120Hz simplified......

brettw22

I'm sure there's a site somewhere, but for those that don't understand the necessity of 120Hz sets, here's the very simplified explanation I've been given.....First of all, 60 or 120 refers to the fresh rate per seconds.

MOST TV or Movies are shot in either 24 or 30FPS.

When you're dealing with 60hz sets, shows shot in 30fps work well because the image is repeated evenly into that mix, but a show shot in 24 or 28.8fps doesn't 'fit' as nicely so you'll see jittering.

When dealing with the 120hz sets, both 24 and 30fps shows are divisible by that refresh rate, so both look fluid. The jittering you'll see with these are shows that film with 28.8fps so you'll end up seeing people moving around like robots because the refresh rate isn't transitioning properly.

I caught a show the other night that i was wondering why they let some HS kid on the set to run the cameras. Soon as I turned off the 120, it smoothed out and was more natural. This was apparently one of those shows that shot in 28.8 where it was displaying oddly..........

MikeC78

Make it easy on yourself and get a plasma, problem solved.

brettw22

lol.......ya ya ya........

When a quality plasma that's 60" is around $2-2500 then I'll do it.......there's absolutely no reason those things are still as high as they are........

I just got a Sony 52" XBR6 that I really like, but in 3-4 years I'll look at replacing it with a plasma if the pricing is right.

MikeC78

Seems like the prices on plasma have pretty much stabalized over the past 4 years, since LCD's are the hot item and plasma's got a bad wrap. However, the top two plasma makers keep getting better. Pioneer and Panasonic. The newest Kuro Elite has almost perfect black levels. When the 50" Elite Pro-111FD drops under 3k, it's all mine. I'm hoping in the next few months.

brettw22

I've looked at the Kuro Elite's for a while, but their prices are too high IMO.

If that 60" fell below the 3000 mark I'd probably do it, but not for a few years since I have the new xbr that i really like.........

Plasma could have as much of the market as LCD if they opted to price their sets accordingly........

Conradicles

120Hz looks terrible with movies on every LCD I have ever seen.
Your Sony is a great TV though.

The Pioneer "Advanced" mode on my TV displays 1080P 24fps at 72Hz and it looks great!
Not too "video" like with movies as the 120Hz sets.

Enjoy your Sony!

SolidSqual

Some people like the "hand-cam" effect - they think they are getting a better picture. I thought it was cool when I first saw it, but now I see it like a videogame platformer. You have a 2D background and a 3D character. It's annoying. +1 for Plasma. The blacks are better too.

PhantomOG

Do most advertised "120Hz" tv nowadays correctly do 5:5 pulldown? Its my understanding that the 120Hz isn't really worth anything unless 5:5 pulldown is achieved as well.

dborzz

I have an older(if 2yrs old is older) pioneer plasma 43 inch and it beats the pants off of my friends and their 1080p lcds.......and I'm almost sorry to say that does include a 120hz sony......plasma all the way!!

zingo

Great simple explanation. I learn something everyday.

SEH

PhantomOG wrote: »

Do most advertised "120Hz" tv nowadays correctly do 5:5 pulldown? Its my understanding that the 120Hz isn't really worth anything unless 5:5 pulldown is achieved as well.

No, they don't. There are some that will do it correctly if fed a 24p source, but just double all 60 Hz sources. Whether it's worth anything when done the wrong way depends on whether or not you want it to look like a film. There's still the benefit of higher refresh rate for obscuring LCD blur.

SEH

Conradicles wrote: »

120Hz looks terrible with movies on every LCD I have ever seen.
Your Sony is a great TV though.

The Pioneer "Advanced" mode on my TV displays 1080P 24fps at 72Hz and it looks great!
Not too "video" like with movies as the 120Hz sets.

If it's done properly, 24 fps refreshed at 120 Hz doesn't look like video. It looks like something shot at 24 fps.

brettw22

120HZ looks AMAZINGLY real on the right type of content......you can't arbitrarily choose 120 or 60 and stick to that full time because tv and film vary in how they're recorded since there is no 'standard' that's been set.

SEH

brettw22 wrote: »

120HZ looks AMAZINGLY real on the right type of content......you can't arbitrarily choose 120 or 60 and stick to that full time because tv and film vary in how they're recorded since there is no 'standard' that's been set.

You actually can't choose at all, other then when you buy your TV. If an LCD refreshes at 120 Hz, then that's what it does. You can only choose how it processes various sources to fit into the 120 Hz refresh rate. If the processing allows you to turn off all interpolation (some TVs don't), and it's capable of extracting the original frames from the 60 Hz broadcast rate (some TVs can't), then you'll be fine with any source. It will be displaying as many unique frames per second (24, 30, 60) as the source was originally captured at, just repeated in a 5:5, 4:4 or 2:2 cadence.

I'm not aware of anything sourced at 28.8 fps, and I think it would look extremely bad without some sophisticated interpolation.

pearsall001

From what I've read it's nothing more than another marketing BS ploy. Anything to help you empty out your wallet. I can't say if what I've read is true or not but since I'm not in the market for a new TV it isn't an important issue for me. From your post it sounds like you did notice a difference & if you like it that's all that counts.

timlitton

I personally HATE the 120Hz anti-judder tv's. It looks horrible.

I (and most others) CHOOSE to film things in 24 frames a second because of the very unique gait and motion blur it adds. There are other capture rates on most upper end HD cameras, yet the vast majority of non-sports videographers and film-makers choose to shoot at 24 frames.

Then some yahoo at Best Buy sells you a fancy TV from an engineer at Samsung that makes the film-look picture look like it was shot on video camera for the local news.

That's my two cents.

wingnut4772

Get a Kuro.

pearsall001

wingnut4772 wrote: »

Get a Kuro.

Ah!! Now we're talking!!!

danger boy

good explanation Brett... now please explain a plasma at 480Hz because I'm not that good with math

prices on plasmas just dropped because I think the 2009's are about to be released. you can get a 46" plasma for under 1K right now.

ND13

I wonder why I have ZERO issues with ANY of the problems ya'll are discussing with my 3 yr old 720p lcd 37" Westinghouse??? I feed it HD material 95% of the time, via either cable, Blu-Ray, or HDDVD. Yeah the blacks could be better, but on virtually all HD material I've viewed on it looks simply stunning. Are their better tvs, of course, but at this time, the only reason I'd replace it would be for a larger screen...up to 46-50".

danger boy

i think with the advent of HD DVD and now Blu Ray, consumers are taking a closer look at the video quality in flat panel TV's.

in the tube tv days.. you only had to choose the size of screen you wanted and what brand. you never had to pay attention to pixel resolution, 720p, 1080i/1080P never had to worry about refresh rates, wall mounts, digital audio, etc.

consumers have become smarter shoppers overall, and believe it or not it can be overwhelming with all the choices you have today in choosing a TV.

ND13

I'm pretty damn critical. And I've had HD since 2003 with my Philips 1080i 30 WS tube and HD cable. I've had HDDVD and Blu-Ray since it's inception. I have 20/15 in right eye and 20/20 in left eye with no color vision issues.

leroyjr1

I only use the 120 hz when watching sports (football & basketball).

tonyb

wingnut4772 wrote: »

Get a Kuro.

**** has my TV.....:D

Damn Darla....I'm almost seriously thinking about a late night escapade,when your not home of coarse.:p That is THE set to have,enjoy.

wingnut4772

They've come down in price a little too.

SEH

timlitton wrote: »

I personally HATE the 120Hz anti-judder tv's. It looks horrible.

I (and most others) CHOOSE to film things in 24 frames a second because of the very unique gait and motion blur it adds.

That unique gait is gone and replaced by a lopsided 3:2 cadence when played back on a 60 Hz TV though. The only way to see 24 fps correctly is with a refresh rate that's an even multiple of 24. A higher refresh rate alone doesn't destroy the effect you like, or we'd all hate movie theaters running their projectors at 72 Hz.

As long as there are only 24 unique frames being shown every second, the refresh rate effects flicker and nothing else. All the frame to frame blur will still be there every 1/24th second to please you.

The weird slick look people associate with the 120 Hz refresh rate on LCDs comes from the fact that some of these are generating 4 new frames for every frame in the source. That obviously isn't going to look like 24 fps film, but it's a side effect of processing that's intended to make film sources look like something else, not the refresh rate.

SEH

ND13 wrote: »

I wonder why I have ZERO issues with ANY of the problems ya'll are discussing with my 3 yr old 720p lcd 37" Westinghouse???

Probably the same reasons refresh rate issues never bothered people for most of NTSC history. Small TV, not much resolution.