Originally Posted by xrox
As you said yourself, a higher refresh rate enables use of frame interpolation (among other things). I think you are just stuck on the thought that a high refresh rate panel must have a high refresh rate input which is in no way true.
Yes, I'm kinda stuck on it as it's logical and it makes sense, I mean, how much can it cost to just pass through the signal without PP? It would make sense from a marketing perspective too, another shiny badge on the box.
Sure there's not much 120Hz ATM (if you ignore games and iZ3d/nVidia) but it's still worth it to the manufacturer as a marketing ploy.
I guess I just didn't want to accept that much stupidity
The 120Hz and 240Hz panels (excluding hybrid backlight scanning) on the market are in fact refreshing the panel at those frequencies. They just cannot accept signals at those frequencies.
Hmmpf, ok, if you say so. I'm only starting to scratch the surface on this whole newfangled "thin" TV business.
A quote from a few users stating the Sony's EX400 and EX500 use the same panels but EX500 has BE3 and MotionFlow (Sony's specs sheet lacks any clear info on the refresh rate) got me on the wrong track, or maybe it's true for this particular model?
Also can you please point me to some current models worth checking out?
I really tried to get some info from the net but it's just garbage and stupid shop aggregation sites. I have yet to find a site that does consistent and quantifiable tests (like say, tft-central for monitors). This whole obfuscation/mystification/marketing drivel is driving me nuts.
What do STARS mean? How does a 5.5 score translate to ms of input lag? How does a "good viewing angle" do vs a "tight" one? Etc, etc.