120hz versus 240hz
in [Repair]
|
Prev: mp3 player will not play songs
Next: Gale turntable
From: Sylvia Else on 26 Feb 2010 06:56 On 26/02/2010 7:41 PM, N_Cook wrote: > Sylvia Else<sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote in message > news:4b8705a0$0$7733$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> 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.
From: Sylvia Else on 26 Feb 2010 07:01 On 26/02/2010 8:31 PM, Arfa Daily wrote: > "Phil Allison"<phil_a(a)tpg.com.au> wrote in message > news:7uoqa3Fit1U1(a)mid.individual.net... >> >> "Arfa Daily" >>> "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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> 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. > > > 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.
From: N_Cook on 26 Feb 2010 07:16 Sylvia Else <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote in message news:4b87b709$0$32085$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > On 26/02/2010 7:41 PM, N_Cook wrote: > > Sylvia Else<sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote in message > > news:4b8705a0$0$7733$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > >> 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.
From: William Sommerwerck on 26 Feb 2010 07:34 > 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.
From: William Sommerwerck on 26 Feb 2010 07:49
> 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. |