The same with film. EVERY person I ever showed a movie to with AMP on was in awe over the picture quaility. At first I thought the movies looked odd because it looked TOO GOOD. It looks so realistic you feel like you are on the set. So how can something that looks more realistic be bad? you are just used to the 24 fps. After watching all my movies with AMP on I can never go back, regular film at 24 fps now looks choppy and is almost unwatchable.

I absolutely can't watch movies with AMP on, no matter if it's a regular movie, CGI movie or Planet Earth. It looks extremely unnatural to me, and is not how movies were meant to be seen (imo). It almost looks like it's very very very slightly on fast forward. It has the "soap opera effect", and I think it looks terrible.

My buddy was watching a display TV at Fry's recently and asked me why the movie looked "processed, and fake looking" and I told him the TV had it's AMP on. I grabbed the remote and turned it off, instantly he goes "ok now it looks like a film". I showed him the same thing at my house and he agreed, along with my bro who was there as well.

No one I've met has liked the AMP feature and we've all agreed that it looks very unnatural and un-film like. If you go to the movie theater, is the image on the screen "auto motion enhanced"? No. Because a film is, imo, supposed to be viewed that way. NOW, maybe you love it, and that's cool.

But you gotta understand, before you say people need their heads examined if they don't like something that you do, remember that everyone has different tastes, and different TV's.