[Audiofiler]

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!

Shoot me a PM.
 

 

 

[sokolov91]

Quote:

"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. . .

Console games have frame rates locked at 60 or in worst cases 30.
 
The human eye needs 60 fps for pictures to appear entirely fluid, but is capable of detecting much more.
 
Pretty sure the was a US air force study showing the human eye could notice a difference up to some insane number like 1000 frames. Obviously they couldn't say how many frames, but they could say it looked smoother.
 
IF  UE can get blu rays running at 60 fps, he will be a happy man.

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by sokolov91 /img/forum/go_quote.gif
 
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.

24p Blu-Rays are actually a pretty good feature given that it keeps film material (which was recorded at 24p) in as close to its original format as possible. While modern digitally recorded movies aren't as wedded to that frame rate as film cameras were, most are still recorded at 24p for aesthetic reasons. TV material (in NA) is/was shot at 60i/30p/60p to meet NTSC/ATSC standards for broadcast and keep those frame rates when reproduced on Blu-Ray. All current standards compliant Blu-Ray players will properly output material at 1080p/24 and the various 60i/30p/60p formats so there aren't any issues on those fronts.
 
120Hz and other multiples of 24Hz can allow for proper playback of 24p material without the characteristic hitching present with the 2:3 pulldown necessary for 60Hz sets. Combined with a good interpolation algorithm, they can also extract more detail and more resolution during motion than a 60Hz set, but YMMV.

 

[RexAeterna]

i didn't really mean that really. saying since if the screen is 60hz you won't notice a difference between 60fps or 120fps. the refresh rate has to match  the framerate. movies do not go at 60fps at all. it will make movies so unnatural to watch. that's why there always locked at 25fps while games(consoles) play fine at 30fps but to me seems sluggish. the consoles GPUs are simply too weak to push more then 30fps avg when it comes to lots of particles,hi-res textures,draw distence and so forth.

if you do hi-end pc gaming you know what i'm talking about. i can see a big difference with games on my rig running 30fps compared 120fps. also another reason why some console games like COD4 play pretty well at 60fps on console is lack of resolution. they render below 720p(1280x720) with lack of AA and AF. most console games lack complete AA and AF and play below 1280x720p to acheive a fluid experience. 120hz is not needed for any tv programing or media applications unless it's running 3d. the term ''3d ready'' is a gimmick as well. any tv or monitor capable of 120hz can render 3d. even old crts using the correct software can easily support 3d cause lot of CRTs especially professional CRTs can hit well above 1080p(1920x1080) at over 160hz.

HD resolutions been around for years when it comes to monitor technolgy(since the late 70's when 1280x720p started being common for crt monitors.) Only difference is tv's can be have at much larger sizes. biggest monitors get is 30'' and that's for professional S-IPS LCD monitors or professional CRT CAD displays with 4-6x resolution of your avg 1080p tv. Companies like Microsoft already knew this. that's why they released a 15-pin vga(aka as svga) for the 360 cause tons of monitos from long ago before original xbox was easily supporting well above 1280x720p resolution.
Quote:

Quote:

"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. . .

Console games have frame rates locked at 60 or in worst cases 30.
 
The human eye needs 60 fps for pictures to appear entirely fluid, but is capable of detecting much more.
 
Pretty sure the was a US air force study showing the human eye could notice a difference up to some insane number like 1000 frames. Obviously they couldn't say how many frames, but they could say it looked smoother.
 
IF  UE can get blu rays running at 60 fps, he will be a happy man.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Thanks for the very detailed information, everyone! I can always count on Head-Fi when I need to learn about something.

Haven't decided yet, but have been looking at a 42" Panasonic 120Hz set at B&H for $550. No tax and free shipping. Looks good so far, but sill open to suggestions.

The reason I'm not interested in plasma is primarily heat rejection. This is going into an apartment down in Arizona - it topped out around 118° F last summer. Not only that, but the audio portion (for now) will be a Zana Deux driving a Conrad-Johnson MV52, with four EL34s that get warm. The apartment isn't that big and I don't want to add another significant heat source.

I probably won't be watching anything with lots of action - no games or action movies. The 24P setting looks interesting, too. I'll probably build a small Blu-Ray collection of favorites and use Netflix for anything that isn't worth buying. I know Netflix doesn't have the best picture quality currently, but I'd like Blu-Ray discs to look good.

 

[RexAeterna]

that's a great deal there man. i say go for it. pansonic is not a bad brand at all. if not can look at sony,samsung or vizio at around that price range or size.
 
Quote:

Thanks for the very detailed information, everyone! I can always count on Head-Fi when I need to learn about something.

Haven't decided yet, but have been looking at a 42" Panasonic 120Hz set at B&H for $550. No tax and free shipping. Looks good so far, but sill open to suggestions.

The reason I'm not interested in plasma is primarily heat rejection. This is going into an apartment down in Arizona - it topped out around 118° F last summer. Not only that, but the audio portion (for now) will be a Zana Deux driving a Conrad-Johnson MV52, with four EL34s that get warm. The apartment isn't that big and I don't want to add another significant heat source.

I probably won't be watching anything with lots of action - no games or action movies. The 24P setting looks interesting, too. I'll probably build a small Blu-Ray collection of favorites and use Netflix for anything that isn't worth buying. I know Netflix doesn't have the best picture quality currently, but I'd like Blu-Ray discs to look good.

 

[tjohnusa]

Quote:

"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. . .

That reminds me of the old frequency response issue.....the human ear can't hear (in most cases) over 17khz so why get a 20 to 20 piece of equipment? It is all about renforcement....just because you can't here 20khz you should be able to here a 17khz rolloff