100Hz TV arguement

[Bikerz]

I was dreaming about 100Hz TV's as you do. Then my mate pionted out that your eyes cant see anything over about 40FPS so whats the poin in a 100HzTV. Now to me that sounds like he has a point and theres no need for 100Hz. Anyone want to argue this either way? Im curious

Edited September 15, 2007 by Bikerz

[bjblyth]

when i was looking for a tv someone said to go for 100hz - said it was clearly noticeable and very good result for gaming

[jon_273]

Recently bought a Panny LCD, went for the 100Hz one as there was a noticeable difference, worth the extra £ IMO.

[Bikerz]

Well that answers it then. Grr gona have to save now. 1080 is defo worth having you can tell the difference instantly

[lupodave]

Your eyes won't sample at exactly the same time as the TV so having higher sampling on the TV means the TV and your eyes are more likely to be in sync, hence a clearer picture

[ArosaMike]

But and LCD screen doesn't have a refresh rate in the same way a CRT does. They don't flicker, so it means crap all unless you're talking about old style TVs. With CRTs, yes....you can notice the difference...well I can at least!

[M4T VW]

FPS is different. You can see over 40 easy or they wouldnt be developing graphics cards as powerfull as they are for games etc.

The more FPS the smoother it is.

The 100hz is to do with picture quality. Its alot sharper but it think HD over rides that anyway..

[eatthisvr6]

FPS is different. You can see over 40 easy or they wouldnt be developing graphics cards as powerfull as they are for games etc.

The more FPS the smoother it is.

The 100hz is to do with picture quality. Its alot sharper but it think HD over rides that anyway..

refresh rate and fps are diffrent thimngs

refresh rate on standerd crts is 50 hz ie it updates the screen 50 times a sec the frame rate is actually 25 pictures per second thats where interlacing comes in a fram consists of about 480 lines (cant remember now lol) the tv splits this into odd lines and even lines itl scan the odd lines on 1 pass then the evens next go hence it scans the same frame twice so 25 frames = 50 hz

[WetmonkeyTDI]

FPS is different. You can see over 40 easy or they wouldnt be developing graphics cards as powerfull as they are for games etc.

The more FPS the smoother it is.

The 100hz is to do with picture quality. Its alot sharper but it think HD over rides that anyway..

Go to the SOny Centre and ask to see a 100hz set - get them to demonstrate difference between that and a 50hz set and you will see what the fuss is about.

100hz is like driving on tarmac compared to 50hz cobbled stones. smooth as........

[M4T VW]

I have a 5k 50" pioneer downstairs. Trust me, I can see the difference!

But im just saying i dont know if you would see the difference between the Hz watching a HD-DVD etc

[Putney]

I am holiding off until the New SOny X series comes out with the 100Hz. You will notice a big difference.

Off the top of my head I think its 625-line/50 Hz PAL and 525-line/60 Hz NTSC.

There are 2 fields to every frame and 25 frames per second. NTSC is 29.97 so almost 30 frames per second. film is 24 frames per secoond.

Just found this on Wiki

Moving pictures on a CRT TV do not exhibit any sort of "ghosting" because the CRT's phosphor, charged by the strike of electrons, emits most of the light in a very short time, under 1 ms, compared with the refresh period of e.g. 20 ms (for 50 fps video). In LCDs, each pixel emits light of set intensity for a full period of 20 ms (in this example), plus the time it takes for it to switch to the next state, typically 12 to 25 ms.

The second time (called the "response time") can be shortened by the panel design (for black-to-white transitions), and by using the technique called overdriving (for black-to-gray and gray-to-gray transitions); however this only can go down to as short as the refresh period.

This is usually enough for watching film-based material, where the refresh period is so long (1/24 s, or nearly 42 ms), and jitter is so strong on moving objects that film producers actually almost always try to keep object of interest immobile in the film's frame.

Video material, shot at 50 or 60 frames a second, actually tries to capture the motion. When the eye of a viewer tracks a moving object in video, it doesn't jump to its next predicted position on the screen with every refresh cycle, but it moves smoothly; thus the TV must display the moving object in "correct" places for as long as possible, and erase it from outdated places as quickly as possible.

Although ghosting was a problem when LCD TVs were newer, the manufacturers have been able to shorten response time to 2ms on many computer monitors and around an average of 8 ms for TVs.

There are two emerging techniques to solve this problem. First, the backlight of the LCD panel may be fired during a shorter period of time than the refresh period, preferably as short as possible, and preferably when the pixel has already settled to the intended brightness. This technique resurrects the flicker problem of the CRTs, because the eye is able to sense flicker at the typical 50 or 60 Hz refresh rates.

Another approach is to double the refresh rate of the LCD panel, and reconstruct the intermediate frames using various motion compensation techniques, extensively tested on high-end "100 Hz" CRT televisions in Europe.

The best approach may be a combination of two, possibly allowing the viewer to switch them on or off when viewing video- or film-based material.

[danmcl]

DISCLAIMER: I Used to flog these things

100Hz definitely makes a difference when you are watching fast paced stuff like motorsport or football, there is less "ghosting"

When I was getting my LCD for the bedroom I would have gone for the 100Hz Panny any day, the one in richer sounds for about 600 is absolutely class and I would have bought it if I had one nearer to me (150 mile round trip) and a wife that didnt want instant gratification!

[Putney]

DISCLAIMER: I Used to flog these things

100Hz definitely makes a difference when you are watching fast paced stuff like motorsport or football, there is less "ghosting"

When I was getting my LCD for the bedroom I would have gone for the 100Hz Panny any day, the one in richer sounds for about 600 is absolutely class and I would have bought it if I had one nearer to me (150 mile round trip) and a wife that didnt want instant gratification!

40 inch sony xseries is rumoured to be 100hz to 120hz. Probably cost at least £2k though!

[ArosaMike]

With and LCD it's all about response time. Anything under 18ms should be fine absolutely fine for fast moving images. Some people won't be able to notice at 25ms either, but it's not ideal. My computer LCD is 12ms and I've never had problems with ghosting. It's pin sharp.

[WetmonkeyTDI]

With and LCD it's all about response time. Anything under 18ms should be fine absolutely fine for fast moving images. Some people won't be able to notice at 25ms either, but it's not ideal. My computer LCD is 12ms and I've never had problems with ghosting. It's pin sharp.

i had a dell 27 inch monitor that was 16ms response and it was poo for playing games on. - got a 19" widescreen 3ms response all its sweet.

[WetmonkeyTDI]

DISCLAIMER: I Used to flog these things

100Hz definitely makes a difference when you are watching fast paced stuff like motorsport or football, there is less "ghosting"

When I was getting my LCD for the bedroom I would have gone for the 100Hz Panny any day, the one in richer sounds for about 600 is absolutely class and I would have bought it if I had one nearer to me (150 mile round trip) and a wife that didnt want instant gratification!

TX32LXD70 - 100hz - looks sweet!