240hz = Worst Invention EVER! - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 132 Old 02-04-2010, 01:01 PM
Senior Member
 
MountainMan10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 244
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I am a recovering LCD fanboy. I choose Plasma over LCD because I have both and have compared them side by side in my living room. The lower price is only a bonus.
MountainMan10 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 132 Old 02-04-2010, 01:38 PM
Advanced Member
 
greenjp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

You simply have not watched enough video at 240Hz to make the paradigm shift I spoke of. Those of us who have transitioned from the preferences we learned in early life are frustrated by a display that lacks frame interpolation.

Gary, you do this stuff all the time and it does not help your cause. Making out people who don't like frame interpolation out to be luddites, or somehow brainwashed by the television of our youth, is 1) condescending, and 2) wrong. It exposes an ignorance on your part that doesn't help the other, at times valid, arguments you make.

The more I see of frame interpolation, the less I like it. There's no paradigm shift to be made.

jeff
greenjp is offline  
post #33 of 132 Old 02-04-2010, 01:42 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
I am only a fan of the facts. And I have seen both truly good LCD and plasma and truly poor implementations.

Although some plasma posters on this forum do seem as trustworthy and credible as really good car salesmen: they accent the positive and discard the negative while talking down the competition. Don't tell me you have golden eyes without the capability of seeing the clear effect of automatic brightness limiting, which has been implemented into EVERY plasma to date. Personally I would take frame interpolation over ABL. At least one can be disabled.
bill4903485 is offline  
post #34 of 132 Old 02-04-2010, 02:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
NuSoardGraphite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Tucson AZ
Posts: 1,419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 115
I personally agree with a lot of what Gary says. He's no more "fanatical" than many of the pro-plasma individuals who post on AVS, he's simply on the other side of the fence.

I don't agree that "educated" consumers will pick Plasma over LCD. I educated myself for over 2 years before purchasing my TV and I ended up choosing LCD because of the clarity and color saturation that LCD's have when showing Digital HD content. Speed Racer on Blu Ray is so gorgeous that when I watch it, I can't help but wonder how I could stand watching movies on the old 480i CRT's for so long (then I remind myself that we didn't have much of a choice)

I'm all for Artistic Integrity when it comes to film content, but I also enjoy the clarity of HD Digital content. While I'm not as big a fan of Frame Interpolation as Gary is, I understand his point of view and agree with it to a lesser extent. My tv doesn't have AMP, but if it did I would probably engage it at "Low" for digital content, then disable it when watching film-based content.

Ultimately at the end of the day, we own the TV's. What we do with them is completely and utterly up to us. We really shouldn't bad mouth the companies for providing us with options. Options are a good thing. Choice is good. To turn it on or turn it off.....its up to us and I for one applaud the manufacturers for at least giving us the choice.

Stand tall and shake the heavens...
NuSoardGraphite is offline  
post #35 of 132 Old 02-04-2010, 03:56 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,901
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 23
For the millionth time, HD content shot on digital HD video cameras is meant to be no more "clear" or "real" than content shot on film. It's not the medium on which something is captured that delivers what some here consider a "realistic look" - it's the way it's shot and the choices made by the director and mastering staff.

Contrary what some people here have said - and I assure you that it's not based in fact, just misguided personal opinion - original capture medium and display technology used in the home have no correlation or relation to one another. A good display will properly reproduce whatever is fed to it whether that material originated on film, digital video, or CGI; a poor display will impose its own look on material.

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

HogPilot is offline  
post #36 of 132 Old 02-04-2010, 04:48 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:


A good display will properly reproduce whatever is fed to it whether that material originated on film, digital video, or CGI; a poor display will impose its own look on material.

I agree with the above statement. I have two main HDTV's which are an old-school Sony A3000 SXRD 120hz and a Toshiba Regza 120hz. Say what you want about my p.o.s. TV's, but without too much effort, and by taking the setting suggestions of various forums, I've been able to get HD video content look stunning (HDNET, Smithsonian HD, DiscoveryHD, etc.), plus Blu-Ray also looks stunning. Of course this opinion is based on my feeble eyeballs and maybe my TVs are considered poor displays by today's standards, but based on what I've become accustomed to, the 240hz processed film content on the Samsung is what looked odd to me. I expected this TV to make BR discs to look twice as stunning as my meager 120hz sets, which it didn't. Is what I see on the Samsung the future for all displays? It's nice to hear from others who don't like the new frame processing.
Dan Filice is offline  
post #37 of 132 Old 02-04-2010, 05:22 PM
Member
 
Iocol's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 35
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainMan10 View Post

I am a recovering LCD fanboy. I choose Plasma over LCD because I have both and have compared them side by side in my living room. The lower price is only a bonus.

I'm in the same boat. Granted, there are plasma and LCD fanboys and each is going to spout the greatness of their choice. I own both. And trust me, I've researched both for a long time. They both have their strengths and minuses. For me, price has nothing to do with it (I would gladly pay more for the better technology). For most applications, I prefer my plasma to the LCD, but hey, that's just my opinion
Iocol is offline  
post #38 of 132 Old 02-04-2010, 05:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
aydu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 3,769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

For the millionth time, HD content shot on digital HD video cameras is meant to be no more "clear" or "real" than content shot on film. It's not the medium on which something is captured that delivers what some here consider a "realistic look" - it's the way it's shot and the choices made by the director and mastering staff.

Contrary what some people here have said - and I assure you that it's not based in fact, just misguided personal opinion - original capture medium and display technology used in the home have no correlation or relation to one another. A good display will properly reproduce whatever is fed to it whether that material originated on film, digital video, or CGI; a poor display will impose its own look on material.

Newer tvs allow the owner to make some of the choices that had only been available to the director and mastering stagg. Samsung's AMP processing is a good example of a tool that can make content look different than the source.

Of course you can always turn these tools off and get the original look, if that is what you want to see.

Film does have grain, while digital video does not. These different methods of capturing images do present different results. but can be made to look similar in the mastering step.
aydu is online now  
post #39 of 132 Old 02-04-2010, 05:57 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,901
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by aydu View Post

Newer tvs allow the owner to make some of the choices that had only been available to the director and mastering stagg. Samsung's AMP processing is a good example of a tool that can make content look different than the source.

Of course you can always turn these tools off and get the original look, if that is what you want to see.

Film does have grain, while digital video does not. These different methods of capturing images do present different results. but can be made to look similar in the mastering step.

I'm not sure where you got this idea from, but it's completely incorrect. None of these features are on TVs to give the end user creative license beyond what was originally intended for any source material. They exist to either 1) allow the TV to be dialed in to proper standards, 2) attempt to correct for some kind of shortcoming in the display, or 3) attempt to "clean up" poor sources like over-compressed, low resolution SD TV shows.

All the creative choices a director makes - capture medium, style, and the overall look of the film - are done to achieve some sort of goal or emotional response. Once those changes are made and the director has established a certain look, the display in an end user's home should simply reproduce that as faithfully as possible (unless said person has decided to deviate for his or her own personal tastes). Yes, directors can do a lot of things after the fact - I'm not sure what this has to do with display technology and properly reproducing source material.

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

HogPilot is offline  
post #40 of 132 Old 02-04-2010, 06:15 PM
Advanced Member
 
Luke M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 520
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Frame interpolation makes more sense for 60Hz content than for 24Hz. The benefit of 120Hz for film sources is the elimination of 3/2 judder.
Luke M is offline  
post #41 of 132 Old 02-04-2010, 06:45 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
240hz mcfi & 120hz mcfi shouldn't be much different so does a higher percentage of interpolated frames intensify "uncanny valley"...does this look "odd"? do equally spaced movements and all make things rather mechanical. is this a thing to look at? does charlie daniels play a mean fiddle?
borf is offline  
post #42 of 132 Old 02-04-2010, 08:28 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
Anyhow plenty of plasma HDTV over the years have employed frame interpolation, it is called "smoothing," "natural motion" etc. Weird how many plasma owners aren't aware or never noticed it. Some people find it pleasing, others disable it. I'm personally indifferent to the effect.
bill4903485 is offline  
post #43 of 132 Old 02-04-2010, 10:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
NuSoardGraphite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Tucson AZ
Posts: 1,419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Liked: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

For the millionth time, HD content shot on digital HD video cameras is meant to be no more "clear" or "real" than content shot on film. It's not the medium on which something is captured that delivers what some here consider a "realistic look" - it's the way it's shot and the choices made by the director and mastering staff.

I don't agree with you. As another poster mentioned above, Film has grain. Digital Video does not. Depending on the grain of the film stock chosen by the director, the grain will be highly visible or almost invisible and this of course can also be altered in Post Production. However the grain will still be there and is oftentimes visible in the background when the camera is focused in the foreground. This gives film a "soft" look. Some films look softer than others and there are films that can appear ultra-sharp, but ultimately it will not appear as sharp as digital video...not without a lot processing applied during Post.

Digital video is ultra sharp. Clean as a brand new whistle. Watch any film-based movie, then watch Palladia on HD Cable or Satellite. You'll see a huge difference in the picture. That is the difference we're talking about between film and digital video, and its painfully obvious.

Does that mean film is inferior? Hardly. Its simply a different medium used to capture moving images. Neither good nor bad, just different. If you can't see a difference on your plasma, that may be the culprit. Trust me that on my LCD, the difference is stark.

Stand tall and shake the heavens...
NuSoardGraphite is offline  
post #44 of 132 Old 02-05-2010, 03:28 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

I don't agree with you. As another poster mentioned above, Film has grain. Digital Video does not. Depending on the grain of the film stock chosen by the director, the grain will be highly visible or almost invisible and this of course can also be altered in Post Production. However the grain will still be there and is oftentimes visible in the background when the camera is focused in the foreground. This gives film a "soft" look. Some films look softer than others and there are films that can appear ultra-sharp, but ultimately it will not appear as sharp as digital video...not without a lot processing applied during Post.

Digital video is ultra sharp. Clean as a brand new whistle. Watch any film-based movie, then watch Palladia on HD Cable or Satellite. You'll see a huge difference in the picture. That is the difference we're talking about between film and digital video, and its painfully obvious.

Does that mean film is inferior? Hardly. Its simply a different medium used to capture moving images. Neither good nor bad, just different. If you can't see a difference on your plasma, that may be the culprit. Trust me that on my LCD, the difference is stark.

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

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

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? 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.

Digital has absolutely nothing to do whatsoever with quality...it's all about convenience.

LCD is the MP3 of the TV world
robi1138 is offline  
post #45 of 132 Old 02-05-2010, 08:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
aydu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 3,769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

I'm not sure where you got this idea from, but it's completely incorrect. None of these features are on TVs to give the end user creative license beyond what was originally intended for any source material. They exist to either 1) allow the TV to be dialed in to proper standards, 2) attempt to correct for some kind of shortcoming in the display, or 3) attempt to "clean up" poor sources like over-compressed, low resolution SD TV shows.

All the creative choices a director makes - capture medium, style, and the overall look of the film - are done to achieve some sort of goal or emotional response. Once those changes are made and the director has established a certain look, the display in an end user's home should simply reproduce that as faithfully as possible (unless said person has decided to deviate for his or her own personal tastes). Yes, directors can do a lot of things after the fact - I'm not sure what this has to do with display technology and properly reproducing source material.

You are completely wrong in my opinion. Since inception, tvs have had the basic ability to alter the image being received. Contrast, brightness, color, tint, sharpness, etc. can all be altered to suit the desires of the viewer, not the director.
aydu is online now  
post #46 of 132 Old 02-05-2010, 10:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
HarrisonS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,478
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by aydu View Post

You are completely wrong in my opinion. Since inception, tvs have had the basic ability to alter the image being received. Contrast, brightness, color, tint, sharpness, etc. can all be altered to suit the desires of the viewer, not the director.


I agree, but we should not see any conflict here. Many, if not most sets come incorrectly calibrated and need to be tweaked to provide optimal color and grayscale calibration. It is only then that we can best experience "...all the creative choices a director makes - capture medium, style, and the overall look of the film" as HogPilot said.
HarrisonS is online now  
post #47 of 132 Old 02-05-2010, 11:08 AM
Newbie
 
atlsrt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainMan10 View Post

Has anyone ever seen an ad for Panasonic Plasma TV? I see an ad for Sony or Samsung LCDs almost every commercial break. This Sunday we will watch Peyton on the field and in the commercials.

I think that consumers are just suckers for advertising. The educated consumer will pick Plasma over LCD.

Oh yeah... ^^^ This totally makes sense... I know a lot of 'eductated' people who make general, baseless assumptions like this.

I buy LCD's because I don't want my TV to control what I watch (or whether or not I can play video games with static images on the screen) or force me to run a 'break-in dvd' for 300 hours. Call it burn in, call it IR, I call it BS. LCD's have none of that. Plug and play... And I can pause a movie and walk away for 15 minutes without worrying if whatever is on the screen is going to be there forever.
atlsrt is offline  
post #48 of 132 Old 02-05-2010, 11:15 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 aydu View Post

You are completely wrong in my opinion. Since inception, tvs have had the basic ability to alter the image being received. Contrast, brightness, color, tint, sharpness, etc. can all be altered to suit the desires of the viewer, not the director.

Those controls give the set the ability to fine tune the picture to industry standards, not to let you play Steven Spielberg.

LCD is the MP3 of the TV world
robi1138 is offline  
post #49 of 132 Old 02-05-2010, 11:19 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 atlsrt View Post

Oh yeah... ^^^ This totally makes sense... I know a lot of 'eductated' people who make general, baseless assumptions like this.

I buy LCD's because I don't want my TV to control what I watch (or whether or not I can play video games with static images on the screen) or force me to run a 'break-in dvd' for 300 hours. Call it burn in, call it IR, I call it BS. LCD's have none of that. Plug and play... And I can pause a movie and walk away for 15 minutes without worrying if whatever is on the screen is going to be there forever.

And you thought what he wrote was stupid? You don't want your TV to control what you watch? Apparently your TV is smarter than you. You're forced to run break0in slides? Are you out of your mind? Do you even know what the break-in slides are for? Burn-in after 15 minutes? Can you even write ONE thing that is correct? Don't comment on things you clearly know NOTHING about.

LCD is the MP3 of the TV world
robi1138 is offline  
post #50 of 132 Old 02-05-2010, 11:21 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,901
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by aydu View Post

You are completely wrong in my opinion. Since inception, tvs have had the basic ability to alter the image being received. Contrast, brightness, color, tint, sharpness, etc. can all be altered to suit the desires of the viewer, not the director.

I'm not sure where you got that idea. Talk to people in the industry - the ability to adjust commercial displays stemmed from the fact that it's cheaper to manufacture a set to lower part tolerances but give the end user the controls to adjust it to reference levels. Most people are simply uneducated as to what those controls are for. Organizations like ISF and THX are trying to educate the public, but most people don't care to be educated on it, so it's a slow, uphill process. Making sure you're seeing what the director intended isn't about giving up control of your display to them - it just assures that all the creative visual choices that they made to communicate their image makes it to you.

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

HogPilot is offline  
post #51 of 132 Old 02-05-2010, 11:22 AM
Newbie
 
atlsrt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by robi1138 View Post

And you thought what he wrote was stupid? You don't want your TV to control what you watch? Apparently your TV is smarter than you. You're forced to run break0in slides? Are you out of your mind? Do you even know what the break-in slides are for? Burn-in after 15 minutes? Can you even write ONE thing that is correct? Don't comment on things you clearly know NOTHING about.

How 'bout you educate me then smart guy?

Plasmas are dinosaurs.
atlsrt is offline  
post #52 of 132 Old 02-05-2010, 11:33 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 atlsrt View Post

How 'bout you educate me then smart guy?

Plasmas are dinosaurs.

No. Obviously you're not interested in facts and already have your tiny mind made up. If you are interested, read the other dozen or so threads on here that deal with this issue instead of sitting on your lazy ass. I'm not your teacher.

Now go to your room.

LCD is the MP3 of the TV world
robi1138 is offline  
post #53 of 132 Old 02-05-2010, 11:36 AM
Newbie
 
atlsrt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 11
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by robi1138 View Post

No. Obviously you're not interested in facts and already have your tiny mind made up. If you are interested, read the other dozen or so threads on here that deal with this issue instead of sitting on your lazy ass. I'm not your teacher.

Now go to your room.

You're right, I did my research and made up my mind, a few years ago actually (when Pioneer Elites were on my list). The only issue I took with the origional post was the insinuation that somehow people who buy LCD's are less educated than plasma owners. A statement which sort of outs the OP as an idiot to begin with.
atlsrt is offline  
post #54 of 132 Old 02-05-2010, 11:39 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
HogPilot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Good Ol' US of A
Posts: 2,901
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by atlsrt View Post

How 'bout you educate me then smart guy?

Plasmas are dinosaurs.

Not the attitude or dialogue of someone who wants to or can be educated. Try again.

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

HogPilot is offline  
post #55 of 132 Old 02-05-2010, 11:43 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 atlsrt View Post

You're right, I did my research and made up my mind, a few years ago actually (when Pioneer Elites were on my list). The only issue I took with the origional post was the insinuation that somehow people who buy LCD's are less educated than plasma owners. A statement which sort of outs the OP as an idiot to begin with.

Obviously not every LCD owner is less educated...however, many of them are (and there are a lot more LCD owners than plasma overall) because they buy into hype from ads, idiot BB employees, and other uneducated LCD owners instead of knowing the facts. I'm sure there are plenty of idiot plasma owners too who bought a plasma because they heard it was better but couldn't tell you why, but the largest group by size are the uneducated LCD owners.

LCD is the MP3 of the TV world
robi1138 is offline  
post #56 of 132 Old 02-05-2010, 11:46 AM
Member
 
jtexasflood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 88
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
I must admit, I fell into the 120hz hype when I purchased my television. Don't get me wrong, I love my Toshiba 46XF550U tv. I just wish I researched it a little more. I was pretty close to buying a plasma. So much that I had the break-in cd burnt and ready to go. For me, it came down to image retention. I knew I was going to do a lot of gaming and didn't want to have to worry about that. From the forums on this site, it seems that this is still an issue. Also, I didn't want to have to worry about my kid leaving accidentally not following the "rules" of owning a plasma. I don't have first hand experience with the 240hz tvs but to me it also seems a bit ridiculous. On an unrelated note, is anyone getting sucked into the 3D tv hype? I only say this because my depth perception isn't great and I can't see any of that stuff.

Xbox live gamertag: jtexasflood
jtexasflood is offline  
post #57 of 132 Old 02-05-2010, 12:19 PM
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 jtexasflood View Post

I must admit, I fell into the 120hz hype when I purchased my television. Don't get me wrong, I love my Toshiba 46XF550U tv. I just wish I researched it a little more. I was pretty close to buying a plasma. So much that I had the break-in cd burnt and ready to go. For me, it came down to image retention. I knew I was going to do a lot of gaming and didn't want to have to worry about that. From the forums on this site, it seems that this is still an issue. Also, I didn't want to have to worry about my kid leaving accidentally not following the "rules" of owning a plasma. I don't have first hand experience with the 240hz tvs but to me it also seems a bit ridiculous. On an unrelated note, is anyone getting sucked into the 3D tv hype? I only say this because my depth perception isn't great and I can't see any of that stuff.

If I had kids and did a lot of gaming, I'd go LCD as well.

As for 3D TV, who knows?...depends how well it's done. There are a couple of other threads here discussing that though.

LCD is the MP3 of the TV world
robi1138 is offline  
post #58 of 132 Old 02-05-2010, 03:35 PM
AVS Special Member
 
aydu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Central Illinois
Posts: 3,769
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 60 Post(s)
Liked: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

I'm not sure where you got that idea. Talk to people in the industry - the ability to adjust commercial displays stemmed from the fact that it's cheaper to manufacture a set to lower part tolerances but give the end user the controls to adjust it to reference levels. Most people are simply uneducated as to what those controls are for. Organizations like ISF and THX are trying to educate the public, but most people don't care to be educated on it, so it's a slow, uphill process. Making sure you're seeing what the director intended isn't about giving up control of your display to them - it just assures that all the creative visual choices that they made to communicate their image makes it to you.

Me thinks you've gone from being wrong to being flat out silly.
aydu is online now  
post #59 of 132 Old 02-05-2010, 03:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,266
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by HogPilot View Post

For the millionth time, HD content shot on digital HD video cameras is meant to be no more "clear" or "real" than content shot on film. It's not the medium on which something is captured that delivers what some here consider a "realistic look" - it's the way it's shot and the choices made by the director and mastering staff.

Contrary what some people here have said - and I assure you that it's not based in fact, just misguided personal opinion - original capture medium and display technology used in the home have no correlation or relation to one another. A good display will properly reproduce whatever is fed to it whether that material originated on film, digital video, or CGI; a poor display will impose its own look on material.

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.

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

Gary McCoy is offline  
post #60 of 132 Old 02-05-2010, 05:15 PM
Advanced Member
 
Luke M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 520
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 86 Post(s)
Liked: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

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 sound like an LCD salesman. Frame interpolation is not new. Philips put it into their PAL-land TVs a long time ago. Then the issue was that CRTs flicker at 50Hz. Now the issue is LCD motion blur. "Improving" motion is a side effect, not the main objective. The main objective is mitigating a flaw in the display technology.
Luke M is offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

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