240Hz LCD

[scrumptious]

Is there any point to this? Isn't a 120Hz sufficient as an even multiple of 24?

[Chevypower]

Originally Posted by scrumptious

Is there any point to this? Isn't a 120Hz sufficient as an even multiple of 24?

Bring on 600Hz... will handle full multiples of 24,25,30 and 60.

[jibucha]

Hello

Yes; there is significant reason for this performance; LCD refresh rates are fundamentally insufficient.

And; 120Hz and 240Hz have little to do with frame rates, rather with refresh rate of the display itself.

Additionally; 240Hz will become as common this year as 120Hz did last year, and I am confidant will be very successful.

I hope that this is helpful information.

Thank You

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by jibucha

Hello

Yes; there is significant reason for this performance; LCD refresh rates are fundamentally insufficient.

And; 120Hz and 240Hz have little to do with frame rates, rather with refresh rate of the display itself.

Additionally; 240Hz will become as common this year as 120Hz did last year, and I am confidant will be very successful.

I hope that this is helpful information.

Thank You

While they do have to do with the refresh rate of the display itself, that is also a key in handling 24hz frame rates in film. Without the proper refresh rate, there is no chance of avoiding pulldown judder- for example in a 60hz set. However, not all 120hz sets properly resolve 24hz material.

...just for clarification.

[Rob J in WNY]

Originally Posted by aramis109

While they do have to do with the refresh rate of the display itself, that is also a key in handling 24hz frame rates in film. Without the proper refresh rate, there is no chance of avoiding pulldown judder- for example in a 60hz set. However, not all 120hz sets properly resolve 24hz material.

...just for clarification.

+1

I have a Sony XBR4, and even though it does have a 120Hz panel, there IS judder once in awhile. Even with the Motion Enhancer turned up to High, you can still get judder during some slow pans on occasion. It's a perfect idea, but certainly not a perfect application.

[aramis109]

Originally Posted by Rob J in WNY

+1

I have a Sony XBR4, and even though it does have a 120Hz panel, there IS judder once in awhile. Even with the Motion Enhancer turned up to High, you can still get judder during some slow pans on occasion. It's a perfect idea, but certainly not a perfect application.

Well, just FYI- if you have Motion Enhancer on, then typically it turns off any kind of proper 5:5 pulldown. Typically you can have one or the other.


...though I was in a store and a guy turned both on at the same time on an XBR6.

[jibucha]

Hello

Display Refresh Rates l They address the fundamental speed of the display itself, as this is one of several deficiencies of LCD Technology. Simply, 2-milli-second refresh rates are very slow, causing the image to completely fall apart with any motion.

Obviously, many do not either mind this poor performance or notice it, however it is remarkably poor in my experience, such that I cannot watch any LCD for more than about eight minutes before I entirely loose interest in whatever the movie is, whether on Blu-ray or Broadcast Television.

Frame Rates l 24Hz 1:1 l 48Hz 2:2 l 72Hz 3:3 l 96Hz 4:4 l 120Hz 5:5 l

They address image flicker of camera film rate of 24/fps. It is well known that in movie theaters and many displays, that this technique improves image performance universally, specific to image flicker.

While both will directly affect the quality of image percieved on LCD, and are certainly independently important improvements to display quality; they are unrelated otherwise and should not be confused as such.

Thank You

Originally Posted by aramis109

While they do have to do with the refresh rate of the display itself, that is also a key in handling 24hz frame rates in film. Without the proper refresh rate, there is no chance of avoiding pulldown judder- for example in a 60hz set. However, not all 120hz sets properly resolve 24hz material.

...just for clarification.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by jibucha

Hello

Yes; there is significant reason for this performance; LCD refresh rates are fundamentally insufficient.

And; 120Hz and 240Hz have little to do with frame rates, rather with refresh rate of the display itself.

Additionally; 240Hz will become as common this year as 120Hz did last year, and I am confidant will be very successful.

I hope that this is helpful information.

Thank You

Actually, no, this post doesn't help, just like most every other post you make around here. It provides absolutely no information.

Personally, I see 240Hz as another marketing gimmick to sell sets to the general population who know nothing more than "a bigger number must be better". It's not as bad as the dynamic contrast ratio hype, but it's close. Again, it's just my opinion. If it really ends up helping motion resolution (without the use of motion interpolation, which makes the picture look 'fake' to me), then that's great news for LCDs. Here's an article I read recently on the subject:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10144265-1.html

Two of the most confusing letters thrown around in reference to LCD and TVs these days are "H" and "z." The confusion will just continue to mount this year, as numerous manufacturers announced 240Hz displays at CES, doubling the 120Hz spec in an attempt to lure buyers. But is it twice as nice?

Until proven otherwise, I'm saying no, 240Hz is not worth waiting for.

Before I get into why, it's probably worth writing a few sentences to sketch out what all these numbers mean. Standard LCD and plasma TVs refresh the screen 60 times per second, or 60Hz, which is plenty fast enough to eliminate flicker and create the illusion of motion from a series of still images. In fact, most sources sent to your display arrive at the nominal rate of 30 frames per second, and each frame is repeated once by the television to achieve 60 total fps.

The problem is that with LCD, some viewers can perceive motion blur in fast-moving objects on standard 60Hz models (motion blur like this isn't an issue with plasma or other display types, whether 60Hz or otherwise, because they use different methods to create the illusion of motion). To reduce blurring, most 120Hz LCD displays use interpolation--called MEMC for "motion estimation-motion compensation"--to create a new frame between each of the original frames, so there's one interpolated frame for every true frame. An interpolated frame is composed of the processor's best guess as to what should be there, based on the contents of each of the true frames.

At CES, LCD TV makers announced new models with 240Hz refresh rates, which are designed to reduce motion blur even further. There are two distinct methods used by different manufacturers to arrive at that number. I've reviewed one 240Hz display, the Sony KDL-52XBR7, which uses MEMC again to basically double the 120Hz process described above--so for each "true" frame there are three interpolated frames. Samsung also uses MEMC to get to 240Hz.

LG, Toshiba, and Vizio, on the other hand, use what's called "scanning backlight" technology. Instead of interpolating a second time, it uses MEMC once to get to 120Hz, in combination with a backlight that flashes on and off very quickly, to claim a 240Hz refresh rate. Notably, Toshiba used the careful phrase "240Hz effect" at its press conference to describe the scanning backlight method, although we doubt the distinction will filter down to the product packaging. I haven't reviewed any displays that use this method yet, so I can't speak to whether one method is better than the other.

Despite having reviewed only one HDTV with 240Hz, however, I'm fairly confident that the feature, regardless of how it's implemented, is not worth waiting for on its own, unless you're the kind of highly sensitive viewer who already perceives motion blur in 120Hz models.

Personally, I have a difficult time perceiving motion blur in standard 60Hz LCDs, even in side-by-side comparisons with 120Hz LCDs or plasmas, unless I'm using specialized test material. (I'm talking about motion blur only here, not "smooth" dejudder processing, which is separate from refresh rate and quite easy to perceive.)

According to that test material, the 240Hz Sony XBR7 did in fact reduce motion blur significantly compared with 120Hz displays, so I'm willing to believe claims that 240Hz is less-blurry than 120Hz. In case you're wondering, the XBR7 delivered between 900 and 1,000 lines of motion resolution, which matches the result of a typical plasma.

That compares with 500-600 lines for a standard 120Hz model like the Sony KDL-52XBR6 and 300-400 lines for a 60Hz LCD. But those results were with test patterns. The real question is whether you actually tell the difference in everyday viewing? For most viewers, the answer is "no."

Hey, maybe I'll be surprised when I do get my hands on more 240Hz TVs and they turn out to be the cat's meow. Anything can happen, but until then I'm not telling anyone to hold out for 240Hz tomorrow when you can get 120Hz (or less!) today.

[aramis109]

Here's the thing I see in the article though to give that opinion pause:

According to that test material, the 240Hz Sony XBR7 did in fact reduce motion blur significantly compared with 120Hz displays, so I'm willing to believe claims that 240Hz is less-blurry than 120Hz. In case you're wondering, the XBR7 delivered between 900 and 1,000 lines of motion resolution, which matches the result of a typical plasma.

That compares with 500-600 lines for a standard 120Hz model like the Sony KDL-52XBR6 and 300-400 lines for a 60Hz LCD. But those results were with test patterns. The real question is whether you actually tell the difference in everyday viewing? For most viewers, the answer is "no."

I haven't seen one in motion, so I can't say one way or another, but I can say that I sure as hell can see motion blur in my 60hz set.

[Sonny]

Going from 120Hz to 240Hz will not make as big of a difference as 60Hz to 120Hz. We will see 480Hz & so on , every year the number will double or at least be bumped by another 120Hz (of course.) It has become a marketing ploy, even though 120Hz was a huge step for LCD.

[jibucha]

thank you - I can see now that we entirely disagree - interesting

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Actually, no, this post doesn't help, just like most every other post you make around here. It provides absolutely no information.
[/URL]

[mustang-gt-2002]

I've had 1080p LCD's for around 2 years. now I have the samsung LN46A650 120Hz LCD for around 9 months. where are all the 120Hz players?

[dereksworl]

Originally Posted by mustang-gt-2002

now I have the samsung LN46A650 120Hz LCD for around 9 months. where are all the 120Hz players?

What you mean?

[mustang-gt-2002]

Originally Posted by dereksworl

What you mean?

we have players that play at 24Hz(Blu-ray) and 60Hz(like computers & PS3) but no players outputing 120Hz why not.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by mustang-gt-2002

we have players that play at 24Hz(Blu-ray) and 60Hz(like computers & PS3) but no players outputing 120Hz why not.

24p means the player outputs the picture at 24 frames per second, which is how movies are filmed, versus converting it to the standard 60Hz (frames per second). Not exactly sure why 60Hz was the standard output, but probably something to do with 30 fps standard video output.

[jibucha]

Hello

24Hz l It is the frame rate of film cameras used from the beginning of motion pictures and is currently still almost entirely used today.

30Hz & 60Hz l This is the rate of progressive and interlaced, which are the frequency of our electrical system; it is 60Hz, that all electronics in the United States are based on.

1080/24p l Typically, movies are transfered from film to Blu-ray in 1080/24p, which maintains the best possible quality from original film. This output availability of Blu-ray players and input & display abiltiy of the higher quality displays, eilminate the artifacts caused by changing 24fps to 30fps and 60fps, which is commonly known as 2:3 pulldown.

Thank You

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

24p means the player outputs the picture at 24 frames per second, which is how movies are filmed, versus converting it to the standard 60Hz (frames per second). Not exactly sure why 60Hz was the standard output, but probably something to do with 30 fps standard video output.

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

24p means the player outputs the picture at 24 frames per second, which is how movies are filmed, versus converting it to the standard 60Hz (frames per second). Not exactly sure why 60Hz was the standard output, but probably something to do with 30 fps standard video output.

Originally is was due to 60i (59.97 technically, or something like that) CRT display technology (itself based on the power-line frequency). So 24fps was converted to 60i (DVD is 60i).

Digital (progressive) panels come along, and they need to convert that prevalent 60i to 60p. A lot of panels didn't (and still don't) do that well, so players started outputing a properly de-interlaced 60p for panels only capable of 60p.

Now, the proper thing to do is to recover the original frame rate and display based on that. That could be 24, 30 or 60i. But, only in recent years do we have equipment that is doing this.

The whole 120Hz/240Hz stuff is related to having common refresh rates for those different frame rates. The panel makers want to display at ONE refresh rate for all inputs because its much cheaper than multi-sync and far more forgiving of frame rate changes (which would otherwise require a resyncing for every change).

Gary

[dialog_gvf]

Originally Posted by mustang-gt-2002

we have players that play at 24Hz(Blu-ray) and 60Hz(like computers & PS3) but no players outputing 120Hz why not.

Nothing has 120Hz source, so why do you need 120Hz output?

Blu-ray is 24Hz (and 30Hz/60i) source. Computers are 60Hz outputting to digital panels. That is the source data.

Gary

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by mustang-gt-2002

I've had 1080p LCD's for around 2 years. now I have the samsung LN46A650 120Hz LCD for around 9 months. where are all the 120Hz players?

120Hz has nothing to do with a player. It's the refresh rate of the display (the number of times per second the picture is "flashed" onto the screen).

...and don't buy into the 120Hz capable HDMI cable nonsense, either, for the same reason.