Will 120mhz refresh rate and LED make LCDs better than Plasma?

I'm thinking of buying the 1080p Pioneer when it comes out in September, but I know new LCD TV's will also be coming out soon with 120mhz refresh rates and LED screens. Will this tech give LCD's an edge over Plasma? Why?

Everyone has a pet rock and will give you answers swearing the new LCDs will be better than plasmas and others who will have no doubt that plasmas are and will always be better than lcds. This really is an individual choice. Remember, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Take all the manufacturer provided specs with a grain of salt. Use your own eyes, judge and buy what you think is the best.

Will 120mhz refresh rate and LED make LCDs better than Plasma?

I'm thinking of buying the 1080p Pioneer when it comes out in September, but I know new LCD TV's will also be coming out soon with 120mhz refresh rates and LED screens. Will this tech give LCD's an edge over Plasma? Why?
Most would say no, since logically, LED LCD is in it's first gen while PDP is mature and in it's 8th (?) gen. I will still go for plasma since the initial pricing of the LED LCD panels will be way to expensive and still have LCD issues such as viewing angle and poorer performance in displaying SD content.

Will 120mhz refresh rate and LED make LCDs better than Plasma?Well LED backlighting has the potential to improve video quality of LCDs since it will allow for more realistic colors. As for 120 Hz display that will help with motion blur and can allow for the more accurate display of 24 fps movies. As to whether these improvements make LCD better than Plasma I would say that it depends on what factors you consider most important in a display.


Most would say no, since logically, LED LCD is in it's first gen while PDP is mature and in it's 8th (?) gen.LCD as a display technology has improved greatly in the years since it was first introduced to the consumer market and it is only LED backlighting which is new. Also aren't the Pioneer Plasmas being released later this year supposed to be better because they use new technology?


I will still go for plasma since the initial pricing of the LED LCD panels will be way to expensiveNote that he is looking at the Pioneer PDP-5010FD which has an MSRP of $5000. The 52" Samsung 81 could be more expensive than that but it could also have a price very close to that.


and still have LCD issues such as viewing angle and poorer performance in displaying SD content.How exactly would LCD be worse at displaying SD video than Plasma?

How exactly would LCD be worse at displaying SD video than Plasma? I second your question. SD display depends upon a set's video processor and the quality of the input signal. Display type has nothing to do with SD display.

Regarding SD processing of LCD's: I find them to be pretty bad for most SD material.

I've recently gone from a CRT HDTV (Sony XBR) to LCD (Sharp Aquos) and I am very
disappointed in how the Aquos handles regular SD content, especially interlaced
items. LCD's seem to be too sharp for their own good, and show all the flaws of
SD content. I find that while CRT and Plasmas have the ability to soften images,
LCD's blur images. You see, the softening of certain SD material is desirable for
some of us, especially for videogames (PS2). For stuff that isn't anti-aliased well,
the LCD looks absolutely horrible and blocky. Attempts to soften such items just
lead to a blurry mess. It seems to be one of the reasons why folks originally said HDTV's
need HD content to look good, which I believe is true for LCD's. I recently watched
my nephews play Zelda: Twilight Princess on the CRT HDTV and it looked damned
fantastic. Meanwhile, the same thing at my home doesn't look too good. I do get
a bit more detail but sometimes the foreground/characters look like they've been
pasted onto a background for me while things look almost cinema-like on my nephew's
CRT HDTV (which used to be mine). The Nintendo Wii doesn't seem to fare too well
on an LCD for a lot of the content, it seems, while I've read a few comments from
the plasma forum (sorry, I forgot exact thread) it's not a problem. Note, SD content
that is of HQ (DVD's and anti-aliased videogames) look pretty good on LCD's, though,
but it still looks even better on that old HDTV of my nephews. I've seen SD on plasmas
and at normal viewing distance it's similar to that of my old CRT HDTV.

For the record, the XBR CRT HDTV is 40 inch (37 inch in widescreen mode) and
supports 1080i/720P/480P/480i input while my new LCD is a 37 inch 1080P set.
Previously I had a 720P LCD as well and it wasn't much better for SD content.

Sorry for your experience. All processors are not created equal. I own a JVC LCD and SD on my set is as good as it is on my CRTs (still have 3) - and it is near DVD quality. The issues you addressed are primarily video processor related - especially deinterlacing and scaling.

Do you have all picture 'enhancements' turned OFF? Do you have a detail/sharpness control? If so turn it all the way down.

I own a JVC LCD and SD on my set is at least as good as it is on my CRTs (still have 3) - and it is near DVD quality. The issues you addressed are primarily video processor related - especially deinterlacing and scaling.

Do you have all picture 'enhancements' turned OFF? Do you have a detail/sharpness control? If so turn it all the way down.

I've done just about every adjustment possible on the LCD. Remember, I'm not talking
about high quality SD content, but regular interlaced TV and non-AA'd content from
videogames. I'm in Canada and I use Bell Expressview for Condos and the SD
content is not that great. Most of my PS2 games that looked great on the Sony
are just downright awful on this LCD. The Wii looks a bit better, but having had the
Sony TV in my condo for 3 years I know what both consoles used to look like on the
old TV. I've gone through a lot of LCD's too and it's the same stuff. I just believe
the LCD is a great technology for its own native resolution and sharp content, but
certain SD content takes a beating. I've seen an XBOX running on other brand
LCD's (Samsung, Hitachi, Sony) and it's the same result: when you want soft, you
get blurry; meanwhile sharp items are okay. It's just not as flexible, that's all.

I've done just about every adjustment possible on the LCD. Remember, I'm not talking
about high quality SD content, but regular interlaced TV and non-AA'd content from
videogames. I'm in Canada and I use Bell Expressview for Condos and the SD
content is not that great. Most of my PS2 games that looked great on the Sony
are just downright awful on this LCD. The Wii looks a bit better, but having had the
Sony TV in my condo for 3 years I know what both consoles used to look like on the
old TV. I've gone through a lot of LCD's too and it's the same stuff. I just believe
the LCD is a great technology for its own native resolution and sharp content, but
certain SD content takes a beating. I've seen an XBOX running on other brand
LCD's (Samsung, Hitachi, Sony) and it's the same result: when you want soft, you
get blurry; meanwhile sharp items are okay.I understand that you are not talking about HD but remember that SD is 480i and needs to be deinterlaced and scaled prior to display, just like 1080i. All processors are not created equal.

I don't have a PS2 but have you asked any plasma owners or other LCD owners how those games appear on their sets?

BTW, how do you connect your PS2 to your TV, component cables?

I understand that you are not talking about HD but remember that SD is 480i and needs to be deinterlaced and scaled prior to display, just like 1080i. All processors are not created equal.

I don't have a PS2 but have you asked any plasma owners or other LCD owners how those games appear on their sets?

BTW, how do you connect your PS2 to your TV, component cables?

Actually, the PS2, Gamecube, XBOX, Wii, etc support 480P. The XBOX, GC, and Wii
look okay at 480P thanks to their AA abilities, but the PS2 especially looks bad. I
actually run it in 480i as I prefer the interlaced blur than the blockiness on my LCD.
I'm an avid gamer on forums, and there were numerous threads on how videogames
(at the time) look horrible on HDTV's, especially LCD's. Many were excited when the
360 & PS3 promised HD abilities and now there's talk about texture detail and such
which they were never able to see before (a strength of LCDs). But again, LCD's
were not the fav of gamers who had PS2's or Gamecubes, even though many many
games supported 480P (and widescreen).

By the way, don't misunderstand me: Sharp's processing of 480i/p is pretty good.
I've seen other LCD's and I believe the sharp is near the top. There's only so much
that can be done based on source content with respect to processing.

I agree with you...........only so much can be done with respect to processing. GIGO applies.

Regarding SD processing of LCD's: I find them to be pretty bad for most SD material.A bit of a broad generalization and it just seems to me that the video processor is the main factor in SD upconversion. Both LCD and Plasma are fixed pixel technologies and as such there is nothing I have heard of that would make one better than the other at displaying SD video. One may prefer the look of LCD or Plasma but that isn't really related to the issue of video upscaling.

A bit of a broad generalization and it just seems to me that the video processor is the main factor in SD upconversion. Both LCD and Plasma are fixed pixel technologies and as such there is nothing I have heard of that would make one better than the other at displaying SD video. One may prefer the look of LCD or Plasma but that isn't really related to the issue of video upscaling.

Sorry, I wasn't really referring to upscaling and I think the use of the word 'processing'
was bad on my part. I was just answering how I felt LCD didn't handle certain types
of SD material well (kinda wanted to answer the fellow above my original message).
It's a matter of taste on what people want, and I guess I'm just saying that IMHO,
with respect to certain types of SD content, LCD just doesn't cut it. It's kinda like on
my PC as I found 640x480 and below games looked pretty good on my CRT monitor,
but not so hot on any of the LCD's that I owned. Mind you, in the PC's case it's more
of a fixed panel issue than anything else, but I find similar observations for TV's with
respect to SD material. Just an opinion, but LCD's should primarily be used for HD
material. I truly think part of the push for HD videogames is because many people are
finding SD gaming on their HDTV's look crap. It's interesting how people are buying
into HD material because they need content for their new TV's.

LED backlight has much more potential for LCD than people think.

It is not thus a simple replacement of CCFL offering greater color purity.

Local dimming (LD) with LED BL offers immediate improvement of black levels.

But the real uncovered potential of LED BL is in color sequential (CS) control of backlight. In this method backlight colors are switched one at a time in rapid sequence. With LED BL it is easy to achieve very high frequency of color sequence.

This has immediate advantage in elimination of motion blur.

There might be however much more opportunity with the CS. One can think about displays in which there are no color filters and subpixels. Instead there are only pixels illuminated sequentially by different colors from LED BL CS. This may greatly increase light output which in connection with LD would give very high contrast and black levels. With the CS it would also be easy to use more than three basic LED colors to enhance color palette to ultimate range.

Potential of LED BL LD CS is thus so big that it is the most promising future display technology.

HDR IMLED LCD with Sequential Color - PQ potentially far better than any CRT or SED.

Laser HDR Front/Rear Projection (or HDR Front Projection with scanning laser) - the Holy Grail. :p

Since we've already gone off topic from the OP....

I'll put in my 2 cents and agree with Nambit. Processing aside, LCD's tend to have more of an edge than Plasma, some RPTV's and especially CRT (since it's not a fixed pixel display). This is a double edged sword, since it also makes HD look very sharp too.

LCOS, Plasma and CRT's blend pixels better, although if you get too close to a Plasma it can have the same affect. Good processing can overcome most problems, but all displays are not created equal for SD.

An average plasma with average processing will look better than an average LCD for SD. It's certainly possible for an above average LCD with better processing to look as good as a plasma, but then the fight isn't fair.

Robert

Since we've already gone off topic from the OP....

I'll put in my 2 cents and agree with Nambit. Processing aside, LCD's tend to have more of an edge than Plasma, some RPTV's and especially CRT (since it's not a fixed pixel display). This is a double edged sword, since it also makes HD look very sharp too.

LCOS, Plasma and CRT's blend pixels better, although if you get too close to a Plasma it can have the same affect. Good processing can overcome most problems, but all displays are not created equal for SD.

An average plasma with average processing will look better than an average LCD for SD. It's certainly possible for an above average LCD with better processing to look as good as a plasma, but then the fight isn't fair.

RobertYou are correct that not all displays are created equal - for SD or otherwise. The sets that are not created equal for SD display are those sets with poor video processors. To beat an old horse - there is absolutely no correlation between SD display on PDPs or LCDs. SD display is dependent upon input signal and video processing. It makes no difference is the display is plasma, or lcd, the set containing the better processor and receiving the better input signal will look better.

You are correct that not all displays are created equal - for SD or otherwise. The sets that are not created equal for SD display are those sets with poor video processors. To beat an old horse - there is absolutely no correlation between SD display on PDPs or LCDs. SD display is dependent upon input signal and video processing. It makes no difference is the display is plasma, or lcd, the set containing the better processor and receiving the better input signal will look better.

Your opinion differs from mine and many others. There are also others that hold the same opinion as you (processing is all that matters). I don't really feel like digging up evidence to support my opinion, but suffice to say there is plenty out there. Putting my opinion aside, I read time and time again that people recommend plasma above LCD for viewing SD material. Based on your statement, would that mean that most plasmas have better processors than most LCD's? :confused:

Either those people that say plasmas look better than LCD's for SD material are liars, or every plasma scaler beats every LCD scaler. Which is it?


Robert

How can anyone realistically answer this thread question. Until the LCD is in the hands of a lot of consumers, and enough usage of it has transpired to find out how good or bad it is, there is no way of knowing.

It is like asking will some embryo be a better golfer than Tiger Woods.

......

They will def help, but plasmas PQ are still better.

Most would say no, since logically, LED LCD is in it's first gen while PDP is mature and in it's 8th (?) gen. I will still go for plasma since the initial pricing of the LED LCD panels will be way to expensive and still have LCD issues such as viewing angle and poorer performance in displaying SD content.Poorer performance in displaying SD content? You may wish to research a bit. You will discover that display technology has nada to do with how well SD content is displayed - input signal and the set's video processor are what matters, not the display type.

Poorer performance in displaying SD content? You may wish to research a bit. You will discover that display technology has nada to do with how well SD content is displayed - input signal and the set's video processor are what matters, not the display type.

Stop it.

The 120Hz refeash rate is wonderfuly....But Plasmas have superior color and uniformity.

The 120Hz refeash rate is wonderfuly....But Plasmas have superior color and uniformity.


Isn't the 120Hz refresh rate on LCD's simply an attempt to get their motion quality up to that of plasma? Correct me if I'm wrong but plasmas by their nature do not suffer from any of this judder or motion blur like 60Hz LCDs, right?

Stop it. Why? I am not bashing or supporting any technology - only telling it like it is. Neither technology has a leg up on SD display. Either those people that say plasmas look better than LCD's for SD material are liars, or every plasma scaler beats every LCD scaler. You left out the obvious - misinformed and spreading myths.

Why? I am not bashing or supporting any technology - only telling it like it is. Neither technology has a leg up on SD display. You left out the obvious - misinformed and spreading myths.

Wow... To call myself and many of the people on this forum misinformed is a gross mistatement.

I'm not saying LCD's look that bad with SD, but it's not wrong to say plasma (and CRT) look better. And if you think the scaler/processor is the only factor that matters, you are spreading FUD.

Robert

Wow... To call myself and many of the people on this forum misinformed is a gross mistatement.

I'm not saying LCD's look that bad with SD, but it's not wrong to say plasma (and CRT) look better. And if you think the scaler/processor is the only factor that matters, you are spreading FUD.

Robert Misinformed is not a slam. Many of us have fallen victim to the many myths floating around all the forums.

Please READ my posts - I wrote scaler/processor and input signal are what matters and not the display technology. I never said scaler/processor only. And, since we have been addressing flat panels CRTs are not part of the discussion since they do not required scalers.

The quote below seems to go counter to your belief as they identified sets with different display types as having very good or excellent SD.

"20 LCD HDTVs provide a "very good" or "excellent" SD picture; five Plasma HDTVs do and 15 DLP rear-projection sets do." http://www.tvpredictions.com/beststandard021407.htm

Here is another: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,2160492,00.asp

If you notice, there are LCDs and plasmas on both lists. SD on a flat panl display is not dependent upon technology.

Isn't the 120Hz refresh rate on LCD's simply an attempt to get their motion quality up to that of plasma? Correct me if I'm wrong but plasmas by their nature do not suffer from any of this judder or motion blur like 60Hz LCDs, right?

Plasmas are sample and hold too, and do exhibit motion blur.

120hz is for motion and also to eliminate judder on some sets, not only to reduce blur. Motion judder is when film is translated to 60hz you get 3:2 pulldown which runs 3 frames at one speed and 2 frames at a second speed.

The following link may also be helpful in regards to blur exhibited on Plasmas and the why's. It's a myth that Plasma doesn't blur. IE: 0ms response time blurs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDTV_Blur

Plasmas are sample and hold too, and do exhibit motion blur.

120hz is for motion and also to eliminate judder on some sets, not only to reduce blur. Motion judder is when film is translated to 60hz you get 3:2 pulldown which runs 3 frames at one speed and 2 frames at a second speed.

The following link may also be helpful in regards to blur exhibited on Plasmas and the why's. It's a myth that Plasma doesn't blur. IE: 0ms response time blurs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDTV_Blur

Ahigh, have you seen any flat panel displays (plasma I'm mostly interested in) that do a good job of countering the negative effect of motion blur from "eye tracking?"

Who would of thought there's a down side to progressive scan (sample & hold) technology?

http://videoprocessing.ucsd.edu/~aihuang/exp1.htm
http://videoprocessing.ucsd.edu/~aihuang/exp2.htm
http://videoprocessing.ucsd.edu/~aihuang/exp3.htm
http://videoprocessing.ucsd.edu/~aihuang/exp4.htm
http://videoprocessing.ucsd.edu/~aihuang/exp5.htm

http://videoprocessing.ucsd.edu/~aihuang/exp3.files/CASTLE_AND_TREE15to30.avi
http://videoprocessing.ucsd.edu/~aihuang/exp3.files/WALK15to30.avi
http://videoprocessing.ucsd.edu/~aihuang/exp3.files/FORMULA_ONE15to30.avi


Cool stuff but at the same time dissapointing. Then again, I watched Bourne Ultimatum yesterday at the theatre and the strobing/judder durring panning was terrible (especially the ariel views). Compared to this i'll take interpolated frames at their worst and hope they may someday substitute for a "native" 120hz format.

I'd like to see 120 Hz exceed my expectations. There must be some images I can use that can test the worst case corner conditions for MCFI, to see for myself if 120 Hz makes LCDs better. This is just what I'd look for:

If the video processor makes interpolation errors with bright scenes of unsmooth or irregular motion and high contrast, objects moving in different directions, incorrect motion vectors, prediction errors, there could be ghost artifacts, broken edges or blockiness.

I read someone saw drifiting smoke look bad with MCFI. Here are a couple of reviews on a first generation 120Hz display.

"Where the 120hz Clear Motion Drive makes a difference is with moving images, like rolling text across the screen. This is where many LCD TVs fall short, so the fact that text is crisp with defined edges (as opposed to blurred edges) when moving is hugely critical. This is something I can't overstate. This is great when watching a moving person, like with sports or in an action movie." http://tv.about.com/od/lcdproductre...VC_LT37X987.htm

"For those of you, like me, who have an aversion to motion blur, this is a big step in the right direction." http://hometheatermag.com/lcds/1106jvclt37x987/

These sets had other short comings but the reviewers appeared to like the 120Hz technology. It appears that at least one manufacturer's video processor handles things well.

The 2nd gen displays should be even better. They are due to hit the market within the next few weeks.

How can anyone realistically answer this thread question. Until the LCD is in the hands of a lot of consumers, and enough usage of it has transpired to find out how good or bad it is, there is no way of knowing.

It is like asking will some embryo be a better golfer than Tiger Woods.

......
LOL Great comment.

You are right, there is allot of smoke out there about this and it has good potential, but no one has seen it yet except at some show in ideal conditions.

You can find opinions over at the Tosh LX177 thread but you must wade through tons of green push.

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=782774

Interesting Engadget article on 120Hz solutions for LCD's. Check it out (I always end up learning something new):

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/the-trouble-with-lcd-tvs-motion-blur-and-the-120hz-solution-290237.php

Cool stuff but at the same time dissapointing. Then again, I watched Bourne Ultimatum yesterday at the theatre and the strobing/judder durring panning was terrible (especially the ariel views). Compared to this i'll take interpolated frames at their worst and hope they may someday substitute for a "native" 120hz format.

I saw Borne also and geez, a great movie but terrible camera work.
Guess it won't matter if you have LCD or plasma when you go to view that one at home. ;)
120Hz LCD, please....it still won't bring LCD up to plasma performance. :cool:

terrible camera work.


I believe someone actually walked out sick from it. :p