http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20071003/140171/

http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20071003/140171/xA.jpg

Perhaps, if possible, we should combine the two JVC TV threads (CEATEC 2007) IMHO.

Because, for me, the killer move I can see from LCD TV technology is if they combine LED backlighting and refresh rate technology (in this case 180hz).

So:
LED BL + REFRESH RATE SUPPORT = LCD TV DOUBLE KILL!!! :D

P.S.
Speaking of which, what about PAL teritorries (where their framerates are in multiples of 25 and 50hz)??? So does this mean that in order for PAL material to benefit from the "refresh rate" upgrade, JVC must release then a version of this TV with a refresh rate of 150hz (since it's the closest 50hz multiple to 180hz)???

Correct???

Unfortunately this is not a multiple of 24hz so in one way this is a step back from 120hz. They need to skip 180hz and go directly to 240hz.

Hoodlum,

What would they have to sell us the year after that?:)

I am firmly convinced CE manufacturers hate their customers...

They need to skip 180hz and go directly to 240hz.

I don't see why 240hz is not possible now with BFI (via the back light unit). Response times need not be any better this way, MPRT would be improved and with current 120hz sets, the drawbacks of scanning BLU (flicker and brightness reduction) should be no problem! Yet i've not seen a prototype :confused:

Is it just me or does the image on the right side (the one marked with 60) look worlds better than the 180 one?

I don't see why 240hz is not possible now with BFI (via the back light unit). Response times need not be any better this way, MPRT would be improved and with current 120hz sets, the drawbacks of scanning BLU (flicker and brightness reduction) should be no problem! Yet i've not seen a prototype :confused:BFI is a frame rate conversion method, not a backlight method. Also, response time could be an issue with 240Hz displays unless they use the OCB technology. Simple overdriving to 2-4ms average will not cut it IMO.

I think what would work would be to combine OCB with 120Hz frame interpolation method with 120Hz BFI method (OCB+120Hz-BFI+120Hz-interpolation). This would require an increase in Back light brightness as with current BFI methods and an increase in processing power and addressing speed, but would result in a 4ms hold time with 1ms response time and 120Hz flicker (beyond perception for most).

BTW - it has been experimentally shown that 240Hz is the fps required to push motion blur beyond the human visual perception.

response time could be an issue with 240Hz displays unless they use the OCB technology.


So then why use BFI when the BLU can be strobed (allowing LC's to transition "in the dark") - why not combine 120hz and scanning BLU technology.

(OCB+120Hz-BFI+120Hz-interpolation). This would require an increase in Back light brightness as with current BFI methods

Oh yea, screen would be dark half the time - wasn't thinking.

BTW have you seen any response time graphs for an OCB display. I'm skeptical on the 3.3ms.

So then why use BFI when the BLU can be strobed (allowing LC's to transition "in the dark") - why not combine 120hz and scanning BLU technology. I think that would work well also.


BTW have you seen any response time graphs for an OCB display. I'm skeptical on the 3.3ms.OCB with low viscosity LC can acheive ~1-2ms response time. The charts I have show average GTG response times around 2.0ms with the shortest transition being ~.6ms and the longest being ~5ms.

BTW - it has been experimentally shown that 240Hz is the fps required to push motion blur beyond the human visual perception.

Which manu had 240Hz?

Which manu had 240Hz?

Field Emission Technologies.

http://www.fe-tech.co.jp/

shortest transition being ~.6ms and the longest being ~5ms.

I had almost given up on LCD as far as response time getting better. This is good news - yet sounds a couple years away.