32 inch tv! 60hz vs 120hz?

Good question. So many of the smaller sets are 60hz and 720P. Not sure if either is important in this size.

+1, the money is better spent on a larger display.

Definitely get the 120 hz. The 720P probably won't matter.

I don't think 120Hz is typically found on 720p sets, if at all.

if im not wrong, Panasonic TC-L32G1 is 120Hz 720p

Sounds like you found the exception. Still not common, though, as I have yet to see a 720p 120Hz Samsung or Sony.

Sony XBR4

In that case, how many 720p 120Hz sets are there (from 2009 to 2010)? I didn't see the XBR4 on Sony's site.

The display frequency has nothing to do with display resolution. Let me rephrase that: The display frequency has nothing to do with display resolution, in a technical sense. The advantages of 100/120Hz display frequency on a HD-Ready TV will be just as big (or small) as on a 1080p TV. Any correlation between HD-Ready TVs and the absence of 120Hz is caused by economic considerations. Not by technical ones.

If you insist on trying to weigh these features it's important to know what you're trying to achieve. For instance, 100/120Hz only matters if the source actually is 50 (EU) or 60Hz (US). By far most of the movies (DVD/HDDVD/BR/VHS) are recorded @23.976fps. In that, 120Hz is almost useless. Yeah you could do a 6:4 pulldown (or a 3:2 pulldown and then interpolation) instead of a mere 3:2 pulldown but you wouldn't notice the difference because of all the judder. Suffice it to say, 120Hz is mainly useful for fast moving TV broadcasts. And only if they're recorded @ 30fps. So if you watch a lot of that kind of stuff (sports) it could be an asset.

For my it's not worth it. I almost exclusively watch movies or series that I've downloaded (24p) and when I do watch TV it's generally not sports. I wouldn't pay much more than €10 to have this feature added to my TV. It would be nice to have it available on my fingertips as an option (having an option hardly ever hurts) but it's definitely not high on my list of priorities.

But I guess it varies from person to person and from TV to TV. Question is if you need it (see above) and if you're willing to pay the price for it (how big would the surplus be to get a 120Hz TV?).

LBO6: Thanks for that information. I too am struggling trying to decide if I need to spend the extra $ on 120Hz or 240Hz (at Costco it looks like you go from $1299 for a 120Hz Vizio 55in to $1499 for a 240Hz 55in to $1750 for a 240Hz w/ wi-fi). You mention you don't watch sports. I do watch a lot of NFL football. In anyone's opinion does that make it worth while to spend the extra money for additional Hz? Thanks in advance.

The original question was whether or not 120hz was worth it over 60hz on a 32" set.

What does your question regarding 120hz vs. 240hz on a 55" set have to do with that?

Let's help the thread starter with his question before going off on a tangent. Yes, I for one would pick a 32" with 120hz and 1080p on any TV 32" and larger.

Now, as for the newbie's question about 120hz vs. 240hz, I don't think that 240hz has been shown to be that much of an advantage over 120hz to warrant the added cost.

Sorry. I'm as new to these types of forums as I am to lcd hdtvs...

+1, I have actually done just that when I bought my 32" B650 1080p 120Hz LCD TV. If I had to choose between 720p 120Hz and 1080p 60Hz, I would choose the latter since I only find 120Hz useful for eliminating 2:3 pulldown judder in DVD and Blu-ray Disc movies. 1080p is sharper than 720p and provides more detail than 720p, even for a 32". There is little money to be saved by getting a 720p set, unless you're comparing entry-level 720p sets to higher-end 1080p sets, which cost more due to better PQ overall and more features not resolution alone.

I have a JVC LT-32P510 it is 120hz and 1080p., with an IPOD dock.