120hz versus 240hz
in [Repair]
|
Prev: mp3 player will not play songs
Next: Gale turntable
From: Chris on 26 Feb 2010 10:47 "AZ Nomad" <aznomad.3(a)PremoveOBthisOX.COM> wrote in message news:slrnhoe848.bkr.aznomad.3(a)ip70-176-155-130.ph.ph.cox.net... > On Fri, 26 Feb 2010 00:07:43 +0000, Adrian C <email(a)here.invalid> wrote: >>On 25/02/2010 23:46, William Sommerwerck wrote: >>> First, the only televisions that use LEDs use OLEDs. There are none >>> using >>> conventional LEDs. > >>none ?? > > I think when they refer to LEDs, it is LEDs used for backlighting > probably for an LCD. Yes, that is how it was explained to me from a salesman as well as what I gathered from online info. So, apparently, it is still an LCD screen. Also, somehow the refresh rate of the LEDs create some sort of multiplier effect with the LCDs; thus the higher hz. It sure would be nice to know if this is correct, and also why/how it enhances the picture. Although I am far from an expert in this area (hence my original post), I have the ability to understand just about anything that is explained correctly. When information is presented in an ambiguous way, which is what I have seen so far on internet research, that is definitely a red flag that the author probably is not knowledgable in the subject matter.
From: Dave Plowman (News) on 26 Feb 2010 10:49 In article <hm8om0$o3m$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, bob urz <sound(a)inetnebr.com> wrote: > It can get more complicated than that. Dolby has a new thing out HDR LCD > that on the fly modulates the LED backlights for brightness in groups. > that was not possible with CFL LCD backlights. Which would be fine if the LEDs corresponded exactly to the pixels. But they don't. -- *A plateau is a high form of flattery* Dave Plowman dave(a)davenoise.co.uk London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound.
From: William Sommerwerck on 26 Feb 2010 10:58 >> Dolby has a new thing -- HDR LCD that on the fly >> modulates the LED backlights for brightness in groups. > Which would be fine if the LEDs corresponded exactly > to the pixels. But they don't. I've seen at least one review that complained that local dimming produced "halos" around objects in darker scenes. I would never, ever buy a set with such a feature, unless it could be shut off.
From: Arfa Daily on 26 Feb 2010 12:04 "William Sommerwerck" <grizzledgeezer(a)comcast.net> wrote in message news:hm8g13$p9t$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> 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. Yes, agreed in general, but it does seem to depend a lot on how much you are prepared to pay. The point I was making was that LCD screens tend to be optimised for horizontal viewing angle, and with the supposition that you will be looking directly at the screen, or even slightly down on it, when it is sitting on a conventional lounge stand. When it is mounted on a wall, you will be looking at it from below, and some LCDs - the one I have in my kitchen, for instance - are not terribly good when viewed from such an angle. I had to tilt mine down perhaps 10 degrees, after which, it was fine, so I was just making the point that it's something else to consider *if* the OP was going for an LCD, and *if* he had any intention of wall mounting it. > > >> 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. Again, yes in principle. But not all sets are equal in this respect, and not everyone has access to cable, so it was just one more aspect of the purchasing problem, for the OP to be aware of. I have to say that the 480 upscaling on the Pan plas that I recently bought, is exceptionally good. Although I have satellite here, with a good few genuine HD channels, I also watch many SD sat channels, and SD terrestrial digital channels, and the upscaling to display them on the full HD 1080 panel, is nothing short of excellent. > > >> 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. Again, yes. Downscaling seems to be better handled than upscaling in terms of artifact generation, even on the cheap-end TVs. Again, I was only making the point in an effort to allow the OP to better understand what he needs to be looking for, and asking about, to avoid disappointment with his purchase. > > >> 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. I paid 699 UKP for my 50" Pan plas, so I guess that it's either the same or a similar spec model to the one they reviewed. There are several variants depending on features such as how many HDMI ports, and whether or not they have a built-in sat tuner and so on, but all based on the same basic design. I have to say that I would give it the same "frothing at the mouth" review as your Home Entertainment mag. I spent a long long time looking into this, as I knew that I was going to have a hard job replacing my large-screen Tosh CRT - which produced superb pictures from all sources -with anything flat-screen. I knew all along that it was a plas that I wanted really, but didn't think that I was going to be able to afford one. Now that I've had it a couple of months, there is absolutely nothing - and I really mean nothing - that I could pick fault with, so if you are prepared to look long and hard enough, it is possible to get what you want from this technology. One other thing that the OP might consider, when he has arrived at a few models that he might be interested in, is to see what he can find out about those models by Googling them, and then looking to see what is being said about them on forums. Many forums have contributors that are hyper-critical and quite brutal with their comments, and I think that there is a lot to be learned from trawling these forums. FWIW, before I actually bought my Pan, I did exactly this, and to my utter surprise, there was barely a single adverse comment world-wide. The only thing that was commented on by a few people was that they thought that SD sources displayed on this set, were perhaps a little 'soft' in terms of contrast, but personally, I didn't find this either on the showroom model that was demo'd to me, or on the one that I now actually have. This sort of thing is another reason to understand what you are asking, and making sure that all these sources and features are shown to you. > > One final point -- don't be overly impressed by the brightest set. Look > critically at the image, with a variety of material. Yes, 100% agreed > > 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. Yes, agreed on the LED backlit Sammy. I don't like it either, and like you, can't quite put my finger on exactly why ... My mother owned a 37" Tosh for a few months before she recently passed on, and that was as good as I have seen in LCD. I think that if an LCD is the chosen route, it is better to stick to the big far east names Arfa > >
From: William R. Walsh on 26 Feb 2010 13:09
Hi! > Yes, that is how it was explained to me from a salesman as > well as what I gathered from online info. So, apparently, it is > still an LCD screen. Yes, I'm sure it is. The only thing that's changed is the way the panel is illuminated so you can see a picture. It used to be that practically all LCD panels were backlight by a fluorescent tube (or a set of tubes). For a variety of reasons, this has changed. (These reasons would be mercury in fluorescent tubes, lifetime of said tubes as compared to LEDs, complexity of the driving electronics and energy efficiency.) The "120Hz" refresh rate would not be hard to achieve. An interlaced scanning method produces a picture that (in many cases) appears to flicker much less than a non-interlaced one. (IBM used to use a similar trick with their 8514 display. It used a 44Hz interlaced vertical scan rate that IBM called an "88Hz" scan rate. It worked reasonably well, as long as you used an IBM monitor with longer persistence phosphors and didn't have anything like a fluorescent light fixture illuminating the room. If you did, the two tended to "beat" against one another and the effect is annoying. And if you didn't use an IBM monitor with the special phosphors, that increased the apparent "flicker" level.) I don't know how a 240Hz "scan rate" would be achieved. It's probably a sort of trick that the set's electronics use to make the picture seem just that much more stable. William |