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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, very true. I should have mentioned that Sony's Cinemotion settings have more to do with pulldown than the Motion Enhancer, but the interpolated frames are supposed to "smooth motion" with ME and that, they do, but it also brings that "interpolatey" look to the picture.
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:
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.
Here's the thing I see in the article though to give that opinion pause:
Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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
Quote:
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.
Last edited by jibucha; 03-21-2009 at 08:23 PM.
Reason: color enahancement
It is unlikely that we will see anything beyond 240Hz, with regards to LCD displays.
New display technologies are immenient, which will not have any of the problems of LCD to begin with, completely eliminating any such performance issues.
Currently, the 2009 Panasonic Plasma Displays, which are not of the new technologies I referred to, are quite remarkable already. At 96Hz [4:4] frame rates, and processing speed of the panel at 600Hz [which is an entirely separate issue], they are really something to enjoy currently, until the new technologies emerge.
Thank You
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
We will see faster Hz LCD's every year (companys need selling points) till new tech is thrown out to the public. Why wouldn't we? I don't know why you think 240Hz is the magic number? With nothing changing in panels besides LED's inside LCD's which is huge, but new still and cost a ton & has nothing to do with refresh rates. The LCD market will become very stale for the sales people...
We will see faster Hz LCD's every year (companys need selling points) till new tech is thrown out to the public. Why wouldn't we? I don't know why you think 240Hz is the magic number? With nothing changing in panels besides LED's inside LCD's which is huge, but new still and cost a ton & has nothing to do with refresh rates. The LCD market will become very stale for the sales people...
"New tech" like... LED LCD's? I actually agree that we probably won't see the refresh rate going any higher at this point. LED LCD's are going to be what's big coming up.
Personally, I would like to see LCD's improve their response times even further by reducing them below 4ms, but not sure if that is possible.......?
+100. 120Hz helps with blur, but is not good enough. I noticed my first sign of motion blur last night while watching Blood Diamond. It was a real distraction to watch. They should be able to get the RT down to 2ms, as PC monitors do. they are smaller but still.....
"New tech" like... LED LCD's? I actually agree that we probably won't see the refresh rate going any higher at this point. LED LCD's are going to be what's big coming up.
I don't think you understood my post? Why would manufactures stop at 240Hz? like I said before LED is great for LCD but of course it has nothing to do with motion blur & refresh rates. Get the panels well under 2ms & then we would be getting some where.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
240Hz LCD
Linear Mode
