120hz versus 240hz

[Chris]

I am considering the purchase of an LED television. However, before I do, I
would like to know what the difference is between 120 & 240hz; other than
the numbers. I've done some research, but there seems to be a wide array of
conflicting opinions. I know that it has to do with refresh rate, jitter,
and blur. So, if anyone has some straightforward input on the matter, I'm
all (grateful) ears.

Thanks

 

[Sylvia Else]

I am considering the purchase of an LED television. However, before I
do, I would like to know what the difference is between 120 & 240hz;
other than the numbers. I've done some research, but there seems to be a
wide array of conflicting opinions. I know that it has to do with
refresh rate, jitter, and blur. So, if anyone has some straightforward
input on the matter, I'm all (grateful) ears.

Thanks

An alien with 240Hz eyes might appreciate[*] the higher frequency
version, but unless you're such an alien living on Earth incognito,
don't waste your money.

Sylvia.

[*] Ignoring the fact that colour displays are finely tuned to the way
that human colour vision works, and an alien would likely wonder what
we'd been smoking.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

First, the only televisions that use LEDs use OLEDs. There are none using
conventional LEDs.

Second, there are no strict definitions of what these refresh rates mean. In
some cases, the set generates an interpolated image at that rate, in others,
a blank (black) raster is inserted. Some sets combine both.

I don't like this enhancement (which was one of the reasons I bought a
plasma set). It has a nasty side-effect -- it makes motion pictures look
like video. This might be fine for a TV show; it isn't when you're watching
movies. Be sure that whatever set you purchase has some way of defeating it
the enhancement.

You need to actually look at the sets you're considering with program
material you're familiar with.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Ignoring the fact that colour displays are finely tuned

to the way that human colour vision works, and an alien
would likely wonder what we'd been smoking.

This has nothing whatever to do with color rendition.

Who is Sylvia, anyway?

 

[Adrian C]

First, the only televisions that use LEDs use OLEDs. There are none using
conventional LEDs.

none ??

 

[William Sommerwerck]

First, the only televisions that use LEDs use OLEDs.

None ??

Nope. The only sets available use LCDs, plasma, and OLEDs.

 

[Phil Allison]

"William Sommerwanker IDIOT "
"Sylvia Else"

This has nothing whatever to do with color rendition.

** And if you put the remark back into its context - what it IS relevant
to becomes obvious.;

FUCKWIT !!



... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

"William Sommerwanker IDIOT "

First, the only televisions that use LEDs use OLEDs. There are none using
conventional LEDs.

** Fraid " LED TVs " are on sale all over the world right now.

FUCKWIT !!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LED-backlit_LCD_television



..... Phil

 

[Sylvia Else]

This has nothing whatever to do with color rendition.

Did I say it had? I was attaching a caveat to the word "appreciate".

Who is Sylvia, anyway?

Sylvia is Sylvia Else.

Sylvia (Else).

 

[Phil Allison]

"Arfa Daily"

"Phil Allison"

Your Wiki reference says it all. These are NOT LED televisions,

** But they are called " LED TVs " by their makers and so are

*KNOWN BY THAT NAME* to members of the public.


Fools like YOU and Sommerwanker would complain that a bottle of "Steak
Sauce" contained no steak.



..... Phil

 

[William Sommerwerck]

Fools like YOU and Sommerwanker would complain

that a bottle of "Steak Sauce" contained no steak.

And, as we all know, Girl Scout Cookies are not made from Girl Scouts.

 

[David Nebenzahl]

Did I say it had? I was attaching a caveat to the word "appreciate".


Sylvia is Sylvia Else.

Sylvia (Else).

Since the subject's been broached, may I ask: are you a woman? I ask
because, well, 99.9% of the other posters here aren't, and it's unusual
to see a woman posting in such a newsgroup (actually pretty much on
Usenet in general, a few newsgroups excepted).

None of my business, I know, but I'm curious.

 

[Sylvia Else]

Since the subject's been broached, may I ask: are you a woman? I ask
because, well, 99.9% of the other posters here aren't, and it's unusual
to see a woman posting in such a newsgroup (actually pretty much on
Usenet in general, a few newsgroups excepted).

None of my business, I know, but I'm curious.

Yes, I am.

Sylvia.

 

[N_Cook]

I am considering the purchase of an LED television. However, before I
do, I would like to know what the difference is between 120 & 240hz;
other than the numbers. I've done some research, but there seems to be a
wide array of conflicting opinions. I know that it has to do with
refresh rate, jitter, and blur. So, if anyone has some straightforward
input on the matter, I'm all (grateful) ears.

Thanks

An alien with 240Hz eyes might appreciate[*] the higher frequency
version, but unless you're such an alien living on Earth incognito,
don't waste your money.

Sylvia.

[*] Ignoring the fact that colour displays are finely tuned to the way
that human colour vision works, and an alien would likely wonder what
we'd been smoking.

Ah that explains why I cannot watch these things for more than a few
minutes, I'm an alien. Would anyone know what the equivalent refresh rate is
for good old CRT technology ? As far as fast movement across the image is
concerned, motion jitter or judder or whatever the term is. What refresh
rate would have to be there before I cannot tell the difference between that
part of the technologies?

 

[Adrian C]

I think when they refer to LEDs, it is LEDs used for backlighting
probably for an LCD.

Yup

Don't know in the US, but over here when folks speak of an LED
television, it's now accepted it's an LCD with a LED backlight.

Besides I've read that Sony have dropped their plans to go to large
scale manufacture with OLED for the moment.

 

[Sylvia Else]

I am considering the purchase of an LED television. However, before I
do, I would like to know what the difference is between 120& 240hz;
other than the numbers. I've done some research, but there seems to be a
wide array of conflicting opinions. I know that it has to do with
refresh rate, jitter, and blur. So, if anyone has some straightforward
input on the matter, I'm all (grateful) ears.

Thanks

An alien with 240Hz eyes might appreciate[*] the higher frequency
version, but unless you're such an alien living on Earth incognito,
don't waste your money.

Sylvia.

[*] Ignoring the fact that colour displays are finely tuned to the way
that human colour vision works, and an alien would likely wonder what
we'd been smoking.

Ah that explains why I cannot watch these things for more than a few
minutes, I'm an alien. Would anyone know what the equivalent refresh rate is
for good old CRT technology ? As far as fast movement across the image is
concerned, motion jitter or judder or whatever the term is. What refresh
rate would have to be there before I cannot tell the difference between that
part of the technologies?

CRT TVs refresh at 50Hz or 60Hz (near enough) depending on region.

Since a TV program will only contain images (interlaced) at that rate -
or frequently less - a TV that purports to offer a higher refresh rate
will have to create the extra images by some kind of interpolation. If
it does a bad job, then the result will be unwatchable regardless of how
high the refresh rate is.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

And it's time something was done about that. The manufacturers are
relentlessly plugging this as though it's some new and wonderful display
technology, and it's not (although I have to say that the TV ad campaign
that was running here seems to have stopped now). It is misleading nonsense,
and although all civilised countries have laws against misleading
advertising, for some reason, they seem to be letting this one go,
presumably because like you, they don't have any understanding of what is
actually *meant* by the term, rather than *implied* by it.

But the terms don't have a clearly defined meaning. Indeed, even if they
did, the typical consumer probably wouldn't know what they meant. If
people buy stuff based on not particularly meaningful, but good
sounding, hype, they really have only themselves to blame.

Sylvia.

 

[N_Cook]

On 26/02/2010 9:51 AM, Chris wrote:
I am considering the purchase of an LED television. However, before I
do, I would like to know what the difference is between 120& 240hz;
other than the numbers. I've done some research, but there seems to be a
wide array of conflicting opinions. I know that it has to do with
refresh rate, jitter, and blur. So, if anyone has some straightforward
input on the matter, I'm all (grateful) ears.

Thanks

An alien with 240Hz eyes might appreciate[*] the higher frequency
version, but unless you're such an alien living on Earth incognito,
don't waste your money.

Sylvia.

[*] Ignoring the fact that colour displays are finely tuned to the way
that human colour vision works, and an alien would likely wonder what
we'd been smoking.

Ah that explains why I cannot watch these things for more than a few
minutes, I'm an alien. Would anyone know what the equivalent refresh rate is
for good old CRT technology ? As far as fast movement across the image is
concerned, motion jitter or judder or whatever the term is. What refresh
rate would have to be there before I cannot tell the difference between that
part of the technologies?

CRT TVs refresh at 50Hz or 60Hz (near enough) depending on region.

Since a TV program will only contain images (interlaced) at that rate -
or frequently less - a TV that purports to offer a higher refresh rate
will have to create the extra images by some kind of interpolation. If
it does a bad job, then the result will be unwatchable regardless of how
high the refresh rate is.

Sylvia.

Perhaps its a PAL/NTSC thing. Whatever it is all the LCD TVs I've looked at
with plenty of action/movement on the screen ,I find as irritating as those
digital overlain adverts on hoardings around the sides of TV coverage of
football/soccer viewed on CRT TV. But I don't watch soccer so thats no
problem to me

To the OP , my advice.
Never buy a TV that the seller will only display cartoons on. Try viewing a
source showing plenty of greens and dark sections of images and of course
fast cross-screen mobvement examples.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

And why aren't all LCD sets known by the name of the backlight?

Exactly. At least in plasma TVs, the thing producing the light also produces
the image.

And if you really want to get picky... I'm not sure it's really plasma. It's
ionized gas, and the degree of ionization isn't high enough to be considered
a true plasma. I think.

 

[William Sommerwerck]

If you are seriously considering the purchase of a flatscreen TV of any

description, the best advice I can give you is to know what you're asking
and seeing in the showroom.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Plasma panels also
do not suffer from any viewing angle issues, which can be a problem with
LCDs, particularly if you are thinking of wall-mounting, as most will then
need to be angled down towards your sitting position.

Yes, but... I'm surprised at the wide viewing angles of many LCDs, even
close to the screen. It no longer seems to be a problem, unless the
mishpoche has gathered to watch.

You should also be aware that there are several 'resolutions' of screen and
drive to take into consideration. Almost all TV showrooms both here and in
the US, tend to have the sets running on at least an HD picture, and often a
BluRay picture. This makes them look very good at first glance. Problem is
that in normal day to day use when you get it back home, you are going to be
watching standard resolution terrestrial broadcasts on it, and on many sets,
these look pretty dreadful, and it is the reason that so many people are
disappointed with their purchase when they get it home, and think that it is
not what they saw in the store.

Yes and no. Most sets do a poor job upconverting 480i to 1080p, and the
result can be smeary. The solution is to get cable, with many programs
available at native resolutions of 720p or 1080i. The image quality can
equal Blu-ray.

BluRay is a full HD source. This is handled fine by most sets, but be aware
that if the TV is just HD compatible rather than "Full HD", then the native
resolution of the actual display panel, will again not match the resolution
of the signal, and downscaling will take place within the TV to make them
match.

It depends. I have a 32" 720p set in my den, and it has no trouble with
1080i signals.

So, if you are a film buff, and likely to watch stuff on BluRay, you should
consider a set with a full HD panel resolution (1920 x 1080). If it's a
large screen you are wanting...

....and wanting it you will be...

...consider a plasma over an LCD. Whilst these are still more expensive than
LCD, world recession has caused the prices of them to tumble over the last
12 months, and Panasonic gives very long warranties with them.

"Home Entertainment" magazine gave a near-frothing-at-the-mouth review to a
48" Panasonic plasma that goes for $1500.

One final point -- don't be overly impressed by the brightest set. Look
critically at the image, with a variety of material.

By the way, I've seen the Samsung "LED" set repeatedly at Fry's. I don't
like it. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it looks "garish". This
might be the way the sample was set up, or it might be inherent. If I were
buying an LCD set, it would probably be a Sony.