http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/05/lg-philips-demos-47-inch-led-backlit-lcd-with-1-000-000/

Discuss.

The tech looks interesting to me. I look forward to seeing a side-by-side of Pioneer's new darker-black 50" plasma and this puppy. Actually, I'm waiting for a roundup of all the 2007 LCDs & Plasmas this summer.

If you notice, it says the 1,000,000:1 CR is only for the 47". The 26" model is considerbly lower at 18,000:1. I'm sure these will look better than current LCD's, but wonder how they stack up against OLED and SED.

Not relevant. OLED's almost completely impossible to scale up to big-screen size according to the insiders & SED looks to be near-dead. Even if you dispute those two statements, in 2007 neither will be hitting the marketplace, and thus LED-backlit LCD & Plasma are the only new flat panel developments in store for us this year.

If you look at the specs on those panels it also said one of them has 136% of the color spectrum spec for HD...that's kinda cool. I wonder why the other panels have lower (still over 100% though).

8 ms response time?

This is the year 2007, they should've at least aimed for 4 ms or 6 ms at least.

8 ms is too damn slow and when it's damn slow, that means it's no sale for me.

OLED TV atm still wins me for my 2009 flat TV purchase. :)

And...again... OLED is not a near-term technology. Why are you saying 2009? OLED insiders are saying they may NEVER get to 50", not even in 10 years.

We'll see, as far as lag goes. Remember: one must take LCD latency specs with a huge grain of salt.

Not relevant. OLED's almost completely impossible to scale up to big-screen size according to the insiders & SED looks to be near-dead.

Not so fast buddy


http://www.digitimes.com/displays/a20070126VL200.html

8 ms response time?

This is the year 2007, they should've at least aimed for 4 ms or 6 ms at least.

8 ms is too damn slow and when it's damn slow, that means it's no sale for me.

OLED TV atm still wins me for my 2009 flat TV purchase. :)


Blackraven, please take 1 second and divide it by 120hz and tell me how many milliseconds an LCD panel running at 120hz will be holding an image for...

1/120=0.00833333 or roughly 8.3ms... as long as your LCD panel can transition from Black to White or White to Black in 8.3ms you don't really have a problem; there's no such thing as a 240hz LCD so anything less than 8.3ms is just marketing fluff..

(if you're talking about last year's 60hz LCDs you're talking about an LCD that holds the image for 1/60=16.6ms....)

Buying a "2ms SOOPER, DOOPER GAMING-MEGA LCD" won't really do anything for you except take a bite out of your wallet...


Adam

120Hz refresh also is marketing fluff. ;)

Blackraven, please take 1 second and divide it by 120hz and tell me how many milliseconds an LCD panel running at 120hz will be holding an image for...

1/120=0.00833333 or roughly 8.3ms... as long as your LCD panel can transition from Black to White or White to Black in 8.3ms you don't really have a problem; there's no such thing as a 240hz LCD so anything less than 8.3ms is just marketing fluff..

(if you're talking about last year's 60hz LCDs you're talking about an LCD that holds the image for 1/60=16.6ms....)

Buying a "2ms SOOPER, DOOPER GAMING-MEGA LCD" won't really do anything for you except take a bite out of your wallet...


Adam

Look deeper into LCD behavior. LCD color change times are variable: grey-grey, white-black, etc.

Not so fast buddy


http://www.digitimes.com/displays/a20070126VL200.html

For the near term consumer market, SED is kaput, by that article's admission:

Toshiba will instead, at first, focus on niche professional market segments, such as the broadcasting industry, and its SED TVs will be limited and pricey, the paper stated.

Anyone currently interested in a flat panel TV who holds out for SED is going to be waiting for a long time. It may come, and I hope it does, but not soon.

120Hz refresh also is marketing fluff. ;)

Are you joking?!?!

120hz Refresh solves 3 or 4 different problems effecting the "smoothness" of motion in LCD TVs...

When you perform Inverse Telecine and take the 3:2 cadence out of originally film-based content, and restore it to 24hz/fps you get rid of the "film judder" that is associated with displaying one frame 3 time, and the next frame 2 times. (Look up "film judder" on wikipedia.org) Now, granted that really doesn't have that much to do with a 120hz panel, except when you remember that LCDs, unlike CRTs have a fixed refresh rate that cannot be changed, and you realize that most LCDs have been refreshing at 60hz. (If you performed inverse telecine, and restored the video to 24hz to remove "film judder" you really couldn't display the video properly on a 60hz TV because 60 is not a direct multiple of 24, but 120 IS a multiple of 24 so you COULD just display every frame 5 times on a 120hz TV and that by itself would eliminate film judder.)

Additionally, as an LCD Displays an image on the screen and leaves it there until it is instructed to display a different image on the screen (unlike a CRT that just quickly "flashes" an image on the screen and has it then fade away), there is another effect at play that makes motion less-than-ideal on an LCD screen, one image is shown on the screen and stays until it all of a sudden "jumps" to the next frame; this is why many of the "top tier" LCD manufactures began inserting black frames inbeween the actual image frames last year, it was in a way simulating how a CRT quickly displays an image and fades away.

Very, very related to the motion problem in the previous paragraph is the problem of "image persistence" (have you ever done the exercise where you stare at an Orange and Brown version of the American flag for 20 seconds and then looked at a white wall?? not only can you still see the american flag for a while after you've looked away, but the colors are reversed); because each frame is displayed on an LCD for much longer than a CRT, "Image persistence" also comes into play on lower refresh rate LCDs, you brain still tells you that the old image is there while the TV is displaying the next frame. But there's good news because your brain will "hold" images for a shorter period of time if it sees them for a shorter period of time; so by doing something as simple as displaying each frame for a shorter period of time you can dramatically reduce this problem. If you take 1 second and divide it by 60hz, you find that an LCD display running at 60hz holds each frame on the screen for roughly 16.7ms; a 120hz screen displays each frame on the screen for 1/120= 8.3ms. (Each frame being displayed for less time = less image persistence.)

The other REAL benefit of 120hz displays is that all of these displays (at least the ones that I've seen) run algorithms that detect which objects on the screen are in motion, and actualy create new frames that simulate what the film would look like if it had been recorded at a faster refresh rate. (Let's say that you have Video content (not film based) that is running natively at 60hz, and it is displaying a video of a jet flying across the screen from the bottom left corner to the top-right corner of the screen.)

Let's say that the in the first frame the nose of the jet is just barealy visible in the bottom-left corner, and in the second frame the nose of the jet is 2 inches up and to the right, in the third frame, the nose of the jet is another 2 inches up and to the right; the TVs motion generation algorithm (can't remember the term for this) would generate another frame inbetween the original 1st frame and 2nd frame and would move the jet up and to the right by 1 inch, then it would display the original 2nd frame (now 3rd frame), and it would then generate a new 4th frame, that would again half the distance between the original 2nd and 3rd frame. This would convert the FPS/HZ of the video from 30 to 60, but wouldn't just be displaying every frame twice; it would actually be inserting new frames of information that would make the motion smooother. (Is this piece of the technology likely to have problems with complex transitions and introduce new types of artifacts that we've never seen before?!?!? OOOOHHH YEA probably for a few years at least...)


The morale of the story is that 120hz technology, when done correctly on an LCD TV can provide VERY REAL benefits and is NOT just marketing fluff, 120hz on a top-tier LCD TV will probably the most smooth motion that you will find on ANY TV for a while. (LCDs don't have to deal with "flickering" or "flashing" like CRTs or plasma either, because they hold the image, vs "flash" it on the screen quickly, too.)


120hz definitely makes my "must have" list of features in a new TV.... ("jumpy motion" bugs me more than most things; I wants SSSMMMMOOOOOTTTTHHH video (just like real life!).)


Adam


Adam

Yeah, that's all nice theory but it just simply is not very true at all.

From this 'real world test' article (half way down):

http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/ces2007.html


"LCD HDTVs with fast refresh rates (120 Hz) were also used and had somewhat improved performance, but still couldn’t approach the detail seen on a sampling of 50-inch and 60-inch plasma sets."

Yeah, that's all nice theory but it just simply is not very true at all.

From this 'real world test' article (half way down):

http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/ces2007.html


"LCD HDTVs with fast refresh rates (120 Hz) were also used and had somewhat improved performance, but still couldn’t approach the detail seen on a sampling of 50-inch and 60-inch plasma sets."


LMAO! Nice "real world test"!

The HDTV Expert is reporting on a demo that the "Advanced PDP Development Center" had running in their booth at CES. They had camera system that they created that supposedly emulated the movement of the human eye and tried to determine how much "blur" a person would see between the Plasma and the LCD TV that they had setup.

This was not a human reviewer viewing the TVs (as your link and quote seems to imply that the HDTV Expert did a review of Plasma vs LCD in some sort of "show down", there is no information on what features were enabled on the TVs or what TV was used or how the "test" was performed. And this is probably the most biased organization in the WORLD to do any sort of test of Plasma vs LCD; nothing they say on this subject can be considered Objective.

Here is their own description of who they are and what they do: "Advanced PDP Development Center Corporation (APDC) was established in July 2003 to co-develop basic technology for advanced PDPs in league with five PDP companies."

Then in another page they spell out who those five "PDP companies" are: "There are three producers in Japan (Matsushita Electric Industrial, Fujitsu Hitachi Plasma Display, and Pioneer) and two producers in South Korea (Samsung and LG). Other television makers purchase panels from these five firms to manufacture and sell their own plasma televisions."

So a firm, representing all 5 Plasma manufacturers in the world sets up a DEMO in their booth at CES (with of course, an undisclosed configuration), and has some "new camera system" that they developed, and it says that the Plasma's motion is better than the LCD??!?!?

Wow! I could've told you what the outcome of that test would be LOOONG before it occured...

And to try and drag the HDTVExpert link in and act like this is some sort of impartial review or something....!?!?

Wow!



Time will tell what the impartial, educated Reviewers and AV enthusiasts say about the new 120hz panels....

(I'm sure I could find a "real world test" of the 120hz panels from Sharp, or Sony that says the exact opposite... I might even find a HUMAN REVIEWER for my test...)


Thanks for playing our game, we have some nice consolation prizes for you!
Adam

I almost forgot about the fallacy in your argument, too.

You said that "120hz refresh is also marketing fluff"; to disprove your statement, I only have to show that 120hz refresh provides a benefits (or multiple benefits) over the current 60hz panels.

Your next argument was basically "Plasma still provides smoother motion than LCD"... unfortunately even were that statement true (verdict is still out), it would not help you prove that "120hz refresh is also marketing fluff"; it infact has nothing to do with your claim at all.

I'll openly admit that I'm at a near infinite advantage here because all I have to do is prove one example where 120hz will provide a meaningful advantage, and you have to, for all cases, show that it does not. It's not very "fair", but then again, I'm not the one that chose that side of the argument...


Adam

And Elemental, seeing as you like to quote HDTVExpert...

Here is an actual human "real world review" of an LCD TV on HDTVExpert's site; Peter Putnam is the reviewer, an it's pretty obvious that he's not an "LCD Fanboy" as he rips on the processor in the Sharp D62u pretty much throughout the entire review; but the point is he DOES specifically mention how this particular LCD TV handles motion:

"Speaking of which — yes, Sharp has incorporated a motion-enhancing circuit in the LC-52D62U. And yes, it does make a difference with fine detail on fast moving objects, particularly with HD content. In some cases, motion quality approached that of a Panasonic 50-inch 1080p plasma in my studio.["

He said "motion quality approached that of a Panasonic 50-inch 1080p plasma in my studio" and this was about a 60hz TV that includes none of the 120hz motion-related benefits listed above.....

Where do you think that's going to put the motion quality of the new 120hz LCDs??!?





Full article can be found here: http://www.hdtvexpert.com/pages_b/Sharp_LC-52D62U.html

You are debating with a long established defender of all things Plasma. Save your breath, especially around older Plasmas. He did not tell you that as Plasma Gas ages it starts to smell more and more like a mixture of Cabbage and Ernest Borgnine. Smelly old leaking Plasma panels are romance killers. :)

You are debating with a long established defender of all things Plasma. Save your breath, especially around older Plasmas. He did not tell you that as Plasma Gas ages it starts to smell more and more like a mixture of Cabbage and Ernest Borgnine. Smelly old leaking Plasma panels are romance killers. :)

Plasma !!!! Yeah!!!
Don't lend him your Cricket mallet. :rolleyes:
I love how these LCD pushers pick and choose what is valid info on LCD. :D
How about actually viewing these sets. :cool:

Edit: Greenboy, your attempts at helping these poor souls will not do any good.
I will shred them faster than a plasma sitting next to an LCD Tv. :D

Blackraven, please take 1 second and divide it by 120hz and tell me how many milliseconds an LCD panel running at 120hz will be holding an image for...

1/120=0.00833333 or roughly 8.3ms... as long as your LCD panel can transition from Black to White or White to Black in 8.3ms you don't really have a problem; there's no such thing as a 240hz LCD so anything less than 8.3ms is just marketing fluff..

(if you're talking about last year's 60hz LCDs you're talking about an LCD that holds the image for 1/60=16.6ms....)

Buying a "2ms SOOPER, DOOPER GAMING-MEGA LCD" won't really do anything for you except take a bite out of your wallet...


Adam

Sharp has already aimed for 6 ms since their 7G sets (and this is WITHOUT the 120hz refresh rate yet). For the 8th gen, the lineup will be composed of 4 ms and 6 ms that would support the famed 120hz refresh rate.

See, this thing is still not fast enough if this is still 8 ms black-to-white and white-to-black (and let's not get started with gray-to-gray).

Seriously, this is a step slower than what other LCD makers are planning this year.

I'd rather take a the upcoming Samsung 1080p LCD instead (that has 4-6ms + 120hz) instead of this 8 ms+120hz contraption.

Heck, how can this slow TV even beat plasma TVs reponse time if it only sticks to 8 ms response time?

Very, very related to the motion problem in the previous paragraph is the problem of "image persistence" (have you ever done the exercise where you stare at an Orange and Brown version of the American flag for 20 seconds and then looked at a white wall?? not only can you still see the american flag for a while after you've looked away, but the colors are reversed); because each frame is displayed on an LCD for much longer than a CRT, "Image persistence" also comes into play on lower refresh rate LCDs, you brain still tells you that the old image is there while the TV is displaying the next frame. But there's good news because your brain will "hold" images for a shorter period of time if it sees them for a shorter period of time; so by doing something as simple as displaying each frame for a shorter period of time you can dramatically reduce this problem. If you take 1 second and divide it by 60hz, you find that an LCD display running at 60hz holds each frame on the screen for roughly 16.7ms; a 120hz screen displays each frame on the screen for 1/120= 8.3ms. (Each frame being displayed for less time = less image persistence.)

This issue confuses me. You state that LCD's hold frames on the screen until the next frame is shown, so no blanking time in between frames. If this is the case, I don't see how there is going to be a perceivable difference between showing a frame once for 16.7ms (60Hz), or showing the same frame twice in the same 16.7ms period (8.3ms each) at 120Hz. Either way, there is only 60 individual frames to show, so surely both instances are going to appear exactly the same to the human eye, and the problem of 'image persistence' will still be just as, err... persistent?

This issue confuses me. You state that LCD's hold frames on the screen until the next frame is shown, so no blanking time in between frames. If this is the case, I don't see how there is going to be a perceivable difference between showing a frame once for 16.7ms (60Hz), or showing the same frame twice in the same 16.7ms period (8.3ms each) at 120Hz. Either way, there is only 60 individual frames to show, so surely both instances are going to appear exactly the same to the human eye, and the problem of 'image persistence' will still be just as, err... persistent?

Oh uh, now you've gone and done it.
Questioning an LCDboy's logic can be very interesting. ;)

This issue confuses me. You state that LCD's hold frames on the screen until the next frame is shown, so no blanking time in between frames. If this is the case, I don't see how there is going to be a perceivable difference between showing a frame once for 16.7ms (60Hz), or showing the same frame twice in the same 16.7ms period (8.3ms each) at 120Hz. Either way, there is only 60 individual frames to show, so surely both instances are going to appear exactly the same to the human eye, and the problem of 'image persistence' will still be just as, err... persistent?

An interpolated frame is inserted between two original frames supposedly providing a smoother transition. It is showing 90 indivual frames - 60 original and 30 interpolated.

Interpolated frames? Hmmmm, sounds like a one way ticket to digital artifact hell if you ask me.

Interpolated frames? Hmmmm, sounds like a one way ticket to digital artifact hell if you ask me.

Welcome to the new world of 'State of the Art LCD Tv's ' :D

Interpolated frames? Hmmmm, sounds like a one way ticket to digital artifact hell if you ask me.

It must work. "This is the first 5-star rating I have given to any television. The reason is simple - the picture." http://tv.about.com/od/lcdproductreviews/fr/JVC_LT37X987.htm

It must work. "This is the first 5-star rating I have given to any television. The reason is simple - the picture." http://tv.about.com/od/lcdproductreviews/fr/JVC_LT37X987.htm

Of course he did.
He also thinks 42" is the smallest plasma panel. :rolleyes:

Interpolated frames? Hmmmm, sounds like a one way ticket to digital artifact hell if you ask me.

I hate to give Elemental1 more fuel for his Jihad against LCD, but I could not agree with you more, Umberto; it's already proving true... check out BEhardware's review of one of the first sets to run motion interpolation algorithms; it runs at 100hz but the problem should still be the same at 120hz. (takes pal video at 25hz x2)
http://www.behardware.com/articles/641-4/1rst-lcd-at-100-hz-the-end-of-afterglow.html

We're definitely going to need some test video content and a standardized test methodology to test each of these 120hz TVs capabilities and try and find out which actual scenarios a given processor/algorithm's implementation would "choke" on.

I REALLY hope that the manufacturers of these new sets allow the motion interpolation to be turned off (just repeat frames); this would allow you to take advantage of motion interpolation on content that could take advantage of if, and turn it off on content that is likely to display artifacts....

I can definitely see all the advantages that 120hz technology in an LCD brings to the table, but the artifacts that motion interpolation is BOUND to introduce (at least in the first couple of versions) definitely has me concerned. Even more concerning is that I don't really see anyone (except for the Behardware article) talking about it; I'm worried that if we don't get some standardized tests for detecting the artifacts that the manufactures won't be called out for poor implementations and that it won't get fixed. (I REALLY hope that these algorithms are something that can be updated with a firmware update...)

It really depends on what artifacts are actually introduced in real viewing scenarios, how bad they are, how often they occur, and in what scenarios. (I'd love to replicate BeHardware's test on the movie Fantasia and Dumbo in the wacked-out dream scene (I wonder how the algorithms would deal with multiple objects in motion in different directions at the same time (I bet there are quite a few screen savers that could have interesting effects here, too.)) -The one with the 3D ball bouncing around and changing color at the same time; If I could get one with multiple balls, moving in random directions, and then the same scene with a photo as a background, and then one where the balls randomly change shapes (to cubes, cylinders, etc...); you'd need to be able to set the number of FPS too...

hmm...

Adam

I am not sure the article you referenced would apply to a 120hz set. 120 is evenly divided by 24, while 100 is not. 3:2 pull down would not be needed on 120hz and a 24fps or 30hz movie/input.

Here is a review of actual 120hz sets. They seem to love it. "It's just too perfect—you can multiply 24 frames by five and get 120, or you can multiply 30 or 60 frames and get 120 as well. It's just a good, magic number for HDTV display, handling a variety of frame rates natively." http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/guide-to-120hz-hdtvs-which-sets-have-that-magic-number-233642.php

I am not sure the article you referenced would apply to a 120hz set. 120 is evenly divided by 24, while 100 is not. 3:2 pull down would not be needed on 120hz and a 24fps or 30hz movie/input.

Yes, but that article is about PAL video. 3:2 pulldown doesn't exist in PAL land. 100Hz is an even multiple of 25fps film based material and 50Hz PAL video based material, so the same principles will apply.

Yes, but that article is about PAL video. 3:2 pulldown doesn't exist in PAL land. 100Hz is an even multiple of 25fps film based material and 50Hz PAL video based material, so the same principles will apply.

I was going to say that but Umberto beat me to it. ; )


Of course the reviewers love it, it absolutely makes a difference (read my post earlier in this thread on the 3 or 4 issues that 120hz refresh and motion interlacing address); that doesn't mean that these reviewers have taken the time to specifically look for the artifacts that this technology will undoubtedly introduce in certain scenarios. The ONLY review I've seen where someone was specifically looking for these sort of artifacts is the BeHardware review. I guarantee you if BeHardware reviewed some of the new 120hz sets with motion interpolation turned on, they'd find many of the same artifacts. Now that's not saying that these artifacts will definitely show up in average viewing scenarios or that the average viewer will notice them; I'd really like to think that "average viewing" scenarios have been covered by these manufacturers.


Your argument is basically saying that "since I've never seen a unicorn, they must not exist"; it only takes finding one unicorn to prove you incorrect; to prove that you are correct you would have to search every place that a unicorn could possibly hide at the exact same time and not find a unicorn. (Many people said that "kiwis are extinct because we have not seen one for years", and then they found Kiwi nests, Kiwi eggs, and, of course, Kiwis...) Many people say "I don't have a virus on my computer because my antivirus software didn't find it"; that doesn't prove that you don't have a virus, just that you haven't found one yet. (oops; what do you know you DID have a virus but a Rootkit was masking it's existence!) I'm quite certain that once we find some people that are knowledgable on how to look for our "motion interpolation unicorn", and we get more than 1 or 2 people looking for it, that we will very quickly prove that this is one unicorn that DOES exist....



Adam

Of course he did.
He also thinks 42" is the smallest plasma panel. :rolleyes:


Crud! Now I feel dumb... I thought that 42" was the smallest plasma panel size, too... how small does Plasma go? 37"? 32"? Smaller?


Adam

Wow, you failed miserably at both reading and basic mathematics. I'll let it slide that you didn't understand my post, but it's like you took all the ignorance of all the posts you've ever read and combined them into one post that proudly declares "I'm a complete jackass!" to the world.

"It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth
and remove all doubt." -Please repeat this over and over again to yourself, Blackraven... it's for the best...


Adam

speaking of poor reading skills, you might want to read the forum rules that prohibit personal attacks. Just a friendly reminder :)

Also, since high refresh rates have nothing to do with response times blackraven is somewhat right, not without some misunderstanding on his part.