100Hz LCD TV Screens (worth It?)

[human_error]

im sorry that im having a hard time getting this... its just it sounds good on paper but the actual technology that is supposedly doing these operations dosent seem viable or possible.

In order to know where something is going to be, youd need to buffer it... but with a digital broadcast or a DVD the processing happens inside the decoder or player... not the TV... then that signal is played on the screen.... no time to mess with the signal or it would be out of synch with the sound coming out of the decoder / dvd player thats attached to your 5.1 surround system...

If its going to assume where something is going to be... itll have to have it beffered up to know where the last frame is in order to fill in the rest... you cant buffer in real time

But it does have the time - while a 60hz tv would be idling between frames a 100hz tv is able to calculate the extra frames and send them for rendering. There is a buffering involved - but you wouldn't notice a 1ms delay on a frame, and this is also why most decent source decoders (eg blu-ray players, digital tv decoders, surround sound kits) have options to delay audio output by 5,10,50 etc miliseconds so the video and audio is perfectly in sync (if the audio comes from the TV then the TV delayes the audio automatically).

This interpolation is all extremely fast and is done with a chip which is designed to interpolate and only interpolate - dedicated silicon with carefully designed algorithms and instruction sets make it very efficient to process the data as they only compare bitmaps for similar shapes which dont move far between source frames. It is possible as it is done today.

The resaon pc monitors don't do it is to keep cost down - 100hz tvs cost £600+ easily for bottom end models - pc monitor makers don't want extra chips consuming power, creating heat and eating into their margins when the PC should be creating a source which matches the screen's capability - TV is limited to 25-30fps max, the source can't be improved as the transmission technology would also need an overhaul for little gain, so it needs to be done on the TV where the source can't be changed, but on the pc the source can be changed to match the tv and so it is better to do that than have the monitor approximate the extra frames.

 

[niko084]

This interpolation is all extremely fast and is done with a chip which is designed to interpolate and only interpolate - dedicated silicon with carefully designed algorithms and instruction sets make it very efficient to process the data as they only compare bitmaps for similar shapes which dont move far between source frames. It is possible as it is done today.

Take a look at the processing and different abilities of high end sets, you will quickly see that they themselves have pretty cool processors to do all sorts of stuff to change your movie.

Watch a movie on a few different sets and you can very easily start to discern the differences.

For instance on a fast pan, some screens will judder, some wont. Some screens are coming with smoothing where they fill empty frames or re-process them and edit them so clean them up. Some people don't even like it, they say they like their film looking like a film, which is the whole reason they started the whole 24fps bluray stuff anyways, everything got too real, too clean and people didn't like it.

 

[twicksisted]

But it does have the time - while a 60hz tv would be idling between frames a 100hz tv is able to calculate the extra frames and send them for rendering. There is a buffering involved - but you wouldn't notice a 1ms delay on a frame, and this is also why most decent setups have options to delay audio output by 5,10,50 etc miliseconds so the video and audio is perfectly in sync.

This interpolation is all extremely fast and is done with a chip which is designed to interpolate and only interpolate - dedicated silicon with carefully designed algorithms and instruction sets make it very efficient to process the data as they only compare bitmaps for similar shapes which dont move far between source frames. It is possible as it is done today.

if you cant notice a 1ms delay with your eyes... then how can you see the difference between 60hz & 100hz?

How do illusionists work and other magicians... sleight of hand... its a known fact that eyes dont process that fast thats how most magic tricks work... essentially processing faster than our eyes percieve then and how could that look any better when we cant see it? (it is happening... but you cannot see it then)

A processor works faster calculating sums than someones own brain... but thats pointless if you dont know / cant see what its doing... thats all im getting at.... the output cant be noticeable to the human eye as its operating faster than what you process... faster still than the original media it was broadcast in

 

[Binge]

hmmm i see no blur on my 1080p 40" samsung.... and the colour vibrancy and everything is perfect (best out of the whole shop when i bought it)..... the pixel changing speed is down to the pixel latency GTG not how many HZ the panel is running...

I believe my screen is 5ms GTG.... now if what youre saying is correct then a 100Hz would be faster... and a 200+ would be even quicker...?

Its surely the same technology as an LCD panel for computer games and those go as low as 2ms GTG in 60hz.... so that would imply that at 200hz is would be what 0.5ms GTG? I dont think so? as those 100hz tellys are also 5ms GTG etc...

You know GTG stands for gray to gray, right? Color to color would change much slower than changing between tones of black. Lemme just quote the source I posted earlier...

Pixel Response (below): Frame transitions were captured with a 1/1000 camera shutter showing new frames overlapping old ones on the LCD - old pixels are slow to fade away.
LCDs have improved their response times greatly, so the overlap below didn't last long enough to be seen (by me). Pixel response doesn't seem to be an issue with the Samsung.
The pic below can even be compared with those of the fastest LCDs at Behardware here or here
Samsung probably uses the same "double overdrive" mentioned in BeHardware's review of the 100hz LE4073BD, - the tip-off being a white outline behind the 120hz car.
Other things noticed: The 8ms response time quoted by Samsung seems accurate (else the 120hz pic would have three overlapping images instead of two).
Also, the overlapping cars are 1/2 as far apart in the 120hz pic because for each frame comming from the graphics card, the TV inserts one in-between.

In reality, blur came from a completely unrelated source called the sample-and-hold effect (below). Response time and sample-and-hold are the two (unrelated) causes for LCD blur. Sample-and-hold can only be captured by special cameras.
Below is an accurate simulation of a moving object (showing sample-and-hold blur on the LN-T4669). It was rendered by Pixperan's "streaky picture test"; a free download.

The next time you assume there's no blur on your 1080p set, take a camera and take a picture of motion in a video game, and then do the same with a CRT.

But it does have the time - while a 60hz tv would be idling between frames a 100hz tv is able to calculate the extra frames and send them for rendering. There is a buffering involved - but you wouldn't notice a 1ms delay on a frame, and this is also why most decent source decoders (eg blu-ray players, digital tv decoders, surround sound kits) have options to delay audio output by 5,10,50 etc miliseconds so the video and audio is perfectly in sync (if the audio comes from the TV then the TV delayes the audio automatically).

I've heard a lot of people preach about how humans can't visually compute a millisecond... then why can I visually watch a ms counter and using a beat machine match the rate at which the numbers are moving? Why can world class Street Fighter players combo 1ms links and use frame traps to confuse opponents? People may not be able to react immediately to an interval of 1ms, but people are able to sense it even if they aren't aware of it consciously.

 

[twicksisted]

Take a look at the processing and different abilities of high end sets, you will quickly see that they themselves have pretty cool processors to do all sorts of stuff to change your movie.

Watch a movie on a few different sets and you can very easily start to discern the differences.

For instance on a fast pan, some screens will judder, some wont. Some screens are coming with smoothing where they fill empty frames or re-process them and edit them so clean them up. Some people don't even like it, they say they like their film looking like a film, which is the whole reason they started the whole 24fps bluray stuff anyways, everything got too real, too clean and people didn't like it.

Yes these are realtime DSP's for rendering effects.... similar to DSP's in audio effects (reverbs delays etc...).... but they are not going to make an actual difference to something... a perceptual difference yes... but if the media is flawed its flawed... in this case realtime TV is flawed as its only 30fps.... and the panel can work at 100fps

surely then by what youre saying its not how many Hz a TV has got, its down to its DSP chips

 

[human_error]

if you cant notice a 1ms delay with your eyes... then how can you see the difference between 60hz & 100hz?

How do illusionists work and other magicians... sleight of hand... its a known fact that eyes dont process that fast thats how most magic tricks work... essentially processing faster than our eyes percieve then and how could that look any better when we cant see it? (it is happening... but you cannot see it then)

A processor works faster calculating sums than someones own brain... but thats pointless if you dont know / cant see what its doing... thats all im getting at.... the output cant be noticeable to the human eye as its operating faster than what you process... faster still than the original media it was broadcast in

It is a cumulative effect not an individual frame-by-frame effect, so you don't notice extra frame #1052 but you notice that there are 3x more frames (this is how you can see the difference between 30 and 60fps and beyond, it isn't that you see every frame but when your brain decodes the images it sees it doesn't hit spots on a re-render of the image as often so it doesn't notice the re-renders as much (it's all about timing).

 

[twicksisted]

The next time you assume there's no blur on your 1080p set, take a camera and take a picture of motion in a video game, and then do the same with a CRT.

This is what im getting at... if i need a slow motion fast shutter camera to see the difference, then surely its pointless... i cant see it with my own eyes... surely thats the whole point of the technology is that you can see the difference?

 

[niko084]

if you cant notice a 1ms delay with your eyes... then how can you see the difference between 60hz & 100hz?

How do illusionists work and other magicians... sleight of hand... its a known fact that eyes dont process that fast thats how most magic tricks work... essentially processing faster than our eyes percieve then and how could that look any better when we cant see it? (it is happening... but you cannot see it then)

What you are not thinking about is a larger picture..

Your eye doesn't catch a small object making a very small move from a decent distance.
You may not see a bullet fly by your face at 500mph, you sure as heck will see a semi do it!

There is way to much to really even start going into it all.

Simple put it's common knowledge among people in the know that higher hz = better, now of course there are other things that come into play obviously, but a 100hz screen will look smoother than a 60hz set.

Do us and yourself a favor and walk into an electronics store that sells nice tv's and ask someone there if they can show you the difference first hand, any place that sells higher end stuff should be ready and willing to do so, on top of that you will get a good idea for which companies screen you prefer, they do all look a bit different.

I notice a good difference myself, if you don't honestly great, you get to save a bunch of money!

 

[Binge]

This is what im getting at... if i need a slow motion fast shutter camera to see the difference, then surely its pointless... i cant see it with my own eyes... surely thats the whole point of the technology is that you can see the difference?

Whether you want to notice it or not is up to you. It depends entirely on your want/need to have that level of clarity before you. When I play competition FPS I use a CRT because even if it is just placebo I know I am seeing the picture with absolute clarity at quickest possible rate at which even a camera can capture clearly.

I have to ask... why would you be using a fast shutter camera instead of a digital to take a single picture? I'm only asking because digital cameras don't need to expose film, therefore no shutter speed.

 

[twicksisted]

What you are not thinking about is a larger picture..

Your eye doesn't catch a small object making a very small move from a decent distance.
You may not see a bullet fly by your face at 500mph, you sure as heck will see a semi do it!

There is way to much to really even start going into it all.

Simple put it's common knowledge among people in the know that higher hz = better, now of course there are other things that come into play obviously, but a 100hz screen will look smoother than a 60hz set.

Do us and yourself a favor and walk into an electronics store that sells nice tv's and ask someone there if they can show you the difference first hand, any place that sells higher end stuff should be ready and willing to do so, on top of that you will get a good idea for which companies screen you prefer, they do all look a bit different.

I notice a good difference myself, if you don't honestly great, you get to save a bunch of money!

Yes im not debating that the technology isnt better... obviously it is... what im getting at is if you are running a TV with a 100hz panel as opposed to a 60hz panel... and you are running normal connections (sattelite, DVD, blueray) to it... will you notice a difference.... im not debating that running it with a PC on a graphics card its going to be faster etc...

I am very keen on my technology and spent a lot of time checking out a lot of different panels before i bought my 1080p 40" samsung television... im not asking this question on the forum as someone who dosent have a clue

Basically I wanted a technical explaination as to why its going to be better for TV/DVD/blueray useage... not that it looks better becuase i saw another panel at my mates house and it looked better than my normal one at home if you know what i mean.... all the explainations have been good so far but im still not sold really..

anyone else understand what i mean?

 

[twicksisted]

I'm only asking because digital cameras don't need to expose film, therefore no shutter speed.

of course a digital camera use shutters.... DSLR cameras are exactly the same at SLR cameras (at least my nikon does)... instead of film it would use an analogue to digital convertor to digitise the image isntead of burning it to film
anyways thats besides the point

 

[Binge]

It is a cumulative effect not an individual frame-by-frame effect, so you don't notice extra frame #1052 but you notice that there are 3x more frames (this is how you can see the difference between 30 and 60fps and beyond, it isn't that you see every frame but when your brain decodes the images it sees it doesn't hit spots on a re-render of the image as often so it doesn't notice the re-renders as much (it's all about timing).

This is going to be pure argument at best, but you're proving yourself wrong by saying that the brain can understand 30 vs 60fps and beyond. If a brain can understand a change in display, and if I can describe it in terms of clarity of motion, then it means I am experiencing each frame. You may not see a distortion as the screen refreshes all the time, but it can be experienced. If you play on a 60Hz CRT enough you'll notice that the refresh rate is bothering your eyes. Turn the refresh rate to 75Hz and magically the irritation is gone, and somehow something being played at 75fps seems a bit more smooth than the same at 60fps. This is because you're experiencing it to a degree. To be fair it may not be 75 frames that I could draw or recall, but I'm no autistic kid with my brain really involved with those kinds of details. Motion quality, however, I can say with certainty that for the time being I can experience high 40-70 frames and notice a difference.

 

[twicksisted]

This is going to be pure argument at best, but you're proving yourself wrong by saying that the brain can understand 30 vs 60fps and beyond. If a brain can understand a change in display, and if I can describe it in terms of clarity of motion, then it means I am experiencing each frame. You may not see a distortion as the screen refreshes all the time, but it can be experienced. If you play on a 60Hz CRT enough you'll notice that the refresh rate is bothering your eyes. Turn the refresh rate to 75Hz and magically the irritation is gone, and somehow something being played at 75fps seems a bit more smooth than the same at 60fps. This is because you're experiencing it to a degree. To be fair it may not be 75 frames that I could draw or recall, but I'm no autistic kid with my brain really involved with those kinds of details. Motion quality, however, I can say with certainty that for the time being I can experience high 40-70 frames and notice a difference.

fair enough... im not trying to argue here seriously... i just want to know whether or not its advertising bullshit or an actual benefit... as these panels are being sold as televisions... (not gaming monitors)... and television is displayed in many different frame rates all covered by 60hz panels... to date there isnt a broadcast format that exceeds or even reaches the need for 100hz, 120hz,200hz etc... so im asking is there a point and if there is why... thats all

its like selling a ferrari to do the school run.... if you see what im getting at

 

[Binge]

Your rationality is spot on, and I can only respond with my usual harping about high frame count in video games. Without respect to games it's the motion blur I described above, but even then I wouldn't use an LCD if I was bothered by that motion blur.

 

[twicksisted]

Your rationality is spot on, and I can only respond with my usual harping about high frame count in video games. Without respect to games it's the motion blur I described above, but even then I wouldn't use an LCD if I was bothered by that motion blur.

cool well i just really wanted to know with this thread is im mis-advising people who want to buy a new panel into buying a better quality 60hz panel that they can afford than buying a standard commercial 100hz panel (becuase its got more hz it must be better etc...)

after googling and reading many threads online about similar topics i cant really find a good reason myself for this... so i guess i posted here as i do respect a lot of the members opinions on here as they are all based on fact and back them up with good technical explaination and proof...

Im the typical upgrade fanatic and i always try and buy the best for myself if technologically it is actually better... and becuase of this a lot of friends and family always come to me for advice for whatever technicalogical piece of kit they want to buy... I just wanted to know whether there was something that I was missing on this

 

[niko084]

its like selling a ferrari to do the school run.... if you see what im getting at

I understand what you are saying now.

Ok, to get more clear.

100hz is going to be a bit smoother, noticeable in itself I couldn't say.. You get more still frames and your sets anti retention *if it has it* is going to move much quicker and be less noticeable.

In the US we have 24/30/60, therefore 120hz is the ticket, its divisible by 24/30 and 60.
In Europe I believe 24/25/50? 100hz , it's divisible by 25/50 and nearly 24.

The frames being divisible is purely the most important part that comes into play when you are discussing HZ / FPS. When you watch a bluray movie on a 60hz screen they literally just throw a frame away like it was meaningless, causes a judder, one some don't notice, personally it drives me insane! Low HZ can also cause flicker, having 2x or more the HZ to fps helps completely eliminate this, it's also part of why plasma's are so clean, huge multipliers, the frame switch is so fast.

on a 60hz / 60fps, your frame switch from frame 1 to frame 2 takes a 60th of a second.
on a 120hz / 60fps, your frame switch from frame 1 to frame 2 takes a 120th of a second.
That is what flicker is, some people are more susceptible to it than others.

Now if that isn't exactly the issue, I wouldn't jump to buy the faster screen, but then we come into the other part, most screens with the higher HZ are also much better screens all around, better color, faster response, better blacks, etc etc.

That's about as technical as I know about sets and the main reasoning behind purchasing my plasma, beyond the blacks being black. Also why I am waiting very ill patiently for an organic led lcd for my computer.

Something you may notice easier, again this is back to the gaming side, play a game you get over 100 fps in, you occasionally notice some judder when you move quickly. Now, lock your fps at 30fps and play it again, you will get probably no judder, but you will get some blurring. I know this is gaming and not television, but it is still the same issue, just taken to a bit further extreme in something you are paying much closer attention to.

 

[twicksisted]

i have too noticed frame judder on blueray playback... but having said that it was only when i used my PC's blueray player to playback blueray movies... as soon as i got a decent standalone blueray player that judder went completely (having said that my GF couldnt see the judder on the pc in the first place and i spent the £300 on a player lol)...

anyways... im not so sure its a question of getting a 100hz panel as getting a good quality panel... for instance pioneer and sony make some "videophile" (if that words been coined yet) displays that run at 60hz... with fast pixels, vibrant colours etc... and these will be noticeably different to a standard mainstream LCD screen.... loads of cheap screens look crap that goes without saying.

So advising someone to buy a excellent quality 60hz panel as opposed to spending the same money on a bog standard run of the mill 100hz just because its 100hz... will that in itself make it a better visual experience?

 

[Binge]

i have too noticed frame judder on blueray playback... but having said that it was only when i used my PC's blueray player to playback blueray movies... as soon as i got a decent standalone blueray player that judder went completely (having said that my GF couldnt see the judder on the pc in the first place and i spent the £300 on a player lol)...

anyways... im not so sure its a question of getting a 100hz panel as getting a good quality panel... for instance pioneer and sony make some "videophile" (if that words been coined yet) displays that run at 60hz... with fast pixels, vibrant colours etc... and these will be noticeably different to a standard mainstream LCD screen.... loads of cheap screens look crap that goes without saying.

So advising someone to buy a excellent quality 60hz panel as opposed to spending the same money on a bog standard run of the mill 100hz just because its 100hz... will that in itself make it a better visual experience?

I vote for whichever has the better IQ/motion clarity. By your example you can get a 60Hz screen with fast pixels and vibrant colours. That alone would make me feel more secure than buying into a 100Hz screen at which I may or may not be getting the same quality screen.

 

[niko084]

for instance pioneer and sony make some "videophile" (if that words been coined yet) displays that run at 60hz...

If you talk about hardcore Videophiles there is only 1 set... Pioneer Kuro Plasma, end of discussion, it's one of VERY few items to the extremists there is no argument about

I believe the Kuro's are 600hz.

***
I would say you are better off investing in a high end set then jumping for the HZ yes.
The HZ shouldn't be the absolute deciding factor.

My set is 480hz, I picked it over a Kuro do to cost mainly, it's still so incredibly clean and crisp it nearly drives me nuts.

 

[farlex85]

If you talk about hardcore Videophiles there is only 1 set... Pioneer Kuro Plasma, end of discussion, it's one of VERY few items to the extremists there is no argument about

I believe the Kuro's are 600hz.

***
I would say you are better off investing in a high end set then jumping for the HZ yes.
The HZ shouldn't be the absolute deciding factor.

My set is 480hz, I picked it over a Kuro do to cost mainly, it's still so incredibly clean and crisp it nearly drives me nuts.

Kuro's actually have a 72HZ mode for 24p material (blue-ray and such) but for all other sources use 60hz. 600hz belongs to that of the new Panasonics, but it isn't a 600hz refresh in the same way, and it isn't for the same effect. And yes, they are godly, although the latest best Panasonics and Samsungs come mighty close.

IMO 120hz (and now 240hz) produces no noticeable effect in of itself. The only "advantage" of TVs that carry this refresh is the ability to interpolate and thus reduce judder, however this has an effect that I and many others find to be actually quite negative, reducing a movie to a soap opera type feel (some source material, such as sports, can benefit from it). The more important thing is a mode that comes in a multiple of 24, preferably at least 72, so that 24p material can be played back smoothly in it's original format. Other than that HZ is pure marketing.

 

[niko084]

Kuro's actually have a 72HZ mode for 24p material (blue-ray and such) but for all other sources use 60hz. 600hz belongs to that of the new Panasonics, but it isn't a 600hz refresh in the same way, and it isn't for the same effect. And yes, they are godly, although the latest best Panasonics and Samsungs come mighty close.

You are right, the Kuro has a cool step down feature on the subfield, actually it's the same with the Panasonics claiming 480-600hz, Kuro's did the same thing, it's a bit of marketing hype, it sounds like a lot bigger difference than it is.

The biggest thing about Plasma vs LCD is the response time, LCD 2MS is SCREAMING, Plasma we are talking about .001ms maybe..

IMO 120hz (and now 240hz) produces no noticeable effect in of itself. The only "advantage" of TVs that carry this refresh is the ability to interpolate and thus reduce judder, however this has an effect that I and many others find to be actually quite negative, reducing a movie to a soap opera type feel (some source material, such as sports, can benefit from it). The more important thing is a mode that comes in a multiple of 24, preferably at least 72, so that 24p material can be played back smoothly in it's original format. Other than that HZ is pure marketing.

I can agree with that, some people do like the bit of judder, keeps that "movie" feeling.

That's really why I say when it comes down to it, go sit down watch a bunch of them and decide what you really like, because the coolest fastest technology may not be for you.

 

[farlex85]

You are right, the Kuro has a cool step down feature on the subfield, actually it's the same with the Panasonics claiming 480-600hz, Kuro's did the same thing, it's a bit of marketing hype, it sounds like a lot bigger difference than it is.

The biggest thing about Plasma vs LCD is the response time, LCD 2MS is SCREAMING, Plasma we are talking about .001ms maybe..



I can agree with that, some people do like the bit of judder, keeps that "movie" feeling.

That's really why I say when it comes down to it, go sit down watch a bunch of them and decide what you really like, because the coolest fastest technology may not be for you.

Pioneer never claimed to have any higher than 72hz refresh rate, they were 60hz all the way. Newer high-end Panasonics (V10s) have a similar feature where they refresh at 96hz for 24p material. What they advertise on the cards in the store is just to try to compete w/ LCDs w/ 120-240hz, it's a different sort of refresh. It's almost the same thing as Contrast Ratio. The displayed contrast in no way reflects any sort of real number that can be used to compare TVs (everyone uses different standards and methods to jack up cr's and they aren't comparable). You just have to read reviews to find out which ones have the inkiest blacks (still the Pioneer although as I said the V10 and Samsung's 8500 come mighty close) and usually the high-end ones will have some sort of 3:2 pulldown, which is really the only sort of refresh one needs to look at unless one enjoys dejudder interpolation.

I agree you should try before you buy, unfortunately many big box stores don't set things up properly for you to really try them properly. Try some local Home Theater stores or friends for a real look.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

100+ Hz is a joke.

30 fps = 30 Hz minimum = maximum 1/30th second delay between new display

60 Hz = 1/60th second delay between new display
120 Hz = 1/120th second delay between new display

When your eyes only operate at ~24 Hz. 60 Hz makes sense because every time your eyes refresh, the screen has also refreshed at least once. 120 Hz is far more than your eyes detect and therefore, pointless unless you are in the media industry that has cameras recording at 30 fps / 60 Hz for the same reason why 60 Hz is good enough for human eyes.

 

[Binge]

100+ Hz is a joke.

30 fps = 30 Hz minimum = maximum 1/30th second delay between new display

60 Hz = 1/60th second delay between new display
120 Hz = 1/120th second delay between new display

When your eyes only operate at ~24 Hz. 60 Hz makes sense because every time your eyes refresh, the screen has also refreshed at least once. 120 Hz is far more than your eyes detect and therefore, pointless unless you are in the media industry that has cameras recording at 30 fps / 60 Hz for the same reason why 60 Hz is good enough for human eyes.

Source that isn't wiki?

 

[farlex85]

Source that isn't wiki?

His facts are indeed incorrect, but the main sentiment I suppose seems good enough. There is no single number of frames the human eye can detect, nor a common refresh rate (that particular statistic doesn't even really make sense when referring to human vision, our eyes don't "refresh"). Usually with Ford don't take his statistics as actual science, but sometimes he can get things going in the right direction. It is true most people won't notice the difference b/t 120hz and 60hz on equivalent 30fps material, although to be sure some will.