I've been holding out for a 120hz LCD, I dunno if I need it...

[aphex]

I've been holding out for a 120hz LCD for a little while now, waiting for prices to drop. But as I sit here at my parents playing PS3, watching Blu-Ray and HD Dish, on their 37" Vizio, the picture looks pretty damn good IMO. Obviously 120hz would be smoother, but at no time does it ever look bad to be. I've compared 60 and 120 side by side at local stores and yes the difference is noticable, but I just don't know if I really need a 120hz model.

I dunno...

 

[SlickSnake]

I depends on how good your eyesight is, and how close you plan to sit in front of it.

You need to see a comparison on 2 same maker HDTVs one with 60hz and one with 120hz playing directly next to each other something like a BR of Bee Movie where you have striking contrast differences between light and dark and a lot of movement to compare it to. The 120hz will give a noticeably clearer picture with better differentiation between light and dark transients. Just look at the lines on the bees, yellow then black while they are moving around to see what I'm talking about. The 60hz was a bit fuzzy and even pixelated and blurry along the lines during movement trying to resolve the contrast of the colors, while the 120hz was literally perfect in its reproduction.

This was on 2 Sonys of the same model type I was comparing it to at the time, and CC had this demo set up just to show the difference. I even went into the menus and messed around a bit just to see that they had all the settings tweaked pretty much the same, too.

 

[imported_weadjust]

I have a Sony 52" 120 hz and my dad has the Sony 52" 60 hz and I can't see any difference. I bought mine about 6 months after he did.

 

[WaTaGuMp]

This is just like the 720p and 1080p arguement, some say yes some say no, I am in the no camp, until you get into larger screens, then im in the yes camp.

 

[sdifox]

120Hz, if poorly implemented, actually looks worse than 60Hz. Even if well done, it is a negligible benefit. Unless you spend your day pausing tv...

This is from someone who can tell if a CRT monitor is set at 120, 100, 75 or 60Hz by looking at it.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: sdifox
120Hz, if poorly implemented, actually looks worse than 60Hz. Even if well done, it is a negligible benefit. Unless you spend your day pausing tv...

This is from someone who can tell if a CRT monitor is set at 120, 100, 75 or 60Hz by looking at it.

Here comes way too much information...

120 Hz can't inherently make things worse. It can only be better than 60 Hz. But you're probably right that an otherwise good 60 Hz set might be a better overall experience than an otherwise bad 120 Hz set, due to unrelated factors like contrast, color accuracy, etc. Refresh rate is just one factor in overall reproduction quality. Your sensitivity to any given factor may vary.

The CRT thing is different. What you are seeing there is flicker from the scan rate. You see that flicker regardless of motion.

LCD's never flicker, regardless of refresh rate, because they do not scan in the sense that a CRT monitor does. So refresh rate only affects motion reproduction.

As I understand it, motion starts to look jerky and the image gets a bit jagged when the refresh rate does not perfectly sync with the input, as is the case with 24fps content played on a 60 Hz monitor. There are 2.5 refreshes per new frame of input, so sometimes the input frame changes between monitor refreshes instead of at the same time.

This means that in each 2-frame sequence at 24fps, the first frame gets displayed for slightly too long, the second for slightly too short. The first frame gets displayed and the monitor refreshes at the same time to show it. Two more refreshes go by with no change in display. In between the second and third refresh, the input frame changes. But unlike the first frame, which was displayed instantly, you have to wait 0.0083 of a second for the monitor to refresh and display the second frame. In other words, the second frame gets displayed 0.0083 seconds after it should have been displayed, and therefore it doesn't get enough display time before the next 2-frame sequence starts "on time."

If there isn't much motion, you can't tell that this is happening. But if something is moving across the screen, you are literally seeing it get "stuck" and then "jerk" forward again, 12 times a second. The faster the motion, the larger the distance it appears to jerk. You're either sensitive to this or you're not.

120 Hz avoids this problem because 120 divides evenly to both 30 and 24, so it can always display each new frame with a simultaneous refresh, regardless of source material. Each frame gets equal display time, so motion should always be smooth (pixel response time notwithstanding).

 

[thomsbrain]

So to go back to the OP, I would recommend that you go to a store just to look, and check out the different sets in the price range that you are hoping will drop down into your budget in a few months. So maybe you want to spend $1000, but the sets you like currently cost $1400 and you're hoping they will fall. Remember that all the 60 Hz set prices will also drop, so it's ok to compare them, too. Pick the set you like best for that price. The 60 Hz options will probably be bigger for the money, and maybe that's really important to you. The 120 Hz sets *might* look better to your eyes because of the motion thing. Up to you which you think will ultimately give you the best experience. The point is, 120 Hz is not the only feature that you might be able to enjoy by waiting.

Once you note your target set, regardless of its specific refresh rate or features, then look at the sets that are available now for your actual budget. Again, note the set you like best for your budget.

So now, you're comparing two sets: The one you can afford now, and the one you hope to afford later. The only question is, do you prefer instant gratification at the possible expense of later enjoyment, or are you willing to wait? Whether either of those sets is "120 Hz" doesn't matter as much as your overall impression of the viewing experience for each set.

Personally, I've decided that 1080p matters most to me, and I plan to buy in February to take advantage of my Costco rewards. That establishes my time frame and removes that variable. At that time, I'll check out my options in my price range and get the set that looks the best to me, regardless of specs.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: sdifox
120Hz, if poorly implemented, actually looks worse than 60Hz. Even if well done, it is a negligible benefit. Unless you spend your day pausing tv...

This is from someone who can tell if a CRT monitor is set at 120, 100, 75 or 60Hz by looking at it.

Here comes way too much information...

120 Hz can't inherently make things worse. It can only be better than 60 Hz. But you're probably right that an otherwise good 60 Hz set might be a better overall experience than an otherwise bad 120 Hz set, due to unrelated factors like contrast, color accuracy, etc. Refresh rate is just one factor in overall reproduction quality. Your sensitivity to any given factor may vary.

The CRT thing is different. What you are seeing there is flicker from the scan rate. You see that flicker regardless of motion.

LCD's never flicker, regardless of refresh rate, because they do not scan in the sense that a CRT monitor does. So refresh rate only affects motion reproduction.

As I understand it, motion starts to look jerky and the image gets a bit jagged when the refresh rate does not perfectly sync with the input, as is the case with 24fps content played on a 60 Hz monitor. There are 2.5 refreshes per new frame of input, so sometimes the input frame changes between monitor refreshes instead of at the same time.

This means that in each 2-frame sequence at 24fps, the first frame gets displayed for slightly too long, the second for slightly too short. The first frame gets displayed and the monitor refreshes at the same time to show it. Two more refreshes go by with no change in display. In between the second and third refresh, the input frame changes. But unlike the first frame, which was displayed instantly, you have to wait 0.0083 of a second for the monitor to refresh and display the second frame. In other words, the second frame gets displayed 0.0083 seconds after it should have been displayed, and therefore it doesn't get enough display time before the next 2-frame sequence starts "on time."

If there isn't much motion, you can't tell that this is happening. But if something is moving across the screen, you are literally seeing it get "stuck" and then "jerk" forward again, 12 times a second. The faster the motion, the larger the distance it appears to jerk. You're either sensitive to this or you're not.

120 Hz avoids this problem because 120 divides evenly to both 30 and 24, so it can always display each new frame with a simultaneous refresh, regardless of source material. Each frame gets equal display time, so motion should always be smooth (pixel response time notwithstanding).

Refresh rate = vertical scan rate for CRTs. Real world test has shown that even for sports it is a marginal improvement.

This is a decent article on the pros and cons

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6...-6792632-1.html?tag=ms

If you were talking about CRT or plasma then I would say 120Hz is definitely better than 60Hz. Not so clear when it comes to LCD.

Given the current premium on 120Hz sets, I can't recommend them. I would rather go bigger for the same money. Very few features can top the value of screen size.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Given the current premium on 120Hz sets, I can't recommend them. I would rather go bigger for the same money. Very few features can top the value of screen size.

That's a personal preference, of course. I find jerky motion to be distracting and can see the difference, but I still couldn't say for sure that 120 Hz is worth the size penalty. The OP may or may not agree with you when he goes to the store and compares what he could get for a given amount of money. I'm curious to hear what he decides on.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: sdifox

Given the current premium on 120Hz sets, I can't recommend them. I would rather go bigger for the same money. Very few features can top the value of screen size.

That's a personal preference, of course. I find jerky motion to be distracting and can see the difference, but I still couldn't say for sure that 120 Hz is worth the size penalty. The OP may or may not agree with you when he goes to the store and compares what he could get for a given amount of money. I'm curious to hear what he decides on.

That's just it, I don't see jerky motion, and I am feeding ATSC 1080i (hockey mainly) signal to my HC4900 shooting about 110". Either my pj does an excellent 2:3 or something else is afoot.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: sdifox

That's just it, I don't see jerky motion, and I am feeding ATSC 1080i (hockey mainly) signal to my HC4900 shooting about 110". Either my pj does an excellent 2:3 or something else is afoot.

ATSC doesn't specify just one framerate. It can be either 24 or 30. If you're watching broadcasts of hockey, they are almost certainly 30 fps, which perfectly divides into 60 Hz and should look nice and smooth. There wouldn't be any improvement with a 120 Hz display for that material.

Movies would be where you'd be most likely to notice it. If you still don't see it with movies, you're probably just not sensitive to it for whatever reason. We are talking about tiny little increments of time here, anyway. Note that for sound, it takes up to 20-30 full milliseconds of delay for us to differentiate between two sounds. Below that, and they sound as if they are played at the same time. I suspect our eyesight is far more sensitive, but 0.83 milliseconds is still REALLY short. If you don't see any jerkiness, consider that a good thing! It's one less thing to worry about, and enjoy your setup the way it is.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: sdifox

That's just it, I don't see jerky motion, and I am feeding ATSC 1080i (hockey mainly) signal to my HC4900 shooting about 110". Either my pj does an excellent 2:3 or something else is afoot.

ATSC doesn't specify just one framerate. It can be either 24 or 30. If you're watching broadcasts of hockey, they are almost certainly 30 fps, which perfectly divides into 60 Hz and should look nice and smooth. There wouldn't be any improvement with a 120 Hz display for that material.

Movies would be where you'd be most likely to notice it. If you still don't see it with movies, you're probably just not sensitive to it for whatever reason. We are talking about tiny little increments of time here, anyway. Note that for sound, it takes up to 20-30 full milliseconds of delay for us to differentiate between two sounds. Below that, and they sound as if they are played at the same time. I suspect our eyesight is far more sensitive, but 0.83 milliseconds is still REALLY short. If you don't see any jerkiness, consider that a good thing! It's one less thing to worry about, and enjoy your setup the way it is.

I watch a lot of movies too, and the concensus on 120 is it is makes the most diff in sport. I don't see it.
I don't see anything wrong on the atsc feed, be it video source or film source. My hd-dvd is rock solid, my HTPC feed is also rock solid. So I guess I am lucky, or the 120 is just a hype.

 

[XMan]

From what I understand the 120hz isn't a true representation. IE, if you set your resolution to 1920x1080 @ 120hz, it won't display. It's still a 60hz refresh, so you have a chance of 3:2 judder if you are playing 24p content.

 

[CFster]

I thought the 46" Samsung LCDs with 120Hz were pretty nice looking at the store.

Then I did my homework and bought a plasma.

 

[vi edit]

The bigger thing with the 120hz sets (Samsung in particular) is the AMP engine. The 6XX series and up have it, the 5XX and below don't.

When you turn on AMP with a Blu Ray and some HD OTA content it really freaks your eyes out. Movies loose the blur to them that make them look like movies and you actually feel like you are behind the camera watching it being filmed. Very trippy. I haven't had a chance to watch this in effect on an animated film but I guess it's about as close to 3D feeling as any set is able to get.

I don't like it for most conventional movies though. It's almost too real for me and takes away from the style that the director wanted it to have.

I'd look more at that than the 120hz aspect and see if it's something that you can live with/without.

 

[tk149]

Do you watch the CNN ticker (the scrolling words at the bottom of the screen) for hours at a time? Then get the 120.

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: thomsbrain

Originally posted by: sdifox

Given the current premium on 120Hz sets, I can't recommend them. I would rather go bigger for the same money. Very few features can top the value of screen size.

That's a personal preference, of course. I find jerky motion to be distracting and can see the difference, but I still couldn't say for sure that 120 Hz is worth the size penalty. The OP may or may not agree with you when he goes to the store and compares what he could get for a given amount of money. I'm curious to hear what he decides on.

120Hz is not the same from brand to brand. The first 120Hz Samsungs have a poorly implemented 120Hz system and actually create picture jerkiness and awkwardness. My brother who has one of these sets and actually turns off 120Hz when he plays DVD movies.

 

[Pghpooh]

There are two ways to generate the 120.
Easiest way us as follows.
Frame 1 video picture
Frame 2 black picture
Frame 3 video picture
Frame 4 black
Every other frame is black


The other way is frame 1 is video
frame 2 is a average of frame 1 and 3.
Every other frame is the average of the previous and following frame.
I think Sony uses the odd frame = black.

Been a while since I read the article that explained the differences so I could be a little foggy at 1:15 am!

 

[s44]

I believe the only sets that currently implement 5:5 are the Sony XBR6 line and up -- the priciest out there.

Until that becomes standard, I wouldn't bother.

 

[flxnimprtmscl]

Can someone explain the point of 120hz to me? Videos are 29.76(?) fps, and I would assume TV is something similar. Considering there aren't 120fps sources out there a 120hz tv seems completely pointless ot me. It's like having a 1Tbps network card for a desktop computer... I've been meaning to ask this question so what am I missing?

 

[s44]

Video is 30, but film is 24. So a proper 120hz screen allows 5:5 pulldown.

Most current models just seem to use it for stuff like smoothing out the motion (with interpolated frames) though.