240hz = Worst Invention EVER! - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 132 Old 02-18-2010, 07:47 AM
Member
 
codifus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 48
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

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.

I've been perusing these boards and have heard the zillions of arguments for and against LCD or Plasma. First let me say that I am firmly in the Plasma camp.

I think the reason for LCDs' perceived inferiority by many is that it is too sharp, unnaturally sharp. This is probably due to, or a function of, the limited viewing angle. The fact that LCD displays are viewed in this flashlight beam way can't be natural.

Perfect example, when you look at someone in real life, at whatever angle, the person remains in sharp focus, at whatever angle. I think it is clear which technology better approaches that real life scenario.

Another example of a too sharp technology is the laser turntable. The idea was to produce an analog turntable with all the capabilities of the diamond needle riding over the the plastic, grooved disc, but with none of the drawbacks such as wear. The turntable succeeded on that front. Like an Audio CD, the laser never touches the vinyl it is "playing," so there is absolutely no wear.

It turned out, however, that the laser turntable massively exagerated the scratches and pops associated with vinyl. Apparently when a laser "sees" a scratch, it is way more prominent than when a needle rides over it. I feel that this example is analogous to how LCDs may make grain more apparent when displaying film.

I guess them main question then is, is this more highly apparent grain on LCDs more accurate, or too much?

CD
codifus is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 132 Old 02-18-2010, 09:52 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
That's not a great analogy. That'd be more about the fidelity of the transfer itself, and the proper comparison would be an analog medium like the later iterations of VHS, and digital media like DVDs and now BDs. Display is more analogous to the speakers in your proposed scenario; which pair of speakers is better, the one that faithfully reproduces the undesirably enhanced pops or the ones that slur them together? I would say that faithful reproduction of the source is the only measure of fidelity, isn't it? By definition, even.

Now, I'm not suggesting plasmas compromise image quality (a good plasma with a thorough setup isn't slurring anything together, if you don't mind a little IR). Just pointing out the flaw in your analogy. I don't think LCDs' viewing angles (or "flashlight beaming" as you pejoratively call it) are "unnatural," that's a peculiar choice of words to describe it, what's the alternative to them being natural? Are LCDs magic? You can prefer a technology over another but we should be careful in phrasing arguments when it comes to discussions like this.
Agreed is offline  
post #93 of 132 Old 02-18-2010, 11:40 AM
Senior Member
 
bill4903485's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Don't know how this thread got sidetracked but... fluorescent and plasma actually light using similar properties. Although fluorescent bulbs emit a greater percentage of light in a useable range. Whereas plasma is a much more efficient producer of UV light. Ultra-violet light is not only invisible to the human eye but harmful. Therefore a fluorescent coating is used to protect the eye and to turn some of this light energy visible.

So I guess the difference between LCD and plasma is between objects being partially illuminated by the sun and staring into the sun itself. I'm not sure how this makes either technology more natural though... unless you veer away from science into the romantic.
bill4903485 is offline  
post #94 of 132 Old 02-18-2010, 11:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,839
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
Liked: 214
Only what you see in the REAL world with your REAL eyes is natural.
8mile13 is offline  
post #95 of 132 Old 02-20-2010, 08:51 AM
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 codifus View Post

...I think the reason for LCDs' perceived inferiority by many is that it is too sharp, unnaturally sharp...

Couldn't the same argument be made about BR? A high quality transfer often does look unnaturally sharp. It also seems that those who insist on viewing as the "director intended" are breaking their own rules by adopting BR for older films that were never intended to be viewed in HD.
geister is offline  
post #96 of 132 Old 02-20-2010, 09:02 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,886
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by geister View Post

Couldn't the same argument be made about BR? A high quality transfer often does look unnaturally sharp. It also seems that those who insist on viewing as the "director intended" are breaking their own rules by adopting BR for older films that were never intended to be viewed in HD.

Film's resolution and "bit depth" has always far outpaced that of consumer video storage mediums. If you're talking about old films, then HD is as closer reproduction than any previous medium.

And if you truly want to watch a movie as the "director intended," you'd have a 35mm projector with original prints like coldmachine and other lucky few do. For us mere mortals, optical disc and front projectors are the closest we can get.

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

HogPilot is online now  
post #97 of 132 Old 02-20-2010, 10:15 AM
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
a theory is to compare diffuse lighting (plasma) and directional (lcd) lighting in the real world. a waxy blade of grass close up for instance would reflect mostly directional light and might look more natual on a polarized lcd. a whole field of grass though would diffuse light and might look more natural on a plasma. smooth/shiny surfaces best for lcd rough/diffuse surfaces best for plasma. it would be cool if there was a tv that could do both.
borf is offline  
post #98 of 132 Old 02-20-2010, 12:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
frito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: east SF bay area, ca
Posts: 3,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Filice View Post

I just spent the weekend helping my father-in-law setup his new 55" Samsung Series 8000 LED 240hz TV. The TV itself is very nice, but let me say two things that have nothing to do with Samsung:

1) 240hz is HORRIBLE!!! If you are familiar with the history of television, there was a process before videotape called Kinescope, where TV shows were shot with video cameras, but to save and archive what was shot, film cameras were used to film the TV monitors. This was the only way to preserve the TV show as videotape wasn't available yet. The result was a strangely dimensional image. This is what 240hz looks like to me. The Samsung has settings to adjust the 240hz: Off, Clear, Normal, Smooth, Custom and Demo. Clear is the lowest setting, which was barely acceptable, but still had the artifact. When set to Normal or Smooth, the iTV image was so bad it drove me nuts. Some people say 240hz makes the TV show look like it was shot with a home video camera, kind of like a cheap soap opera. I totally agree. I don't think I've read any review of 240hz TV's that mention this artifact. I noticed this artifact on film-shot content, whether from DVD/BR disc or watching a film on Turner Classics. HD video-shot content looked OK. Anyways, I do not like the 240hz feature.

2) The Series 8000 is an edge-lit LED. I personally didn't like what LED does to colors. The color of light from LED does not look natural and to me, the colors on LED do not look pleasant or natural. Have you seen a string of LED Christmas lights at night? Yes, they are bright, but to me, the colors are cold, harsh and not natural. The Samsung TV had an exceptionally bright display, which is great, and HD channels with video-shot content looked good (Discovery HD "Planet Earth"), but LED colors are way over the top. I watched a few NBA games Sunday in HD, and I am very familiar with the uniform colors. LED made the Royal Blue of the LA Clippers uniforms look like cobalt blue. Oh, by the way, I did use Video Essentials to help setup the TV the best I could. Maybe there is something I didn't do, but I tried everything.


you should view a movie on a decent plasma, you will be much more happy with the motion handling

having owned multiple 60hz LCD TV's and 1 120hz TV and seen friends samsung 120hz sets, when we got our Panny 50X1 i fell in love with plasma's motion handling its the closest you can get to CRT and just looks so much more natural than any LCD at any setting period

i don't mind watching normal TV on my 60hz LCD but when it comes to movies the plasma is king and i actually refuse to watch movies on my LCD now

If you're a gamer or interested in using an LCD TV as a primary monitor take a look at my thread on Input Lag
frito is offline  
post #99 of 132 Old 02-20-2010, 12:57 PM
AVS Special Member
 
spyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,089
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by frito View Post

you should view a movie on a decent plasma, you will be much more happy with the motion handling

having owned multiple 60hz LCD TV's and 1 120hz TV and seen friends samsung 120hz sets, when we got our Panny 50X1 i fell in love with plasma's motion handling its the closest you can get to CRT and just looks so much more natural than any LCD at any setting period

i don't mind watching normal TV on my 60hz LCD but when it comes to movies the plasma is king and i actually refuse to watch movies on my LCD now


Keep plugging your wonderful 50 inch 720P plasma. People might think you're seeing something miraculous.

Since you by your own statements haven't seen a "true 240Hz" that has been well implemented, you are in no position to present a truly informed comment about how much motion blur reduction there is with a high performance "true 240Hz" LCD.

Not only that, get ready, 480Hz is on its way from none other than Vizio. People are lining up to pay their $3,500 for the 72 inch back-lit, LED, with 480 zones of local dimming, and 480Hz motion blur reduction.

Maybe you can get a sandwich board and walk around outside Best Buy, discouraging people from buying LCDs...
spyboy is offline  
post #100 of 132 Old 02-20-2010, 02:49 PM - 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyboy View Post

Since you by your own statements haven't seen a "true 240Hz" that has been well implemented, you are in no position to present a truly informed comment about how much motion blur reduction there is with a high performance "true 240Hz" LCD.

Does this mean that the 240hz effect on my father-in-law's Samsung (the reason for my original post here) wasn't properly implemented? What does it take to "properly implement" the 240hz? If it means paying a technical guru hundreds of dollars to adjust the settings, then the 240hz may never be "properly implemented" in 99.9% of consumer TVs. I'm all for advancement in technology, but what I saw on that 55" Samsung was absolutely horrible. My 120hz LCD TV's look stunning on film-based footage (both have 5:5 pull-down as well as 1080p/24 capability), but that's what my eyeballs see. When I see more advanced TV's that mine, they should knock my socks off, not make me gasp.
Dan Filice is offline  
post #101 of 132 Old 02-20-2010, 05:13 PM
Senior Member
 
bill4903485's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Filice View Post

Does this mean that the 240hz effect on my father-in-law's Samsung (the reason for my original post here) wasn't properly implemented? What does it take to "properly implement" the 240hz? If it means paying a technical guru hundreds of dollars to adjust the settings, then the 240hz may never be "properly implemented" in 99.9% of consumer TVs. I'm all for advancement in technology, but what I saw on that 55" Samsung was absolutely horrible. My 120hz LCD TV's look stunning on film-based footage (both have 5:5 pull-down as well as 1080p/24 capability), but that's what my eyeballs see. When I see more advanced TV's that mine, they should knock my socks off, not make me gasp.

True 120Hz refers to those flat panels that interpolate, of which only both Samsung and Sony do. Part of the problem with interpolation is that it takes serious processing power. Some of the early 120Hz (and now 240Hz sets) aren't always up to the task, causing motion artifacts. Such is the state of the HDTV flat panel, where products are perfected on the customer's dime. Though the implementation itself of Samsung and Sony has meant world class picture quality.
bill4903485 is offline  
post #102 of 132 Old 02-20-2010, 05:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
frito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: east SF bay area, ca
Posts: 3,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by spyboy View Post

Keep plugging your wonderful 50 inch 720P plasma. People might think you're seeing something miraculous.

Since you by your own statements haven't seen a "true 240Hz" that has been well implemented, you are in no position to present a truly informed comment about how much motion blur reduction there is with a high performance "true 240Hz" LCD.

Not only that, get ready, 480Hz is on its way from none other than Vizio. People are lining up to pay their $3,500 for the 72 inch back-lit, LED, with 480 zones of local dimming, and 480Hz motion blur reduction.

Maybe you can get a sandwich board and walk around outside Best Buy, discouraging people from buying LCDs...

Wasn't talking to you I was talking to the OP

you clearly hate plasma for whatever reason and shoot down positive comments on plasma every chance you get.

he clearly dislikes motion enhancement on LCD's I was simply suggesting he checks out a plasma in a proper setting outside of a store because by what he says i'm sure he would be more pleased with a Plasma than any LCD TV, no i do not know anyone who has a 240hz LCD but i have seen them in action in stores setup in theater rooms properly. I've taken them out of vivid mode and honestly 240hz don't look much if any different than good 120hz sets.

i would in fact say that the pseudo 240hz sets from LG and Vizio look better than they do because a scanning back light at least brings some of the CRT look back into the picture but it's still got the LCD motion problems without motion enhancement that brings the unrealistic smooth effects and artifiacting to the screen

If you're a gamer or interested in using an LCD TV as a primary monitor take a look at my thread on Input Lag
frito is offline  
post #103 of 132 Old 02-20-2010, 08:20 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 spyboy View Post


Not only that, get ready, 480Hz is on its way from none other than Vizio. People are lining up to pay their $3,500 for the 72 inch back-lit, LED, with 480 zones of local dimming, and 480Hz motion blur reduction.

Maybe you can get a sandwich board and walk around outside Best Buy, discouraging people from buying LCDs...

What a joke, Vizio is a second tier player, and will remain so. All the crappy ads they put out cannot change that. You seem to hold them in high regard, that tells us where you are coming from.....


Face it - fake motion is fake motion. If your TV creates what was not there to begin with, you might as well be watching cartoons. The plain, simple, boring fact is and will always be that theses high rates were created to COVER LCDs shortcoming, nothing more and nothing less.

If you want to watch fake tv, go for it, but don't insist it is the only and best way to watch content. You've been drinking too much kool-aid...
Matt L is offline  
post #104 of 132 Old 02-20-2010, 10:20 PM
Senior Member
 
bill4903485's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
The misconception is that LCD needs interpolation to reduce blur in modern panels. Just like plasmas don't need interpolation but use it anyway.

At least on my LCD television 120Hz can be disabled. I like effect for sports, where discerning the location of fast moving objects is key. Obviously LCD and plasma manufacturers hope that consumers see interpolation as a selling point.
bill4903485 is offline  
post #105 of 132 Old 02-21-2010, 12:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
frito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: east SF bay area, ca
Posts: 3,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill4903485 View Post

The misconception is that LCD needs interpolation to reduce blur in modern panels. Just like plasmas don't need interpolation but use it anyway.

At least on my LCD television 120Hz can be disabled. I like effect for sports, where discerning the location of fast moving objects is key. Obviously LCD and plasma manufacturers hope that consumers see interpolation as a selling point.

LCD's do need interpolation to reduce blur because of their sample and hold design

if all video/movie sources were 60fps it would be less of a problem for LCD's but the vast majority of video/movies are shot in 24 fps or 30 fps and LCD's mostly create perceived blur on the retina in your eyes when a frame is left on the screen for that long without blanking or changing, LCD blur is also created by pixel lag but it has been shown to be less of the cause 120/240hz works to make pixel lag less of a problem much like plasma's 480/600hz subfield drive does the same thing but LCD's even the high speed ones made today have trouble leaving blur trails behind fast moving objects and this varies a lot based on the design of the LCD panel and its Timing controller and what level of transition is made to happen

I just witnessed some clearly visible difference between my TV's right now

Earlier i was in the living room watching the speed skating on the oval track in the Olympics on my plasma and the Olympics emblem as well as Vancouver was pretty sharp on my plasma as my eyes tracked it while the camera was chasing the skaters. i came into my room and was watching the same thing on my 19" PC monitor that i use as a secondary TV to my 37S1 LCD TV that doubles as my PC's monitor and both the emblem and Vancouver were so blurred on it you couldn't even read Vancouver, i switched inputs on my 37S1 to the HD cable box and it was much sharper than my crappy PC monitor but still much more blurry than my plasma was (its a 60hz LCD with a scanning backlight)

and btw my Panny 37S1 60hz set outperforms a Toshiba 40xv645u 120hz LCD with motion enhancer active on pixel lag tests on my PC. its one of the reasons why i got rid of the Toshiba VA based panels commonly used in LCD TV's today have poor pixel response time overall compared to IPS LCD's like my Panasonic

If you're a gamer or interested in using an LCD TV as a primary monitor take a look at my thread on Input Lag
frito is offline  
post #106 of 132 Old 02-21-2010, 01:55 AM
Senior Member
 
bill4903485's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
You need to have a trained eye in order to truly distinguish motion blur on modern LCD. Hard to ignore the effect of all that Vancouver snow on plasma though. A good percentage of the signal time was spent above 80% peak white.

I know many are dismissive toward Displaymate articles, for whatever reason, but here's a pretty good one on LCD motion blur and interpolation etc.

http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Respo...e_ShootOut.htm
bill4903485 is offline  
post #107 of 132 Old 02-21-2010, 04:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,839
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
Liked: 214
This article is 2/3/4 years old ,it would be interesting to see what the results would be now.
8mile13 is offline  
post #108 of 132 Old 02-21-2010, 08:37 AM
Senior Member
 
bill4903485's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8mile13 View Post

This article is 2/3/4 years old ,it would be interesting to see what the results would be now.

When I recently e-mailed Dr. Soneira about potential revisions to his articles, he told me very little had changed in the LCD and plasma industries to yet warrant any. This is something that most video enthusiasts don't like hearing. At least he makes a stab at separating the marketing from the science though.
bill4903485 is offline  
post #109 of 132 Old 02-21-2010, 10:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
frito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: east SF bay area, ca
Posts: 3,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill4903485 View Post

You need to have a trained eye in order to truly distinguish motion blur on modern LCD. Hard to ignore the effect of all that Vancouver snow on plasma though. A good percentage of the signal time was spent above 80% peak white.

I know many are dismissive toward Displaymate articles, for whatever reason, but here's a pretty good one on LCD motion blur and interpolation etc.

http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Respo...e_ShootOut.htm

in my experience with 3 LCD TV's i've used as monitor on my PC that article is correct

motion blur on LCD's is easier to see if your up close to the screen and playing video games like I do

if you research the 2 main types of LCD panels used in today's LCD TV's you will discover that the type that is mainly used by most companies is VA and it has always had terrible overall response times, to compensate for this they employ Response Time Compensation or overdrive as it was called on PC monitors when it first came out RTC greatly reduces the response time of VA panels when used properly but it has side effects, the worst of them is input lag due to the Timing controller buffering incoming frames so it can actually work. other side effects are inverse ghosting caused by the RTC overshooting the desired pixel state (less common on today's LCD TV's) and sticking pixels with trailing images meaning that pixels that are changing from one state to another do so quickly but fail to change back as quick as they did before leaving a light ghost image behind. my Sony 32XBR6 with an S-PVA panel did this a lot esp with black to white transitions something that VA panels are normally very fast at. IPS LCD's are naturally much faster across the board in response time and if RTC is employed the response time gets much faster than any VA is capable of but still cannot match Plasma or CRT because LCD can never get down to the single digital MS response or less that they are capable of due to being phosphor based. Liquid Crystal displays are huge matrix's of switches and can never perform as good as Phosphor based displays when it comes to motion, if they could they would be there by now considering that LCD displays have been around as long if not longer than Plasma displays (both display types date back to the 80's and i think LCD is older)

these sorts of things are very hard to notice however with normal TV viewing and that is why only picky people or people who have owned plasma's before notice the problem with general viewing of TV

if you don't think that LCD's have pixel blur then do this easy test on your LCD monitor that is likely a TN based panel that has a much faster response speed that any VA TV does. take a window with text in it un-maximize it so you can move it around rapidly with your mouse and look at how the text looses it's sharpness as you move it around rapidly

now if you have a CRT monitor on a PC somewhere do the same test and you will see a huge difference

If you're a gamer or interested in using an LCD TV as a primary monitor take a look at my thread on Input Lag
frito is offline  
post #110 of 132 Old 02-21-2010, 10:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
localnet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Grass Lake, MI
Posts: 2,027
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Filice View Post

I just spent the weekend helping my father-in-law setup his new 55" Samsung Series 8000 LED 240hz TV. The TV itself is very nice, but let me say two things that have nothing to do with Samsung:

1) 240hz is HORRIBLE!!! If you are familiar with the history of television, there was a process before videotape called Kinescope, where TV shows were shot with video cameras, but to save and archive what was shot, film cameras were used to film the TV monitors. This was the only way to preserve the TV show as videotape wasn't available yet. The result was a strangely dimensional image. This is what 240hz looks like to me. The Samsung has settings to adjust the 240hz: Off, Clear, Normal, Smooth, Custom and Demo. Clear is the lowest setting, which was barely acceptable, but still had the artifact. When set to Normal or Smooth, the iTV image was so bad it drove me nuts. Some people say 240hz makes the TV show look like it was shot with a home video camera, kind of like a cheap soap opera. I totally agree. I don't think I've read any review of 240hz TV's that mention this artifact. I noticed this artifact on film-shot content, whether from DVD/BR disc or watching a film on Turner Classics. HD video-shot content looked OK. Anyways, I do not like the 240hz feature.

2) The Series 8000 is an edge-lit LED. I personally didn't like what LED does to colors. The color of light from LED does not look natural and to me, the colors on LED do not look pleasant or natural. Have you seen a string of LED Christmas lights at night? Yes, they are bright, but to me, the colors are cold, harsh and not natural. The Samsung TV had an exceptionally bright display, which is great, and HD channels with video-shot content looked good (Discovery HD "Planet Earth"), but LED colors are way over the top. I watched a few NBA games Sunday in HD, and I am very familiar with the uniform colors. LED made the Royal Blue of the LA Clippers uniforms look like cobalt blue. Oh, by the way, I did use Video Essentials to help setup the TV the best I could. Maybe there is something I didn't do, but I tried everything.

I have a Sammi B6000 LED 120hz set... Same here, it is annoying and doesn't "float my boat". I bought another tv recently, went with a Panni plasma over another 120hz or 240hz LED/LCD set, as these new sets actually make me a bit "sea sick" if I watch for extended periods. I hope plasma stays around, because these new sets are not watchable in my book.
localnet is offline  
post #111 of 132 Old 02-21-2010, 11:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
spyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,089
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by frito View Post

in my experience with 3 LCD TV's i've used as monitor on my PC that article is correct

motion blur on LCD's is easier to see if your up close to the screen and playing video games like I do

if you research the 2 main types of LCD panels used in today's LCD TV's you will discover that the type that is mainly used by most companies is VA and it has always had terrible overall response times, to compensate for this they employ Response Time Compensation or overdrive as it was called on PC monitors when it first came out RTC greatly reduces the response time of VA panels when used properly but it has side effects, the worst of them is input lag due to the Timing controller buffering incoming frames so it can actually work. other side effects are inverse ghosting caused by the RTC overshooting the desired pixel state (less common on today's LCD TV's) and sticking pixels with trailing images meaning that pixels that are changing from one state to another do so quickly but fail to change back as quick as they did before leaving a light ghost image behind. my Sony 32XBR6 with an S-PVA panel did this a lot esp with black to white transitions something that VA panels are normally very fast at. IPS LCD's are naturally much faster across the board in response time and if RTC is employed the response time gets much faster than any VA is capable of but still cannot match Plasma or CRT because LCD can never get down to the single digital MS response or less that they are capable of due to being phosphor based. Liquid Crystal displays are huge matrix's of switches and can never perform as good as Phosphor based displays when it comes to motion, if they could they would be there by now considering that LCD displays have been around as long if not longer than Plasma displays (both display types date back to the 80's and i think LCD is older)

these sorts of things are very hard to notice however with normal TV viewing and that is why only picky people or people who have owned plasma's before notice the problem with general viewing of TV

if you don't think that LCD's have pixel blur then do this easy test on your LCD monitor that is likely a TN based panel that has a much faster response speed that any VA TV does. take a window with text in it un-maximize it so you can move it around rapidly with your mouse and look at how the text looses it's sharpness as you move it around rapidly

now if you have a CRT monitor on a PC somewhere do the same test and you will see a huge difference


"Liquid Crystal displays are huge matrix's of switches and can never perform as good as Phospor based displays when it comes to motion, if they could they would be there by now considering that LCD displays have been around as long if not longer than plasma displays (both display types date back to the 80's and I think LCD is older)."

The mitigating circumstances are that 55 inch and larger LCD panels are much more recent than small LCDs.
The proof of this is that there is no solid reliability data for 55+ inch LCD TVs beyond about 6 years, and the majority of data on 55+ LCD is no more than about 4 years old.

Next, true 240 Hz motion reduction technology is only a couple years old. And, how old is scanning back-light? The best implementations of true 240 Hz provides for almost no visible motion blur.

This summer at least one company, Vizio, will be releasing models with 480 hz frame rate. Who knows how much better 480 Hz may be?

Even though 9 out of 10 new TVs sold today are LCDs, LCD makers are going to continue to try to minimize motion blur.

The statement that motion blur would have been eliminated by now since LCDs have been around since the 80's is simply preposterous. R&D on LCDs is alive and well.

With people spending $3,500 and more on the latest LCD TVs, the manufacturers are going to continue refining the technology. The technology is not frozen in time.
spyboy is offline  
post #112 of 132 Old 02-21-2010, 02:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
frito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: east SF bay area, ca
Posts: 3,395
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
while you are correct, there have been little increase on the pixel response time front in the past 2 years, all 240hz etc etc. is doing is attempting to improve on motion handling via more frame interpolation

the problem is simple

LCD uses a liquid crystal switch to modulate light output they relies on electrical fields to control the rotation of the crystal, its a mechanical design and can only be pushed so far and its pretty much been at its limit for years now. TN based LCD's 6 years ago were just as fast as the TV's sold today and they have not gotten any faster due to the mechanical limitation of the design

Plasma uses hot gas to produce light that excites a phosphor creating varying levels of light, much like CRT's electron gun uses beams of electrons to excite phosphors, this is not a mechanical design, the display works at the speed of light at the pixel level with nothing but the phosphor's decay rate to slow it down and is why its so fast

its like the difference between sending data down a copper line vs sending data down fiber optic lines

the system that is more driven by light will perform faster than the system that is more driven by direct electrical fields and currents

then you got the sample and hold retina blur issue with LCD's that is only improved by frame interpolation and this is why you see all the 120hz 240hz bs.

TV's that have 120hz/240hz often use the same panels as each other and in many cases even 60hz models can have the same panel so tell me how exactly they improve pixel response time across the board enough to be fast enough to keep up with 240hz. they can't is the answer because VA panels never have a flat response time

If you're a gamer or interested in using an LCD TV as a primary monitor take a look at my thread on Input Lag
frito is offline  
post #113 of 132 Old 02-24-2010, 06:11 AM
 
Phase700B's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,508
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill4903485 View Post

You need to have a trained eye in order to truly distinguish motion blur on modern LCD. Hard to ignore the effect of all that Vancouver snow on plasma though. A good percentage of the signal time was spent above 80% peak white.

I know many are dismissive toward Displaymate articles, for whatever reason, but here's a pretty good one on LCD motion blur and interpolation etc.

http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Respo...e_ShootOut.htm

I must agree. This article is still valid. Any display screen such as modern LCD screens with 5ms response time are more than 3 times faster than a 60hz frame rate, ergo, no blur due to display shortcomings. It's all in simple math. I have found that most 720p LCD sets have less apparent problems with "blur" than 1080p sets. I think much of motion "blur" is related to the processor short comings in some TV's, rather than the LCD display. I think some sets have slower processor speed and other issues that result in perceived motion blur. I find that signal sources from OTA, cable, or satellite to be much more problematic for artifact producing and other image issues. On the other hand, if you want "fake and unnatural", watch CSI Miami And, wow, such emotion over such a relatively unimportant thing. I'm for world peace, getting rid of corruption in politics, and finding a way for all in society to have a decent standard of living and well being for themselves and their families. I know, probably not going to happen.

Anyway, it's just TV folks. I'm happy with my 3 year old Mitsubishi Diamond series 46" LCD. Excellent color gamut from the improved CCF lamps offered at that time, and a very pleasing display even today. I have used Video essentials, Avia, and my own reference DVDs to set it up and find the results amazing.

It's mostly preference folks. I have been an avid home theater fan since my first RCA front projection set in 1983 with a matrix Dolby sound decoder system and Pioneer Laser Disk player; and most people I know consider me over the top when it comes to being fussy about video and sound. So, it's mostly perspective; but, yes, the general public struggles with this new digital display technology and it's intricacies. I've learned that what is important to me with something like this, may not be the case with others. Each to his own.

"Can't we all just . . . get along? "
Phase700B is offline  
post #114 of 132 Old 02-24-2010, 07:57 AM
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 Phase700B View Post

"Can't we all just . . . get along? "

NO.
geister is offline  
post #115 of 132 Old 02-25-2010, 09:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 155
^ yeah, where would all the fun go?

So much of this mirrors politics. You KNOW you have SOME intelligent players involved that are polar opposite on issues that they're BOTH utterly convinced they are correct
on. circular.

That said, I KNOW PDP's deliver superior motion rez, regardless of the source, and 120, 240, and 480 hz is simply another LCD band-aid on a cancer, LOL!


James

Actual phone call (see pic to left):

 

Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"

Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."

mastermaybe is offline  
post #116 of 132 Old 02-25-2010, 10:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,839
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
Liked: 214
I do not like the motion on a plasma-tv.
8mile13 is offline  
post #117 of 132 Old 02-25-2010, 10:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
mastermaybe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 7,156
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked: 155
^ interesting, if this isn't an attempt at humor. How is motion handling on a PDP inferior to an LCD?

James

Actual phone call (see pic to left):

 

Tech (responding to laughter): "I'm sorry sir, did I miss something?"

Me: "Yeah, a case of Diet Mountain Dew walking across my living room."

mastermaybe is offline  
post #118 of 132 Old 02-25-2010, 12:07 PM
Senior Member
 
bill4903485's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 364
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Plasma has motion handling problems like phosphor lag, and depending on changes in content: auto brightness and color rainbowing. LCD motion handling problems are already well documented on this forum. I'd say both are inferior in this respect to the good ole CRT.
bill4903485 is offline  
post #119 of 132 Old 02-25-2010, 12:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
8mile13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,839
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 211 Post(s)
Liked: 214
Quote:
Originally Posted by bill4903485 View Post

Plasma has motion handling problems like phosphor lag, and depending on changes in content: auto brightness and color rainbowing. LCD motion handling problems are already well documented on this forum. I'd say both are inferior in this respect to the good ole CRT.

And OLED.
8mile13 is offline  
post #120 of 132 Old 02-25-2010, 01:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
spyboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,089
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 41
Quote:
Originally Posted by frito View Post

while you are correct, there have been little increase on the pixel response time front in the past 2 years, all 240hz etc etc. is doing is attempting to improve on motion handling via more frame interpolation

the problem is simple

LCD uses a liquid crystal switch to modulate light output they relies on electrical fields to control the rotation of the crystal, its a mechanical design and can only be pushed so far and its pretty much been at its limit for years now. TN based LCD's 6 years ago were just as fast as the TV's sold today and they have not gotten any faster due to the mechanical limitation of the design

Plasma uses hot gas to produce light that excites a phosphor creating varying levels of light, much like CRT's electron gun uses beams of electrons to excite phosphors, this is not a mechanical design, the display works at the speed of light at the pixel level with nothing but the phosphor's decay rate to slow it down and is why its so fast

its like the difference between sending data down a copper line vs sending data down fiber optic lines

the system that is more driven by light will perform faster than the system that is more driven by direct electrical fields and currents

then you got the sample and hold retina blur issue with LCD's that is only improved by frame interpolation and this is why you see all the 120hz 240hz bs.

TV's that have 120hz/240hz often use the same panels as each other and in many cases even 60hz models can have the same panel so tell me how exactly they improve pixel response time across the board enough to be fast enough to keep up with 240hz. they can't is the answer because VA panels never have a flat response time

I wouldn't dream of engaging in a debate with you on pixel response time. That is your obsession.

But all the techno babble doesn't address the issue of motion blur reduction and true 240 Hz technology.

If you want to take the position that there is no hierarchy with respect to motion blur reduction, that's your right.

The hierarchy as of now is:

1) True 240 Hz
2) Quasi 240 Hz (120 Hz with a scanning back-light).
3) 120 Hz
4) 60 Hz.

Your endless repitition about the "greatness" of 50 inch 720P plasmas was old weeks ago. Plasma has inherent weaknesses as well as inherent strengths. All the techno babble in the world isn't going to change the fact that 9 of of 10 TVs purchased now are LCDs.

LCD R&D is alive and well, and has resulted in significantly reduced motion blur.
spyboy 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