240hz = Worst Invention EVER! - Page 3 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #61 of 132 Old 02-05-2010, 04:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 196
Gary McCoy: Do you think that 480Hz will have any advantage over 240Hz? Is Toshiba doing the right thing by going that route in the future?
Artwood is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #62 of 132 Old 02-05-2010, 05:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
borf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,172
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke M View Post

The main objective is mitigating a flaw in the display technology.

but is not everything about display technology an illusion and everything about overcoming flaws. dithering makes up for color fidelity, local dimming simulates contrast ratio. lcd simulates temporal resolution through frame interplation while plasma uses a flicker/blur compromise. different methods, same goal. i think lcd can be made to flicker similar to plasma if you want with similar effect so i no longer think this argument that lcd needs interpolation to equal motion resolution of plasma is valid - perhaps never was.
borf is offline  
post #63 of 132 Old 02-05-2010, 06:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
NuSoardGraphite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Tucson AZ
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by robi1138 View Post

But what you see on your TV could simply be an inferior transfer, not the source.

I honestly don't believe that is the case.

Quote:
Grain or no grain, film is the highest resolution video medium out there.

No argument from me here.

Quote:
Regardless of what people think, analog will always be the best medium. It is the only complete source. Digital, by definition, is a chopped up and reassembled version of an analog signal (unless it's shot digitally to begin with). The problem with analog is that it cannot be stored or delivered efficiently. A beautiful looking digital HD signal takes up a fraction of the space of a low-quality analog SD signal...imagine what a high quality analog signal would need?

I think you just made my point for me.

It is most probable that our delivery mediums are incapable of showing film at a suitable resolution. They are simply what we're used to. However the mediums we have are very adept at showing Digital sources better than they are at showing film sources. That doesn't mean that film is worse, just that the delivery medium (Digital television) is more compatible with a similar source.

Quote:
Sort of how an LP (the highest resolution commercial sound medium available) is a huge vinyl disc that can hold 22 minutes per side of pristine sound but a stupid MP3 player the size of a credit card can hold 1000 hours of junky low-res sound. Even a SACD can only hold limited info on a small disc and it is not as pure as vinyl.

Yet people complain about the snaps and pops that often accompanies a vinyl album. I see this as a similar situation with HDTV's and film grain.

Stand tall and shake the heavens...
NuSoardGraphite is offline  
post #64 of 132 Old 02-05-2010, 11:41 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,869
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

You are 100% wrong about that. Film material is captured at 24fps and when displayed on a TV is reduced in resolution, interlaced, and telecined to 60Hz. Telecining adds an unreality to the movement on screen. It no longer looks like film, it looks like film looks on TV.

Video tape, whether captured at 480i60 or 720p60, matches the broadcast and display frame rates of 60Hz televisions. The clarity and natural movement that results is reffered to here in AVS Forum as SOE which stands for "Soap Opera Effect" - because this "look" is associated with those daytime dramas which were indeed most often shot on tape not film.

A 120Hz or 240Hz HDTV is capable of syncing up and displaying 24Hz or 30Hz or 60Hz source material with natural movement, marred only by the jerkiness of a too-slow frame rate. Add MCFI to this mix, synthesizing intermediate frames, and the motion turns silky-smooth. So you end up with a very different, ultra-realistic image. It offers you no stylistic clues that you associate with film media. Some people don't like the way it looks, which is a matter of pure preference. But the effect is real and limited to 120Hz and 240Hz LCDs, because plasma displays simply do not offer display refresh rates fast enough to benefit from MFCI, or to sync up with all the varying frame rates in use.

You seem to be inventing information in order to support your assertions that somehow LCD displays are inherently better at displaying most source material, that film as a medium is somehow intrinsically flawed, and that the ultimate goal with any display is realism.

Displays were capable of displaying 24fps material long before 120Hz LCD displays were commercially available. Plasma displays - such as my 8G and 9G Pioneer Kuros - display it at 72fps, and my RS1 (as well as my RS2 and RS35) can display such material at 96fps and 120fps. This eliminates judder, which was a basic problem inherent to 2:3 pulldown. However, there's still judder recorded in the film source that can't be removed execpt with the use of frame interpolation. In the case of a 24fps source, you have to create 3 frames in between every frame in order to get 120 discreet frames. This eliminates most recorded judder from film sources, but it induces an equally undesirable unrealistic "animated" or "soap opera" look to the material. Directors have the choice of shooting in digital video or film, and they choose one or the other based on the overall look and message they want to portray. Making one try to look like the other through massively interpolated processing doesn't achieve the director's end result, nor does it stay faithful to the source material.

I have yet to meet a person (aside from a few individuals on AVS) who enjoy the effects of frame interpolation on film-based material. It seems to work well on sporting events and some cable TV, but it has yet to come into its maturity and frankly I'd rather see source material recorded at higher frame rates than I would the strange effects of linearly interpolating between existing frames. People and objects in reality don't move like they appear to do so in frame interpolated motion, so I'm not sure how anyone could find it realistic whether that's their end goal or not.

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

HogPilot is offline  
post #65 of 132 Old 02-06-2010, 12:23 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 38
YOU seem to be inventing motives for filmmakers which do not exist. 24fps was selcted for 35mm film by Thomas Edison in the late 19th Century. It was a compromise frame rate - just fast enough that the majority of the audience was not irked by the jerky motion, just slow enough that he could inexpensively machine reliable projector mechanisms with the machine tooling and metal alloys of his day.

Ever since then, 24fps and 35mm was a standard present in thousands of theaters. The limitations of 35mm/24fps were recognised and many attempts were made to correct the flaws: 65mm/70mm/IMAX, and frame rates of 48fps, for example. But there were tens of thousands of 35mm projectors installed, and the large format film never caught on. Make no mistake, many filmmakers and many film viewers can plainly see the problems with 35mm/24fps. I'm one of them, I HATE the series-of-slides or strobe light flickers, and I have always noticed the uneven motion when 24fps film gets telecined for a 60Hz TV transmission.

Speaking for ME alone, I first got some relief from this in the early 1990's when I constructed a HTPC and used it to first reverse telecine DVDs, then drive a front projector at 72Hz. This solved the annoying uneven motion, at least. Then in 2007 with the first MCFI HDTVs, I saw relief from the too-slow frame rates.

Not everybody LIKES the look of film. I don't think I'm alone in this, because digital projectors are FINALLY replacing 35mm film projectors in commercial theaters. Now we can buy digital copies of digital movies that have NEVER been on film at all - which is great.

I will sometimes turn off the MCFI when I'm watching an old film noir in black and white. The "look of film" seems appropriate then. But a well photographed modern color movie looks better to me at 24fps from the Blu-Ray with MCFI on HIGH. The BBC Planet Earth series for example, is incredible under those conditions.

Gary McCoy
The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved.

Gary McCoy is offline  
post #66 of 132 Old 02-06-2010, 01:03 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,869
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

YOU seem to be inventing motives for filmmakers which do not exist. 24fps was selcted for 35mm film by Thomas Edison in the late 19th Century. It was a compromise frame rate - just fast enough that the majority of the audience was not irked by the jerky motion, just slow enough that he could inexpensively machine reliable projector mechanisms with the machine tooling and metal alloys of his day.

Ever since then, 24fps and 35mm was a standard present in thousands of theaters. The limitations of 35mm/24fps were recognised and many attempts were made to correct the flaws: 65mm/70mm/IMAX, and frame rates of 48fps, for example. But there were tens of thousands of 35mm projectors installed, and the large format film never caught on. Make no mistake, many filmmakers and many film viewers can plainly see the problems with 35mm/24fps. I'm one of them, I HATE the series-of-slides or strobe light flickers, and I have always noticed the uneven motion when 24fps film gets telecined for a 60Hz TV transmission.

The limitations of 24fps material have been hotly debated for quite some time, long before frame-interpolated displays were available. Despite this, higher framerate material does not equal frame interpolated material, as the results are often wildly different. Frame interpolation has several inherent limitations - most notably it assumes linear motion between frames, where this often isn't the case. You end up getting artificial frames that result in odd human movement or that intrinsically changes the look of the original material, as it was shot by the director. Despite what certain people may tell themselves, there's one reason and one reason alone that frame interpolation was invented and installed in LCD TV's - to deal with panel-induced motion blur. Other sample-and-hold technologies have tried the same thing, and the results have been similar - unnatural movement that deviates from the look of the source material.

Ultimately no one can tell you it's wrong for you to paint or animate the canvas as you see fit to please you; however you walk a very fine line between that position and trying to tell others that your way is inherently right because they shouldn't be "tied" to the director or that they're somehow getting a more "real" (not the sole point of any display) picture. You really need to stop passing personal opinion off as established fact - or at least get some kind of credible sources for the stuff that you're passing off as such.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

Speaking for ME alone, I first got some relief from this in the early 1990's when I constructed a HTPC and used it to first reverse telecine DVDs, then drive a front projector at 72Hz. This solved the annoying uneven motion, at least. Then in 2007 with the first MCFI HDTVs, I saw relief from the too-slow frame rates.

Displaying 24 fps at some integer multiple of its original frame rate by repeating frames (as is done with any film projector) doesn't alter the original look. However manufacturing new frames does, and devaites from the original look intended by the director. If you choose to do this despite that knowledge, fine. If people are doing it because they're ignorant to the fact or seem to think that it's the "proper" way of viewing things, that's just wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

Not everybody LIKES the look of film. I don't think I'm alone in this, because digital projectors are FINALLY replacing 35mm film projectors in commercial theaters. Now we can buy digital copies of digital movies that have NEVER been on film at all - which is great.

Time and time again you continue to confuse source material with displays on which it is presented. It really doesn't matter if you're watching film on a plasma, digital video on a DLP projector, film on a film projector, or digital video on a LCoS RPTV - any display technology should reproduce what was ultimately mastered. You need to stop purporting these artificial connections between source material and end display - the display simply needs to re-create the scene as mastered to the best of its ability. If we had a perfect display that could do this without impressing its own character upon an image, people wouldn't argue about the merits of one technology over another. However this idea that you're trying to spread that one tech is better at displaying some material while another is better at others is simply absurd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

I will sometimes turn off the MCFI when I'm watching an old film noir in black and white. The "look of film" seems appropriate then. But a well photographed modern color movie looks better to me at 24fps from the Blu-Ray with MCFI on HIGH. The BBC Planet Earth series for example, is incredible under those conditions.

It's your right to do what you want when watching any material at home. Just don't go telling other people that your way is right because of your personal preference, which is what your entire argument amounts to.

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

HogPilot is offline  
post #67 of 132 Old 02-06-2010, 05:40 AM
Advanced Member
 
robi1138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuSoardGraphite View Post


It is most probable that our delivery mediums are incapable of showing film at a suitable resolution. They are simply what we're used to. However the mediums we have are very adept at showing Digital sources better than they are at showing film sources. That doesn't mean that film is worse, just that the delivery medium (Digital television) is more compatible with a similar source.

I agree, but think that plasma is much more adept at showing film than LCD (especially with 24 fps input displayed at 96 Hz).

As for digital sources, LCD still has issues with motion blur and motion resolution that plasmas do not. They use frame interpolation (at 120 or 240 Hz) to overcome these issues. The result is a smoother looking picture at the expense of reality...what I mean by that is that frame interpolation adds images that are not in the original signal, hence not "real".

Video shot at 60 fps and displayed on a plasma at 60 Hz looks as smooth as anything I've seen (and is dislayed just as it is sourced). LCD (displaying the same thing) is apparently not as smooth as plasma because frame interpolation is still employed. The result is a "smoother" looking picture but this smoothness is not due to LCD's superior ability to display the picture...on the contrary it is just signal manipulation (frame interpolation) because of LCD's inability to display the picture "smoothly" to begin with.

Now the question is, is frame interpolation good or bad?

For film, I think it's horrible and that's all I'll say about that.

For video, it's a bit trickier. I'm a purist who believes if the signal looks perfectly fine "as is", leave it alone. If you believe frame interpolation adds an extra dimension of realism, that is fine. I, however, only see an extra sense of unreality.

You don't go and put a layer of clearcoat on the Mona Lisa because it doesn't shine enough for you...that's how I see it, anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NuSoardGraphite View Post


Yet people complain about the snaps and pops that often accompanies a vinyl album. I see this as a similar situation with HDTV's and film grain.

True, but that is not because of the source...that has all to do with the equipment used to play it back.

LCD is the MP3 of the TV world
robi1138 is offline  
post #68 of 132 Old 02-06-2010, 08:20 AM
Member
 
RobAC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 123
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by robi1138 View Post

You don't go and put a layer of clearcoat on the Mona Lisa because it doesn't shine enough for you...that's how I see it, anyway.

Just commenting on this statement- not the discussion.

Simply gold.

Can be applied to so many other discussions besides video quality.
RobAC is offline  
post #69 of 132 Old 02-06-2010, 08:38 AM
Advanced Member
 
robi1138's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 709
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobAC View Post

Just commenting on this statement- not the discussion.

Simply gold.

Can be applied to so many other discussions besides video quality.

So true

Thanks

LCD is the MP3 of the TV world
robi1138 is offline  
post #70 of 132 Old 02-08-2010, 03:26 PM
Member
 
earthbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Northwest USA
Posts: 144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

Not everybody LIKES the look of film. I don't think I'm alone in this, because digital projectors are FINALLY replacing 35mm film projectors in commercial theaters.

24fps would be fine if we lived in a slow-motion world.

I don't like film jerkiness and think that 24fps should be relegated to the scrapheap of obsolete technology. If frame interpolation on my next TV looks good I will use it without concern for any artistic intentions the director may have had. I do, however, think that every TV manufacturer should provide easy access to turn this feature on or off.

earthbound is offline  
post #71 of 132 Old 02-10-2010, 09:08 PM
Member
 
geister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by robi1138 View Post

...You don't go and put a layer of clearcoat on the Mona Lisa because it doesn't shine enough for you...that's how I see it, anyway.

Analogies always have a flaw. Many people buy altered reproductions of originals (color changes, coatings, framing) to match their tastes or decor. A DVD/BR is simply a reproduction, not the original film stock. One of the benefits of reproductions is that they can be altered while leaving the original intact.
geister is offline  
post #72 of 132 Old 02-12-2010, 10:22 AM
Member
 
chandra.hp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 103
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
In all seriousness... the only people who can preach about "Directors Intent" are people who have 35mm film projects in their home, AND rocking a master audio Klipsch or Electro Voice system with massive amplifiers and sound insulation inside every wall!
chandra.hp is offline  
post #73 of 132 Old 02-12-2010, 10:42 AM
Member
 
Agreed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by chandra.hp View Post

In all seriousness... the only people who can preach about "Directors Intent" are people who have 35mm film projects in their home, AND rocking a master audio Klipsch or Electro Voice system with massive amplifiers and sound insulation inside every wall!

In all seriousness, that's ridiculous. Just because you haven't got perfect fidelity doesn't mean that you can't value the highest fidelity possible within your means. That's analogous to saying that the only people who should even bother trying to treat a medical condition are those who can afford the absolute best medical care in the world; no, even people with more limited options probably want to do everything they can to get well, even if it that means going to a local hospital instead of the Mayo Clinic.

Just because it isn't perfect doesn't mean that it can logically be totally thrown out. Fallacious reasoning. A lot of A/V buffs are seeking the best fidelity that they can get, because they value the medium itself.

Now, don't get me started on audiophiles and videophiles who use music and movies as a necessary evil to experience their gear
Agreed is offline  
post #74 of 132 Old 02-12-2010, 11:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,676
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 187
Most movie-directors make a movie with the movie-theatre(filled with people) in the back of their mind.

The PURE movie-experience is a group-experience in a movie-theatre.
8mile13 is offline  
post #75 of 132 Old 02-12-2010, 12:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Matt L's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Flushing, MI
Posts: 4,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by chandra.hp View Post

In all seriousness... the only people who can preach about "Directors Intent" are people who have 35mm film projects in their home, AND rocking a master audio Klipsch or Electro Voice system with massive amplifiers and sound insulation inside every wall!

What a load of.....

Should we apply your theorem across the board? In all aspects of life if you can't have the best settle for crap? Don't strive for the best? I'd hate to live in your world...
Matt L is offline  
post #76 of 132 Old 02-12-2010, 01:52 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,869
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt L View Post

What a load of.....

Should we apply your theorem across the board? In all aspects of life if you can't have the best settle for crap? Don't strive for the best? I'd hate to live in your world...

Hey, if you set the bar low you have little room for disappointment. Maybe that's the only way he can make it day to day...

There are 10 types of people: those who understand binary, and those who don't.

HogPilot is offline  
post #77 of 132 Old 02-12-2010, 02:30 PM
Member
 
geister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 129
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

Most movie-directors make a movie with the movie-theatre(filled with people) in the back of their mind.

The PURE movie-experience is a group-experience in a movie-theatre.

The whole question of the value of "director's intention" aside, achieving it with the typical consumer home set-up is difficult to impossible. The closest one can come is having the proper equipment from each era. For example, reel-to-reel for movies made prior to mainstream consumer sets, a projector or 4:3 CRT displaying in SD for movies made when that was all that was available. Large consumer displays and HD transfers were never envisioned by directors until fairly recently. But for more recent material (where the artistic vision isn't an afterthought to profit) many directors consider the wider range of variables while filming.
geister is offline  
post #78 of 132 Old 02-12-2010, 02:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,676
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 187
The original intent of home-cinema was to create a similar experience as in the
movie-theatre,the movie-theatre is the 'real thing' no matter what the director intents.
8mile13 is offline  
post #79 of 132 Old 02-12-2010, 10:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Yeah, I'll agree with that. But in 1997 when I built my first HTPC, almost all the DVDs were film-source. Now most of the available assorted media is captured on video tape, digital animation, or video games. The display that reproduces film convincingly is less important today than the one that reproduces digital media superbly. For my money, thats a 120Hz or 240Hz LCD. YMMV.

Gary McCoy
The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved.

Gary McCoy is offline  
post #80 of 132 Old 02-13-2010, 09:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Artwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hoover, Alabama
Posts: 4,817
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 196
Will 480Hz be an improvement over 240Hz? Will it become the next worst invention or an even better slice of bread?

I ask because Toshiba will be producing them in the fall.
Artwood is offline  
post #81 of 132 Old 02-13-2010, 09:39 AM
Member
 
Agreed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 193
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
480 cycles per second? That's getting really close to the theoretical fastest response that panels these days can actually do under the most ideal circumstances (they measure them differently and publish the most favorable results, in my experience, so a panel with poor green to red isn't going to mention that if it has super fast gray-to-gray). What exactly do they plan on doing at 480hz?
Agreed is offline  
post #82 of 132 Old 02-13-2010, 11:13 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
Dan Filice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 65
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Just because 480hz can be done, doesn't mean it should be (IMHO). I wonder if the TV companies actually look at what the results are before they market this stuff, or is it just a matter of having the latest buzz word attached to their products regardless of the end result?
Dan Filice is offline  
post #83 of 132 Old 02-13-2010, 12:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artwood View Post

Will 480Hz be an improvement over 240Hz? Will it become the next worst invention or an even better slice of bread?

I ask because Toshiba will be producing them in the fall.

Well, I can only note that when I look at the difference between a 120Hz HDTV and a similar but more expensive 240Hz model, I don't see any difference worth paying for. The 120Hz set displays natural motion with 24/30/60Hz video sources, and 120fps is fast enough not to trouble me with that jerky strobe-light-like motion. Therefore if it was me, instead of paying for a screen refresh faster than 120Hz, I would instead try to upgrade to the next screen size, or buy a fancy motorized flat panel mount, or a better piece of HDTV furniture.

Gary McCoy
The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved.

Gary McCoy is offline  
post #84 of 132 Old 02-14-2010, 07:10 AM
Member
 
earthbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Northwest USA
Posts: 144
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
This reminds me of the pixel war with digital camera manufacturers. Just because you can make a camera with gazillions of pixels doesn't mean that you should except for competing in the more-is-better school of marketing.

Since HDTV pixel counts are already maxed out (for now anyway) more-is-better marketing has to rely on upping refresh rates. I could easily argue that 120 Hz is all anybody needs. 3D essentially doubles the data required, so 240 Hz support for 3D sets is enough. More is not always better, but to the average TV buyer 480 Hz must be better than 240 Hz, right?

earthbound is offline  
post #85 of 132 Old 02-14-2010, 11:56 AM
Member
 
jtiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I've just read the whole thread....
I have to say that there may be some differences in peoples idea of what constitutes a more "realistic" picture.
I personally find video sources to be more realistic from a temporal standpoint; the motion is more fluid. For good old NTSC, you end of with sixty pictures a second (even though the frame rate is thirty). That's the characteristic I think most people are describing as the soap opera look.
Of course, there's more involved than just the temporal aspects of the material, so many people find the different gamma and dynamic range of film to be what defines a more realistic image. I'm happy watching film that looks like film, but video isn't any less realistic.
Whether or not film should be made to look like video is another matter and is obviously pretty subjective. The reverse is true too. I personally think it's somewhat silly to shoot a TV series on video and then filmize it so it somehow looks more expensively produced.....
I'm actually divided on all his at the moment as I'm contemplating the purchase of a new display and was originally absolutely committed to plasma but now I'm looking at LCD's as well. I went for a quick look at some retailers yesterday and almost all displays were fed low bitrate streaming files and highly compressed MPG2 sources. The source material artifacts were far more severe than anything introduced by the sets.
jtiner is offline  
post #86 of 132 Old 02-14-2010, 12:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
NuSoardGraphite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Tucson AZ
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtiner View Post

I've just read the whole thread....
I have to say that there may be some differences in peoples idea of what constitutes a more "realistic" picture.
I personally find video sources to be more realistic from a temporal standpoint; the motion is more fluid. For good old NTSC, you end of with sixty pictures a second (even though the frame rate is thirty). That's the characteristic I think most people are describing as the soap opera look.
Of course, there's more involved than just the temporal aspects of the material, so many people find the different gamma and dynamic range of film to be what defines a more realistic image. I'm happy watching film that looks like film, but video isn't any less realistic.
Whether or not film should be made to look like video is another matter and is obviously pretty subjective. The reverse is true too. I personally think it's somewhat silly to shoot a TV series on video and then filmize it so it somehow looks more expensively produced.....
I'm actually divided on all his at the moment as I'm contemplating the purchase of a new display and was originally absolutely committed to plasma but now I'm looking at LCD's as well. I went for a quick look at some retailers yesterday and almost all displays were fed low bitrate streaming files and highly compressed MPG2 sources. The source material artifacts were far more severe than anything introduced by the sets.

You make some very good points.

I have also found that the vast majority of PQ issues seen on LCD have to do with the source more than it does with the sets themselves. I believe it has a ton to do with the sheer clarity that comes inherent in LCD technology. A lot of stuff that SDTV simply could not show you (due to low resolution) and stuff that "hides" in a plasma picture are more obvious on the ultra-sharp LCD.

I was at a store one day and looking at their wall of TV's when I noticed a plasma and an LCD of equivalent size sitting right next to each other. Then I noticed a video come on both tv's. On the LCD I noticed a TON of film grain in the picture. It was obviously film grain and not any kind of other artifacting. Shifting perspective to the plasma, there was no grain! LCD heavy grain, plasma no grain. Why would that be? The only thing I can think of is LCD sharpness factor. The grain shows up more prominently because of the extreme sharpness of LCD. Plasma has a softer more film-like picture, thus film grain blends in more seamlessly with a plasma, which would probably be a major factor as to why film enthusiasts like plasma much more than LCD. (besides the black levels)

Stand tall and shake the heavens...
NuSoardGraphite is offline  
post #87 of 132 Old 02-14-2010, 01:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tbird8450's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,979
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:


Why would that be?

It could be for several reasons...

Differences in DNR settings, sharpness settings, other "enhancers" being on/off, just to name a few of many possibilites.

Until all of those things are equalized, it is futile to compare sharpness and detail between two displays. Both plasma and LCD are capable of accurate sharpness. Neither has any significant advantage here unless you are viewing them up close, where LCD's lack of dithering noise will be an advantage.
tbird8450 is offline  
post #88 of 132 Old 02-14-2010, 01:55 PM
Member
 
jtiner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 68
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbird8450 View Post

It could be for several reasons...

Differences in DNR settings, sharpness settings, other "enhancers" being on/off, just to name a few of many possibilites.

Until all of those things are equalized, it is futile to compare sharpness and detail between two displays. Both plasma and LCD are capable of accurate sharpness. Neither has any significant advantage here unless you are viewing them up close, where LCD's lack of dithering noise will be an advantage.

Agreed. Every display had edge enhancement or sharpness at high levels along with noise reduction. There were several opportunities to judge LCD and plasma side by side but it was pointless. Even after set adjustment, it was futile to look at the stream coming from the in store server; horrible blocking, stuttering, etc. Several sets were streaming Netflix, I believe. The only reasonable display was one isolated set with a BD player connected running Kung Fu Panda.......
I was thinking it would be easy for stores to use a QAM modulator with a high def. source and they could use simple DA/coax connections for the sets' tuners or at least have off-air available but I guess those days are long gone. The servers feature the Geek Squad or Sears Team or whatever they are....
jtiner is offline  
post #89 of 132 Old 02-14-2010, 01:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
NuSoardGraphite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Tucson AZ
Posts: 1,341
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbird8450 View Post

It could be for several reasons...

Differences in DNR settings, sharpness settings, other "enhancers" being on/off, just to name a few of many possibilites.

Until all of those things are equalized, it is futile to compare sharpness and detail between two displays. Both plasma and LCD are capable of accurate sharpness. Neither has any significant advantage here unless you are viewing them up close, where LCD's lack of dithering noise will be an advantage.

Oh absolutely. I agree that plasma can be just as sharp as an LCD...the best picture I've ever seen was a Pioneer Kuro playing the Blu Ray version of Ultraviolet. The clarity was phenomenal and seeing that TV play a BD movie is what made me want to make the move to HD. (I had been watching the technology up to that point but hadn't yet made the jump)

I would probably be inclined to agree with you about the DNR and sharpness settings of the various tv's if I hadn't seen that same scenario play out in half a dozen different stores with differing models of TV's in various lighting conditions. In every instance, the LCD could pick up things in the source that were invisible (or nearly so) in the plasma sets playing the same source.

Stand tall and shake the heavens...
NuSoardGraphite is offline  
post #90 of 132 Old 02-14-2010, 02:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,230
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 38
I agree with the above. The clarity of LCD is most apparent with very well photographed HD material like thw BBC Planet Earth series.

As for film grain - I notice it a lot in 1960's-1980's color movies. The films of that era just seem to have larger grains. Common exceptions are films made with the three-strip Technicolor process in the 1930's-1960's. These are sharp and saturated with little visible film grain from what was essentially B&W negatives. I assume any film grain in the 1980's or later is there because the filmmaker wanted it to be there, because fine grained color film was available.

Of interesting note is that film grain can also be seen in several animated films that originated in digital animation workstations - software was developed to simulate the appearance of film grain when the Director wants film grain.

Gary McCoy
The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved.

Gary McCoy is offline  
Reply Flat Panels General and OLED Technology

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off