Originally Posted by dave300zx
From the article:
"So it's time for both consumers and manufacturers to forget about response time and focus on much more productive and fascinating display technology and marketing issues, such as the upcoming generations of 3D displays."
Forget about response time? Is this guy off his rocker?
Here's why the article says response time as defined and spec'ed by manufacturers
is a meaningless number that tells you nothing about the set's ability to minimize motion blur:
LCD motion blur is generally evaluated with an industry-standard specification called response time. Unfortunately, it's not a particularly good indicator for real picture blur because it measures the time a pixel needs to go from black to peak-intensity white and then back again. But most picture transitions involve much smaller and more subtle shades of gray-to-gray transitions, which can take considerably longer to complete. On the other hand, blurring is much harder to detect visually when there are subtle gray-to-gray transitions because the initial and final states are so similar. But it's even more complicated than that because every pixel is actually made up of independent red, green, and blue subpixels that have their own separate intensities, frame-to-frame transitions, and times. So visual blur within a picture that has some motion is a fairly complex and nebulous phenomenon.
Because the published specifications can have a considerable impact on sales, it is often more important for a manufacturer to reduce the black–to–peak white–to–black response time value rather than improving the visually more important gray-to-gray transitions or reducing the motion artifacts that result from electronically pushing the response time. As a result, the LCD display with the fastest response time specification may not have the smallest visual blur. This was the case in our tests.
Do you have something to contradict or undermine this finding?
There's a reason Plasma TVs still sell well.
90% of overall flat panel sales are LCD. In the small size segments, you can't buy plasma sets anymore. The main reason plasma still sells well in the larger sizes is the same reason why LCD dominates in the lower sizes: cost. A 58" plasma for $2200 or a 55" LCD for $4000?
There's also a reason Sharp developed uv2a.
It's called marketing.
I don't think I'm the only one that can see a considerable difference between a 60hz and a 120hz tv.
Saying "I disagree" is not a convincing refutation of the study's findings. This study was organized by a prominent firm that specializes in display technologies and testing was performed under controlled conditions over months of viewing a wide variety of material. If you can point to flaws in the methodology or implementation, feel free to share. I find this study very persuasive. Note that the study does say that motion blur is viewable with moving still images:
The closest thing to moving photographs are the news and stock tickers on some television stations, and the vertical title rolls at the end of most movies. Television stations fine-tune their tickers to minimize the appearance of motion blur and artifacts in consumer TVs, a high percentage of which are now LCDs.
But when it comes to moving video, which is what 99.9999% of programming that's actually watched:
Most of the live video sources we chose were sports-based because they have lots of motion and most have brightly colored uniforms and background content. We recorded them on an all-digital high-definition Tivo from full-bandwidth over-the-air ATSC broadcast television. It directly records the original broadcast MPEG data stream without any processing or degradation. Note that satellite and cable video sources have reduced signal bandwidth that introduces additional motion artifacts because of the extra compression needed whenever there is motion in the picture. We also didn't use any film-based content, because it's shot at 24 fps and requires considerably more interpolation and motion processing than video cameras with 60 fields per second.
Included were hours of recorded football, basketball, hockey, skiing, and golf. Most of these are daytime or brightly lit events. For darker content we used nighttime NASCAR racing; indoor gymnastics and ice skating; the television show Dancing with the Stars; and Over America, a 90-minute Blu-ray video (shot from a helicopter) that contains a lot of challenging, high-speed motion content against both daytime and nighttime scenery. With these choices of videos we were using very aggressive content for detecting motion blur.
One important issue for live videos, as opposed to the computer-generated moving photographs and test patterns we saw earlier, is that they are all shot from video cameras under varying conditions and may have unknown degrees of video processing. That can result in source video that is blurred with varied artifacts. We certainly didn't want to blame an LCD for a blurred or defective picture when the cause was in the source. In order to carefully monitor the quality of the source video we used the Sony Trinitron Professional HD Broadcast Studio Monitor, which did not have any visible motion blur or artifacts (except for barely visible tiny phosphor trails seen only in fast-moving test patterns). Whenever there was questionable content we carefully evaluated it on the Studio Monitor.
The shoot-out was fully operational for several months, so we had lots of time to study and compare all the effects, and over that period of time we had several dozen trained observers—including industry experts, manufacturers, engineers, reviewers, journalists, and ISF instructors—evaluate the effects themselves.
All the HDTVs were fed identical simultaneous digital video from the content list above using the digital Tivo or Blu-ray player. If any viewer claimed to detect motion blur on any HDTV we would repeatedly press the eight-second TiVo backup button and watch the sequence over and over again on all of the units (including the Studio Monitor) until we fully understood exactly what was happening on each. We did the same thing with the Blu-ray player and its content.
The participants' conclusions were consistent across the board and will likely surprise most people: There was essentially no visually detectable motion blur on any of the LCD HDTVs, regardless of whether they had 60- or 120-Hz refresh rates, strobed LED backlighting, or advanced motion enhancement processing. When viewers thought they saw motion blur, with only a handful of minor exceptions, the blur was either in the source video or a temporary visual illusion that disappeared when we reviewed the segments in question. Unlike the moving test patterns and moving photographs, the eye is unable to detect the blur in live video because the images are much more dynamic and complex, and undoubtedly because of the way the brain processes and extracts essential information from visual images.