40 inch 120hz vs. 46 60hz Samsung

[Thetech]

I'm comparing two models of TV's

I'm trying to decide if the 46inch B550 would be better than the
40 inch B630 (120hz).

My main usage would be for gaming, I plan on using the TV as a computer monitor.
I don't watch much TV, I don't even have cable.

Other than Gaming/using as a monitor I would also watch movies on it.

Which would be the better TV? Doesn't 120hz only matter with Blue-Ray?
And also the 40inch one has a quicker response time 4ms vs. 5ms.

Any thoughts?

 

[blackangst1]

The difference between 4 and 5ms is minimal. But generally speaking for gaming you want to stay under 5ms. For that reason I would get the 40".

As far as the 60Hz vs 120Hz, well...its a mixed review. One of the big selling points (not the only one for sure) of plasma is it's 600Hz processor. It does help, IMHO, reduce judder in fast action or motion viewing. The Hz # is the number of frames per second your monitor will display. There's a little more to it then that, but thats the basics. So, again for that reason since youre using it for gaming, I would go with the 40".

 

[djnsmith7]

I would stay clear of 60 hz displays, as they struggle to keep up with any kind of motion / fast moving action, whether it be movies or gaming. I don't even consider 60 Hz displays as an option to be considered.

As far as the 120 Hz LCD's vs. Plasma's, now that's worth comparing. The LCD's do a pretty good job, for the most part, but do still struggle on occasion. For me personally, I'll take a plasma over LCD any day of the week. I own one & have never had an issue with motion blur, delay, or anything for that matter. Everything is butter, all the time.

I watch Blu Ray's & game on mine all the time.

 

[Naeeldar]

If your going LCD then definitely 120hz. I can't get used to the way they look but you definitely what the refresh on it.

Alternatively look at plasmas but if that's not a choice it's the 120hz no question.

 

[kalrith]

AFAIK the ONLY difference that 120Hz makes is by eliminating the 3:2 pulldown that 60Hz TVs have to do with 24p BD. That's it! They also add motion interpolation to the 120Hz TVs, but many people do not like the artificial look that that gives, and it can also introduce artifacts. I also read recently that 120Hz LCD TVs had more input lag than 60Hz TVs, making them less desirable for gaming. Refresh rate doesn't matter if the input lag is double that of a 60Hz TV.

Also, according to the LN40630 manual, the PC resolution should be "1920 x 1080 @ 60 Hz," so you'll get zero benefit from the 120Hz.

So, to summarize, 120Hz will make zero difference for anything other than 24p BD. You cannot set the PC refresh rate to 120Hz. Motion interpolation on the 120Hz might be a negative to you, and you might wind up turning it off anyways. Given the choice between two TVs that will likely perform exactly the same, I'd take the one with the 32% larger screen. You will most definitely notice that!

 

[0roo0roo]

4 more inches ftw

 

[lotust]

AFAIK the ONLY difference that 120Hz makes is by eliminating the 3:2 pulldown that 60Hz TVs have to do with 24p BD. That's it! They also add motion interpolation to the 120Hz TVs, but many people do not like the artificial look that that gives, and it can also introduce artifacts. I also read recently that 120Hz LCD TVs had more input lag than 60Hz TVs, making them less desirable for gaming. Refresh rate doesn't matter if the input lag is double that of a 60Hz TV.

Also, according to the LN40630 manual, the PC resolution should be "1920 x 1080 @ 60 Hz," so you'll get zero benefit from the 120Hz.

So, to summarize, 120Hz will make zero difference for anything other than 24p BD. You cannot set the PC refresh rate to 120Hz. Motion interpolation on the 120Hz might be a negative to you, and you might wind up turning it off anyways. Given the choice between two TVs that will likely perform exactly the same, I'd take the one with the 32% larger screen. You will most definitely notice that!

good info here. I just bought a new LG 47" 120hz. I forget what the option is called. I think its smooth motion. I turn it off like you said. It makes everything look weird and fake. It makes me think I should have saved some money on the set and got a 47" 60 hz set for 300$ less..

 

[glugglug]

Your input signal is almost always going to be 60Hz (either progressive or interpolated), so as another poster mentioned, the only time you are going to see ANY difference at all is when watching 24-25Hz movies since 24 is not an even divisor of 60. LCDs don't flicker like CRTs do when the refresh is low. (Well most don't anyway, I've seen a few shitty 15"-19" LCD monitors which were worse).

Now, if they were to use the higher refresh rate to accomplish something else, like say have a TV that is 120Hz 2D or 60Hz 3D, changing the polarization 120x per second that would be another story. In fact, when 3D TVs arrive, if they are improving response times to accommodate switching between frames for each eye instead of doubling the # of pixels (using half the pixels for each eye), it will introduce worse flickering than you ever saw with CRTs, and I'd recommend going with 240Hz for that. But for 2D it is not worth the extra $$ for 120Hz.

 

[rdp6]

I have a 120Hz Samsung TV from 2007. There are several things people should know about these televisions.

1. There is a game mode which is supposed to do everything possible to eliminate lag

2. There are 4 motion-interpolation modes including "off". The screen remains at 120 Hz refresh at all times, regardless of the motion interpolation setting.
a. in "off" mode there is no motion interpolation; frames are rendered as the TV gets them.
1) the TV may perform the 3:2 pulldown in "film mode" when the input signal is interlaced, e.g. broadcast TV.
2) I think that the alternative is "video mode"; I haven't messed with it.
b. in any interpolation mode other than "off" the motion becomes smooth, completely unlike 24fps film. I believe that most people who say they can't get used to the 120Hz processing mean they can't get used to the motion interpolation. On my LNT-5271f when set to max, the effect can be jarring, or it can be really neat. I often use it on nature shows and sports programming, not so much for feature films (occasionally for sci-fi).

3. 60Hz sets cannot display 24Hz signals properly. I don't know if judder bothers me, this is my first large TV. I can't set it to induce judder: it always renders 24Hz video correctly. It's awesome. I have not personally seen a 240Hz set; I can only surmise that the primary benefit is better motion resolution for programs like sports, video games, etc.

4. There are no TVs (AFAIK) which accept >60Hz video input. This means that there is no need for a extra-fancy HDMI cable (monoprice HDMI 1.3 cables are perfectly fine). It sounds strange that a TV might be 96, 120, 240, or even 600Hz, but all of these are sampling rates done internally to get an integer multiple of 24Hz to render films correctly.

All that said, I believe sports programming looks amazing with HD + 120Hz + motion interpolation. You should consider firstly the viewing distance: get a screen size which is appropriate (google for HDTV Screen Size vs Viewing Distance). This alone will likely point you toward the larger set. Next, check out the TVs at BB, find settings for the ones you like at AVSforum.com and calibrate the best you can (definitely get out of torch mode) and compare. Finally check for problems (all sets are imperfect on some way) with the one(s) you like best and see what you can live with. If it means saving for a little while longer, then do so. Prices will dive as we get closer to the Super Bowl.

I bought my TV as a long-term investment; like a refrigerator I don't plan on replacing it until it doesn't work anymore. Maybe you don't look at it the same way, but for me it meant doing my homework, saving, and finding the right time / price. BTW, I bought at Amazon; all research was done at AVSforums.com, as I live out in the sticks.

 

[Spicedaddy]

I'm comparing two models of TV's

I'm trying to decide if the 46inch B550 would be better than the
40 inch B630 (120hz).

My main usage would be for gaming, I plan on using the TV as a computer monitor.
I don't watch much TV, I don't even have cable.

Other than Gaming/using as a monitor I would also watch movies on it.

Which would be the better TV? Doesn't 120hz only matter with Blue-Ray?
And also the 40inch one has a quicker response time 4ms vs. 5ms.

Any thoughts?

If your viewing distance is more than 6ft, I'd get the 46" 60Hz. Games and movies you can sit further, but you can't be too far to read text on a 40". Most PC games and your desktop will run at 60fps, so 120Hz doesn't really help there. Most bluray movies are 24fps, so the 120Hz will be smoother.

I think it's incredibly stupid that 60Hz TVs can't fall back to 48Hz for movies, and do 3:2 pulldown instead. Like others have said, it's the only reason I'd want 120Hz.

 

[Fallengod]

Yeah I recently bought a 40 inch samsung 120hz model. I forget which model it is, but its one of the better ones.

I personally wouldnt buy a TV with 60hz these days, theres just not much of a reason to. Stick with 120hz. There is even 250hz out now but, I dont think thats worth it yet. When I was shopping around, the sales guys tried to sell me on that and looking at the price tags, its a huge price bump going to 250hz over 120hz.

Also I definitely agree on the auto-motion plus, I found that to be somewhat annoying. That was the first thing I disabled on my TV.