[mobbaddict]

Quote:

Most of the 120 Hz TVs have something called motion interpolation. This is what causes the unnaturally fluid motion people are complaining about, and you should be able to disable it. It may play a role in reducing motion blur, but I've read that motion blur on LCDs is mainly caused by the panel's response time. You may want to go with 120 Hz is for Blu Ray playback though- movies are usually 24 fps, which divides evenly into a 120 Hz refresh rate, but not 60.

Yes display frequency and motion interpolation are two different things, people always get confused about it. A higher display frequency doesn't do much IMO, on my plasma it enhances the brightness but it also makes the picture less smooth and natural. Anyway the lower the framerate the closer you'll get to a cinematic experience.
 
You make a very good point about 24P playback, 120hz will work perfect with blu-rays. Most 60/100hz sets are supposed to handle 24P playback as well but it's hard to check if they really have a 48/72/96hz mode or if they do a 3:2 pulldown (24x2,5=60).
 
Motion interpolation is probably nice with video games but from what I've seen I think it's flawed for movies, very far from being natural. I don't know why you rule plasmas out. They're cheaper and will offer you an unmatched motion without needing processing. All the issues about power consumption and burn in are long gone.

 

[RYCeT]

 
Hi Uncle Erik, if you can stretch your budget to $1000, go to your nearest Sony outlet store. Sony 46XBR8 is available for $999. It came out in 2008 but still considered as the best lcd tv up to now. It was selling for $3k when it first came out. It's 1080p 120hz with led-lcd local dimming technology. Check it at avsforum.com. I bought one during bestbuy closeout sale for $1.6k last year and still considered as a great value. Otherwise, sony ex500 series has a good reputation.

 

[FallenAngel]

Here's a good analogy for you - do you need a 24 bit DAC to listen to 16-bit CDs?

 

[Landis]

Quote:

Here's a good analogy for you - do you need a 24 bit DAC to listen to 16-bit CDs?

But 24 bit DACs will usually upsample/oversample which tends to make the sound brighter increasing fatigue, whereas 120Hz and higher refresh rates significantly lower fatigue.
 
Now a 120Hz DAC is something worth investing in! It decreases the motion blur of my music.

 

[FallenAngel]

24 bit DACs don't necessarily up-sample or resample, and most DACs do oversample even with 16 bits  It also doesn't make it sound "brighter".  120Hz to show 30 fps content (most TV) doesn't make much sense... For 24fps movies, it may make sense, but personally, I don't mind the 3:2 pulldown.

 

[sebastian589]

120hz definitely comes down to taste, for some movies I really liked it, for most I didn't appreciate the effect. 120 and 240hz are great for sports but I think buying a less expensive but higher quality 60hz set would be the way to go.

 

[tjohnusa]

TV's are quite the "grey good" area....a $600 Dynex may be the same as a $800 "insert name here" only a different case. I have both a 60hz lcd and 120hz led for sports the led is definetly better but does have the video tape effect for blu rays. Let's remember the op is coming from a 27" crt so a 60 hz high def will be appreciated. Whatever you decide just buy it from a place that has a liberal return policy.
 
The 60hz is a LG 32" lcd and the 120hz is a 47" Insignia led

 

[ford2]

 
 
What is needed is for a new generation of camera men,fast panning is a no no.
 
 
The advertised 120 hz etc etc smooths it out a bit but at a cost and should never be used with DVD/BD.
 
 
The amount of compting power needed to interpolate a signal is far beyond a tv set.

 

[ericj]

My two bits:
 
My Toshiba 47" LCD is pretty good, but it's a couple years old. It's "120hz" but I'm told it's not "real" 120hz
 
I like it. Seriously. I'm watching a blu-ray on it right now.
 
The Vizio 37" in the bedroom is about a year newer. It is 120hz as well, and has a LOT of video processing options.
 
The name of the game is motion compensation. Film is 24hz, 120hz means that there are 5 possible intermediary frames. My vizio in the bedroom does an outstanding job of interpolating one frame to the next, in a way that it looks far more smooth.
 
You have to adjust the settings a bit to achieve a happy medium on that display, but once you get there, it's almost too real.
 
OTOH when i go to costco or best buy i can't tell the difference between 120hz and 240hz. So, in conclusion, 60hz ok, 120hz better, 240hz why bother.

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

I'm in the market for a new HDTV, my first TV since '97.

I've been shopping TVs and have been mostly looking at models around 40"-42", LCD and 1080i. I'm not much interested in plasma and don't want to pay the premium for LED-LCD. I'll probably upgrade in 2-3 years when prices are much lower and I can also handle replacing the bulb if it goes in an ordinary LCD.

Also have zero interest in 3D or other gizmos - I already have the new AppleTV and am shopping for a Blu-Ray player. I'll jack in the DVD-A player and a HDTV antenna, too. No cable or dish and no video game console. Though I might spring for an Xbox if it gives me ESPN without cable that I heard about (still not sure how that works), but I'd only use it to get ESPN. (And if it's a pain, I'll continue to hit bars for my NCAA football/basketball fix).

Anyhow, it seems that $100 separates the 60Hz from the 120Hz sets. I understand the technical angle here and know that a higher refresh rate will give a smoother picture.

But do you need 120Hz to enjoy DVD, Blu-Ray and streaming Netflix? I'll pay more if it means that visible artifacts will smooth out and give cleaner motion. But if I'll be able to enjoy movies (probably 95% of what I'll have on) at 60Hz, I'll save a few bucks.

Also, any recommendations for specific sets or telling me to go in an entirely different direction would be very welcome.

My budget is around $500-$600 for a 40"-42" since that looks like a sweet spot in the market. It'll be a thrill since my last set was a 27" CRT. I can push my budget to $1,000 or a little over if there's a great value on a bigger set somewhere. Thanks, guys!

Hey UE,
 
Personally I would try and go for an LED on sale if you can get one at that price. However, if you are willing to baby your tv, plasmas still give the best picture.... going from CRT to LCD (especially non LED) will be a double edged sword... you will get a much nicer resolution, but worse colour contrast. LED is a nice compromise between cost, ease of use, and picture. Also, I wouldn't settle on 1080i... the progressive scan always makes things much smoother to these eyes.
 
Also... plasmas are being phased out... you can get a 600hz plasma for really decent prices... make sure it does 1080p and you are in for an awesome picture.
 
120 and all that stuff is a scam really... most blu-rays run at 24 fps anyways (apparently this is a "feature"), and yes you do not actually get true 120 hz input. You get an interpolation algorithm adding new frames. The human eye sees anything over 60 hz as "fluid" although faster framerates are always more natural looking in most cases.You should try and audition because personally I love CRT monitors for gaming because of the much higher refresh rates than LCD, but we are talking true refresh rate. I find the interpolation techniques used make programing look like crap when it comes to tvs.
 
Personally I find it horrible, and it is terrible for gaming so I didn't consider it. 60hz is all you would need for "fluid" motion so I would check into BR players that do 24 and 60 hz if such a thing exists (pretty sure it does). The extra frames on the TV's end are useless.

 

[ericj]

 
Quote:

 
120 and all that stuff is a scam really... most blu-rays run at 24 fps anyways (apparently this is a "feature"), and yes you do not actually get true 120 hz input. You get an interpolation algorithm adding new frames. The human eye sees anything over 60 hz as "fluid" although faster framerates are always more natural looking in most cases.You should try and audition because personally I love CRT monitors for gaming because of the much higher refresh rates than LCD, but we are talking true refresh rate. I find the interpolation techniques used make programing look like crap when it comes to tvs.

Well, like i said, it's about motion compensation.
 
It comes down to fast transitions in the video. A GOOD 120hz display is far smoother than an IMAX theater. A bad one is no better.
 
I don't personally know whether the 60hz displays come with the same features or not. From a coding perspective, 120hz is 5x 24hz, which means you have a nice integer number of frames to interpolate in north america, but I don't know whether that actually makes a difference or not.
 
I just know that my 120hz vizio can be configured to range from "just like the theater" to "like animated plastic" and somewhere in-between lies a setting where it's like a window into another reality.
 

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

 
Quote:

 
120 and all that stuff is a scam really... most blu-rays run at 24 fps anyways (apparently this is a "feature"), and yes you do not actually get true 120 hz input. You get an interpolation algorithm adding new frames. The human eye sees anything over 60 hz as "fluid" although faster framerates are always more natural looking in most cases.You should try and audition because personally I love CRT monitors for gaming because of the much higher refresh rates than LCD, but we are talking true refresh rate. I find the interpolation techniques used make programing look like crap when it comes to tvs.

Well, like i said, it's about motion compensation.
 
It comes down to fast transitions in the video. A GOOD 120hz display is far smoother than an IMAX theater. A bad one is no better.
 
I don't personally know whether the 60hz displays come with the same features or not. From a coding perspective, 120hz is 5x 24hz, which means you have a nice integer number of frames to interpolate in north america, but I don't know whether that actually makes a difference or not.
 
I just know that my 120hz vizio can be configured to range from "just like the theater" to "like animated plastic" and somewhere in-between lies a setting where it's like a window into another reality.
 

This is true.
 
And to be fair I hate watching blu rays at 24 fps (always forget to turn that setting off on my PS3) but things that run at 60 fps look fine (amazing even on my new LED screen)
 
So if there is no way to force a player into doing 60 hz, 120hz might be the way to go for UE. I couldn't use it as I am on a budget and use my tv soley for gaming, and the delay in the 120hz is annoying to say the least (on the sets I have "auditioned")
 
Other than that, blu-rays at 60 hz are the best "bang for buck" if this is possible on the source end.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if there is some truth to your hunch about the 5 x 24 fps though. Odd numbers for things like this are never good.
 
Anyone seen these plasmas at 600hz? I can't confirm I have seen one with this feature active, but I am always stunned at the colour reproduction.

 

[ericj]

Quote:

 
And to be fair I hate watching blu rays at 24 fps (always forget to turn that setting off on my PS3) but things that run at 60 fps look fine (amazing even on my new LED screen)
 
So if there is no way to force a player into doing 60 hz, 120hz might be the way to go for UE. I couldn't use it as I am on a budget and use my tv soley for gaming, and the delay in the 120hz is annoying to say the least (on the sets I have "auditioned")
 
Other than that, blu-rays at 60 hz are the best "bang for buck" if this is possible on the source end.
 

Probably comes down to whether the video processor in your blu-ray player is superior to the one in your display or vice-versa.
 
I was playing with those settings on the vizio while watching the Star Trek: Nemesis stream on netflix. It's obvious that this movie was filmed digitally throughout, and the default setting on the vizio made it look cartoonish (which was what prompted me to adjust the settings) - the difference between no motion compensation and moderate motion compensation was striking, so i kept it. I had to draw back most of the video processing options to about half-way on their sliders, but now i have no complaints about anything that display does.
 
My Toshiba 47" doesn't offer as much processing, but i have never honestly been disappointed by it's performance.

 

[RexAeterna]

no. there is no difference to be honest. the biggest difference comes from the panel used to give the best quality picture and viewing angles. like lcd there is TN,IPS,H-IPS,S-IPS,S-PVA,ect.

main consumer based lcd used is a TN panel. TN panels are of the cheapest while the worst and lack color depth and viewing angles as compared to IPS,S-PVA,S-IPS panels dilever. very important as a graphic artist. thing that makes a good tv or monitor is the pixle-dot pitch as well. LED is really just a different backlight used. mainly a more brighter backlight. it's still lcd but with LED backlight. plasma uses a type of gas to paint the picture.


most tv's use almost same panels as monitors and range from type of IPS technology to ensure close to accurate color reproduction. i mean  TN panels are still great. it's a concern if your into graphic work,pc gaming,or photos. back to the 60hz thing.... it doesn't matter since the avg human eyes cannot see past 60fps and things like dvd,blu-ray are 25fps and console gaming barely hits avg of 30fps. some do hit 60fps but barely. pc gaming the framerate all depends on the hardware.  even if your say hitting 120fps avg on a game it dosen't matter. why? cause refresh rate is 60hz so screen will always lock at 60fps viewing wise. don't be too concern with refresh rate. as long as it's 60hz it's fine. 120hz is only useful for 3d cause it needs the speed to render each framerate twice to give that illusion of depth.

most stuff you see like dynamic contrast and ms response are marketing. each manufactor caculates their product specs completely different. it is never accurate. if your looking for a good brand i think vizio,sony,samsung are good. since it's mostly tv watching you be set for life. if it was photoshopping,pc gaming,graphic design i would suggest a IPS monitor or CAD CRT.not a tv. i love my 21'' Sony CAD CRT for pc gaming and messing around in photo-shop. 

 

 

[Satellite_6]

"it doesn't matter since the avg human eyes cannot see past 60fps and things like dvd,blu-ray are 25fps and console gaming barely hits avg of 30fps"
 
72 is the number, movies are 24 (72/3) I think, not 25. Most PS3 games are smoother than 30 I think. . .