I don't understand this whole "film look" or "directors intent"!

I don't understand this whole "home video look" or "everything needs to look ultra real!" I honestly find most frame interpolation to look downright hideous!

I like picture-perfect realism when I'm watching a football game. I don't need nor desire it when I'm watching Star Wars.

Why are we letting 19th century standards and limitations still dictate HOW motion resolution should be TODAY????

You may wish to ask the many people who shoot their television shows at 24fps, when they're perfectly capable of utilizing 60Hz. There aren't limitations within television like there are within cinema, yet 24fps abounds in both.

You may thank those that shoot at 24fps for being cheap. 24fps takes only 40% of the videotape or server space than does 60fps. Originally 24fps was selected by Thomas Edison in 1896 because he wanted to economize on the colloidal siver emulsion on his 35mm film.

Nowadays film stock and emulsions are mostly petrochemicals and cheap compared to what they used to cost (or they would be if the dollars were equal, instead of being about a 20:1 ratio).

You may thank those that shoot at 24fps for being cheap. 24fps takes only 40% of the videotape or server space than does 60fps.

Yeah, I don't agree with that as a reason, as it's generally the shows with the largest budgets (IE, the shows that are supposed to make the most money) that are shot at 24fps - and they generally run only a couple dozen or so episodes a season. Shows like soap operas and Jerry Springer that have new episodes up nearly DAILY throughout the year are shot at 60fps. Data storage is dirt cheap nowadays. I can store hundreds of hours of 1080p (60 or 24fps) content on my own PC on a $100 hard drive.

You may wish to ask the many people who shoot their television shows at 24fps, when they're perfectly capable of utilizing 60Hz. There aren't limitations within television like there are within cinema, yet 24fps abounds in both.

It comes with a dose of pain but I have to agree with you on this one. I think that the TV viewers have become accustomed to how the three basic types of TV presentations - half-hour sitcoms, one-hour dramas and two-hour movies - are shown. From the frame rates to the number of cameras and their movements.

But I still want my AMP.

Give me motion enhancement over deeper blacks ANY day of the week!

This is a SAD statement here. I think this sums up how bad off flat-panel technology is today. When gimmicks are preferred over something that actually improves the picture, heaven help us all!!

Ahh, yes, feel the hatred flow through you.


The truth may hurt, but at least its the truth and not an enhansement of it.;)

The truth may hurt, but at least its the truth and not an enhansement of it.

You mean "enhancement". ;)

And I think you're just ticked off because LCD's 'gimmicks' help keep it the dominant flat panel tech in the market.
.

What would I do without the pointless, but incredibly fun, bickering between Chad and Shock. Sorry to say it here Chad, but Shock kind of owned you on the last 2 posts ;) And yes, this is coming from a 151 owner...

What would I do without the pointless, but incredibly fun, bickering between Chad and Shock. Sorry to say it here Chad, but Shock kind of owned you on the last 2 posts ;) And yes, this is coming from a 151 owner...


Yeesh. And the dumb part? I don't even want to bicker. I like BOTH lcd and plasma.
But, 'parently, that is not allowed in the AVS display tech holy wars. http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/fighting/fighting0040.gif
.

When both camps extoll the true or imaginary virtues of plasmas and LCDs, I get it. You like plasmas, I like LCDs so everything is cool.

One of the things that even some of the current plasma owners are agonizing over is the perceived fear of burn-in. As a disinterested party - I will never ever own plasma - I would be glad to hear that their anxiety is 100% without basis and the plasmas are as durable in this regard as LCDs.

Now let's switch sides and the topic to LCDs and motion and allow, for the sake of discussion, that LCDs were, and still are, inferior in this regard. Enter AMP and the LCD blockheads like me still cheering because the motion problems got less painful. It would nice if the plasma guys would return the favor and wish us LCD-ers everlasting happiness with our new toy, the AMP.

Just as 720p is quickly yielding to 1080p, soon most decent LCDs will have some form of frame interpolation as a standard feature, a feature that can, mercifully some might add, be turned ON or OFF.

This makes the whole issue less debatable by several notches than what to buy - plasma or LCD, for example - as the consequences of getting plasma instead of an LCD can be unpleasant, long-lasting and expensive to correct. The consequences of buying a set with AMP and not liking it are none other than the price difference of a couple of hundred bucks if a cheaper set without AMP was even under cosideration.

The above would suggest that the plasma vs. LCD conversation has merit as it offers the undecideds some form of guidance what to buy.

The AMP or no-AMP debate is without any merit as far as what to buy as there is not chance a plasma lover would ever buy an LCD because he read at AVS about that "cool" thing called AMP. As there is no one to convince or sway, purchase-wise, the point, as they say, is moot. After the purchase, turn it ON if you like it or OFF if you don't.

End of the debate. Case closed.

This is a SAD statement here. I think this sums up how bad off flat-panel technology is today. When gimmicks are preferred over something that actually improves the picture, heaven help us all!!

I agree!

A tv should only reflect the source. 120 is totally unnecessary. What source have native 120hz frame rate?

They could do it simple and just throw away these gimmicks. I gladly would pay more for a television-set without these "functions".

Yeesh. And the dumb part? I don't even want to bicker. I like BOTH lcd and plasma.
But, 'parently, that is not allowed in the AVS display tech holy wars. http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/fighting/fighting0040.gif
.

Yup, and so do I! I like my LCD AND my plasma and until something better comes in a >40" size, you know what, I think I'll keep BOTH of them, thank you very much ;) Shock, better not give any suggestions to Auditor here on the holy wars, he might start getting some ideas... oh wait, SED went "poof" and disappeared... nevermind :p

In all honesty... I don't have a dog in the fight between LCD's or plasma display technology! I just wish to see progression of hollywood/mainstream cinema to higher frame rate video presentations. I've seen a few clips running at 48Hz, and 60Hz and continuously wonder why we cannot have such things in modern day cinema!

Yes, I openly acknowledge that AMP is not perfect and does introduce various kinds of visual artifacts. But it is a solution that, TO ME, is more important than better black levels. Why? Because we have already made tremendous improvements in black level definition and presentation. We have not seen any improvement in motion resolution/fidelity from the sources of entertainment.

I understand that 24p has been the standard for a very long time and I definitely understand that people are resistant towards anything that they are not familiar with or have witnessed much in their lifetimes. But with the advent of motion enhancement algorithms I can atleast remedy a problem I believe is more significant than deep blacks.

It's the same way for speakers! If you truly want to reflect the source then you will likely need a speaker setup comprised of large, high efficiency, pro drivers that are probably 5-6 ft tall and 3-4ft wide! Obviously, this is not feasible for most people and it is not a preferred solution. Some people like more pronounced high frequencies, others like rolled off highs. Some people like more smoother bass response while others like a more punchier response! Some people want deeper blacks, others want better motion. That's the way I see it.

The AMP or no-AMP debate is without any merit as far as what to buy as there is not chance a plasma lover would ever buy an LCD because he read at AVS about that "cool" thing called AMP. As there is no one to convince or sway, purchase-wise, the point, as they say, is moot. After the purchase, turn it ON if you like it or OFF if you don't.

End of the debate. Case closed.

So in your mind there is absolutely positively no room for debate about whether the feature works well (or doesn't work well) simply because it can be turned off?

So in your mind there is absolutely positively no room for debate about whether the feature works well (or doesn't work well) simply because it can be turned off?

Exactly.
I find it funny that those that are such big fans of interpolation are constantly telling everyone to turn it off or on low.
Obviously they are noticing the aurora vapor effect and the cheap home video feel themselves and do not like it.
But when your forced to choose between blurr and interpolation, interpolation wins in alot of cases. as it should.

But I will be honest though, Even though I hate the way AMP/Motionflow effects movies, I agree that it is better to have features like this than to not have them. As they said, some people like these features and like the way it makes a movie look so enhanCed.
So I guess I am all for having them as an OPTION.
But what worrys me is how trendy and gimmicky people can be. And that one day these options will become standards. Thier are a huge number of us that enjoy watching movies as they were meant to be seen and cringe at the site of a movie that has been artificially enhansed to the point of it being totally obvious..

Maybe 24fps is out of date, but today it is the standard. So all movies are optimized/mastered with this standard in mind.

Shows like soap operas and Jerry Springer that have new episodes up nearly DAILY throughout the year are shot at 60fps. .

Are they? Even if they are what would be the point?

Unless something change recently they are recorded on video (60i), even if they all got new progressive video cameras most HD is broadcast at 60i and all SD is.

I know of no true 60fps broadcast, I am sure someone will point one out though :D

So in your mind there is absolutely positively no room for debate about whether the feature works well (or doesn't work well) simply because it can be turned off?

There is absolutely and positively no room for a debate here because of that four-letter word you used in your post, which makes it strictly a personal opinion. Lacking the absolute standard that is available in discussing contrast that can be measured, for example, any such discussion is at the level of who is prettier - blonds or brunettes. With one exception: discussing them - as unproductive as it is - is more fun. So let me start: which one on Desperate Housewives is the best looking one?

I can enumerate all the reasons why I would advise someone who asked why he should not buy plasma. Another poster poster can argue against LCDs. Fine.

What can a AMP-free plasma guy tell an LCD owner about AMP? Not to buy or use it because he doesn't like? What sense does it even make for him to chime in?

How many times did you see posts by the plasma owners telling us that to really have an opinion about plasma that may look like a washed-out crap at BB, one should buy it, take home, break it in, calibrate it and only then one acquires a moral right to speak. Well, the same applies to LCDs and AMP. Buy it, try it and than have an opinion that's worth sharing. This is why I started the Frame Interpolation Poll, hoping to hear from AMP guys only.

Because to use it or not is an after-purchase personal decision, no advise is needed as the owner of a set with AMP can try it and decide for himself in the course of one evening.

Let's bring down to this simple question: What sense does it make for non-AMP plasma owners to advise an AMP LCD guy how to best use his LCD set?

So let me start: which one on Desperate Housewives is the best looking one?


I don't watch DH much, but I like the Q. :)

Hmm, gotta think this one through... I used to think Eva Longoria, but the infamous 'red lingerie' scene with Marcia Cross, plus some (legit) nude pics of her that've surfaced have convinced me that she has the better body.

Dana Delaney is still hot too, I've had a bit of thing for her ever since China Beach.

Nicolette Sheridan? Really hot when she was younger, but since then seems to have gotten a lot of plastic surgery done to her face, with the typical slightly scary results if you really pay attention.

Felicity Huffman? Easily the best actress on the show, and I get the oddest vibe that she's a tigress in the sack (props to William H. Macy), but unfortunately God did not grant her the most pleasing features. Makes the best of what she has, tho'.

Most overrated? Teri Hatcher. While Hatcher looks amazing in clothes and lingerie, her nude scene in Heaven's Prisoners is proof-positive that without, ahem, support, Teri's assets sure head south in a hurry.

So, to sum up: Marcia Cross by a nose, with Delaney a close second, and Longoria to show. :)

(btw, I pretty much hate most of the show's so-called 'plot threads', so you can tell what I'm paying attention to the few times I actually watch it. ;) )
.

There is absolutely and positively no room for a debate here because of that four-letter word you used in your post, which makes it strictly a personal opinion. Lacking the absolute standard that is available in discussing contrast that can be measured, for example, any such discussion is at the level of who is prettier - blonds or brunettes. With one exception: discussing them - as unproductive as it is - is more fun. So let me start: which one on Desperate Housewives is the best looking one?

I can enumerate all the reasons why I would advise someone who asked why he should not buy plasma. Another poster poster can argue against LCDs. Fine.

What can a AMP-free plasma guy tell an LCD owner about AMP? Not to buy or use it because he doesn't like? What sense does it even make for him to chime in?

How many times did you see posts by the plasma owners telling us that to really have an opinion about plasma that may look like a washed-out crap at BB, one should buy it, take home, break it in, calibrate it and only then one acquires a moral right to speak. Well, the same applies to LCDs and AMP. Buy it, try it and than have an opinion that's worth sharing. This is why I started the Frame Interpolation Poll, hoping to hear from AMP guys only.

Because to use it or not is an after-purchase personal decision, no advise is needed as the owner of a set with AMP can try it and decide for himself in the course of one evening.

Let's bring down to this simple question: What sense does it make for non-AMP plasma owners to advise an AMP LCD guy how to best use his LCD set?

AMP works different at the store than it does at home? How so? How long must one watch it to determine if he likes it or not? Many of us have had experience with it with control in hand and still determined that we didn't like it and the reason I didn't purchase a set with it as I didn't see where it was worth the extra money being chargd. Is that okay to have an opinion without actually having to buy it? :cool:

The debate rages on! :eek:

PS- Your poll indicates that majority of the people don't like it.

Since 240 LCDs will be coming to market isn't this 120 debate SO YESTERDAY?

Let's bring down to this simple question: What sense does it make for non-AMP plasma owners to advise an AMP LCD guy how to best use his LCD set?

AMP is not the only method of interpolation.
There is Sony's motionflow, pioneers smooth mode, Vizios "smooth motion" effect, LG's Trumotion, etc.
And what you seem to forget, is that many of us own these TV's and have owned multiple LCD's with AMP/motionflow.

I actually think that 120Hz is a half-implemented feature, and the half that is missing is the ability to accept and display 120fps video framerates.

As for the only available sources, there are two. Gaming PCs with state-of-the-art multicore CPUs and graphics processors can generate such framerates. Secondly there are appearing on the market computer monitors being advertized as "3D Ready" because they will accept 120fps video and display it. Such as the Viewsonic VW2265wm 22" monitor (1680x1050, 120Hz) on sale at Fry's this week for $380.

Just barely here is a new system with LCD shutter glasses which will allow gamers and video buffs to see 3D images on the small screen. The video card controls the wireless LCD glasses which blank the R eye when the L image is displayed, and the R eye when the L image is displayed. The actual video framerate is 60Hz, but two entirely seperate R and L images get displayed alternately and superimposed in your eye and brain to produce a full color 3D image, far superior to the old-fashioned "anaglyph" 3D system used on today's displays, which compromises the display color. (I saw this system demonstarated years ago on a Sony CRT direct-view display.)

It's just a beginning, and the new 120Hz computer displays are not 1080p and don't have AMP or other frame interpolation. But a few years from now if they work out the logistics of distrbuting 3D movies, I can forsee another 120Hz upgrade. My new dream TV would be a 1080p 120Hz LCD with Frame interpolation that is 3D-ready.

So, to sum up: Marcia Cross by a nose, with Delaney a close second, and Longoria to show. :)

(btw, I pretty much hate most of the show's so-called 'plot threads', so you can tell what I'm paying attention to the few times I actually watch it. ;) )
.

Somehow I knew that if anyone was going to pick up on my off the wall comment it would be you and I mean this as a compliment. Where the two subjects intersect is that I really like AMP as it helps to get a sharper view of the DH cleavage shots. I think even Chadmak would have to agree with this but I suspect he will argue that plasma does it better.

BTW, your chick tour was well done. Also, did you notice how 1080p and 40+ just don't work too well? How about a new "Subtract 15" button? This would be a feature we could all agree on.

AMP is not the only method of interpolation.
There is Sony's motionflow, pioneers smooth mode, Vizios "smooth motion" effect, LG's Trumotion, etc.
And what you seem to forget, is that many of us own these TV's and have owned multiple LCD's with AMP/motionflow.

I got lazy and started using AMP generically like kleenex.

There is absolutely and positively no room for a debate here because of that four-letter word you used in your post, which makes it strictly a personal opinion. Lacking the absolute standard that is available in discussing contrast that can be measured, for example, any such discussion is at the level of who is prettier - blonds or brunettes.

What can a AMP-free plasma guy tell an LCD owner about AMP? Not to buy or use it because he doesn't like? What sense does it even make for him to chime in?


Wow I can't believe you even made that post. You are fine with subjective posts as long as they don't run contrary to your opinion.

I hate to break it to you but nearly 100% of the content on these forums involves some quantity of subjective opinion. If everything were black and white, measurable, and could be easily judged by a standard then there would be nothing to talk about.

Hey this display scored a 92% on the XYZ benchmark thus it's obviously better than this other one that got an 84%. End of story, nothing to discuss here.

Besides that, the general availability of something like AMP is a concept that is essentially technology agnostic. Yes, it is currently being used to try to conceal some LCD weaknesses. But Pioneer took a half-hearted stab at implementing something similar in the Kuros. There's no reason that it can't be implemented in future plasma (or other) displays. Just looking at Topper's post about his 24p sensitivity shows that there is a place for it.

Lastly, I could care less what someone does with their display. And I haven't been in the business of telling people what they should do, other than DON'T FALL FOR THE STORE DEMO! I advise that people who walk away from a 120hz LCD with Ice Age playing on dynamic mode with AMP on high... slobbering all over themselves... to take a step back and evaluate some content that isn't best case scenario material. Pixar movies looking awesome with AMP is different from Casablanca. If they still think it looks awesome, more power to them. Why would I care what they do as long as I don't have to suffer through it with them?

Somehow I knew that if anyone was going to pick up on my off the wall comment it would be you and I mean this as a compliment.

Thanks. Just doing all I can to help make this silly thread jump the shark. :D

I mean, "Oh noes, somebody doesn't approve of AMP??? Where's my remote!!! I'll turn AMP up... err, I mean, undo this atrocity AT ONCE!!!"

*looks around, starts whistling, goes to Picture Options and turns AMP up* ;)


BTW, your chick tour was well done. Also, did you notice how 1080p and 40+ just don't work too well? How about a new "Subtract 15" button? This would be a feature we could all agree on.

The button I'd want is the "Rene Russo/Charlotte Rampling Time Machine/Still Look Hot At Any Age" button.

Of course, I'd be yelled at for incorporating/inventing this feature by purists who'd argue that hagginess was "the director's intent." http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/happy/happy0188.gif
.

Wow I can't believe you even made that post. You are fine with subjective posts as long as they don't run contrary to your opinion.

I hate to break it to you but nearly 100% of the content on these forums involves some quantity of subjective opinion. If everything were black and white, measurable, and could be easily judged by a standard then there would be nothing to talk about.

Hey this display scored a 92% on the XYZ benchmark thus it's obviously better than this other one that got an 84%. End of story, nothing to discuss here.

Besides that, the general availability of something like AMP is a concept that is essentially technology agnostic. Yes, it is currently being used to try to conceal some LCD weaknesses. But Pioneer took a half-hearted stab at implementing something similar in the Kuros. There's no reason that it can't be implemented in future plasma (or other) displays. Just looking at Topper's post about his 24p sensitivity shows that there is a place for it.

Lastly, I could care less what someone does with their display. And I haven't been in the business of telling people what they should do, other than DON'T FALL FOR THE STORE DEMO! I advise that people who walk away from a 120hz LCD with Ice Age playing on dynamic mode with AMP on high... slobbering all over themselves... to take a step back and evaluate some content that isn't best case scenario material. Pixar movies looking awesome with AMP is different from Casablanca. If they still think it looks awesome, more power to them. Why would I care what they do as long as I don't have to suffer through it with them?

I get the impression he was a mod in a prior lifetime or one that doesn't get to make many decisions around the house. :p

denying that 120Hz is an advance in the video reproduction of film is pretty bone-headed

sums it up for me. i think both 24 and 120hz have their place.

this modified Royksopp video is very jumpy and low res but hopefully still shows the motion clarity and smoothness of progressive frames rates (i.e. 120hz) compared to:

3:2 pulldown (blu-ray)
3:3 (cinema quality)
then back to 3:2

not much soap, artifacts or uncanny valley in this particular video (the bad things)
but neither is the the beneficial blur reduction bestowed on lcd or 3-d effect.

its just basically to show those who might not know (or don't want to know) some of the differences... plus i like the song :p

http://www.mediafire.com/file/mhzmhnjtwiw/eple.jpg (http://www.mediafire.com/file/zimtynyqmym/eple_60_low.wmv)

on left - 120hz progressive blur/ judder reduction and increased motion clarity (note: video interpolated from 24 to 120 fps and then down converted to 60 for playback capability)

on right - 3:2, 3:3 - note eye saccades triggered by optokinetic reflex stuck in feedback loop similar to dysfunctional nystagmus - or in other words, the inability to track moving objects - haha... ok can anyone expand on that)

Some of the purists here don't seem to like the idea of the "fake" frames created with interpolation (AMP, et al.).

I wonder if they were right in there with the videophiles who, a few years ago, were shelling out $15K for Faroudja upconverters. Or what their initial reaction was to the more recent plain-Jane upconverting DVD players that create all of those extra "fake" lines of resolution.

My guess: "Blu-Ray has made all of that moot."

Shock, better not give any suggestions to Auditor here on the holy wars, he might start getting some ideas... oh wait, SED went "poof" and disappeared... nevermind :p


SED never even appeared in the first place, so it can't really disappear. :D
.

For all the 120 worshipers out there--if 120 is great would 240 be better?

Sony is doing 240. Are they stupid for doing that?

Some of the purists here don't seem to like the idea of the "fake" frames created with interpolation (AMP, et al.).

I wonder if they were right in there with the videophiles who, a few years ago, were shelling out $15K for Faroudja upconverters. Or what their initial reaction was to the more recent plain-Jane upconverting DVD players that create all of those extra "fake" lines of resolution.

My guess: "Blu-Ray has made all of that moot."

Best argument so far. How about "7-channel" surround sound and the equalizers we set as we like. The "purist" should have a heart attack at the thought of taking an original 2-channel sound track and playing it through all seven speakers without a written director's permission.

For all the 120 worshipers out there--if 120 is great would 240 be better?

Sony is doing 240. Are they stupid for doing that?

If I "worship" anything it's an ability to control AMP so I went to BB and tried to order one to go but they said "no" and insisted I also buy 120Hz. Eventually, I bought both after they told me that AMP is 300 extra but 120 is free.

Some of the purists here don't seem to like the idea of the "fake" frames created with interpolation (AMP, et al.).

I wonder if they were right in there with the videophiles who, a few years ago, were shelling out $15K for Faroudja upconverters. Or what their initial reaction was to the more recent plain-Jane upconverting DVD players that create all of those extra "fake" lines of resolution.

My guess: "Blu-Ray has made all of that moot."

First of all, film is not shot at 480i. In fact, if you were to transfer film directly to a digital medium as losslessly as possible, you'd end up with a resolution far exceeding even 1080p. So, when watching an SD DVD, you're not viewing accurate material whether you're doing any upscaling or not.

Beyond that, if you have an HDTV, you're forced to watch your SD material in an upscaled form. Either your TV is going to do it, or your external equipment is. Take your pick.

With interpolation, I have a choice, and I choose to not use it.

When watching SD material, I don't have a choice. It's getting upscaled to 1080p regardless of what I do because I have a 1080p display.

The point PrimeTime makes is valid. Someone at AVS said that the director's intent is what's on the disk. If you accept this premise, a 480i disk should be displayed on a 480i display through a 480i player. Adding more "fake" lines by the set or an up-converting player is, therefore, tampering.

The point PrimeTime makes is valid. Someone at AVS said that the director's intent is what's on the disk. If you accept this premise, a 480i disk should be displayed on a 480i display through a 480i player. Adding more "fake" lines by the set or an up-converting player is, therefore, tempering.

You are really grasping now. Besides, there is simply no way around it. Content needs to be scaled to fit a fixed pixel display.

If I "worship" anything it's an ability to control AMP so I went to BB and tried to order one to go but they said "no" and insisted I also buy 120Hz. Eventually, I bought both after they told me that AMP is 300 extra but 120 is free.

You despise analogies while I despise phony stories to try and make some sort of worthless point. Give me an analogy 7 days a week over a concocted story.

:D

The point PrimeTime makes is valid. Someone at AVS said that the director's intent is what's on the disk. If you accept this premise, a 480i disk should be displayed on a 480i display through a 480i player. Adding more "fake" lines by the set or an up-converting player is, therefore, tempering.

Not sure what heat treating metal has to do with DVD's and movies though. :confused:

How about "7-channel" surround sound and the equalizers we set as we like. The "purist" should have a heart attack at the thought of taking an original 2-channel sound track and playing it through all seven speakers without a written director's permission.Actually....I have witnessed several seven and eight-channel playback demos at AES. Not to go too far OT, but: Some were done with high-end gear, but even the ones with commodity-level speakers were WAY more convincing and realistic than any Wilson Audio stereo demo I've heard.

As for the artists' assent: No less than Herbie Hancock declared that these renderings were a "revolutionary breakthrough" in the art and science of audio.

Someone at AVS said that the director's intent is what's on the disk.

I have never claimed that the "director's intent" is on a 480i DVD.

If you accept this premise

I don't.

And even if I did

a 480i disk should be displayed on a 480i display through a 480i player

is again, a matter of having to buy additional equipment, which costs money, time, effort and space. Keeping AMP turned off requires none of those things.

Not sure what heat treating metal has to do with DVD's and movies though. :confused:

Nothing. My mistake. Mistake corrected. Thanks.

For all the 120 worshipers out there--if 120 is great would 240 be better?

Sony is doing 240. Are they stupid for doing that?

No, they're certainly not stupid. While ppl will certainly argue the merits of 240Hz, from a marketing standpoint it's a pretty easy sell... 240 > 120, n' all that.

Is it an improvement over 120? Dunno, haven't viewed a 240 set at length as of yet. I suspect 'diminishing returns' here, but that's only a hunch 'til I view some 240 sets carefully.

Edit- Just checked out CNET's review of the XBR7, which has 240Hz. Their take on it?

240Hz refresh rate offers only minor improvements to picture quality

http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-tvs/sony-bravia-kdl-52xbr7/4505-6482_7-33240836.html?tag=txt%3bpage
.

The debate rages on! :eek:

PS- Your poll indicates that majority of the people don't like [frame interpolation].


Actually, that isn't true anymore, it's a tie currently, with 50% now saying they never use it (like it matters). But hey, let's play along...

(At Sony-or Samsung- Headquarters, CEO's office...)

*the Vice-President of Flat Panel Development enters, breathlessly. It's obvious that's he's been running, and is very agitated...*

VP: Boss! BOSS!! This just came in! There was A POLL at AVS, and 13 out of 26 people SAID THEY DIDN'T LIKE MOTION INTERPOLATION!!!!

CEO: My... god. With that many ppl participating, and at such a mainstream site, the conclusions are inescapable. HOW could we have been so WRONG???

VP: The jig is UP! We're DONE FOR in the market NOW! *starts shivering in fear*

CEO: (solemnly) No, not necessarily. We can atone. We'll pull ALL sets with motion enhancement OFF the market IMMEDIATELY, and then throw them all into a blazing bonfire in the middle of downtown Tokyo. Then... we'll publicly commit seppuku.

VP (nodding sadly): Yes. It's the only way.

*a long moment of silence. Then...*

VP: Bwhahahaha...

CEO: BWHAHAHAHA! *wipes tears from eyes* Oh my. That was hilarious!

VP: Hahaha... yes, it was. I LOVE 'role play' Fridays! What's next?

CEO: Oh, I guess we can now pretend that we're going to kill off all our LCD lines and go straight plasma. Whaddya say?

VP: Sounds COOL! And then after that, we can pretend we're gonna buy the rights from Canon and bring back SED!

CEO: Hahaha... that's a GOOD one! Cool, let's do it. Leave again, and I'll try to get back into character.

VP: Gotcha!

CEO: Oh, and this time, have like a BIG bunch of papers in your hand that you can wave around, like they say something important, y'know?

VP: Will do, boss!

*fade to black* :D
.

Actually, that isn't true anymore, it's a tie currently, with 50% now saying they never use it (like it matters). But hey, let's play along...

(At Sony-or Samsung- Headquarters, CEO's office...)

*the Vice-President of Flat Panel Development enters, breathlessly. It's obvious that's he's been running, and is very agitated...*

VP: Boss! BOSS!! This just came in! There was A POLL at AVS, and 13 out of 26 people SAID THEY DIDN'T LIKE MOTION INTERPOLATION!!!!

CEO: My... god. With that many ppl participating, and at such a mainstream site, the conclusions are inescapable. HOW could we have been so WRONG???

VP: The jig is UP! We're DONE FOR in the market NOW! *starts shivering in fear*

CEO: (solemnly) No, not necessarily. We can atone. We'll pull ALL sets with motion enhancement OFF the market IMMEDIATELY, and then throw them all into a blazing bonfire in the middle of downtown Tokyo. Then... we'll publicly commit seppuku.

VP (nodding sadly): Yes. It's the only way.

*a long moment of silence. Then...*

VP: Bwhahahaha...

CEO: BWHAHAHAHA! *wipes tears from eyes* Oh my. That was hilarious!

VP: Hahaha... yes, it was. I LOVE 'role play' Fridays! What's next?

CEO: Oh, I guess we can now pretend that we're going to kill off all our LCD lines and go straight plasma. Whaddya say?

VP: Sounds COOL! And then after that, we can pretend we're gonna buy the rights from Canon and bring back SED!

CEO: Hahaha... that's a GOOD one! Cool, let's do it. Leave again, and I'll try to get back into character.

VP: Gotcha!

CEO: Oh, and this time, have like a BIG bunch of papers in your hand that you can wave around, like they say something important, y'know?

VP: Will do, boss!

*fade to black* :D
.

I hope you're not a comedian by trade as I'm afraid the unemployment rate is already high enough. :D

I hope you're not a comedian by trade as I'm afraid the unemployment rate is already high enough. :D

Oh, don't be that way. Remember, when you laugh at yourself, the world laughs with you. ;)
.

Oh, don't be that way. Remember, when you laugh at yourself, the world laughs with you. ;)
.

Be what way? Hey I love comedy as much as the next guy. ;)

Did you get a chance to vote in the Home Theater sound system thread? Some people have posted some pretty impressive systems on there and was hoping for more input as to what everyone has. Give it a shot if you haven't. :)

SED never even appeared in the first place, so it can't really disappear. :D
.

What do you mean SED never existed?!? What about that "tech demo" at CES 3 years ago, you can't tell me that doesn't that count :rolleyes: Funny, for all Auditor talks about SED, let's see how many he has seen in person... ah, here's a hint, the number is less than 1 :p

I have to admit, I actually like AMP on low, it is a very interesting effect.

I have to admit, I actually like AMP on low, it is a very interesting effect.

Ditto. Severely cuts motion blur, yet doesn't look very distracting or 'video-y'.

Plenty of ppl like motion enhancement, and soon enough it'll be on all LCD sets.

But AVS is a haven for the 'purists', cut-off from the reality of the mainstream, so we're skewed and we'll have to keep hearing how ME is a 'tool of the devil'. :rolleyes:
.

Ditto. Severely cuts motion blur, yet doesn't look very distracting or 'video-y'.

Plenty of ppl like motion enhancement, and soon enough it'll be on all LCD sets.

But AVS is a haven for the 'purists', cut-off from the reality of the mainstream, so we're skewed and we'll have to keep hearing how ME is a 'tool of the devil'. :rolleyes:
.

I will admit that AMP is a crutch, without it this LCD is nowhere near as good with moving picture detail as my 42px75 plasma is. (it blurs and judders really bad) but with it enabled I would say that moving picture detail is close to that of my plasma, and judder is slightly less. (on my Ninja Gaiden Sigma spin test, with AMP off it was awful, but with it on high, it was almost to the level of my 42px75, but nowhere near as good as the 5020 Kuro) I am leaving AMP on low for everything for the time being.

Ditto. Severely cuts motion blur, yet doesn't look very distracting or 'video-y'.

Plenty of ppl like motion enhancement, and soon enough it'll be on all LCD sets.


..

Fortunately my plasma doesn't need any enhancement to correct motion blur. ;) :D

.

Fortunately my plasma doesn't need any enhancement to correct motion blur. ;) :D

not bashing, :) but yeah, plasma/oled/fed/sed could be perfect with motion -
however this will never happen at current frame rates - the reason is simple..

short hold times induce too much flicker at low frame rates

i see no way around that and apparently neither have any display manufacturers.
its just another example of how the old standard is holding back progress - now in the realm of future technology.

.

Fortunately my plasma doesn't need any enhancement to correct motion blur. ;) :D

What is this 'plasma' you speak of?? :confused:

Oh, sry, just imitating the average TV consumer. ;)



(j/k, I do like plasma)
.

.

Fortunately my plasma doesn't need any enhancement to correct motion blur. ;) :D

my KURO does. at least to MY eyes

my KURO does. at least to MY eyes

Oh god, here we go again.
For the last time, your "problem" is with content. Not the Kuro.
The Kuro is giving an accurate representation of the way the source content should show the motion.

The Kuro is FAR better with motion than ANY LCD.

Maybe you should call hollywood and let them know that you preferr your movies to be a artifacting soap opera.
lol. good luck.

my KURO does. at least to MY eyes

I guess I'm lucky I don't have your eyes. :D

If I had anywhere near what you described in some of your posts whether it be plasma or LCD I don't think I would ever watch TV as I have never experienced what you have. I guess I focus on a beautiful picture rather than look for what some consider flaws..

What is this 'plasma' you speak of?? :confused:



It's the blood of the A/V world. ;)

and I like LCD's also as I'm just a home theater enthusiast that enjoys what's available today. Whatever becomes available tomorrow I'll deal with it then. :)

The Kuro is FAR better with motion than ANY LCD.




wow... then you dispute by a wide margin that the 950 took top honors in Gary Merson's motion resolution test -

a test not only done by a plasma aficionado but also (i forgot to mention) designed & created by plasma display manufactuers (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1014030).

home court advantage to plasma - trophy goes to 950...make what you want from that.

The 950 only scored 330 to the Kuro's 900 unless the 950 engaged frame interpolation. In other words, when tasked with accurately displaying what's in the source, plasma is still the king by far. I also wonder if the Pioneers would have done any better with Smooth mode (interpolation) turned on.

Oh god, here we go again.
For the last time, your "problem" is with content. Not the Kuro.
The Kuro is giving an accurate representation of the way the source content should show the motion.

yeah yeah the KURO is perfect.
Funny, but my friends basement home theater has a projector with smoother looking motion [without any enhancers], viewing the exact same content as a test, using my EXACT SAME eyes
Funny, the movie I just went to in a digital theater had BETTER motion
than MY Kuro, although I could still see the juddering.

but yeah, it's just me

yeah yeah the KURO is perfect.
Funny, but my friends basement home theater has a projector with smoother looking motion [without any enhancers], viewing the exact same content as a test, using my EXACT SAME eyes
Funny, the movie I just went to in a digital theater had BETTER motion
than MY Kuro, although I could still see the juddering.

but yeah, it's just me

Most likely your eyes are both sensitive to low framerate and the phosphor decay on plasmas. The latter is probably why you were able to perceive duplicate objects on screen. The image is persistent for you, so you see the last frame in some cases along with the next frame.

Most people do not have these issues, particularly the latter. So yeah, in a sense it is just you. I don't know how many times xrox explained the phenomena but you don't seem to get it.

Yeah that's sensitive eyes at work. I really haven't got a good subjective opinion of what judder even is b/c I can't detect it. Not in LCDs, plasmas, crts, what have you. W/o interpolation I can't tell the difference b/t a 120hz display and 60hz display. Obviously though, others have a very different experience. I imagine it may be related to a similar brain mechanism that can cause epileptic seizures from flickering lights in those w/ certain forms of epilepsy, although that's purely skepticism on my part as I have not researched it.

Watched a 55" Sammy 900 series LCD with Blu-Ray "King Kong" (the t-Rex fight scene in the crevace) with the motion enhancement turned all the way up - oh, my God! It butchered the picture. Now, it did smooth the background, but the foreground material was moving so fast that, in trying to interpolate, it create too many artifacts for me to keep count. Some scenes in films are MEANT to be blurry, and trying to eliminate all blur is impossible and the artifacts are not desirable.

I challenge anyone to do the same and tell me they prefer it.

This is the future Gary and other AMP lovers want for us? Sorry. I'm uninviting myself.

;16170995']
I challenge anyone to do the same and tell me they prefer it.



I prefer it! No joke!

Evolution to higher frame rates is more important than other aspects of image presentation.

I prefer it! No joke!

Evolution to higher frame rates is more important than other aspects of image presentation.

Do you prefer AMP/120Hz in theory or have you seen the clip I'm referring to with the settings I'm referring to?

The 950 only scored 330 to the Kuro's 900 unless the 950 engaged frame interpolation.

and that's a great thing about mcfi..

point was, some one can follow half-truths and blanket statements with exclamation points, caps and a condesending attitude in hopes of sounding more legit - but some one might call your bluff.

and how is 5:5 (which is also an option for lcd) so much different from 3:3 as far as reproducing the source.

oy sorry double post

and how is 5:5 (which is also an option for lcd) so much different from 3:3 as far as reproducing the source.

Was this addressed to me? If so, I'm not sure what you're talking about. I never claimed that 5:5 was "so much different" than 3:3, merely that without frame interpolation engaged, motion resolution is still generally far better on plasmas than on LCDs.

[Plasma is] the blood of the A/V world. ;)


I agree, but not everyone has a home theater set-up.

And, I strongly suspect, LED LCD will increasingly be the 'blood of the A/V world' going forward. Though I'm sure some of us will cry "a thousand times no!".

But, that's capitalism and the free market. Sometimes techs and products win that the true aficionados don't want to win.
.

;16170995']Watched a 55" Sammy 900 series LCD with Blu-Ray "King Kong" (the t-Rex fight scene in the crevace) with the motion enhancement turned all the way up - oh, my God! It butchered the picture. Now, it did smooth the background, but the foreground material was moving so fast that, in trying to interpolate, it create too many artifacts for me to keep count. Some scenes in films are MEANT to be blurry, and trying to eliminate all blur is impossible and the artifacts are not desirable.

I challenge anyone to do the same and tell me they prefer it.

This is the future Gary and other AMP lovers want for us? Sorry. I'm uninviting myself.

Yes, because having the motion enhancement on maximum is a really good indicator of how it looks at any level. Not. :rolleyes:

Any doof can easily see that AMP on Low is a very different beast than AMP on High. To claim that they're the same is disingenuous at best. And now, of course, now you can even customize the AMP level to anything you want.

Another silly thing is that most of the screaming seems to be coming from ppl who are currently plasma owners, i.e. ppl who don't even use AMP or MotionFlow or the like anymore on their primary set.

Gee, LCD owners don't tell you how to watch plasma sets, why should you care how LCD owners watch theirs? :confused:

I feel like I do when Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking on the door, trying to convert me. It's like, "Hey, you ppl seem nice, but why don't you try worrying about your own lives for a change, mmkay? Thanks."

*shuts the door*
.

k, I don't know nothin' bout nothin' but I think they are doing the AMP stuff wrong.

I wonder how this would work:
take two frames, examine EACH of the 2,073,600 pixels for which direction it will be moving in the next frame and it's bight/color, use common "morph" programming technology to generate two more frames inbetween where it is and where it will be.

yes, it would take silly amounts of processing power, but that is always just around the corner. For a 240hz system, you could get 10 extra frames in there, and there would be NO ARTIFACTS at all. 10 is insane but 2 extra, heck even 1 extra morphed frame would be amazing.

like I said, I dont know nothing, just making up ideas [my patent is already pending]

k, I don't know nothin' bout nothin' but I think they are doing the AMP stuff wrong.

I wonder how this would work:
take two frames, examine EACH of the 2,073,600 pixels for which direction it will be moving in the next frame and it's bight/color, use common "morph" programming technology to generate two more frames inbetween where it is and where it will be.

yes, it would take silly amounts of processing power, but that is always just around the corner. For a 240hz system, you could get 10 extra frames in there, and there would be NO ARTIFACTS at all. 10 is insane but 2 extra, heck even 1 extra morphed frame would be amazing.

like I said, I dont know nothing, just making up ideas [my patent is already pending]

That's a great idea why didn't they think of that.....oh wait :D

Yes, because having the motion enhancement on maximum is a really good indicator of how it looks at any level. Not. :rolleyes:

Any doof can easily see that AMP on Low is a very different beast than AMP on High. To claim that they're the same is disingenuous at best. And now, of course, now you can even customize the AMP level to anything you want.

Another silly thing is that most of the screaming seems to be coming from ppl who are currently plasma owners, i.e. ppl who don't even use AMP or MotionFlow or the like anymore on their primary set.

Gee, LCD owners don't tell you how to watch plasma sets, why should you care how LCD owners watch theirs? :confused:

I feel like I do when Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking on the door, trying to convert me. It's like, "Hey, you ppl seem nice, but why don't you try worrying about your own lives for a change, mmkay? Thanks."

*shuts the door*
.

It's valid, from an price/perf ratio standpoint, to my eye.

Why add a level of enhancement that is unwatchable on blur-ridden content (which is the type of content for which AMP was invented)? If it only starts to look reasonable on low (the first level above off), what the hell are you spending all that money on??

Who at Samsung thought those extra levels would be a sweet idea??

I agree, but not everyone has a home theater set-up.

And, I strongly suspect, LED LCD will increasingly be the 'blood of the A/V world' going forward. Though I'm sure some of us will cry "a thousand times no!".

But, that's capitalism and the free market. Sometimes techs and products win that the true aficionados don't want to win.
.

Honestly I don't care what the best is as like I did last time when I shopped for a new TV, I'll choose the one that best fits my needs and within the budget I have allocated. I see to many people getting caught up in "flaws" and never really able to enjoy their TV's. I've mentioned this before but the TV I have now is better than the one I had a few years ago and it was better than the one I had before that so I'm more than happy with the picture I get and it's over 2 years old with obviously better sets available today. :)

That's a great idea why didn't they think of that.....oh wait :D

If THAT is how they do it, why is it choking on certain parts?

;16173338']
Why add a level of enhancement that is unwatchable on blur-ridden content (which is the type of content for which AMP was invented)?

Because some ppl actually like AMP on High for most everything (not me).

And because, on CGI stuff (like Transformers), AMP on High actually looks good to a lot of ppl (yes, me, on this one).

AMP and the like are in their infancy. At time goes on, it will become more refined, and the High setting will be an afterthought, at most. More ppl will realize that they're getting too much of a good thing, in terms of ME vs LCD blur.

But ME won't go away on LCDs, because on certain settings, it is a good trade-off for most.
.

Because some ppl actually like AMP on High for most everything (not me).

And because, on CGI stuff (like Transformers), AMP on High actually looks good to a lot of ppl (yes, me, on this one).

AMP and the like are in their infancy. At time goes on, it will become more refined, and the High setting will be an afterthought, at most. More ppl will realize that they're getting too much of a good thing, in terms of ME vs LCD blur.

But ME won't go away on LCDs, because on certain settings, it is a good trade-off for most.
.

The luxias have a nice way of adjusting interpolation, you can adjust it on a scale of 1-10 for blur and anti-judder separately, or choose smooth, normal, or clear. No high and low. A much better system of AMP for me.

And because, on CGI stuff (like Transformers), AMP on High actually looks good to a lot of ppl (yes, me, on this one).

Really? Wow.

I actually watched some of the Transformers Blu-Ray on a 950 with AMP on high, and I found it intolerable. All of the CGI effects came completely disconnected from everything else on the screen. It looked like something you'd see during the very early stages of post-production.

Because some ppl actually like AMP on High for most everything (not me).

And because, on CGI stuff (like Transformers), AMP on High actually looks good to a lot of ppl (yes, me, on this one).

AMP and the like are in their infancy. At time goes on, it will become more refined, and the High setting will be an afterthought, at most. More ppl will realize that they're getting too much of a good thing, in terms of ME vs LCD blur.

But ME won't go away on LCDs, because on certain settings, it is a good trade-off for most.
.

See, this is why LCD will never be an option for me. If ME on LCD is going to be the future, and plasmas are dying (assuming your world view to be accurate for one minute), then I'll do without.

It's not a look I find attractive.

Get it??

That's why I said in an earlier post that I'm uninviting myself to that party.

I'll just buy a Pro111 and enjoy it until the damn thing dies or someone makes something free of ME , something that doesn't look like a videogame.

If THAT is how they do it, why is it choking on certain parts?

Originally Posted by wwjd
yes, it would take silly amounts of processing power, but that is always just around the corner.

:)

Really? Wow.

I actually watched some of the Transformers Blu-Ray on a 950 with AMP on high, and I found it intolerable. All of the CGI effects came completely disconnected from everything else on the screen. It looked like something you'd see during the very early stages of post-production.

A lot of ppl would disagree with you on that one. I was even at a movie night not long ago where Transformers was one of the movies played, and yes, AMP was on High. Nearly everyone remarked at some point during the evening how smooth and 'real' the picture seemed... especially how the robots looked.

All I know is, if the mainstream hated AMP and the like, it'd be appearing on fewer sets, not more... which it is (even some 32-inchers now have ME).

You personally may not dig it, but fortunately for you, there are alternatives still..

A lot of ppl would disagree with you on that one. I was even at a movie night not long ago where Transformers was one of the movies played, and yes, AMP was on High. Nearly everyone remarked at some point during the evening how smooth and 'real' the picture seemed... especially how the robots looked.

All I know is, if the mainstream hated AMP and the like, it'd be appearing on fewer sets, not more... which it is (even some 32-inchers now have ME).

You personally may not dig it, but fortunately for you, there are alternatives still..

I think the jury is still out on AMP as to its acceptance as it may be continued as is, could be a temporary solution to a problem, modified or something better might be developed.

;16174225']See, this is why LCD will never be an option for me. If ME on LCD is going to be the future, and plasmas are dying (assuming your world view to be accurate for one minute), then I'll do without.

It's not a look I find attractive.

Get it??

That's why I said in an earlier post that I'm uninviting myself to that party.

I'll just buy a Pro111 and enjoy it until the damn thing dies or someone makes something free of ME , something that doesn't look like a videogame.

I don't think you understand where I'm coming from.

I like LCD. I like AMP (on Low, or customizable, like the newer 'sungs can do). But I DON'T want plasma to go away. Because competition is good. And so that ppl who don't like the 'LCD picture' will have an alternative. So that *I* have an alternative too, next time around (if the Neo PDPs had been out when I bought, there's a chance I might've gone that way). Choice is good.

However, with the rise of LED LCDs, yes, I do fear that plasma may soon be confined to 'niche' status. I think once LED LCDs come down in price, it's going to be hard for plasma to its' maintain marketshare, UNLESS Panasonic and fellow plasma makers get more aggressive and focused in their marketing message. And make sets that show well in *gasp* big-box stores, as evil as they are. :eek:
.

The Luxias have a nice way of adjusting interpolation, you can adjust it on a scale of 1-10 for blur and anti-judder separately, or choose smooth, normal, or clear. No high and low. A much better system of AMP for me.

Yup, that's a very nice improvement for AMP on the '09 Samsungs, and one that most AMP-haters completely ignore.

But then again, *most* ME-haters don't own recent Sammy LCDs.
.

A lot of ppl would disagree with you on that one. I was even at a movie night not long ago where Transformers was one of the movies played, and yes, AMP was on High. Nearly everyone remarked at some point during the evening how smooth and 'real' the picture seemed... especially how the robots looked.

All I know is, if the mainstream hated AMP and the like, it'd be appearing on fewer sets, not more... which it is (even some 32-inchers now have ME).

You personally may not dig it, but fortunately for you, there are alternatives still..

I find that odd.

I consider myself pretty open minded, and even given my personal disdain for AMP, it doesn't take a great amount of effort on my part to accept that others find it pleasing. But, Transformers in particular looked terrible. The robots looked far from "real", and much more like cartoon drawings crudely pasted into the frame. Turning off AMP eliminated the problem. They then blended well with the live action, and it looked far more natural - not less.

Does AMP on the 950 somehow work differently than it does on the non-LED panels from the same generation?

I find that odd.

I consider myself pretty open minded, and even given my personal disdain for AMP, it doesn't take a great amount of effort on my part to accept that others find it pleasing. But, Transformers in particular looked terrible. The robots looked far from "real", and much more like cartoon drawings crudely pasted into the frame. Turning off AMP eliminated the problem. They then blended well with the live action, and it looked far more natural - not less.

Does AMP on the 950 somehow work differently than it does on the non-LED panels?

LOL, don't know what to tell ya, tbird... I'm just not seeing what you're seeing. No one I know who's seen the movie does either, at least not from anything they've said.

But I'm sure someone on AVS will concur with you. Not that it'll matter much to Sony, Samsung, et al.
.

The manufacturers can do whatever they want.

Bring on AMP for every display made going forward. As long as I can turn it off and it doesn't add cost, I couldn't care less if it's there or not.

I just find your description of Transformers in particular to be an odd one. I have yet to see a worse example of AMP (on high) in action, but since we've both made up our minds on how it looks, I guess we'll have to leave it at that.

Bring on AMP for every display made going forward. As long as I can turn it off and it doesn't add cost, I couldn't care less if it's there or not.

+1. I wish more ME-dislikers had that 'live and let live' attitude. If you're not being forced into using it, what's the harm to you?

And there's always plasma, after all, unless it dies out (and I don't think it will, not before OLED arrives in force, at least).


I just find your description of Transformers in particular to be an odd one. I have yet to see a worse example of AMP (on high) in action, but since we've both made up our minds on how it looks, I guess we'll have to leave it at that.

Indeed. For the life of me, I am just not getting what you're seeing.

I am very happy that I don't see it, though. ;)
.

I don't think you understand where I'm coming from.

I like LCD. I like AMP (on Low, or customizable, like the newer 'sungs can do). But I DON'T want plasma to go away. Because competition is good. And so that ppl who don't like the 'LCD picture' will have an alternative. So that *I* have an alternative too, next time around (if the Neo PDPs had been out when I bought, there's a chance I might've gone that way). Choice is good.

However, with the rise of LED LCDs, yes, I do fear that plasma may soon be confined to 'niche' status. I think once LED LCDs come down in price, it's going to be hard for plasma to its' maintain marketshare, UNLESS Panasonic and fellow plasma makers get more aggressive and focused in their marketing message. And make sets that show well in *gasp* big-box stores, as evil as they are. :eek:
.



Thanks for the clarification. I get you now.

By the way, big box stores aren't evil. Not as long as I work in one. :)

And there's always plasma, after all, unless it dies out (and I don't think it will, not before OLED arrives in force, at least).

.

If OLED or any other new technology arrives in force and knocks out plasma it will also take LCD with it.

Yes but to get a new technology to market one must first pay for the R&D, then spend even more money on manufacturing design for production, and then invest in the production facility. The second and third costs must be measured against simply further enhancing the technology you have already invested in. This is why I believe that no fundamental technological change in flat panels will occur until a few years after the economic recovery. I think LED backlights will replace CCFL backlights, that being a small change with a big performance bonus, but I do not see the basic ppanel technology changing without somebody investing billions of dollars in a new glass manufacturing facility.

Yes but to get a new technology to market one must first pay for the R&D, then spend even more money on manufacturing design for production, and then invest in the production facility. The second and third costs must be measured against simply further enhancing the technology you have already invested in. This is why I believe that no fundamental technological change in flat panels will occur until a few years after the economic recovery. I think LED backlights will replace CCFL backlights, that being a small change with a big performance bonus, but I do not see the basic ppanel technology changing without somebody investing billions of dollars in a new glass manufacturing facility.

Gary, you really need to get over your plasmanoia and accept that there are those out there that prefer a quality plasma over an LCD. Not everyone likes what you like or sees things the same as you do. When you accept that then you'll be a better man for it. :)

If OLED or any other new technology arrives in force and knocks out plasma it will also take LCD with it.

I'm not certain about that. I mean, eventually, yes. But if and when OLED arrives in force, it may well be at the high-end at first, i.e. plasma's home-theater stronghold. Which means that plasma will get hurt first, and more, than LCD.

You can certainly imagine that there'd be a few years where OLED takes the high-end, and cheap LCDs co-exist for awhile, continuing on in the cheap-set market and smaller sizes.

Then eventually OLED becomes cheap, and finally kills off LCD as well.

Of course, there are a lot of 'ifs' here. For one thing, there's the possibility that, by the time OLED finally shows up (five years from now, we're hearing from Samsung), LCD and plasma will have improved to the point where OLED can't simply 'walk in' and start taking over the market.

Thus, it could be a 'three major techs co-existing' market, even with CRT and RPTV going away.
.

I'm not certain about that. I mean, eventually, yes. But if and when OLED arrives in force, it may well be at the high-end at first, i.e. plasma's home-theater stronghold. Which means that plasma will get hurt first, and more, than LCD.

You can certainly imagine that there'd be a few years where OLED takes the high-end, and cheap LCDs co-exist for awhile, continuing on in the cheap-set market and smaller sizes.

Then eventually OLED becomes cheap, and finally kills off LCD as well.

Of course, there are a lot of 'ifs' here. For one thing, there's the possibility that, by the time OLED finally shows up (five years from now, we're hearing from Samsung), LCD and plasma will have improved to the point where OLED can't simply 'walk in' and start taking over the market.

Thus, it could be a 'three major techs co-existing' market, even with CRT and RPTV going away.
.

Well, I'll admit I'm no self proclaimed prophet like one particular poster claims ;) and honestly not really all that concerned if plasma or LCD survive or some new technology comes along. When the time comes for me to buy a new set I'll do what I always do, establish a budget and seek out the best set that fits my needs within my budget. I just get a kick out of those that proclaim something as dead that I can run down to the store and buy at any time. Audi are you listening? :)

Gary, you really need to get over your plasmanoia and accept that there are those out there that prefer a quality plasma over an LCD. Not everyone likes what you like or sees things the same as you do. When you accept that then you'll be a better man for it. :)

I would not want to guesss what "plasmanoia" means but my post did not mention a plasma or anything about plasma technology - in fact I talked about CCFL LCDs and LED LCDs.

My problem with plasmas has always been that I live in sunny California in a house with a lot of glass. The family room has glass on all four walls (the fourth opens into a central atrium in the center of my house). The former and only half-satisfactory TV in that room was a Sony Wega, with a flat glass screen. That was usable during most of the day if you half-opened the cabinet doors and used them to block glare from both sides. Even then, there were still times during the day when a shiny glass screen was simply not usable - when the direct sunlight was coming through the windows opposite the TV.

When I carried home a 50" Panasonic 1080p plasma, I discovered that it was usable for even fewer hours than the Wega. It had a much bigger screen, it presented more reflected images from my windows, and there were no side doors to screen off the glare. In short, it was simply NOT AT ALL ACCEPTABLE for my use, and I returned it to the store on the 3rd day. Are you having a problem understanding why?

Last year when I had surgery I ended up in a wheelchair with my foot in a cast for 3+ months. While working at home I found the confines of the home office too tight for the wheelchair, I worked out of my family room. What that meant was I used my 46" HDTV as a 2nd monitor for my laptop. I would drag the Microsoft Outlook E-mail window onto the 2nd monitor, and turned the brightness up so I could read the black text-on-white-background E-Mail screen in the sunlit room. Then I left that fixed E-Mail screen up for 8-10 hours a day in torch mode, 5 days a week for 3 months while working from the laptop screen. Doing the same with even a modern plasma panel would have been foolish IMHO - but the LCD screen took the abuse well and I never gave it a second thought. Not to mention I have a matte finish LCD with no glare - and the wife and I sit on a couch directly opposite the screen, we don't have any reason to view it off-axis, ever.

You need to climb down off your high horse and admit that there are applications and rooms in this world where LCD has multiple advantages over a Plasma display. I might have kept the plasma had I been shopping for my Home Theater, which has total light control. But I already own a front projector and a 96" screen, I'm not gonna downgrade to a plasma. I am today wanting to upgrade that projector (which has 60Hz and 72Hz refresh) to a 120Hz Panasonic PT-AE3000 model with an advanced frame interpolation engine - that would represent a genuine motive for an upgrade IMHO.

I would not want to guesss what "plasmanoia" means but my post did not mention a plasma or anything about plasma technology - in fact I talked about CCFL LCDs and LED LCDs.

My problem with plasmas has always been that I live in sunny California in a house with a lot of glass. The family room has glass on all four walls (the fourth opens into a central atrium in the center of my house). The former and only half-satisfactory TV in that room was a Sony Wega. That was usable during most of the day if you half-opened the cabinet doors and used them to block glare from both sides. Even then, there were still times during the day when a shiny glass screen was simply not usable - when the direct sunlight was coming through the windows oposite the TV.

When I carried home a 50" Panasonic 1080p plasma, I discovered that it was usable for even fewer hours than the Wega. It had a much bigger screen, it presented more reflected images from my windows, and there were no side doors to screen off the glare. In short, it was simply NOT AT ALL ACCEPTABLE for my use, and I returned it to the store on the 3rd day. Are you having a problem understanding why?

Last year when I had surgery I ended up in a wheelchair with my foot in a cast for 3+ months. While working at home I found the confines of the home office too tight for the wheelchair, I worked out of my family room. What that meant was I used my 46" HDTV as a 2nd monitor for my laptop. I would drag the Microsoft Outlook E-mail window onto the 2nd monitor, and turned the brightness up so I could read the black text-on-white-background E-Mail screen in the sunlit room. Then I left that fixed E-Mail screen up for 8-10 hours a day in torch mode, while working from the laptop screen. Doing the same with even a modern plasma panel would have been foolish - but the LCD screen took the abuse well and I never gave it a second thought.

You need to climb down off your high horse and admit that there are applications and rooms in this world where LCD has multiple advantages over a Plasma display. I might have kept the plasma had I been shopping for my Home Theater, which has total light control. But I already own a projector and a 96" screen. I am today wanting to upgrade that projector (which has 60Hz and 72Hz refresh) to a 120Hz Panasonic PT-AE3000 model with an advanced frame interpolation engine - that would represent a genuine motive for an upgrade IMHO.

Great, so plasma doesn't fit your need but that has nothing to do with anyone but you. There really wasn't any reason to try and convince everyone that 120hz forever and AMP is the only way to go and that California is banning plasmas. The fact that you brought a plasma home to begin with tells me that the picture quality initlally peaked your interest and not everyone has your lighting limitations to deal with.

I have no problems with LCD's as I own two of them and my dad bought a third from me. It's people like you that think everyone's situation is the same as yours and you make false claims regarding plasma tv's. Have you ever seen me start a thread "Plasma forever" or "California to ban LCD's"? All I ask is keep it real or keep it to yourself. :)

I never made any false claims about plasma TVs. What I said was they have the following limitations:

1) Plasma have insufficient brightness unless used in (at least) partially light-controlled rooms.
2) Plasmas have issues with glare in well-lighted rooms. In fact in my application where the wife likes to use a reading lamp at the other end of the couch, I get a perfect reflection of that end of the couch and her overlaid on my plasma screen - just as I did with the Wega, which is why I built the Home Theater.
3) There are conditions of use - such as prolonged usage of an E-Mail screen for months at a time in torch mode, that would almost certainly damage a plasma screen. That does not change the fact that these are legitimate usages for an HDTV.
4) Some of us like 120Hz and frame interpolation, both. That means that we can't take advantage of these (IMHO) genuine advancements in video quality if we select plasma technology - because even Pioneer's implementation was flawed.
5) The original E-Mail I linked to in the thread you referred to did in fact speak about plasma being effectively banned by new power saving standards. In fact if it is not to be, the current energy-hog models have to be replaced with more efficient models. Other people with far more interest than me uncovered the fact that there already existed two models out of dozens, that actually already met Tier 1 standards. It may still be true that meeting Tier 2 will require video quality compromises.
6) I might not have wasted 3 days of my life by dragging a plasma home if there were not so many plasma fanboys on this, one of my favorite places on the Web. That still irks me a year and a half later. This is a site where I expect to find unbiased, good information.

I never made any false claims about plasma TVs. What I said was they have the following limitations:

1) Plasma have insufficient brightness unless used in (at least) partially light-controlled rooms.
2) Plasmas have issues with glare in well-lighted rooms. In fact in my application where the wife likes to use a reading lamp at the other end of the couch, I get a perfect reflection of that end of the couch and her overlaid on my plasma screen - just as I did with the Wega, which is why I built the Home Theater.
3) There are conditions of use - such as prolonged usage of an E-Mail screen for months at a time in torch mode, that would almost certainly damage a plasma screen. That does not change the fact that these are legitimate usages for an HDTV.
4) Some of us like 120Hz and frame interpolation, both. That means that we can't take advantage of these (IMHO) genuine advancements in video quality if we select plasma technology - because even Pioneer's implementation was flawed.
5) The original E-Mail I linked to in the thread you referred to did in fact speak about plasma being effectively banned by new power saving standards. In fact if it is not to be, the current energy-hog models have to be replaced with more efficient models.
6) I might not havve wasted 3 days of my life if there were not so many plasma fanboys on this, one of my favorite places on the Web. That still irks me a year and a half later.

So much misinformation, so little time

I kind of have to back Gary a bit. I have been a frequent visitor of this site for years and I have always wondered why people are so into "the numbers" instead of relying on what their eyes tell them.

Look, I get it, plasmas have deeper blacks, but the reality is LCD looks a lot better to some peoples eyes. I own a KURO and I own a Samsung 6 series LCD, I like both of them a lot and both are fantastic sets, but the lcd is clearly more versatile. Everything looks good on my Samsung. I prefer my KURO for movies and theater settings, but to me, sporting events appeal to me more on the samsung. It's just a personal preference, but I do find it amusing that people make their decisions based on data that the human eye could never discern.

......but I do find it amusing that people make their decisions based on data that the human eye could never discern.I would say this statement is much too broad. The dynamic range of the human eye is larger than any display and in a theatre environment and low APL scenes the human eye can percieve black levels not measurable by any instrument I know of. I can't believe I am bothered by the glow of my 141 at times even though it measures < .001 ftL black.

On the other side of the argument the intrascene human visual contrast sensitivity is rather low (a few hundred to 1 down to 10:1 depending on environment)

For all the 120 lovers out there--how much benefit will there be in 240 versus 120?

Will the successor to the XBR8 be 240?

Will quality Sony affordable LCDs ever get larger than 55-inches?

Most 65-inch plasmas cost alot. The XBR8 at 55-inches costs alot.

It appears to me that a Panasonic V series 58-inch plasma gives alot of value at a non stratospheric price.

Sony or Samsung needs to produce their best LCD in a size larger than 55-inches and at a price of 3999 or less.

Will that ever happen?

I think DLPs are crappy but Mitsubishi has announced that they will be producing a 82-inch 3D capable 120 DLP set with a MSRP less than 4200.

Seems to me that Plasma and LCD need to get with the program and produce sets that cost less than 4K and make them big.

AMP that is adjustable and can be turned off and any frame interpolation device from Plasma that would do the same would be great features--people could use them or not at whatever level they wanted.

Add 3D and Deep Color with Deep color encoded Blu-Ray discs and multichannel sound--now that would be REAL TV!

Do you think the adult film producers have imagined the possibilities?

6) I might not have wasted 3 days of my life by dragging a plasma home if there were not so many plasma fanboys on this, one of my favorite places on the Web. That still irks me a year and a half later. This is a site where I expect to find unbiased, good information.

I have noticed this too and it is kind of irritating. Anytime someone mentions how they like a particular LCD, the plasma fanboiz (mostly Kuro Elitists) swoop in and proclaim that the Kuro is the best set ever and if you don't agree you are just a drive by BestBuy psuedo videophile that is a total idiot and doesn't know what he is looking at. If you like LCD you must be blind and twice as dumb, after all you can't watch an LCD edge on. I have never seen anything like it. The Kuro Elitists are the most rabid bunch ever.

Also it seems that every thread talking about TV tech degrades into " Kuro/plasma roolz, LCD droolz" "Plasma is the best, you are a fool if you don't agree". Why the rabid fanboyism on this site?

Besides it doesn't matter any more, "Kuro's dead, baby. Kuro's dead."

I never made any false claims about plasma TVs. What I said was they have the following limitations:

1) Plasma have insufficient brightness unless used in (at least) partially light-controlled rooms.
2) Plasmas have issues with glare in well-lighted rooms. In fact in my application where the wife likes to use a reading lamp at the other end of the couch, I get a perfect reflection of that end of the couch and her overlaid on my plasma screen - just as I did with the Wega, which is why I built the Home Theater.
3) There are conditions of use - such as prolonged usage of an E-Mail screen for months at a time in torch mode, that would almost certainly damage a plasma screen. That does not change the fact that these are legitimate usages for an HDTV.
4) Some of us like 120Hz and frame interpolation, both. That means that we can't take advantage of these (IMHO) genuine advancements in video quality if we select plasma technology - because even Pioneer's implementation was flawed.
5) The original E-Mail I linked to in the thread you referred to did in fact speak about plasma being effectively banned by new power saving standards. In fact if it is not to be, the current energy-hog models have to be replaced with more efficient models. Other people with far more interest than me uncovered the fact that there already existed two models out of dozens, that actually already met Tier 1 standards. It may still be true that meeting Tier 2 will require video quality compromises.
6) I might not have wasted 3 days of my life by dragging a plasma home if there were not so many plasma fanboys on this, one of my favorite places on the Web. That still irks me a year and a half later. This is a site where I expect to find unbiased, good information.

I'll just tackle a few for fun.

#4) With that I say to each his own but some of your messages have come across as that's the only way to be able to watch TV and everything else is flawed. That was the first mistake in your thinking. If you enjoy it great, but don't expect everyone to have the same tastes as you just as I don't expect everyone to have the same as me.

#5) Remember your title that had to be changed? the article you linked to even showed some plasmas that met tier one and they also suggested upcoming technology would be able to meet tier 2 which is about 4 years away if even implemented , so yes, you did make a false post. Why else do you think the thread title was changed? If you need a reminder here's a link. look at #15

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16159873#post16159873

#6) as strong willed and opinionated as you appear to be in this forum and as particular you seem to be I find it hard to believe you were influenced by anyone but yourself when auditioning TV's. Yes, plasma isn't for everyone and if it was a problem in your environment then you didn't do your homework very well. Not everyone lives in your type of environment though and my plasma functions just fine in mine as do many others who have purchased one.

Also it seems that every thread talking about TV tech degrades into " Kuro/plasma roolz, LCD droolz" "Plasma is the best, you are a fool if you don't agree". Why the rabid fanboyism on this site?



What's funny is if you actually look at it, it appears it's just as bad from the LCD side and one can get the impression if you didn't buy an LCD then you're a fool. fanboyism seems to be rabid from that side as well. Why else would so many LCD lovers continue to make statements like plasmas will be banned, plasmas are dead, plasmas can only be viewed in a cave environment etc.? :rolleyes:

If they invented a drive-in with a super bright LCD would LCD lovers take their dates there in broad daylight?

I'll just tackle a few for fun.

#4) With that I say to each his own but some of your messages have come across as that's the only way to be able to watch TV and everything else is flawed. That was the first mistake in your thinking. If you enjoy it great, but don't expect everyone to have the same tastes as you just as I don't expect everyone to have the same as me.

#5) Remember your title that had to be changed? the article you linked to even showed some plasmas that met tier one and they also suggested upcoming technology would be able to meet tier 2 which is about 4 years away if even implemented , so yes, you did make a false post. Why else do you think the thread title was changed? If you need a reminder here's a link. look at #15

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=16159873#post16159873

#6) as strong willed and opinionated as you appear to be in this forum and as particular you seem to be I find it hard to believe you were influenced by anyone but yourself when auditioning TV's. Yes, plasma isn't for everyone and if it was a problem in your environment then you didn't do your homework very well. Not everyone lives in your type of environment though and my plasma functions just fine in mine as do many others who have purchased one.


Firstly, I don't expect everyone to like what I like. However I have owned a 120Hz HDTV for 17 months now, I have introduced over a dozen people to 120Hz viewing, and NOBODY didn't like it. Several upgraded from older plasmas to 120Hz LCDs. None of those folks read this Forum and thus nobody else ever felt like "tearing their eyes out", nobody got "splitting headaches", nobody thought there was anything "unreal" about 120Hz or frame interpolation. There were a few people who never really could see any difference between my 120Hz and 60Hz on the Wega or the 60Hz LCD in the other bedroom. Just as I have never met anybody who knows what I am talking about who dislikes 120Hz. The complainers are all AVS Members and if you want to understand WHY THAT IS, look up a psychological phenomenon called "groupthink". The groupthink here on the AVS Forum is that 120Hz is bad. Elsewhere of course, the 120Hz sets are taking larger market shares every time they are counted.

Now as for the article I linked to, it was THIS ONE in Wired magazine:
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2009/03/california-tv.html
.....which does indeed mention that 25% of the current plasmas meet the national Energy Star 3.0 standards, but NONE meet the proposed California standards. There are other magazine articles found and linked by other people which uncovered the fact that two current plasma models do meet California Tier 1 requirements. That is why I thanked Mark for editing the title - because the Forum does not allow the thread originator to do so once posted. However when originally posted the information was correct based on the information I had.

Lastly I didn't doubt the superiority of plasma at the time I dragged the Panasonic home. YES I had noticed that they didn't compare well to LCDs in brightly lit B&M stores. I thought all I had to do was borrow the Colorimeter and calibrate the set. But NOBODY here at AVS would admit to the facts, which were that the best flat panel technology depended entirely upon the environment. Most members still seem to be in denial of these facts. You claim to be one of the enlightened few who understand this point. Now a reality check: How many times have you blindly reccomended plasma to a prospective purchaser in this Forum without bothering to ask where and how it will be used? Perhaps more telling, how many times have you reccomended an LCD?

Off topic, but I see mention of larger screens. I was told that the new Samsung PN58B550 was going to retail for $2499. That is a lot of real estate for such a low price, and if last years version is any indicator of performance, then I wll have to say that it may very well be the best Value on the market.

So much misinformation, so little time

lol so true chad, so true.


You know the thing that gets me. And it's just me mind you, just speaking for myself, but if I were fortunate enough to have a room so sun bathed I wouldn't want to ruin the beauty of such a room with ANY tv.

I have noticed this too and it is kind of irritating. Anytime someone mentions how they like a particular LCD, the plasma fanboiz (mostly Kuro Elitists) swoop in and proclaim that the Kuro is the best set ever and if you don't agree you are just a drive by BestBuy psuedo videophile that is a total idiot and doesn't know what he is looking at. If you like LCD you must be blind and twice as dumb, after all you can't watch an LCD edge on. I have never seen anything like it. The Kuro Elitists are the most rabid bunch ever
Also it seems that every thread talking about TV tech degrades into " Kuro/plasma roolz, LCD droolz" "Plasma is the best, you are a fool if you don't agree". Why the rabid fanboyism on this site?.."

You are seeing things very one-sided.
The majority of times I have seen people bring up the kuro elites is when superiority is claimed by LCD fans. Which prompts some to correct the misinformation. The Kuro-phobics are bad about this.

What I think is worse than anything is the amount of haters and envy-green preference mongers that constantly try to get everyone to disregard actual data and base performance on torch mode and marketing gimmicks.


Besides it doesn't matter any more, "Kuro's dead, baby. Kuro's dead."

Maybe to you, but when you can still purchase one and it is still the highest rated TV by reviewers, calibrators, and professionals, it seems its alive and kicking if you asked me.
Maybe your idea of dead is different than most of humanitys.;)

The complainers are all AVS Members and if you want to understand WHY THAT IS, look up a psychological phenomenon called "groupthink". The groupthink here on the AVS Forum is that 120Hz is bad.

Ah, back to this silliness again.

And I'll assume that you mean frame interpolation when you mention 120Hz, because I've yet to see anyone who knows what they're talking about say that 120Hz is bad.

I disliked frame interpolation after my first experience with it. No one on AVS told me anything about it. No one told me it was bad, good, or anything in between. My first exposure to it on any level was seeing it in action at a store and I didn't know what I was looking at. What I did know was that after a couple minutes of watching I didn't like it at all. I researched what it was, why it was happening, and how it worked, then went back again to see if my opinion on it would change. Nope, still hated it.

6) I might not have wasted 3 days of my life by dragging a plasma home if there were not so many plasma fanboys on this, one of my favorite places on the Web. That still irks me a year and a half later. This is a site where I expect to find unbiased, good information.


You're blaming this site for your choice to buy a plasma?

Firstly, I don't expect everyone to like what I like. However I have owned a 120Hz HDTV for 17 months now, I have introduced over a dozen people to 120Hz viewing, and NOBODY didn't like it. Several upgraded from older plasmas to 120Hz LCDs. None of those folks read this Forum and thus nobody else ever felt like "tearing their eyes out", nobody got "splitting headaches", nobody thought there was anything "unreal" about 120Hz or frame interpolation. There were a few people who never really could see any difference between my 120Hz and 60Hz on the Wega or the 60Hz LCD in the other bedroom. Just as I have never met anybody who knows what I am talking about who dislikes 120Hz. The complainers are all AVS Members and if you want to understand WHY THAT IS, look up a psychological phenomenon called "groupthink". The groupthink here on the AVS Forum is that 120Hz is bad. Elsewhere of course, the 120Hz sets are taking larger market shares every time they are counted.

Now as for the article I linked to, it was THIS ONE in Wired magazine:
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2009/03/california-tv.html
.....which does indeed mention that 25% of the current plasmas meet the national Energy Star 3.0 standards, but NONE meet the proposed California standards. There are other magazine articles found and linked by other people which uncovered the fact that two current plasma models do meet California Tier 1 requirements. That is why I thanked Mark for editing the title - because the Forum does not allow the thread originator to do so once posted. However when originally posted the information was correct based on the information I had.

Lastly I didn't doubt the superiority of plasma at the time I dragged the Panasonic home. YES I had noticed that they didn't compare well to LCDs in brightly lit B&M stores. I thought all I had to do was borrow the Colorimeter and calibrate the set. But NOBODY here at AVS would admit to the facts, which were that the best flat panel technology depended entirely upon the environment. Most members still seem to be in denial of these facts. You claim to be one of the enlightened few who understand this point. Now a reality check: How many times have you blindly reccomended plasma to a prospective purchaser in this Forum without bothering to ask where and how it will be used? Perhaps more telling, how many times have you reccomended an LCD?

Gary, I could care less how many people you've converted to a TV with AMP as that's totally irrelevant to me. I have had well over a dozen people see all of my TV's and no one has ever told me that my picture isn't very good and the majority of them marvel at my setups. I have never had anyone come into my house and say gosh, your TV's sure look crummy. You yourself even admit that most of those that have visited aren;t really tech savy so probably have very little if anything to compare it to. Pretty much all TV's look pretty good when off by themself.

As for the article on "banning plasmas" go back and read it again if you need to as it never said it was going to ban plasmas and only spoke in generalities. That was your personal little ploy to attract attention and to diss on plasma (I suppose because you were mad a the world for forcing you to purchase one). Next time do some homework so you won't have to backpedal as their have been postings in this forum and elsewhere that the newer plasmas that are hitting the streets are much more energy effecient and that new technology trickling down will also make them even more effecient in the future. You could have just as easily used the same headline from the article but no, you decided to use this opportunity one up the "plasma "groupthinkers".

And lastly, it's embarrassing to see you blame this forum for choosing a set that didn't meet your requirements. You're a grown man (or I assume you are) so take responsibility for your own actions. The shortcomings of both LCD's and plasmas have been well documented in this forum for some time and if you chose to ignore them, it's nobody's fault but your own. Now please, quit passing blame and posting false headlines as this has become embarrassing for someone and it's not me. :)

6) I might not have wasted 3 days of my life by dragging a plasma home if there were not so many plasma fanboys on this, one of my favorite places on the Web. That still irks me a year and a half later. This is a site where I expect to find unbiased, good information.

So you mean that in all your time on one of your favorite places on the web you never encountered any information regarding plasmas and extreme ambient light?

Now a reality check: How many times have you blindly reccomended plasma to a prospective purchaser in this Forum without bothering to ask where and how it will be used? Perhaps more telling, how many times have you reccomended an LCD?

A simple search of my post history will tell what my recommendations have been in the past as I have often told a poster to narrow their search down to a few sets they are interested in (whether it be plasma or LCD), get the controller in hand to make adjustments to their liking and then decide for themself. It's not my job to convince others what they should purchase but I will always share my experience.

Now tell me, have you ever used the phrase that a plasma needs to be used in a cave environment to anyone? :D

So you mean that in all your time on one of your favorite places on the web you never encountered any information regarding plasmas and extreme ambient light?

I sure as heck DID NOT hear about the pitfalls of PLASMA on here - like you'd think you would - or my choice of purchasing my kuro might have been different also. I already knew SOME of the drawbacks, but NEVER heard about the other stuff even after months of digging before my purchase.

I sure as heck DID NOT hear about the pitfalls of PLASMA on here - like you'd think you would - or my choice of purchasing my kuro might have been different also. I already knew SOME of the drawbacks, but NEVER heard about the other stuff even after months of digging before my purchase.

I find that hard to believe. Before I bought my TVs, (both LCD and plasma) I found all the flaws of both (as well as pros) discussed extensively on this site. I went back and forth between the LCD and Plasma forums just to eliminate any bias. From that, I based my decision on my type of viewing environment (which I also researched here) and requirements. I would like to know what "other stuff" you refer to that did not come up in a search on AVS.

The only drawback of such an informative forum such as AVS is that there are many flaws that a normal person would NEVER notice on their TVs, had they never been on this site.

I sure as heck DID NOT hear about the pitfalls of PLASMA on here - like you'd think you would - or my choice of purchasing my kuro might have been different also. I already knew SOME of the drawbacks, but NEVER heard about the other stuff even after months of digging before my purchase.

Why did you choose a plasma over an LCD?

Anyone who recommends LCD in any environment to anyone who will view LCD from an angle is insane!

Gary McCoy: If the successor to the SonyXBR8 has 240 instead of 120 and all other things are equal would you buy it or recommend it?

What are your favorite levels of AMP for various content? Do you always prefer the maximum amount? Why or why not?

The history of what I heard here at AVS summarized:

1) Plasmas were better than LCDs (overwhelming majority opinion). I'm talking about THIS sub-forum in particular, apparently the whole Plasma/LCD flame war happened and the fanboys for each were given their own sub-forums and told to play nice, before I even started research. I went into the individual Plasma and LCD sub-forums to research individual models, which resulted in me picking a 1080p Panasonic plasma in 2007.

2) Prior to this the only large flat panel I had owned was a 47" 1080p 60Hz Westinghouse computer monitor. That unit got returned after 28 days for a squealing power supply.

3) After the frustration of returning the Westinghouse and the Panasonic, I spent 3+ months reading these Forums and checking out FP's at Best Buy, Fry's, Andersons, and Circuit City (in late 2007). I mailordered a 120Hz Samsung and wall mount from Vann's, after seeing that exact model on the wall at Best Buy, and getting a load of BS from the salesman.

4) There were so many people blowing smoke in this sub-forum about the "superiority" of plasma's, passing bad information about LCDs, that I couldn't stand it anymore.

5) When it comes to 24fps film, the film judder has always bugged me. The first time I noticed it was in approximately 1960 on a 60Hz B&W TV with the TV series "Have Gun Will Travel", and later that year when I saw "The Angry Red Planet" at a 35mm film theater. I was 9 years old.

6) I finally found relief from Telecine judder in 2000 when I purchased my first digital front projector and drove it with a variety of software DVD players and enabled "3:2" pulldown to reconstruct the original 24fps and display it at 72Hz refresh. Seven years later, the oh-so-highly-rated Panasonic Plasma would dissappoint me again - and NO that was not clear from information found here in this sub-forum.

===> Nor have I ever been bugged by "sample and hold" motion blur. I noticed this effect in the early 2000's when evaluating LCD and DLP projectors, but it's just not important to me. The "SAH blur" rhetoric here is BS IMHO.

===> Nor do I have any reason to ever sit off-axis in my family room while watching the Samsung. Sometimes when I am cooking I will watch the Samsung standing about 45 degrees off-axis in my kitchen, and it's fine. The off-axis viewing problem rhetoric in this sub-forum is BS IMHO. If you are gonna sit far enough off-axis to have that problem, you will also have severe geometric distortion.

Lest you have any doubt, I am an EE, I understand the technology, I have been an AV hobbiest for over 25 years (my first home theater was an analog Advent Videobeam CRT front projector in 1982), and I have been an AVS member since 1999. I prefer 120Hz LCD and AMP in my HDTV, is that clear enough?

6) I might not have wasted 3 days of my life by dragging a plasma home if there were not so many plasma fanboys on this, one of my favorite places on the Web. That still irks me a year and a half later. This is a site where I expect to find unbiased, good information.

As opposed to the biased information that you post every day?

The thing that irks you is that not everyone agrees with your opinions, which you try to push as facts.

As opposed to the biased information that you post every day?

The thing that irks you is that not everyone agrees with your opinions, which you try to push as facts.

Bingo! You hit the nail right on the head and his continuation of posting his "credentials" are suppose to do what, make us go, "oh, that Gary's been here since 1999 I better believe everything he says", :D

Anyone who recommends LCD in any environment to anyone who will view LCD from an angle is insane!

Anyone who would make a statement like this is insane as nobody ever did or does. The sane people limit the angle claims to the sane angles like 20 degrees. And if once in a while I have to watch from 30 degrees so what?

Am I supposed to buy a plasma, suffer all that crap plasmas are so known for, so that my contrast and color do not, heavens forbid, suffer a couple times a years?

Lest you have any doubt, I am an EE, I understand the technology, I have been an AV hobbiest for over 25 years (my first home theater was an analog Advent Videobeam CRT front projector in 1982), and I have been an AVS member since 1999. I prefer 120Hz LCD and AMP in my HDTV, is that clear enough?

Gary, I appreciate the effort you put into your posts. They are well written and explain your background and positions in great detail.

My advice is: no matter how tempted you may be, do not respond to those that offer nothing except one-liners or ask you trick questions meant to trip you up.

You posted your views for all to see and it takes brains and guts to do it. Keep your dignity and ignore the barking.

LCD looks like crap if you're not directly in front of it.

Now if I were the only person watching it and was sitting directly in front of it that wouldn't be a problem.

How many households are like that?

You don't have to be at an extreme angle either--say you're 30 degrees from center.

At that viewing angle are you going to tell me that LCD looks worth anything compared to Plasma viewed at the same angle?

It doesn't!

And all the posting and the marketing in the world won't change that fact.

If a person is going to spend thousands on a display and actually has a life and family and friends that will not view LCD head on when HE does and HE doesn't care if they're looking at a significantly worse picture then by all means consider an LCD.

Course I never have believed that real people that care about picture quality and post here and neglect such things exist anyway.

If you can say "I prefer LCD and KNOW it sucks when it is viewed from an angle" I respect you--if you can't say that just go join the Industry plant marketing spin machine!

LCD looks like crap if you're not directly in front of it.

Now if I were the only person watching it and was sitting directly in front of it that wouldn't be a problem.

How many households are like that?

You don't have to be at an extreme angle either--say you're 30 degrees from center.

At that viewing angle are you going to tell me that LCD looks worth anything compared to Plasma viewed at the same angle?

It doesn't!

And all the posting and the marketing in the world won't change that fact.

If a person is going to spend thousands on a display and actually has a life and family and friends that will not view LCD head on when HE does and HE doesn't care if they're looking at a significantly worse picture then by all means consider an LCD.

Course I never have believed that real people that care about picture quality and post here and neglect such things exist anyway.

If you can say "I prefer LCD and KNOW it sucks when it is viewed from an angle" I respect you--if you can't say that just go join the Industry plant marketing spin machine!
This is simply and completely not true. I have heard this countless times and it is patently false. Personal experience of course...but I absolutely disagree. My 52" LCD sits in a large family room. I have viewed in every seating position from the couch (main seating point) to the love seat on the side wall. Sitting at either end of either piece of furniture there is no noticeable degree of degredation in the picture. You would have to be on the floor on the far side of either couch for the image to start washing out. This is easily 45 degrees or more.

It's stated over and over again..."you have to sit directly in front of an LCD or the image gets washed out"...at least on my set, this is far from the truth and completely exagerrated.

You posted your views for all to see and it takes brains and guts to do it. Keep your dignity and ignore the barking.

Yes Gary posted his views for all to see and then proceded to call anyone who doesn't "get it" basically a luddite. That does take real brains and guts to post that from a keyboard and behind a monitor. :rolleyes:

The part he doesn't "get" along with yourself, is we all have our own set of preferences. :eek:

I guess you could post pictures showing how picture quality degrades when viewing an LCD from an angle versus from the center but people that insist there is no difference wouldn't believe that either.

Or is it that they really wouldn't believe the pictures or really knew that stating that the picture didn't degrade when viewed from an angle wasn't the truth in the first place?

Now that would be the definition of an industry plant! They do exist.

The real problem comes when people come here and truely don't know what is true or not.

Don't trust anyone I guess is the best course.

Now if you don't believe what I'm saying go to any store where they have LCDs and view the set from an angle and swing over to the center and view it.

Do the same with any plasma set.

If you don't think there's any difference then buy an LCD and join the other people here who feel that they are unjustly labeled as plants!

If you do think there's a difference then count yourself fortuanate in actually having eyes that work!

I have no response for this...I must be completely mistaken...Thanks! I'll go ahead and move to the middle of my couch, turn on all my lights and show static pictures on my set.

Gary,

I see little issue in your liking the frame interpolation/120Hz performance of your LCD. But it's problematic, the way you argue from there. In your OP you take a personal preference of yours, your love of the frame interpolation processing of your LCD, and declare that "120Hz is where it's at for the best image you can get in your Home Theater."

(My emphasis)

That is to mistake your personal preference as establishing what is "best" for Home Theater in general (not just yours). A pretty big mistake. Your preference does not necessarily match with the preference of others, as many who disagree have chimed in. Nor does it tend to match with the tastes or desires of most film-makers of my acquaintance, nor does it match with what I have experienced and observed in over 25 years in the film business.

Even way back when video was starting to be a viable medium most film makers, as well as aspiring film makers, pretty much detested video. Why?
Because it had the "Soap Opera" effect look. Even when it was lower resolution than film it still produced a sort of unromantic, unvarnished "too real" look. The last thing film makers wanted (myself included when I was shooting film) was a video-like look, which is why an industry sprouted in producing applications that purported to give video a more film-like look (mostly unsuccessful).

The same general feeling toward video persists today from most film makers, which is why even when they shoot on video it's typically made to look as film like as possible. Even as huge a convert to shooting HD Video
as George Lukas did not do so until Sony came out with a way to make video look more like film (shooting 24fps progressively).

So the look of film is still held in high regard, and generally as the "standard"
for films, not only by those majority shooting on film, but even by a large number of those who have chosen to shoot digitally.

It's clear that you prefer a different look: a super sharp window-like look. The look more typical of HD cam footage vs film. But don't confuse that personal preference as "the best" for home theater when it is not the type of representation most film makers likely have in mind for the film, and when quite a number of enthusiasts have a different reaction. I, along with many others, find every frame interpolation system I've seen very much detracts from the viewing experience and makes it even harder to get into and "believe" what is happening on screen. Many would argue that the "best" home theater display reproduces the source characteristics as accurately as possible, and making a film source look like it is no longer actually film is certainly not doing that. If a film-maker wanted the film to have that super-sharp-clear non-film look, she could have chosen that look at the outset.
But few do...for reasons already stated.

That is not to say, dogmatically that a non-frame-interpolated image is RIGHT (although if one is going to argue "right and wrong" then I'd put frame-interpolated-images of film as having a stronger argument for "wrong")...it is instead to point out that, no matter what you feel your personal nirvana to be, that does not determine what is "right" or "best" or
most desirable for home theater. There are legitimate desires and arguments supporting other people's approach (not to mention the film-makers themselves).

I'm glad that 120Hz and frame interpolation is available for those who want to use it, and I think even I might use it for live HD-cam stuff like sports. But for movies (and I've seen it PLENTY of times in action) it just ruins the experience for me. Which is why I think you should remember that what you would promote as "the best" is better stated as your own preference.


As for your issue with the forums and your choosing a plasma, I've always been stunned when certain folks claim to have been hoodwinked by some forum bias. As if the plasma-LCD debates, with views expressed from all sides, haven't been blazing for many, many years. If you actually missed the hordes of information on the pluses and minuses of each technology, you just couldn't have been paying very good attention.

And if someone claims he/she couldn't stand his/her plasma due to light reflections on the screen or whatever, then I'm sure not going to say they are wrong or argue they didn't see what they say they saw. But if they start extrapolating from their disappointment to silly declarations like "Unless you use plasma only at night in low lights it's a mess" or tPlasmas produce unwatchable, crappy images in day time - and some have gone off their rocker on just such rants - THEN that kind of erroneous hyperbole deserves to be countered with more rational discussion.

As to this:



===> Nor have I ever been bugged by "sample and hold" motion blur. I noticed this effect in the early 2000's when evaluating LCD and DLP projectors, but it's just not important to me. The "SAH blur" rhetoric here is BS IMHO.

Note how you move from "It's not important to me" to "The "SAH blur" rhetoric here is BS IMHO."

That it's not important to you does not make it B.S. Others have a real problem with it, so it's not B.S. so long as it's real and some people find it problematic. Just like DLP rainbows, some don't see them or aren't bothered by them and they jump to the conclusion that since it isn't an issue to them personally, it isn't really an issue. But to others it just ruins the viewing experience.

I have never once seen a color trail on a plasma, for whatever reason I don't see them (even though I do see DLP rainbows). But if it's a real technical phenomena (and apparently it is) and if other people really see it (and I believe they do) who the hell am I to say "It's just a B.S. issue?" I'm not going to say that! I'm just glad it doesn't bother me, but I won't denigrate others because they apprehend the issue.

===> Nor do I have any reason to ever sit off-axis in my family room while watching the Samsung. Sometimes when I am cooking I will watch the Samsung standing about 45 degrees off-axis in my kitchen, and it's fine. The off-axis viewing problem rhetoric in this sub-forum is BS IMHO. If you are gonna sit far enough off-axis to have that problem, you will also have severe geometric distortion.

There you go again. Jumping from the fact you don't have a problem with LCD off-axis performance to a rather obnoxious declaration that it is therefore a B.S problem.

No. It's a real technical issue with LCD. And just because you don't perceive it doesn't mean it isn't there, or that others don't quite easily perceive it, and that it doesn't interfere with the viewing experience of other people.

It's simply false to state that "If you are gonna sit far enough off-axis to have that problem, you will also have severe geometric distortion" when plenty of us can see most LCDs having contrast/color problems off-axis far before any "severe geometric distortion" occurs. Gary, your own perception on this issue does not set the limits for others.

Even a very recent shoot out of flat panels, done by Home Theater Magazine, came up against the problem of LCD off-axis performance.
Here is the shoot out:

http://www.hometheatermag.com/lcds/face_off_at_the_hdtv_corral/index.html

Note the references over and over to the problems in off-axis performance when it came to the Sony and Samsung LCDs. Comments like:

"But this praise was tempered by negative comments on the Sony’s off-axis viewing limitations. One observer saw noticeable false contouring off axis on some of the material (which disappeared on axis). Others found that the black level performance (and color) deteriorated noticeably at small off-axis angles.

Every aspect of this TV is subject to caveats about viewing angle—off axis, the shadow detail fell off even more (as did color).

The fact that the colors faded out noticeably at even small off-axis angles also contributed to the less than stellar results.

However, my experience with the two LCD sets and how they fade skintones (in particular) from only a very small off-axis angle suggests that she was viewing the image off axis at the time. Another judge noted, “I can’t say this enough. It’s a different set at different and not very extreme angles.”

While I know LCD sets suffer when viewed off axis, I was shocked at how little I had to move off center to see image degradation. The Samsung and Sony were side by side, and one seat was lined up dead center where the two sets met. Sitting in that seat, four picture heights away, it was almost impossible to even compare the two LCDs head to head because the off-axis performance of each was so affected."

It's a real issue Gary. You don't notice it? Lucky you. But it won't wash to pass it off as mere B.S. because, to you it's not a big issue.

Both LCD and plasma have their place, their strengths and weaknesses.

I recently saw the most impressive image I've ever seen, in terms of image realism. Was it from a plasma? Nope. It was a big LCD flat panel from Sharp.

Does the fact I found it so impressive blind me to it's issues or limitations?
No.

Gary,

In your OP you take a personal preference of yours, your love of the frame interpolation processing of your LCD, and declare that "120Hz is where it's at for the best image you can get in your Home Theater."

(My emphasis)

That is to mistake your personal preference as establishing what is "best" for Home Theater in general (not just yours). A pretty big mistake. Your preference does not necessarily match with the preference of others, as many who disagree have chimed in. Nor does it tend to match with the tastes or desires of most film-makers of my acquaintance, nor does it match with what I have experienced and observed in over 25 years in the film business.

Even way back when video was starting to be a viable medium most film makers, as well as aspiring film makers, pretty much detested video. Why?
Because it had the "Soap Opera" effect look. Even when it was lower resolution than film it still produced a sort of unromantic, unvarnished "too real" look. The last thing film makers wanted (myself included when I was shooting film) was a video-like look, which is why an industry sprouted in producing applications that purported to give video a more film-like look (mostly unsuccessful).

The same general feeling toward video persists today from most film makers, which is why even when they shoot on video it's typically made to look as film like as possible. Even as huge a convert to shooting HD Video
as George Lukas did not do so until Sony came out with a way to make video look more like film (shooting 24fps progressively).

So the look of film is still held in high regard, and generally as the "standard"
for films, not only by those majority shooting on film, but even by a large number of those who have chosen to shoot digitally.

It's clear that you prefer a different look: a super sharp window-like look. The look more typical of HD cam footage vs film. But don't confuse that personal preference as "the best" for home theater when it is not the type of representation most film makers likely have in mind for the film, and when quite a number of enthusiasts have a different reaction. I, along with many others, find every frame interpolation system I've seen very much detracts from the viewing experience and makes it even harder to get into and "believe" what is happening on screen. Many would argue that the "best" home theater display reproduces the source characteristics as accurately as possible, and making a film source look like it is no longer actually film is certainly not doing that. If a film-maker wanted the film to have that super-sharp-clear non-film look, she could have chosen that look at the outset.
But few do...for reasons already stated.

That is not to say, dogmatically that a non-frame-interpolated image is RIGHT (although if one is going to argue "right and wrong" then I'd put frame-interpolated-images of film as having a stronger argument for "wrong")...it is instead to point out that, no matter what you feel your personal nirvana to be, that does not determine what is "right" or "best" or
most desirable for home theater. There are legitimate desires and arguments supporting other people's approach (not to mention the film-makers themselves).

I'm glad that 120Hz and frame interpolation is available for those who want to use it, and I think even I might use it for live HD-cam stuff like sports. But for movies (and I've seen it PLENTY of times in action) it just ruins the experience for me. Which is why I think you should remember that what you would promote as "the best" is better stated as your own preference.


As for your issue with the forums and your choosing a plasma, I've always been stunned when certain folks claim to have been hoodwinked by some forum bias. As if the plasma-LCD debates, with views expressed from all sides, haven't been blazing for many, many years. If you actually missed the hordes of information on the pluses and minuses of each technology, you just couldn't have been paying very good attention.

And if someone claims he/she couldn't stand his/her plasma due to light reflections on the screen or whatever, then I'm sure not going to say they are wrong or argue they didn't see what they say they saw. But if they start extrapolating from their disappointment to silly declarations like "Unless you use plasma only at night in low lights it's a mess" or tPlasmas produce unwatchable, crappy images in day time - and some have gone off their rocker on just such rants - THEN that kind of erroneous hyperbole deserves to be countered with more rational discussion.

As to this:



Note how you move from "It's not important to me" to "The "SAH blur" rhetoric here is BS IMHO."

That it's not important to you does not make it B.S. Others have a real problem with it, so it's not B.S. so long as it's real and some people find it problematic. Just like DLP rainbows, some don't see them or aren't bothered by them and they jump to the conclusion that since it isn't an issue to them personally, it isn't really an issue. But to others it just ruins the viewing experience.

I have never once seen a color trail on a plasma, for whatever reason I don't see them (even though I do see DLP rainbows). But if it's a real technical phenomena (and apparently it is) and if other people really see it (and I believe they do) who the hell am I to say "It's just a B.S. issue?" I'm not going to say that! I'm just glad it doesn't bother me, but I won't denigrate others because they apprehend the issue.



There you go again. Jumping from the fact you don't have a problem with LCD off-axis performance to a rather obnoxious declaration that it is therefore a B.S problem.

No. It's a real technical issue with LCD. And just because you don't perceive it doesn't mean it isn't there, or that others don't quite easily perceive it, and that it doesn't interfere with the viewing experience of other people.

It's simply false to state that "If you are gonna sit far enough off-axis to have that problem, you will also have severe geometric distortion" when plenty of us can see most LCDs having contrast/color problems off-axis far before any "severe geometric distortion" occurs. Gary, your own perception on this issue does not set the limits for others.

Even a very recent shoot out of flat panels, done by Home Theater Magazine, came up against the problem of LCD off-axis performance.
Here is the shoot out:

http://www.hometheatermag.com/lcds/face_off_at_the_hdtv_corral/index.html

Note the references over and over to the problems in off-axis performance when it came to the Sony and Samsung LCDs. Comments like:

"But this praise was tempered by negative comments on the Sony’s off-axis viewing limitations. One observer saw noticeable false contouring off axis on some of the material (which disappeared on axis). Others found that the black level performance (and color) deteriorated noticeably at small off-axis angles.

Every aspect of this TV is subject to caveats about viewing angle—off axis, the shadow detail fell off even more (as did color).

The fact that the colors faded out noticeably at even small off-axis angles also contributed to the less than stellar results.

However, my experience with the two LCD sets and how they fade skintones (in particular) from only a very small off-axis angle suggests that she was viewing the image off axis at the time. Another judge noted, “I can’t say this enough. It’s a different set at different and not very extreme angles.”

While I know LCD sets suffer when viewed off axis, I was shocked at how little I had to move off center to see image degradation. The Samsung and Sony were side by side, and one seat was lined up dead center where the two sets met. Sitting in that seat, four picture heights away, it was almost impossible to even compare the two LCDs head to head because the off-axis performance of each was so affected."

It's a real issue Gary. You don't notice it? Lucky you. But it won't wash to pass it off as mere B.S. because, to you it's not a big issue.

Both LCD and plasma have their place, their strengths and weaknesses.

I recently saw the most impressive image I've ever seen, in terms of image realism. Was it from a plasma? Nope. It was a big LCD flat panel from Sharp.

Does the fact I found it so impressive blind me to it's issues or limitations?
No.

A very impressive and well written response Rich and basically what some of us have been trying to tell him (in much less tactful terms though :o ). It's information and posts like this that keep me coming back to learn from those like you that have a lot to offer. Thanks Rich. I'm glad you were able to add some value to this thread. :)

What's funny is if you actually look at it, it appears it's just as bad from the LCD side and one can get the impression if you didn't buy an LCD then you're a fool. fanboyism seems to be rabid from that side as well. Why else would so many LCD lovers continue to make statements like plasmas will be banned, plasmas are dead, plasmas can only be viewed in a cave environment etc.? :rolleyes:

I am sure you are right that LCD forums are that way.

What I am referring to is "neutral" sections like this. It is dominated by plasmaniaks mostly of the KuroElitist sub variety.

It is fine to like plasma but I think I have heard "torch mode" somany times here it is nuts. It sounds like from here that everyone who buys an LCD turns up the color to max, cranks up the backlight to supernova levels and that is it. I doubt that is true and I am sure many LCD users calibrate their sets pretty well too, just like plasma users.

The fact is both of these technologies have problems. Yes LCDs have problems off-axis, Yes plasma washes out in brighter rooms. I just wish there was something else to choose from.

I am sure you are right that LCD forums are that way.

What I am referring to is "neutral" sections like this. It is dominated by plasmaniaks mostly of the KuroElitist sub variety.

It is fine to like plasma but I think I have heard "torch mode" somany times here it is nuts. It sounds like from here that everyone who buys an LCD turns up the color to max, cranks up the backlight to supernova levels and that is it. I doubt that is true and I am sure many LCD users calibrate their sets pretty well too, just like plasma users.

The fact is both of these technologies have problems. Yes LCDs have problems off-axis, Yes plasma washes out in brighter rooms. I just wish there was something else to choose from.


just as I hear burn in almost everytime an LCD fanboy mentions plasma in this neutral forum. I have absolutely no problem with either tech as I own both. I have my preference but that doesn't mean I don't think the other can provide a great viewing experience. This thread was started by a LCD loving poster that tried to tell everyone how it should be and that if you don't like 120hz you just don't "get it". How is that being neutral?

As for problems, I don't look for problems as I concentrate on the fact that the picture I'm getting today from my set is better than my previous set and gives me a great viewing experience.

I never made any false claims about plasma TVs. What I said was they have the following limitations:

1) Plasma have insufficient brightness unless used in (at least) partially light-controlled rooms.

2) Plasmas have issues with glare in well-lighted rooms. In fact in my application where the wife likes to use a reading lamp at the other end of the couch, I get a perfect reflection of that end of the couch and her overlaid on my plasma screen - just as I did with the Wega, which is why I built the Home Theater.

These two are just 100% completely untrue. Myths perpetuated ad nauseam by people that have no direct experience with current plasmas.

I read these forums for about 6 months before making my "LCD or Plasma" decision. I was ready to buy an LCD until I got a killer deal on a Pioneer plasma. My living room has two big windows and I was worried to death about low brightness and horrible reflections. I even kept the box handy because I half expected to return it.

Long story short, I got the plasma home, set it up, and whaddya know...it looks wonderful in all conditions. Lights on, lights off, blinds open, blinds closed, whatever. No brightness issues, no annoying reflections. Of course if you have a bright light at just the right angle it will reflect off the tv. But ALL tv's will do this. There's nothing magical about LCD that makes the laws of physics change.

Bottom line - there are fear mongers on both sides that exaggerate the problems. And I'd wager that most of them don't have any direct experience with what they're arguing against.

Anyway...

Take everything you read here with a grain of salt. And remember that the average IQ in the United States is about 102.

These two are just 100% completely untrue. Myths perpetuated ad nauseam by people that have no direct experience with current plasmas.

I read these forums for about 6 months before making my "LCD or Plasma" decision. I was ready to buy an LCD until I got a killer deal on a Pioneer plasma. My living room has two big windows and I was worried to death about low brightness and horrible reflections. I even kept the box handy because I half expected to return it.

Long story short, I got the plasma home, set it up, and whaddya know...it looks wonderful in all conditions. Lights on, lights off, blinds open, blinds closed, whatever. No brightness issues, no annoying reflections. Of course if you have a bright light at just the right angle it will reflect off the tv. But ALL tv's will do this. There's nothing magical about LCD that makes the laws of physics change.
I agree with you, jaball. My Plasma is not perfect (no current TV is), but it certainly does not have any brightness or reflection issues.

I agree with you, jaball. My Plasma is not perfect (no current TV is), but it certainly does not have any brightness or reflection issues.

Would you like to name the reasons why your plasma is not perfect?

DLP looks like crap if you're not directly in front of it.



FIXED

Most of the time, my wife and I watch our LCD at an angle and it looks just fine. It's not a drastic angle, but why would I want to watch any TV at such an angle that it would be an issue?

Gary, I appreciate the effort you put into your posts. They are well written and explain your background and positions in great detail.

My advice is: no matter how tempted you may be, do not respond to those that offer nothing except one-liners or ask you trick questions meant to trip you up.

You posted your views for all to see and it takes brains and guts to do it. Keep your dignity and ignore the barking.

Would you like to name the reasons why your plasma is not perfect?

Hypocrite much?

I'm interested in your background story ramazur. What in the world has gotten you so invested in LCDs? You'd think you invented the technology to fight against plasmas and are doing your best to bad-talk them. Unless that is the case, remember you are THE CONSUMER, and as such there isn't a TV tech that exists that isn't good.

BTW it doesn't take brains and guts to post your viewpoints, this is the internet, everyone is an expert. There is no dignity in avoiding response to someone who challenges your views. If you can challenge back, if you can't, then re-evaluate your views. There is dignity in admitting you are wrong. ;)

so are the new 240 sets going to make a difference or not?

Why did you choose a plasma over an LCD?

Because there was nothing better at the time. I already knew about MOST of the basic plasma "issues" like burn-in, but never heard of the Green Phosphor or the judder mess. I still stuggle with how anyone would prefer smeared pans over crystal clear, lifelike [or 3D like reality] High Definition pans and movement... I know, I know, personal preference

Gary,

I see little issue in your liking the frame interpolation/120Hz performance of your LCD. -snip-

The title of the thread is "120Hz forever", and NOT "frame interpolation forever". I'm well aware of the differences, I made no bones about frame interpolation being anything but a preference. However the main point, which most people including you seem to have overlooked, is that 120Hz LCD (or a 72Hz Pioneer Elite Plasma) brings about a better rendition of film motion on a video display than does a 60Hz display. Telecine judder is absent. That relieves a problem that has troubled me for almost half a century.

I don't know how many times I went over the same ground. My frustration must be becoming evident to all by now, which is why I went so explicit with my description of the two types of motion judder in my last message:

1) 24fps judder from the too-slow frame rate.

2) Telecine judder from the technique used to match 24fps film to 60Hz displays.

For the record, I am annoyed by both of these problems. 120Hz relieves Telecine judder. Frame interpolation relieves the 24fps problem.

-snip-
Nor does it tend to match with the tastes or desires of most film-makers of my acquaintance, nor does it match with what I have experienced and observed in over 25 years in the film business.

That's a telling comment. The movie business is what it is. Whoever manufactures raw film stock is in the film business. Here's what I think:

1) If you consciously or unconsciously decide that you "prefer" the look of film, you are choosing a medium that once had an installed base of over 150,000 projectors world-wide. I believe that figure has now declined to something less than 100,000.

2) If you choose to "prefer" Digital Cinema, you choose to prefer a medium that has less than 7000 projectors worldwide (in commercial theaters), but is growing.

===> But the disparity in numbers is still at least 14:1 of film cinemas over digital cinemas.

Which is why independant of HOW the movie was made, the most popular commercial distribution print has always been the 35mm, 24fps, 4-perfs per frame that Thomas A. Edison established as the standard in 1886. This will remain true for some time as the commercial theaters gradually go away. I hope that at least some of the studios continue with film after the digital transition completes, because I still admire the beauty of the images captured at film resolutions (while still detesting the too-slow frame rates). I also enjoy the social aspects of an evening at the theater followed by a good dinner and discussion of movies, lubricated with alcohol. But this last is satisfied by Digital Cinema just as well as film cinema.

But today (for the moment) a "preference" for film is the safe and sure way to commercial success, at least in the commercial theater side of the movie industry. A preference of Digital Cinema is for a media matching the minor portion of theaters.

Now the monkey wrench in the works is the millions and millions of home video displays - flat panels, direct-view CRTs, rear projectors, and front projectors. Many movie buffs including me watch far more new movies on video than at the theaters. Note that I still do see 10-15 movies per year in commercial theaters BUT I believe that is far more than most AVS members, based on comments here in the Forum.

===> But like it or not, the "Film" industry is dying. The "Movie" business is alive and well - but the primary distribution media is now little silver disks versus reels of 35mm film. Nor is even the Movie business as big as the revenues from interactive video games.

I'm glad that 120Hz and frame interpolation is available for those who want to use it, and I think even I might use it for live HD-cam stuff like sports. But for movies (and I've seen it PLENTY of times in action) it just ruins the experience for me. Which is why I think you should remember that what you would promote as "the best" is better stated as your own preference.

I have always made that point, including my last message.

As for your issue with the forums and your choosing a plasma, I've always been stunned when certain folks claim to have been hoodwinked by some forum bias. As if the plasma-LCD debates, with views expressed from all sides, haven't been blazing for many, many years. If you actually missed the hordes of information on the pluses and minuses of each technology, you just couldn't have been paying very good attention.

I was aware of the debate. The one thing I did not anticipate was that I would again be annoyed by Telecine motion judder on my HDTV. Then (2007) I discovered that there was no plasma solution that did not more than quadruple my HDTV cost. Pioneer Elites were then $8K when I was shopping in the $2K price range. Even with Pioneer entirely out of the Plasma business and the precipitous decline of plasma pricing, the Elite is still 2X the cost of a similar-sized 120Hz LCD.

Telecine judder is entirely relieved by using a 24Hz video source and a 120Hz display. My three main sources: Blu-Ray @24Hz on my PS3, HD-DVD @24Hz (I have 60+ disks) on my Toshiba HD-A30, and 98% of conventional DVDs at 24Hz on my Toshiba HD-A30 (which does reverse telecine just fine in the digital domain).

For non-anamorphic conventional DVDs (the 2% case) I still have no good solution, I watch those on an analog 480p DVD player, with Telecine judder and zoomed to fit the width of a 16:9 screen. That would be OAR and the annoying look of film on a 60Hz playback device.


There you go again. Jumping from the fact you don't have a problem with LCD off-axis performance to a rather obnoxious declaration that it is therefore a B.S problem.

I can imagine large families where some viewers have to sit off-axis. I do not think my on-axis seating arrangement or audience size of 1-2 people is atypical.

The point was that in my room, from the exact same viewing position and using the exact same daytime and nighttime room illumination, I could not use a shiny plasma screen (even with a Panasonic anti-glare coating) and I could use a matte-finish LCD screen.

It's a real issue Gary. You don't notice it? Lucky you. But it won't wash to pass it off as mere B.S. because, to you it's not a big issue.

All I did was position the couch in front of the TV. I don't view off-axis and I have absolutely no problem. Now give me a simple solution for the mirrored images in the plasma glass that I have problems with both night and day.

I tried to tell the wife that the problem went away (at least at night) when we turned off her reading light on her end of the couch. Guess what, she said (and I had to agree) that she should not have to stop reading, or not have to stop sewing, because of the TV we bought.

(about SAH this time)

No. It's a real technical issue with LCD. And just because you don't perceive it doesn't mean it isn't there, or that others don't quite easily perceive it, and that it doesn't interfere with the viewing experience of other people.

The biggest problem to my eyes remains motion judder (both types). The SAH blur in today's 120Hz sets is comparable to that of 2006-vintage plasmas, with their longer decaying phosphors (and the "color trails" problem, now resolved). SAH blur is minimized by 120Hz refresh.

So my main point in this message: A "preference" for "the look of film" is also a pragmatic choice to use the media that matches the largest portion of the remaining commercial theaters. It's also a choice that ignores the fact that the biggest market is now the video display and not the commercial theater.

Here's what I think. Within 10 years, commercial theaters will be gone. The debut of a new movie will be a pay-per-view event via secure encrypted digital video distribution in HD. By then, the "look of film" will be a fading memory, and a new level of realism will be expected.

I still stuggle with how anyone would prefer smeared pans over crystal clear, lifelike [or 3D like reality] High Definition pans and movement... I know, I know, personal preference

Again... you are assuming everyone sees exactly what you do. I don't see smeared pans unless I am using an LCD.

Oooh, Gary, does the fact that you added the Pioneer Elite plasma to your list of "acceptablly smooth" HDTVs mean that you've finally checked one out?

If so, I'd like to hear that story.

The biggest problem to my eyes remains motion judder (both types). The SAH blur in today's 120Hz sets is comparable to that of 2006-vintage plasmas, with their longer decaying phosphors (and the "color trails" problem, now resolved). SAH blur is minimized by 120Hz refresh.


Gary, explain to me how 120Hz eliminates sample and hold blur if there is no frame interpolation going on.

With a 24p source, 120Hz, and NO motion interpolation... the display is simply doing 5:5. How does this improve the situation for S&H blur?

back on topic, I still think all these new TV's looking freaking fantastic and 90% of them would cover everyone 99% of the time. 120hz a major improvement and a new direction in tech, over the past 50 years of 60hz and 24fps

far as "Director's Intentions", I am trying to contact some film directors to see if they really feel blurry juddery pan and movement is TRULY what they wish their art looked like, or if they are simply limited to the standards of today. If I get thru and get any responses either way, I will post them up here. I'm betting they would prefer 3000hz and crystal clear images all the time.

;16239277']Oooh, Gary, does the fact that you added the Pioneer Elite plasma to your list of "acceptablly smooth" HDTVs mean that you've finally checked one out?

If so, I'd like to hear that story.

I checked those out in 2007, before the 72Hz feature in Magnolia HiFi within Best Buy. There was then but a minor difference in black levels, only perceptable in near-total darkness, and not worth the 2X price premium over the Panasonic plasma.

I checked out the 72Hz models this year. Telecine judder was entirely absent. However, the Pioneer implementation of frame interpolation was among the worst I had seen, nowhere near the bar set by Sony and Samsung 120Hz LCDs.

The best frame interpolation I have seen to date is only available on the Panasonic PT-AE3000 front projector, and not on any flat panel.

brentsg, I know of no explanation for the reduced SAH blur on 120Hz panels versus 60Hz panels. I see it as have multiple HDTV reviewers.

So my main point in this message: A "preference" for "the look of film" is also a pragmatic choice to use the media that matches the largest portion of the remaining commercial theaters. It's also a choice that ignores the fact that the biggest market is now the video display and not the commercial theater.

far as "Director's Intentions", I am trying to contact some film directors to see if they really feel blurry juddery pan and movement is TRULY what they wish their art looked like, or if they are simply limited to the standards of today.

Again, *many* television shows - indeed, those with the largest budgets to work within - still capture video at 24fps. They are not technology limited (nor storage limited as some like to claim - digital storage is dirt cheap these days), so why utilize it?

It must be because many people - directors and viewers alike - still prefer it. I don't understand why this is a difficult concept to grasp.

back on topic, I still think all these new TV's looking freaking fantastic and 90% of them would cover everyone 99% of the time. 120hz a major improvement and a new direction in tech, over the past 50 years of 60hz and 24fps


soap aside, if you watched the olympics the last couple of years you saw motion compensation at its finest.

Coverage of the 2008 Olympics will be originated in the 1080i/50 broadcast standard for HDTV and the 625/50 (PAL) standard for SDTV. Before NBC can transmit this content to viewers in the U.S., it must first be converted to the 1080i/60 broadcast standard for HDTV and/or the 525/60 (NTSC) standard for SDTV. As a result, NBC will convert virtually every SD and HD feed from the 2008 Olympics through the Snell & Wilcox frame-rate converters prior to delivery to viewers in the U.S.


NBC bought 22 of these converters for 60k a piece (according to one source) just to go from PAL to NTSC so i appreciate my 2k tv doing what it does although its not perfect. now, PAL to NTSC is easier to interpolate than 24 to 60 for instance but just goes to show people watch more motion compensation than they think.

borf, I think frame rate conversion is for video-to-video conversion.

Telecine is how film is transferred to video, which involves projecting the film in front of a synchronized video camera that will capture 2 video frames from one film frame, then 3 video frames from the next film frame, then 2 video frames from the next, and so forth. In this way 60 video frames are generated from 24 film frames in each second - but objects in motion are seen to speed up and slow down on video, whereas the motion is even (if jerky because of slow 24fps) on the film screen.

far as "Director's Intentions", I am trying to contact some film directors to see if they really feel blurry juddery pan and movement is TRULY what they wish their art looked like, or if they are simply limited to the standards of today. If I get thru and get any responses either way, I will post them up here. I'm betting they would prefer 3000hz and crystal clear images all the time.

If you get any takers I will join you.

That last sentence as almost a direct copy of what I said before: our vision operates at what would be equivalent to the frames rates an order of magnitude faster that the celebrated artsy 24.

Anything and anybody, movie directors included, that makes any attempt to downgrade my natural ability to see and hear things is immediately on my crap list. This includes: soft lens, shakey cam, 24fps, etc.

AMP is to vision what equalizers are to hearing. They both are designed to let me define my preferences. I will turn OFF my AMP when the last AMP critic sets his equalizer to flat.

Course any real audiophile will tell you that audio equalization cannot fullymake up for bad acoustics in the room.

Just like in audio where perfect acoustics of a room make for better audio--perfect ambient lighting makes for perfect video!

Which explains why we don't have drive-ins with supernova bright LCD screens that operate in daylight!

If you really want a great picture and not just a TV grow up and control the conditions in the room where you are viewing.

If you want to grow up further--explore refresh rates greater than the 120 that you own--the LCD world will soon be 240--think you can handle that?

If you really want the be the ultimate 120 AMP fetishist-who cares about the director's intent-non conformist go steal a copy of Citizen Kane--colorize it against the law and watch it in all of AMP's artifact laden and LCD's crappy blacks and lack of shadow detail glory at an angle no less!

There's no doubt that such an experience will EQUALIZE with certain people's preferences!

This thread should be called---Motion Blurr Forever :D

Course any real audiophile will tell you that audio equalization cannot fullymake up for bad acoustics in the room.

Just like in audio where perfect acoustics of a room make for better audio--perfect ambient lighting makes for perfect video!

Which explains why we don't have drive-ins with supernova bright LCD screens that operate in daylight!

If you really want a great picture and not just a TV grow up and control the conditions in the room where you are viewing.

If you want to grow up further--explore refresh rates greater than the 120 that you own--the LCD world will soon be 240--think you can handle that?
If you really want the be the ultimate 120 AMP fetishist-who cares about the director's intent-non conformist go steal a copy of Citizen Kane--colorize it against the law and watch it in all of AMP's artifact laden and LCD's crappy blacks and lack of shadow detail glory at an angle no less!

There's no doubt that such an experience will EQUALIZE with certain people's preferences!

Against my better judgement not to respond to posts like yours, I decided to make an exception.

I don't know when your 16th birthday will be but I wish you the very best in advance. In the meantime, let me give you a quick lesson in good manners.

We, adults, do not insult others by telling them to grow up. We also do not tell them to break the law. You did both. Twice.

And then there is this bit if I can handle it. I am assuming this was not out of your sincere concern if I am too fragile?

Bread sang "If a picture paints a thousand words then why can't I paint you?"

LCD lovers can't understand that concept!

"All you need is love!"

No...Artwood clearly knows what it means to grow up. It's about time he posted something like...."what does Porn look like with motionflow on...wouldn't that be great????!!!"....or something like that. He seems to use that in almost every thread he posts in....

No...Artwood clearly knows what it means to grow up. It's about time he posted something like...."what does Porn look like with motionflow on...wouldn't that be great????!!!"....or something like that. He seems to use that in almost every thread he posts in....
LOL, you just gave me an idea...

If you get any takers I will join you.

That last sentence as almost a direct copy of what I said before: our vision operates at what would be equivalent to the frames rates an order of magnitude faster that the celebrated artsy 24.

Anything and anybody, movie directors included, that makes any attempt to downgrade my natural ability to see and hear things is immediately on my crap list. This includes: soft lens, shakey cam, 24fps, etc.

AMP is to vision what equalizers are to hearing. They both are designed to let me define my preferences. I will turn OFF my AMP when the last AMP critic sets his equalizer to flat.

I was surfing through the front projection forums a few months back and the subject got onto 24p vs 120 MHz, motionflow, smoothing etc, and one of the poster gave this explanation why 24p is popular and some directors prefer to use it. I think this is probably the reason why I prefer it too although I guess some people brains may process 24 p differently and it ends up looking jerky (ie. judder). To quote:


About 1,000 Directors of Photography just had minor heart attacks! ;-)

Really, you can't see how adding 96 fake frames for every 24 real ones might drastically impact the motion rendering intent?

Like I said, there are many reasons 24P yields a distinctive look. Here's one that's not always obvious to lay-people: One of the reasons actors look and feel like movie stars and not regular people is 24P. Yup. Really. By only capturing 24 fps second, the camera is hiding a lot of the natural imperfection in their movements. What your brain fills-in is better than reality. My problem with using SmoothMotion with cinematic films is that it is too good at what it does. It takes the buttery faux-reality of Hollywood and makes a scene look like it was shot on a Handycam. I want Angelina Jolie to look like an impossible angel...I don't want to see her move like the rest of us! ;-)

Not to pick on anyone (I'm gulity myself) but on a very "tweaky" nuts and bolts forum like this, I think it's very easy to forget why we watch movies in the first place...to escape reality, to experience an entertaining alternate.

I think this thread should be titled yea for Imperfect Technology forum, or the 120hz feature on every LCD TV makes me want to barf feature yea for the most un real motion ever!!!!

Do directors even have an option to film in anything other than 24fps? Where would it play? It would be dead, unmarketable before it left the editing desk

Do directors even have an option to film in anything other than 24fps? Where would it play? It would be dead, unmarketable before it left the editing desk

There are plenty of digital theaters out there that would accept a 60Hz source, but they are still in the vast minority. So yes, a 60Hz cinematic release would likely not be profitable at this time.

However, again, TV show directors have the option of doing whatever they want. Many still choose 24fps.

This thread should be called---Motion Blurr Forever :D

120Hz + frame interpolation = the absece of motion blur

60Hz display + 24fps film source = Telecine motion judder

24fps film in a theater = motion judder

What I see in a theater is akin to what you see in a dark room with a strobe light. I NEVER did consider it smooth motion, not in 50+ years of film viewing, it has always been objectionable. Live action scenes on video don't have the same flaws as film to my eyes.

It only astounds me that the rest of you can't see it - it's plain as day.

First of all, different vision systems amongst different people can and do vary dramatically when it comes to resolving different framerates. Why do you think some people can't stand to be in a room with flourescent lighting while others are perfectly comfortable?

I am amongst those who are bothered by flourescent lighting and who can see judder while watching 24fps material fairly clearly.

I also happen to like 24fps despite that side-effect. Show me judder-free 24fps content that still looks like 24fps in every other respect and you'll have sold me.

People perceive light differently. It is a significantly complex process, one that can vary wildly from person to person. You could say those that don't notice it or aren't bothered by it are perhaps better at filling in the blank spots (after-images, after all our brain is a highly sophisticated video processor, much better than amp :)), or perhaps they have worse eyesight. Both of those explanations are terribly oversimplified representations of the reasons behind the differences, but it is clear that there is not any direct answer to: Is this FPS better than this one. Here's a bit of simple reading for those interested: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

First of all, different vision systems amongst different people can and do vary dramatically when it comes to resolving different framerates. Why do you think some people can't stand to be in a room with flourescent lighting while others are perfectly comfortable?




That's only because we have inferior eyesight and don't know what good is as was dictated by the opening post and subsequent follow ups. I think I'llm retreat to my inferior technology and watch my favorite basketball team. I feel so dumb for watching on my plasma when I have 2 LCD's at my disposal.:p

.

AMP is to vision what equalizers are to hearing. They both are designed to let me define my preferences. I will turn OFF my AMP when the last AMP critic sets his equalizer to flat.

Using analogies is a trick I don't fall for because it is a diversion from the original subject and this subject is not that complicated so that would have to use a simpler analogy to discuss it. :)

Using analogies is a trick I don't fall for because it is a diversion from the original subject and this subject is not that complicated so that would have to use a simpler analogy to discuss it. :)

Deep and well written. And we agree on something. This is going to be a good day.

120Hz + frame interpolation = the absece of motion blur


Oh man, thanks for the laugh. :D

Seriously, not once has AMP ever eliminated motion blur on my 52a630. Sure it smooths out judder, but it does barely anything for actual motion blur. That is one few areas that my old Kuro (and my current 42px75 Panasonic) absolutly crush the Samsung, displaying motion.

I guess some people brains may process 24 p differently and it ends up looking jerky (ie. judder)

First of all, different vision systems amongst different people can and do vary dramatically when it comes to resolving different framerates.


can vary wildly from person to person. those that don't notice it or aren't bothered by it are perhaps better at filling in the blank spots

you fellas go back and watch this video (http://www.mediafire.com/file/zimtynyqmym/eple_60_low.wmv).
i don't believe judder is subjective at all.
if you say there is no difference i'll have to change my opinion.

you fellas go back and watch this video (http://www.mediafire.com/file/zimtynyqmym/eple_60_low.wmv).
i don't believe judder is subjective at all.
if you say there is no difference i'll have to change my opinion.

The fact that the phenomenon exists isn't subjective, the amount that it bothers people is. Everyone can see a florescent light flicker, not everyone has seizures because of it. Did you read that article?

Oh and I've never seen judder on any tv as displayed in that video. I'm not sure what they did there, but that was far more jerky than anything I've ever seen. But now I know exactly what is meant by judder so thanks.

Seriously, not once has AMP ever eliminated motion blur on my 52a630.


Actually it is supposed too. A CC salesman had a 630 next to a a550 and showed me the difference. To me it was minimal improvement but an improvement. I opted for the a550 and 60hz TV becuase I couldn't justify the extra cost. But now 120hz and AMP will be standard I believe in the next generation.

But I also like you had the same issues with plasma.

Actually it is supposed too. A CC salesman had a 630 next to a a550 and showed me the difference. To me it was minimal improvement but an improvement. I opted for the a550 and 60hz TV becuase I couldn't justify the extra cost. But now 120hz and AMP will be standard I believe in the next generation.

But I also like you had the same issues with plasma.

it may supposed to, but it doesn't.

LCD blurr has to do with responce time, Judder is part of the content and how the frames are displayed..

Smoothing it out is only tampering with the original content.

ITs all marketing.

LCD manufacturers and Salesmen tell customers that AMP reduces blurr. But in reality its just removing judder. But the average customer fall for it because they simply don't know the difference.

it may supposed to, but it doesn't.

LCD blurr has to do with responce time, Judder is part of the content and how the frames are displayed..

Smoothing it out is only tampering with the original content.

ITs all marketing.

LCD manufacturers and Salesmen tell customers that AMP reduces blurr. But in reality its just removing judder. But the average customer fall for it because they simply don't know the difference.

Well, to be fair judder is a kind of blur. To the consumer anyway, I don't think they really need to know the term judder, it will only confuse most (it confused me really, I usually don't see it, although can tell the difference when it's removed). Judder is really a similar effect from a different cause (than motion blur).

Actually it is supposed too. A CC salesman had a 630 next to a a550 and showed me the difference. To me it was minimal improvement but an improvement. I opted for the a550 and 60hz TV becuase I couldn't justify the extra cost. But now 120hz and AMP will be standard I believe in the next generation.

But I also like you had the same issues with plasma.

Sure, AMP does improve motion blur, but it hardly eliminates it, I doubt that even 240hz with AMP on high will do all that much, 480hz might work though....

The fact that the phenomenon exists isn't subjective, the amount that it bothers people is. Everyone can see a florescent light flicker, not everyone has seizures because of it. Did you read that article?

Oh and I've never seen judder on any tv as displayed in that video. I'm not sure what they did there, but that was far more jerky than anything I've ever seen. But now I know exactly what is meant by judder so thanks.

i agree flicker is subjective for sure but is not related to judder.
the first is a perceived absence of light.
the second is the perception of duplicate frames (symmetrical or non-symmetrical).

frame duping IS the "film look" imo. its not simply a lower frame rate (though lower rates make it more obvious).
AMP's "natural progressive motion" (i.e. the soap look) as i say it, refers to the absence of duplicate frames.

the above quote attributing "film effect" solely to the low 24fps frame rate (which can be overcome by "filling in the gap") does not explain the film look. frame repetition is the real artist behind the film look. natural progressive frame rates, (no matter how low), by definition never judder or give this effect. they simply flicker until my brain no longer interprets motion at which point i see a static sequence of images. few have ever seen true progressive 24fps - its always 24@48, 24@72, 24@60 with frame duping.

oh yea the reason that video is more jerky than your average movie is due to the absence of motion blur cinematographers use to hide judder. with low fps its either blur or judder take your pick :rolleyes: if you frame advance you'll see the simple 3:2 or 2:2 progression on right side.

120hz w/amp reduces blur by about 1/2 which is what it was supposed to do.
does it always work...no it fails at high velocity and fast video games show little improvement imo.
240hz ect should do better. i took the pics below. various sets can be compared similarly here (http://www.digitalversus.com/duels.php?ty=10)

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/7849/screenshotpixperanallcowj0.jpg

i agree flicker is subjective for sure but is not related to judder.
the first is a perceived absence of light.
the second is the perception of duplicate frames (symmetrical or non-symmetrical).

frame duping IS the "film look" imo. its not simply a lower frame rate (though lower rates make it more obvious).
AMP's "natural progressive motion" (i.e. the soap look) as i say it, refers to the absence of duplicate frames.

the above quote attributing "film effect" solely to the low 24fps frame rate (which can be overcome by "filling in the gap") does not explain the film look. frame repetition is the real artist behind the film look. natural progressive frame rates, (no matter how low), by definition never judder or give this effect. they simply flicker until my brain no longer interprets motion at which point i see a static sequence of images. few have ever seen true progressive 24fps - its always 24@48, 24@72, 24@60 with frame duping.

oh yea the reason that video is more jerky than your average movie is due to the absence of motion blur cinematographers use to hide judder. with low fps its either blur or judder take your pick :rolleyes: if you frame advance you'll see the simple 3:2 or 2:2 progression on right side.

I see. Slowly but surely I'm getting this judder thing. I had never even heard the word up until a few months ago. So perhaps I should say that it isn't judder that some people don't mind, it's the blurring?

Has anyone ever used motionflow when viewing an adult film?

Some would like the reality of motion--some would like 24p.

If you like both would that make you Bi-motional?

I should say that it isn't judder that some people don't mind, it's the blurring?

both really...i always saw it as a vicious cycle that goes like this:


the original 24 fps standard caused unbearable flicker.
to partially cover up the flicker (blank intervals) frames were repeated @48hz which caused judder.
to partially smooth out the judder frames had to be blurred.


so now movies have a little judder a little flicker and some blur - all because of the low 24fps standard.
these substitutions (not cures) seem analogous to spreading food around your plate as if you ate something imo.
the only true fix would involve getting to the root of the issue - raising the frame rate (just enough to avoid flicker maybe)

p.s. these necessary compromises are now called "artistic intent"

borf, all films have motion blur. The camera shutter is open for a finite amount of time depending upon the amount of light needed to expose the frame. Meantime objects in motion continue to move during the open shutter and blur is recorded on the leading and trailing edges as the moving objects traverse the background. The real means to reduce blur is to use intense arc lighting so as to shorten the camera exposure time.

The double projection flash is simply a technique to reduce flicker. It niether adds nor subtracts judder IMHO.

Now in playback at 24fps, there is still some blur in a film theater or a 120Hz video display - the irreducable minimum in simple 24Hz playback with 5:5 pulldown is the amount of blur the camera recorded. The Telecine process adds judder (uneven motion). The too-slow frame rate adds judder due to the strobe light effect, which effects alltypes of playback.

All 60Hz displays including CRTs and plasmas will still display the blur present in the source film. CRTs, Plasmas, and LCDs will also display the Telecine motion judder at 60Hz refresh. A very few CRTs or plasmas that can sync at 60Hz for video and 72Hz for film will remove Telecine motion judder. The 120Hz LCD will also remove Telecine judder.

The 120Hz LCD display with Frame Interpolation ON (or the 72Hz Pioneer plasma with Smoothing ON) will:

1) Not display any Telecine judder from 24Hz sources (becasue the Telecine is never enabled in the source).
2) Reduce motion judder due to the intermediate interpolated frames to a level BELOW that blur present in the source film (the soap opera effect).
3) Reduce the motion blur on the leading and trailing edges or rapidly moving objects by analysing adjacent frames and algorythmicly replacing pixels in these frames with the color values from those adjacent frames. The effectiveness of the process is limited and the visible imperfections are called "artifacts".

Frame interpolation only matters during a camera pan or when objects are in motion. In a static image, 120Hz the interpolated image is identical to the image played back at 24Hz or 60Hz. No interpolation occurs in the abscence of motion, because there are no pixels changing from one frame to the next.

Well stated and educational. Posts like this is what AVS should be all about.

borf, all films have motion blur. The camera shutter is open for a finite amount of time depending upon the amount of light needed to expose the frame.

yes the shutter must remain open for some time but the widely accepted reason for the use camera blur (and i can point you to a few sites) is to smooth out the juddery frame rate. that's true in my experience also. watch this video (http://www.mediafire.com/file/yiaz4zezimz/60vs24.wmv) which replaces judder with blur. would anybody watch film without blur like the royksopp video i posted earlier?

The real means to reduce blur is to use intense arc lighting so as to shorten the camera exposure time.

how will that improve the sample-and-hold effect on LCD? you have to eliminate both of these if you are going to eliminate blur.



The double projection flash is simply a technique to reduce flicker. It niether adds nor subtracts judder IMHO.

i disagree here. how do you explain 2:2 or 3:3 judder you see in the cinema? how else would the eye perceive objects repeating their positions. this video (http://www.mediafire.com/file/ifmmynzl50m/30vs60.wmv) is 30fps@60hz (2:2 repetition). if you don't see judder what do you see.

there is still some blur in a film theater or a 120Hz video display - the irreducable minimum in simple 24Hz playback with 5:5 pulldown is the amount of blur the camera recorded.

frame repetition approximates sample-and-hold blur at high hz such as 5:5. you may attribute that to a "sweet spot" on crt but that doesnt explain why 5:5 does nothing to relieve lcd blur. the approximation makes perfect sense to me considering image persistance of the eye.

The too-slow frame rate adds judder due to the strobe light effect, which effects alltypes of playback.

this one is iffy but strobing (flicker) is different from judder. progressive frame rates don't judder no matter how low, they do flicker. i planned to make a video of progressive 24 showing how smooth true 24fps actually is.


The 120Hz LCD display with Frame Interpolation ON (or the 72Hz Pioneer plasma with Smoothing ON) will:

3) Reduce the motion blur on the leading and trailing edges or rapidly moving objects by analysing adjacent frames and algorythmicly replacing pixels in these frames with the color values from those adjacent frames. The effectiveness of the process is limited and the visible imperfections are called "artifacts".

maybe these algorithms are present but gary you sound like you never heard of sample-and-hold. look up any explanation for 120hz and you'll find its to combat sample-and-hold blur. i understand this is not something you accept with lcd but eh...so be it.

I'm back. Of the 3 ASSUMED real directors [only assumed because the jargon they drop is legitamate and they seem to know the subject] none have actually addressed the question: How would YOU PREFER to film your art? They have stated for cost reasons 24p makes the most sense, one mentioned the brain wave states induced by various speeds [that made no sense], but another mentions praises of using latest technology to film with like the REDONE HD camera. A change is a coming! Finally. probably take a good numbers of years yet.
http://www.red.com/shot_on_red/ - some major releases filmed with this camera and major cost savings and EQUAL or better than normal film. Upped frames rates will follow. All it will take is one killer movie, at a higher framerate, people leaving the theater saying, "That was the coolest thing I have ever seen! I won't be able to go watch regular movies anymore... " and everyeone will convert to faster framerates.

Films/Movies GENERALLY represent REAL LIFE. People seeing 120hz and AMP as "3D" are really saying "This looks SO REAL as compared to juddered stuff" because, like real life, the judder is gone. I can't wait.

Change is never easy for people. Remember when cars first came out, someone said there was no reason to go over 30 mph? No one will ever need a personal computer. etc etc etc

that Royksopp video comparo is very interesting. I WAY PREFER the smoother side. BUT... it is interesting to note that [at least in my eyes] if I cover the left have of the video and only watch the right side, it only takes a few seconds to adjust to viewing it as "OK". But still, way more detail comes through on the smooth side

Films/Movies GENERALLY represent REAL LIFE.

Yeah, I disagree strongly here.

Why do people paint portraits when a photograph would be far more realistic?

Not all art is meant to be ultra-real. The vast majority, in fact, is not.

"GENERALLY" not ALWAYS. Usually there are PEOPLE involved and physical scenery meant for us to recognize as a chair or a house or building or car representing real life. Not a ton of movies DON'T represent real life if you really start looking at it

Usually there are PEOPLE involved and physical scenery meant for us to recognize as a chair or a house or building or car representing real life.

In the same way that a painting of a landscape is representative of the real thing.

if I cover the left have of the video and only watch the right side, it only takes a few seconds to adjust to viewing it as "OK".

for me that works for either side...
i quickly get used to judder (unless deliberately trying to track the motion)
similarly, "soap" goes away after the first minute or two. it doesn't usually come back.
which ever is chosen, at some point the content is what holds your attention.

… the irreducable minimum in simple 24Hz playback with 5:5 pulldown is the amount of blur the camera recorded.You’ve completely ignored any display induced blur on your retina. You may be unaffected by such mechanisms but others are not. 120Hz LCD with interpolation (aka - frame rate conversion) was developed for this purpose. There is no arguing this point Gary.

The 120Hz LCD display with Frame Interpolation ON (or the 72Hz Pioneer plasma with Smoothing ON) will reduce the motion blur on the leading and trailing edges or rapidly moving objects by analysing adjacent frames and algorythmicly replacing pixels in these frames with the color values from those adjacent frames. The effectiveness of the process is limited and the visible imperfections are called "artifacts". AFAIK frame interpolation does not “clear up” existing frames. In other words it does not remove camera blur. I can’t see how this can be done with any effectiveness?

What interpolation does is reduce or remove blur on your retina as well as low frame rate judder (jerkiness).

You’ve completely ignored any display induced blur on your retina. You may be unaffected by such mechanisms but others are not. 120Hz LCD with interpolation (aka - frame rate conversion) was developed for this purpose. There is no arguing this point Gary.

The point is that he doesn't appear to understand what S&H blur is, which is why I asked the question a bit back.

In the same way that a painting of a landscape is representative of the real thing.

A "Painting" is not a >moving< picture. it would be more representative to comparing to a cartoon or computer generated graphic reality, than a photographed reality. Are you suggesting that PHOTOGRAPHY is exactly the same as the art in painting? It's pretty much totally different. Analogy fail.

On that VIDEO, I get USED TO the judder but the detail is still MORE BLURRY to me than the left side

Are you suggesting that PHOTOGRAPHY is exactly the same as the art in painting?

Nope, but they can both be forms of art, and both are often purposely stylized to as seperate them from ultra-realism. Look at all of the post-processing work that goes on in much of professional photography.

There is a place for 60Hz (and beyond), and IMO it's in the recording of actual events, sports, news, etc. I watched the Phillies game last night in HD and it was phenominal. No blur, no judder; just crystal clear, sharp images and perfectly realistic movement. I had no issues with it.

Were I to pop in my Dark Knight Blu-Ray and it looked exactly like the baseball game, I'd have been quite upset. Each method of capturing and displaying motion has its place.

Theoretically if frame rate was substantially increased whenever a camera panned could blur be eliminated?

At high enough speed when a ceiling fan turns it looks like blur to me in real life.

If my brain and eyes could process that motion faster than anyone else on planet earth to where there was no blur would that be real life or just real life for me?

Doesn't the human eye process faster than 120?

If it does then how can 120 be forever?

I'm sure in the future when movies are filmed at 480hz, they will include a preset that will let you add cinema 24fps effects, as well as black and white, sepia, and film grain effects :)

you can never totally eliminate blur. just moving your eyes around you can create blur in yourself. but you certainly dont want your tv adding any blur. but in my eyes filming technology has not yet reached the reality phase to equal or surpass our ability to see blur. Movie panning is god aweful slow right now to keep clarity - yet on sports games, etc, pans look pretty darn clear don't they. It will only take one director to make a movie that looks great with higher speed frames to set this change in motion. Heck, if they wait long enough, maybe that will be me :)

Will we "get it" when it's 240hz or 480 or even 960? Does it really matter? Don't LCD's suck for motion no matter what?

I can officially add my name to the list of people that get sick from AMP. I was watching Castle in the Sky last night and I started to get nauseous, so I stepped away from the TV and started to move around thinking that my sinus headache was causing it, and it went away in about 30 seconds of being away from the TV.... I was puzzled so I went back and started to watch again....45 seconds later the feeling was back. I then thought that the AMP might be causing it after that, so I turned it off. Sure enough the feeling went away and never returned.

Looks like AMP just isn't for me. (and for those wondering why higher frame-rates haven't caught on, this is the exact reason why. Too many people in their test audiences got sick from the smoother motion)

Will we "get it" when it's 240hz or 480 or even 960? Does it really matter? Don't LCD's suck for motion no matter what?

Apparently not. I am a somewhat happy KURO owner and think these new SAMSUNG LCDs "look" better on detail, clarity and motion. Is the color purity correct? I don't know but it's close enough to look great, and if it measures off by .7 whatevers, I'll never notice that.

people getting sick from "SMOOTHER MOTION" - I understand motion sickness but smoother is better than jittery. The world around me LIVE, is not jittery. but I do not suffer from motion sickness either and respect people having that issue

Is there a correlary here: people that get sick from watching smoother TVs means the TV is producing a more REALISTIC image? Like how people get motion sick in real life?

For the doubters among you, I do understand sample-and-hold blur but I find it not objectionable. I have been using LCD rear projectors since 2003 in the home theater, after using CRT front projection from 1984. The SAH blur is very minor and much less of an issue with me than Telecine judder or 24fps strobe effects.

I believe that some people could experience nausea from higher frame rates. I was viewing hockey games via a live 720p60 feed in my home theater and one audience member was quite disoriented by the experience. We put him in charge of the barbeque and I got to see the entire game instead of glimpses between tending the grill.

I don't think it's AMP, I think it's high frame rates combined with scenes with lots of movement that causes this. Also, I think you have to be relatively close and have the display traverse a relatively large subtended angle for this effect to happen. There may in fact be a link to those that experience motion sickness in the real world. If so, then very probably this is only a temprary phenomenon. I once saw a two-star admiral puking his guts over the rail during my military career. He was one of the unlucky few who had to adjust to motion sickness every voyage. Most people got seasick the first time only. A few of us were never troubled at all by motion sickness.

Are there any plasmas with something like automotion plus?

Are plasmas smooth enough naturally, or do they show the strobe-light effect during side-to-side panning scenes in movies? (24fps judder)

I have to admit that I have come to like the Samsung AMP :-)

The Pioneer Elite and Kuro Plasmas offer smoothing at 72Hz refresh which is 3:3 pulldown from a 24Hz source. No others to my knowledge. Pioneer called frame interpolation "Advanced PureCinema".

The Pioneer Elite and Kuro Plasmas offer smoothing at 72Hz refresh which is 3:3 pulldown from a 24Hz source. No others to my knowledge. Pioneer called frame interpolation "Advanced PureCinema".Where have you got that information from?

Pioneer calls their frame interpolation PureCinema Smooth.

Are there any plasmas with something like automotion plus?

Are plasmas smooth enough naturally, or do they show the strobe-light effect during side-to-side panning scenes in movies? (24fps judder)

I have to admit that I have come to like the Samsung AMP :-)

My pio plasma does this best in SMOOTH mode, but the trade off is occasional video mangling. Examples, are in WALL*E when EVE put WALL*E on the shuttle and she floats back into the darkened control room, her all white body flakes out where the dark meets the white, flecking her up like a blocky, failing HD TV transmission. Also, on IT'S A MAD MAD MAD MAD WOLRD, a scene shot down from a helicopter to a road below is panning to the left, while a small car is racing along the road to the right, the car is hacked up into 6 or so boxes that are juggling around trying to make sense of the parallax scrolling movement. A good majority of the time it is fine and WONDERFUL to my eyes, but when it fails, it's very noticable, even if it's off in a corner.

I saw some of these types of artifacts on the newest Samsungs also. They just don't have it fully perfected yet. That I have seen anyway.

Some plasmas, I am told, are ACCURATE enough to display things AS THEY ARE in the film. But smooth mode and AMP can make them BETTER [subjective opinion] than accuracy.

I don't like my plasma in non-smooth mode. I like it a lot more in SMOOTH mode. But I was even more impressed with the clarity and detail on Samsungs latest 120hz AMP modes. So impressed, I almost sold my KURO for a Samsung, until I discoverd that SMOOTH mode helps... when you swallow your pride and accept occasional artifacts.

Where have you got that information from?

Pioneer calls their frame interpolation PureCinema Smooth.


Here's the PDF file of the KURO model KRP-600M spec sheet where they use the terminology "Advanced PureCinema":

http://www.plasmaconcepts.com/docs/pioneer_krp600m_spec_sheet.pdf

3:3 has nothing to do with motion compensation (interpolation).
anybody saying that has been wrong.
3:3 (or 5:5) frame repetition doesn't raise the temporal frame rate,
and as a consequence, you are basically trading less judder for more blur.
its closest to the "film look" though.

Here's the PDF file of the KURO model KRP-600M spec sheet where they use the terminology "Advanced PureCinema":

http://www.plasmaconcepts.com/docs/pioneer_krp600m_spec_sheet.pdf

Advanced PureCinema certainly is a feature but it's simply 3:3.

I would agree with that. I noticed the ADVANCED cimema mode on my kuro did nothing to manipulate motion. the SMOOTH mode, however, DOES. most pans in WALLE are wonderful, except when they exceed a certain speed, than it seems to go back to normal, higher speed panning blur - which I consider very normal

I saw Spiderman 3 at Bestbuy with this turned on. It looked like it had the production value of a porno combined with an episode of Coronation Street.

I'm convinced this is all simply because people are not USED to the new way video looks. and lighting techniques need to change.

Consider TAPE to CD change over: initial CDs were too bright because of the way we were used to mixing for tape - over doing highs that are getting lost in the process. CD comes along with all the highs intact, and our EQs in mixing were set for old TAPE ways. Now we [I work in a recording studio] have it figured out and make glorious sounding music on CDs.

Nobody's shooting 60fps movies because no one can watch them in theaters. with new cameras, techniques, new ideas on lighting, new 3D cameras, new projectors, we are on the brink of faster frame rates.our kids that grow up watching 240hz, will scoff our 24fps movies the same way we BARELY tolerate stobe looking old movies from the 20's, along with that annoying [read nostalgic] clickity live projector sound and poor frequency range music accompaniying it.

It's all about change and how comfortable we are with it. As we ALL know, MOST people do not embrace change with the passion of getting a new girlfriend. It's more like an ugly divroce. In reality, embracing change is more like being allowed 10 new girlfriends at once, because one can accept much more variety in life. You can STILL enjoy 24p, 30fps, 60hz, 480hz whatever equally. No reason 24 has to go away completely. Just allow the variety to exist

Motionflow does something to the gamma and colours of the image as well as exaggerating and creating flaws in camera motion and actor performance. 24 fps covers these flaws up. Even if film makers could shoot at 60fps they probably wouldn't as every little knock and milisecond actor twitch would be revealed, killing the performance and therefor the drama.

Right now the tech takes even the most professionally put together piece of film artwork and renders it in a way that makes it look painfully amateur. Purposful use of blur and the 24 frame format is also destroyed with this morphing tech changing the artistic vision.

Faster framerates make sense for large format projections where the blur of 24 fps isn't suitable and 30fps looks like 24 when the screen is 5 stories tall.

When a director purposefully uses a higher framerate for their film project then I'm all for it but synthesising material inbetween what was orignally photographed is goofy.

Faster framerates make sense for large format projections where the blur of 24 fps isn't suitable


yes and i'd like to emphasize this once more to balance all the negativity regarding 120hz effect on the 24fps format. sports, documentaries, animation, news, ect are a significant percentage of folks viewing and is where mcfi can produce the most beneficial results. this is constantly overlooked.

Goofy? I keep hearing stuff like that in this thread and others from people who don't own 120Hz sets and don't use frame interpolation when viewing. It is a purely philosophical objection with no validity whatsoever.

I have been viewing my 120Hz Samsung since I got it in December 2007. I typically have frame interpolation set as follows:

Blu-Ray and HD-DVD (both 24Hz sources) - AMP = Medium
Conventional film source DVD (with reverse telecine @24Hz) - AMP = Medium
Conventional video-source DVD (60Hz) - AMP = High
Live HDTV (1080i60) - AMP = Medium
Live HDTV (720p60) - AMP = Low
DirecTiVo SD (480i60) - AMP = High
TiVo HD (1080i60 or 720p60) - AMP = Medium or Low

There is nothing goofy about it. The AMP feature actually cleans up blur in the original source by averaging adjacent frames. The look is cleaner and more realistic and with a better illusion of 3D. Well-photographed HD scenes produce the illusion of a window into another world.

Call it "soap opera effect" if you must. What it is is a major advance in video realism, when you define realism as the look of the real world, and not the look of 35mm film projected in a darkened room.

It is a purely philosophical objection with no validity whatsoever.

Nonsense. I've seen it in use several times on several sets. My own display can do it.

I don't care for how it looks, and even if I did, there are current issues with its implementation that can create artifacts and other unpleasantries that I'm not looking to see.

Film is often not SUPPOSED to look ultra-real. Why do people paint when photography is available?

Goofy? I keep hearing stuff like that in this thread and others from people who don't own 120Hz sets and don't use frame interpolation when viewing. It is a purely philosophical objection with no validity whatsoever.



Please, do us a favor and quite telling us what we should like as it is certainly valid if one doesn't like the effect. If I crank my TV up with torch mode and like it, is everyone suppose to agree with me? You just need to accept the fact that not everyone shares the same tastes as you when it comes to the picture.

Let's look closely at this post:



The AMP feature actually cleans up blur in the original source by averaging adjacent frames.

The look is cleaner

and more realistic

and with a better illusion of 3D.

Well-photographed HD scenes produce the illusion of a window into another world.

What it is is a major advance in video realism, when you define realism as the look of the real world, and not the look of 35mm film projected in a darkened room.

Six simple and easy to understand statements. And all true.

Now this one:

Please, do us a favor and quite telling us what we should like as it is certainly valid if one doesn't like the effect. If I crank my TV up with torch mode and like it, is everyone suppose to agree with me? You just need to accept the fact that not everyone shares the same tastes as you when it comes to the picture.

Who is us? A group with a spokesman?

Where did he tell you what you should like?

Where did he complain that not everyone shares his tastes?

Are you going to address directly the points he raised?

Why am I wasting my time?

Let's look closely at this post:



Six simple and easy to understand statements. And all true.

you mean all opinions. :cool:

Let's look closely at this post:



Six simple and easy to understand statements. And all true.Gary and Ramazur, I may be under the false impression that the first statement is impossible. If you could provide a technical reference or a hypothetical example that would be great.

Cheers

Now this one:



Who is us? A group with a spokesman?

Where did he tell you what you should like?

Where did he complain that not everyone shares his tastes?

Are you going to address directly the points he raised?

Why am I wasting my time?

then don't. :rolleyes:

Gary and Ramazur, I may be under the false impression that the first statement is impossible. If you could provide a technical reference or a hypothetical example that would be great.

Cheers

Get thee to a Home Theater dealer with Panasonic front projectors and view what I believe to be the most sophiosticated frame interpolation engine today, that in the Panasonic PT-AE3000 projector. The following article explains the way this projector works: http://www.projectorcentral.com/frame_interpolation.htm

Quote:
"Conversely, the Panasonic AE3000 has the most robust and powerful frame creation engine that has appeared so far. When dealing with a 1080p/24 source, it generates three interim frames for every real frame, and plays them back at 96 Hz. (Panasonic is the only projector vendor that does this so far; both Epson and Sanyo generate one interim frame for each real frame.) In addition, there are two settings for Frame Creation on the AE3000--Mode 1 and Mode 2. Mode 1 evaluates the movement between two successive frames to generate its interim frames, and Mode 2 evaluates the movement between three successive frames. Mode 2 is clearly superior in its results, and again, neither Epson nor Sanyo have this capability.

Panasonic developed their own proprietary algorithms for Frame Creation in house. The result is an extremely smooth and artifact-free display of film. And in addition, the digital video effect is remarkably subtle in comparison to the Epson 6500UB. When the AE3000 is projected onto a 120" screen, the image looks like very clean film, not an ultra-real CNN HD video broadcast."

We can hope that Panasonic can use this frame interpolation engine in their LCDs, or in a plasma (provided they can push the plasma refresh rate to 96Hz). Artifacting is greatly reduced with this design, I consider it the first of the 3rd generation FI engines.

That doesn't answer the question.

If the blur is in the original source, then how does interpolating between frames (which by your definition contain this blur) remove it?

Imagine a moving object against a static background, which is the scenario I was talking about. As the object moves across the frame, the leading and trailing edges blur because of the object's movement while the film camera shutter is open. However the average width of the object remains constant in all frames. The FI engine algorithymicly replaces the blurred leading and trailing edges with a defined outline plus the eclipsed background pixels from the adjacent frame. (The object's leading edge is filled in with pixels from the prior frame, the trailing edge is filled in with pixels from the lagging frame.) Just how many pixels are transferred from leading/succeeding frames is a function of how fast the object is moving. Some frame interpolation engines do not have a continuously variable speed range for the moving object, instead they lump all moving objects into slow/medium/fast movement and apply the same pixel-fill technique. The early Samsung firmware on the first-generation AMP engines that originally shipped on LN-Txx71 and LN-Txx69 120Hz sets in 2007 had this problem, the imperfect pixel-fill techniques that did not match the exact object speed resulted in "artifacts" on the leading/trailing edges that came to be called the "Triple Ball Effect", because they were most visible in live broadcasts on fast-moving balls or hockey pucks.

Note that we are not talking about just the intermidiate frames inserted by frame interpolation. We are talking about actual modifications to the source frames as well, something many do not understand. The changes to source frames however are limited to replacing the leading/trailing edges of moving objects with areas from preceeding/succeeding source frames. This amounts to selectively replacing blurred pixels with stable pixels.

Samsung was eventually able to incorporate variable-speed technology in the pixel-fill algorythm in the later 2000-series firmwares for the 1st-generation 120Hz sets. Further refinements to AMP were made in the second-generation 120Hz sets in 2008, primarily the use of faster video processor CPUs which allowed for more processing cycles to be devoted to the FI tasks.

The Panasonic FI engine in the new PT-AE3000 projector is the first example of a video processor that successfully implements a multiple-frame algorythm. Sony attempted this in 2007 with first-generation MotionFlow, but failed due to insufficient bandwidth in the video processor - most AVS members including me preferred the Samsung implementation. Sony later backed the multi-frame MotionFlow feature out and as far as I know has not re-introduced it, but I'm not as familiar with Sony products as with Samsung.

The early frame interpolation sets all IMHO suffer from insufficient video processor bandwidth, and the typical symptom is seen either in a camera pan or in a series like Law and Order where they film exterior shots with handheld "shakeycams". When every pixel in every frame changes as in the two scenarios I described, the higher-priority video processor tasks associated with MPEG2 processing don't leave enough bandwidth for the recursive frame interpolation processing. When I see this problem on screen I back off the AMP setting from High to Medium or even Low to reduce artifacting.

The other scenario where frame interpolation helps image clarity is oddly enough in still images. There are always pixel values (both Chrominance and Luminance) that fall on the margins between one value and the next - that's the curse of representing an analog world with digital numeric values - sampling errors are created. But the averaging togather of the same pixel over multiple static frames produces a more stable image with less of the "mosquito noise" resulting from the inherent single-bit differences of the same pixel from one frame to the next. There are digital filtering techniques which can suppress mosquito noise almost as well, but I believe the frame interpolation engines produce a more stable still image with even less noise. I also believe that this effect of enhanced stability produces that dead-stable background which in well-photographed scene gives that realer-than-film effect that many call "soap opera effect". What it is is a video frame that has averaged two or more source film frames and therefore the look of the final image is realer than the original source film.

Now I will share with you (for what it's worth) the single biggest problem associated with Frame Interpolation. Some color film stock has larger and quite visible film grain and presumably the Director or Cinematographer who selects such film wants film grain in the final result. If there is a Digital Intermediate processing step to insert CGI, quite often the grain is lost in the digital processing. There are digital dithering techniques used to simulate film grain which are often applied in these cases. However either natural film grain or the fake film grain inserted digitally is effectively removed by the pixel averaging algorythms I mentioned above (and incidentally by the digital modulation and MPEG compression techniques used for both ATSC broadcasts and Blu-Ray mastering). Think of it as a limitation in the digital display of film. If you want to experience whatever film grain or simulated film grain that remains after compression/decompression, you must turm your frame interpolation engine all the way to OFF. I never do this myself - I find the 24Hz motion judder more objectionable than the display of already-compromised film grain. There is room for preference here - but realize that most grain is removed by video compression/decompression anyway - the net removal by the frame interpolating display is relatively minor IMHO.

It's been more than 4 hours since the above post went up and not even a thank you? First, they challenge you or give you off-the-subject pointers. They also claim that they come here to learn. Well, a lesson has been delivered and, as is so typical....silence. My best guess: it's really annoying to deal with facts offered by well informed posters. My second best guess: your post will be ignored.

It is possible that, this being Sunday, they are attending to other things so let's give it more time.

Here is a chance for your "debaters" - the use of quotes is deliberate - to say: Thanks, Gary, for telling me something I didn't know. We will see.

It's been more than 4 hours since the above post went up and not even a thank you? First, they challenge you or give you off-the-subject pointers. They also claim that they come here to learn. Well, a lesson has been delivered and, as is so typical....silence. My best guess: it's really annoying to deal with facts offered by well informed posters. My second best guess: your post will be ignored.

It is possible that, this being Sunday, they are attending to other things so let's give it more time.

Here is a chance for your "debaters" - the use of quotes is deliberate - to say: Thanks, Gary, for telling me something I didn't know. We will see.Yes busy :) However, I did quickly read Gary's response and thank you Gary. Having said that I have 3 white papers from Samsung describing in detail the block type interpolation they use in LCDs. There is no mention of altering source frames.

Even so I was under the false impression that Gary was suggesting that interpolatin itself was the reason source blur was reduced. I see from his response that source frame manipulation is the source which is different and possible without interpolation.

I would love to see some literature on this subject if possible.

Cheers

Xrox, I didn't have in mind in my last post. You, Gary and very few others make this sub-forum worth coming back to.

Xrox, I didn't have in mind in my last post. You, Gary and very few others make this sub-forum worth coming back to.

It would appear that bickering and calling people out keeps you coming back.

I assume that you are referring to me since I challenged Gary on his post. I also thought that he was suggesting that frame interpolation removed the blur in the original source frames. That didn't make any sense.

Blu-Ray and HD-DVD (both 24Hz sources) - AMP = Medium
Conventional film source DVD (with reverse telecine @24Hz) - AMP = Medium


Sorry for a basic question, but:
Does reverse telecine means no telecine, i.e. it was removed and no telecine judder will be present? If you put a conventional film DVD (standard-def) into a Blue-Ray player or an upconverting DVD player, will they output 24fps at 24Hz with no telecine judder?

It would appear that bickering and calling people out keeps you coming back.

I assume that you are referring to me since I challenged Gary on his post. I also thought that he was suggesting that frame interpolation removed the blur in the original source frames. That didn't make any sense.

I always get a kick out of those that complain and accuse others of what they do themself. Other than wanting to be the den mother I've still yet to figure out what value he adds to any discussion.

Sorry for a basic question, but:
Does reverse telecine means no telecine, i.e. it was removed and no telecine judder will be present? If you put a conventional film DVD (standard-def) into a Blue-Ray player or an upconverting DVD player, will they output 24fps at 24Hz with no telecine judder?

OK, this goes back to the original DVD Video specification, which is actually quite different fom the techniques used to store Blu-Ray or HD-DVD on HD Media.

The film-source DVD stores 480i24 (240 line by 720pixels/line by 24 frames/sec) odd/even video fields (totalling 48 fields/sec) along with "flag bits" that label each video field with a film source frame ID and a tag saying whether it represents the "odd" or the "even" field from that frame. The analog DVD player itself inserts the Telecine by weaving the odd/even fields togather with a 2:3 pullup - as long as the output mode is set to 480i60. If the analog DVD player is capable of 480p output, the player will integrate the two odd/even fields into a single (480line by 720 pixels/line by 24 frames/sec) frame in the digital domain before it outputs 480p60 via analog component video, again after applying 2:3 pullup to sync 24 frames of film to 60 frames of video.

Now lets talk about digital upconverting DVD players. It so happens I prefer my Toshiba HD-DVD player (model HD-A30) for playing these disks, because of more flexible scaling options for 1080p24 output than are present on the PS-3 I use for 1080p24 Blu-Ray playback. To begin with the player weaves togather the 480i24 source fields into a 480p24 frame as on the analog player, using the flag bits and odd/even tag bits on the DVD, and in the digital domain. Next the player resolution scales each frame to 1080p24 from the source 480p24. Then the 1080p24 video is output over the digital HDMI interface to the HDTV, provided the HDMI handshake confirms that the display can accept 24p inputs - otherwise the player will again use the Telecine option to product 1080p60 (but with Telecine motion judder).

To avoid the motion judder, one must have a display capable of 72Hz refresh (like a Pioneer plasma) or a 120Hz/240Hz LCD. If your display supports only 60Hz refresh, it may be able to accept 24Hz inputs, but the display itself will apply Telecine and the output will have motion judder.

Get thee to a Home Theater dealer with Panasonic front projectors and view what I believe to be the most sophiosticated frame interpolation engine today, that in the Panasonic PT-AE3000 projector. The following article explains the way this projector works: http://www.projectorcentral.com/frame_interpolation.htm

Quote:
"Conversely, the Panasonic AE3000 has the most robust and powerful frame creation engine that has appeared so far. When dealing with a 1080p/24 source, it generates three interim frames for every real frame, and plays them back at 96 Hz. (Panasonic is the only projector vendor that does this so far; both Epson and Sanyo generate one interim frame for each real frame.) In addition, there are two settings for Frame Creation on the AE3000--Mode 1 and Mode 2. Mode 1 evaluates the movement between two successive frames to generate its interim frames, and Mode 2 evaluates the movement between three successive frames. Mode 2 is clearly superior in its results, and again, neither Epson nor Sanyo have this capability.

Panasonic developed their own proprietary algorithms for Frame Creation in house. The result is an extremely smooth and artifact-free display of film. And in addition, the digital video effect is remarkably subtle in comparison to the Epson 6500UB. When the AE3000 is projected onto a 120" screen, the image looks like very clean film, not an ultra-real CNN HD video broadcast."

We can hope that Panasonic can use this frame interpolation engine in their LCDs, or in a plasma (provided they can push the plasma refresh rate to 96Hz). Artifacting is greatly reduced with this design, I consider it the first of the 3rd generation FI engines.

It's great that they have devised processes that can correct some inherrent flaws in what the display shows and that some like the effect that it's created, but if a particular panel or manufacturer's process creates a picture that's not pleasing to ones eyes and their are panels that are more pleasing to their eyes which one should they choose? Myself, and as others have mentioned, don't care for the look of AMP and one of the reasons I didn't spend the extra money and purchased a LN40A550 rather than the 650. If you like it great, if someone else doesn't then that's great also. That's why choices are nice to have.

OK, this goes back to the original DVD Video specification...

I see. I assume BD players act the same way on conventional DVDs, so the same upconversion process applies.

Thank you, Gary for your answers. They are of an encyclopedic quality. Someday you may consider contributing to Wikipedia articles on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation

Gary,

I've done a search and found one reference to frame interpolation combined with some original source frame enhancement.

This is from Samsung for OLED interpolation systems.

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=DTPSDS000039000001000472000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

Some people seem to be fundamentalist purists when it comes to their movie viewing. Whatever the Director "intended" goes, no matter how it looks.

I suspect these purists hate the fact that their are controls on the set that allow altering the settings to something other than what was seen in the editing room. Fortunately, these folks can get the appropriate therapy by hiring someone to calibrate their displays.

Many viewers have grown up on TV, and see a lot of material shot on video. Film, by comparison, doesn't look the same.

Better or worse is an opinion, but if you lined up a handful of kids, showed them a TV show shot on video vs a movie shot on film and asked them which one looked better, the video would win.

Same goes for the average joe consumer. This is one reason that HDTVs and Cable/Sat HD sevice sales are growing like weeds, while Blu Ray just staggers along.

Making film look better will sell more Blu Ray players and software. This is a good thing for movie lovers, even if they are buying for the wrong philosophical reason.

As long as these settings are adjustable and defeatable, they are good for anyone that enjoys HDM. We all win, even if in winning we have to look away from our neighbor's soapy display.

And your point is?

It's better to be popular than correct? If everyone decides it OK to turn left on red then it's OK? Education is worthless because what you believe is correct regardless of facts? Nice world you live in.

And your point is?

It's better to be popular than correct?

You obviously have a fundamental misunderstanding here: It's about taste and not correctness.
If it were about correctness all sets wouldn't have manual controls but instead come with predefined color and contrast settings, perhaps with color and brightness sensors to achieve perfect adaption to the lighting conditions.

If everyone decides it OK to turn left on red then it's OK?

Bad comparison as a traffic light has nothing to do with taste.

Education is worthless because what you believe is correct regardless of facts? Nice world you live in.

Are you so emotionally affected that you have to get impertinent?

bye
Benny42

What I actually find lame is how the movie industry still sticks to 24fps. It should be at least 30.

The problem with going to higher framerates is that a large majority of the population can't watch high framerate stuff. Take a 60fps video game for example, most have no problems playing them, but put them into the spectator's position, and suddenly they get motion sickness due to the ultra smooth motion, it is too close to reality and messes with your inner ear, something about being in control of the motion helps prevent this, but if you aren't in control, you start to feel it.

Another problem with frame interpolation is that it gives the motion that accelerated look, something that stuff filmed at higher framerates doesn't suffer from. So this isn't a solution either, more of a band-aid. As much as I would like to see stuff actually filmed at higher framerates, the ammount of the population that simply couldn't watch it is too great for the movie industry to adopt higher frame-rates.

Goofy? I keep hearing stuff like that in this thread and others from people who don't own 120Hz sets and don't use frame interpolation when viewing. It is a purely philosophical objection with no validity whatsoever.

I have been viewing my 120Hz Samsung since I got it in December 2007. I typically have frame interpolation set as follows:

Blu-Ray and HD-DVD (both 24Hz sources) - AMP = Medium
Conventional film source DVD (with reverse telecine @24Hz) - AMP = Medium
Conventional video-source DVD (60Hz) - AMP = High
Live HDTV (1080i60) - AMP = Medium
Live HDTV (720p60) - AMP = Low
DirecTiVo SD (480i60) - AMP = High
TiVo HD (1080i60 or 720p60) - AMP = Medium or Low

There is nothing goofy about it. The AMP feature actually cleans up blur in the original source by averaging adjacent frames. The look is cleaner and more realistic and with a better illusion of 3D. Well-photographed HD scenes produce the illusion of a window into another world.

Call it "soap opera effect" if you must. What it is is a major advance in video realism, when you define realism as the look of the real world, and not the look of 35mm film projected in a darkened room.

Um, the real world doesn't look fast-forwarded to me. Nor does it have the motion artifacts introduced by AMP/MF.

You obviously have a fundamental misunderstanding here: It's about taste and not correctness.
If it were about correctness all sets wouldn't have manual controls but instead come with predefined color and contrast settings, perhaps with color and brightness sensors to achieve perfect adaption to the lighting conditions.



Bad comparison as a traffic light has nothing to do with taste.



Are you so emotionally affected that you have to get impertinent?

bye
Benny42

I'm impertinent? Aydu basically dismissed a large portion of the members here with a waves of a hand. With statements like -


I suspect these purists hate the fact that their are controls on the set that allow altering the settings to something other than what was seen in the editing room. Fortunately, these folks can get the appropriate therapy by hiring someone to calibrate their displays.

and --

Better or worse is an opinion, but if you lined up a handful of kids, showed them a TV show shot on video vs a movie shot on film and asked them which one looked better, the video would win.

Indicates he/she feels that anyone who wants or owns a properly calibrated display is an idiot. That 5 and 10 year old kids know and understand more that those of us that have been involved in audio and video for decades.

The poster could have simply stated that they prefer the look of video and leave it at that not denigrate a great many people.

I'm impertinent? Aydu basically dismissed a large portion of the members here with a waves of a hand. With statements like -



and --



Indicates he/she feels that anyone who wants or owns a properly calibrated display is an idiot. That 5 and 10 year old kids know and understand more that those of us that have been involved in audio and video for decades.

The poster could have simply stated that they prefer the look of video and leave it at that not denigrate a great many people.

The poster (me) meant exactly what I said. No need for you to restate things in a watered down fashion.

The board members here are a minority of people who view films in their homes. Like audio purists, who despise tone controls, they want to snuggle up to the director as close as possible to experience the film as he/she intended it to be seen. They revel in the exactness of their experience, not necessarily the quality of it.

Features like set calibration help get these people closer to this video nirvana. This is great!

Unfortunately, most people want a clean picture with plenty of "pop". Video often provides this and makes many films look really bad by comparison.

Why spend the $ for an expensive set; Blu Ray player; and software if in the end the picture looks worse than Seinfield reruns in broadcast in HD? That is Blu Ray's problem with many films.

Frame inperpolation on the TV allows the viewing experience to be enjoyed by a larger group of viewers. I see this as good for HDM in general. Another tool in the toolbox for viewers (just as calibration is a tool).

Just because it doesn't meet some arbitrary "correct" standard that some have adopted doesn't make it bad, just something that they can choose not to use.

Fortunately the feature is easily turned off for any set owner that is offended by a clean clear image.

Then why are you here? Go to walmart and buy the cheapest crap set you can find, crank up the color so it glows in the dark and smile to yourself at what a great image you have.

People come to these forums to learn and explore options, sure you are offering an option, and for some people that is fine. As I stated previously what is popular isn't always right. I guess I come form a generation that stove to improve themselves, learn and experience things. You denigrate the film director as a person who you know better than. He or she may have studied and worked for years learning their craft, but aydu feels that they are wrong. OK.

Perhaps I should just make a sweeping statement about people who like fake color and artificial movement and leave it at that. I don't care how you set your display, but I resent being dismissed because I have enough intellectual curiosity to explore what a director's vision was and evaluate it for myself. I may not agree with it but at least I had an open mind to consider it. There are such things as subtlety and nuance in films, but I guess that's not important to the masses.

To say that 120hz should be the norm in movie production because the extra sharpness it brings to the picture is like saying everyone that wants to watch a movie at the Imax should be administered prescription glasses at the door so that they can see the full potential of the movie in 20/22 vision. :rolleyes:

I like the sharpness of 120HZ, but unfortunatly the technology ruins the effect of the orginal film, I don't like picturing the characters of ~ lets say Pulp Fiction as some home video actors. The slight flicker of film has a calming effect on the retina that reduces that character in your face effect...that gives the movie more ambiance and depth instead of watching people/actors appear as they're making a home video etc. Tim Roth would be Tim Roth in the movie without the film flicker, and I couldn't see Samual Jackson appearing as tyranical and menacing either as video footage. It's just how physics work with our eyes.

I find 120HZ is best for Sports, and some news/documentary channels with high compression artifacts, it just completely removes them so they can't be picked up easily by the eye...the best solution to Mosquito noise reduction IMO.

Then why are you here? Go to walmart and buy the cheapest crap set you can find, crank up the color so it glows in the dark and smile to yourself at what a great image you have.

People come to these forums to learn and explore options, sure you are offering an option, and for some people that is fine. As I stated previously what is popular isn't always right. I guess I come form a generation that stove to improve themselves, learn and experience things. You denigrate the film director as a person who you know better than. He or she may have studied and worked for years learning their craft, but aydu feels that they are wrong. OK.

Perhaps I should just make a sweeping statement about people who like fake color and artificial movement and leave it at that. I don't care how you set your display, but I resent being dismissed because I have enough intellectual curiosity to explore what a director's vision was and evaluate it for myself. I may not agree with it but at least I had an open mind to consider it. There are such things as subtlety and nuance in films, but I guess that's not important to the masses.

It is difficult to get a point across when minds are closed.

Any tool that enables a wider audience to experience HDM is good for everyone, as it makes HDM more mainstream and thus more likely to survive in the marketplace.

All TV manufacturers are racing to see who can boast the highest refresh rates on their products. 120 is quickly being replaced by 240, with LG about to boast 480. I guess they are the real enemy.

Ironically, it is the high end sets that offer these new tricks, not the low end Walmart stuff (although 120 has found it's place on the Walmart wall too).

Fortunately you can join them and beat them at the same time. These features are all defeatable if you choose.

For viewers that love the video look, it's there. You can make Pulp Fiction look like reruns of Welcome Back Kotter if you wish.

If you want a more cinematic experience, pick a movie mode; calibrate your set; whatever.

Just don't get fooled into thinking that there is one standard that reflects the true Director's vision of the film - video wise. Even commercial movie theaters vary widely in their presentation of a given film.

The variables for home presentation are even greater, perhaps the transfer used for the HDM being the greatest. Reading any Blu Ray reviews shows how much quality of the transfer varies.

If you're looking for absolutes, video is not where this will be found. Pleasing, not pleasing is about the best you're going to accomplish.

Let me ask this -- do you have a properly calibrated set? Have you seen one? Seems to me you are spouting a lot of rhetoric about something you apparently know little about.

All your claims about how you can adjust your set to make it look how ever you want and how that is great for a broad audience mean nothing. 98% of the population run their sets in torch mode as it came out of the box. They have on desire to do anything adjustmentwise. How does that promote anything? A crappy HD image is no different than a crappy SD image. It's meaningless.

Most people have never seen quality HD. Years ago broadcast HD was stunning, now it's little more than ED. Most broadcast feeds are bit starved and compressed and bear little resemblance to what HD looked like 7 or 8 years ago. Blu Ray is the only option to see true quality images at this point but unless it's displayed properly there is little point in it. What you gain with Blu is easily lost with overblown colors and artificial motion both destroy detail.

Let me ask this -- do you have a properly calibrated set? Have you seen one? Seems to me you are spouting a lot of rhetoric about something you apparently know little about.

All your claims about how you can adjust your set to make it look how ever you want and how that is great for a broad audience mean nothing. 98% of the population run their sets in torch mode as it came out of the box. They have on desire to do anything adjustmentwise. How does that promote anything? A crappy HD image is no different than a crappy SD image. It's meaningless.

Most people have never seen quality HD. Years ago broadcast HD was stunning, now it's little more than ED. Most broadcast feeds are bit starved and compressed and bear little resemblance to what HD looked like 7 or 8 years ago. Blu Ray is the only option to see true quality images at this point but unless it's displayed properly there is little point in it. What you gain with Blu is easily lost with overblown colors and artificial motion both destroy detail.And the point is, who cares?

As long as people buy into HD and HDM, I don't care if they watch with orange faces with a glow. Their purchase helped ensure that HD and HDM will grow and survive in the marketplace.

No need to attack others as uneducated and unwashed, just because you feel differently.

Fortunately, we all have the freedom to watch our sets anyway we want.

Clearly the retail outlets are selling the sizzle of bright, colorful, crisp images. Manufacturers are making sets that feed this sizzle with features like 120 processing. It is logical that people want the same type image in their home environment that caused them to buy the set in the store.

Far from technically correct? You bet. Do I want my viewing done like this? No way. Do I emotionally involved with how my neighbors set up their a/v systems? Not in the least.

Peace, love, and maybe most of all - understanding.

Maybe the manufacturers want us all to get prescription glasses so we can all see the movie is crisp clear resolution. But somehere alongn the line human nature tells us it's a bit abnormal to view story telling as a documentary instead of a drama etc.

I had decided I had said all I had to say was going to let this drop, but then I came across this and it clearly illustrated my point.

If you watch all 13 (Harper's Island) episodes consecutively there is a cohesive visual arc from beginning to end. The first episode has a flat, warm, romantic look because it takes place in golden sunshine. McLachlan added a little saturation to the images to create a warm, golden, romantic aura by using diffusion filters on lenses.

“We made the locations a character in the story by heightening saturation,” he says. “I saturated the greens a bit because one of the things that stood out at that location were the green tones. We also enhanced the greens in final timing.” The images were composed in 4:3 aspect ratio and protected for 16:9.

“The story takes place over an eight-day period,” McLachlan recounts. “We started shooting in the late summer and ran into mid-winter in the Pacific Northwest when the days were shorter and darker. The easy part was doing justice to the young, beautiful actresses. The hard part was maintaining visual continuity, and making exteriors that we shot on dismal winter days look like fall. There is also a subtle increasingly scary look.”

An aerial unit shot footage that helped to establish the setting. As the story progresses, the power goes out on the island and the phone lines aren’t working. The assumption is that underwater power and phone cables were accidently disconnected by an anchor on a passing boat.

McLachlan gradually reduced color saturation in each new episode, partly with filtration on lamps that made the light increasingly a little cooler. He also added green tones to night scenes and made the lighting more neutral and cooler.

Here the color balance plays an important part of the overall story telling. If you have a set that is in torch mode there is no way you would get the subtleties and the overall impact would be lessened. Thought and effort was put into the final product, why should that be ignored?

I'm firmly and vocally in the camp that says a display is just a conduit not a medium unto itself and as such should be neutral.

I had decided I had said all I had to say was going to let this drop, but then I came across this and it clearly illustrated my point.If you are spending time on figuring out the directors intent, IMO you are missing what your own imagination can do.

Here the color balance plays an important part of the overall story telling. If you have a set that is in torch mode there is no way you would get the subtleties and the overall impact would be lessened. Thought and effort was put into the final product, why should that be ignored?First I will say that I like my viewing to be realistic. If I see something in a film or on TV that I have experience with, I know how that is supposed to look. If it looks different due to the directors intent, then that bothers me, I can't buy into the story line.

I'm firmly and vocally in the camp that says a display is just a conduit not a medium unto itself and as such should be neutral. On your previous comments on people who don't have their displays calibrated, I did have mine done, hated it. It is now back with the settings I had taken weeks to perfect before the cal. Nothing wrong with calibration, just was to dark for me, and overall did not seem realistic. Yes I wasted $400, and the WAF was not there for it, but had to find out.

Most people' real world viewing environment has ambient light that varies during the day - rendering calibration pointless.

You can do a pretty good cal your self anyway - save your money.

And, 24fps is 70year old tech - we can do better in 2009. My Panny TV has frame doubling (interpolation) and pseudo 48fps can look scarily realistic - eg during The Dark Knight.

If properly calibrated ambient light is taken into account. How do you get gamma and gray scale correct with a setup DVD? You can't.

The money I spent on pro calibration was extremely well spent. I Liked my display before, now I love it. And in the end, that's all that matters --My display, my money, my enjoyment.

If properly calibrated ambient light is taken into account. How do you get gamma and gray scale correct with a setup DVD? You can't.

The money I spent on pro calibration was extremely well spent. I Liked my display before, now I love it. And in the end, that's all that matters --My display, my money, my enjoyment.When ambient light varies throughout the day, is a factor that affects the results of calibration.

If you have a light controlled environment, you're an ideal candidate for professional calibration - and it is well worth the money.

My rule of thumb for people is for dedicated home theaters - calibrate. For multi-use setups, such as family rooms, only calibrate if you are a stickler for pq, and be prepared to do something to control the light in the room.

This thread's name is "120Hz Forever!"

Reading pages here, it appears to be owned by filmed movie lovers...

If the thread title means anything, anymore, may I say that my Samsung LN52B750 has a 240Hz AMP. And may I ad that it works beautifully:

- For Sports viewing (major difference)

- For HD Video recording: Planet Earth, Galapagos, IMAX films converted to 1080p video, such as, Coral Reef Adventure, The Living Sea. And HD camera recordings such as The World's most beautiful Places, Blu-Ray concerts and Blu-Ray and HD DVD documentaries.

I much prefer viewing and listening to concerts than watching a movie and I have many more of them than movies.

But I do have a few movies and leaving the AMP ON does not kill the experience for me... but I'm not very knowledgeable in the world of movies. However, I do appreciate good quality pictures and that includes the least blurring and juddering possible... which I now get with 240Hz.

Members who appear to be movie experts and critical of the 120Hz/240Hz novelty, I wonder if they all have had adequate exposure to the LCD AMP before coming out with their statements?

I do believe that the 120 and 240Hz AMP introductions were designed to improve the LCD experience and put it on a par with Plasma displays. I took 3 months to decide, read extensively in AVS owner threads, CNET reviews and viewed demo units in stores. I made my choice LCD because of brightness of my viewing room and selected LCD over Plasma because of hockey and the need for appropriate whites for an ice rink. My experience with the B750 is better than expected. And movies have more PQ than I had with my previous 1080i 60Hz CRT RPTV.

Am I on topic?