Originally Posted by Jim HTPC
Has anyone contacted LG for an official response?
Edit. Just went to LG.com. Put in 65LW6500 into top left search box, and presto. 65LW6500 indeed says 120Hz whereas the 55LW6500 is 240Hz. Hmmm I will try to find time to contact them to find out why. Perhaps one of their distributors will know why.
Jim, if you (or anyone else for that matter) do hear anything from LG or one of their distributors as to why they used only 120Hz on the 65" LW6500, do please share (where's an LG "insider" when you need one!
). As of right now, we can really only speculate as to a reason why. My personal guess would be that maybe it has to do with their abrupt switchover to a 100% Passive 3D tv lineup. But again, it's just a guess. Heck, the 65LW6500 wasn't even listed in the product section of their website until sometime in the past 6 days. They've also made minor changes to the spec sheet recently as opposed to the original one that was available at ABT's site (Contrast Ratio jumped up by 4million).
Not that it probably matters.
Film Patterned Retarder (FPR) 3D doesn't have the same issues with flicker and there is no black frame insertion like with Active Shutter 3D, so it's generally said that these tvs can get away with using a slower 120Hz refresh rate. This equates to some cost savings.
In the link from nayuta
's post #175 (btw, thanks nayuta!), it said that LG needed to use a different company's (AUO...AU Optronics Corp's) Glass
Patterned Retarder (GPR) for their Cinema 3D panels larger than 60" (i.e. the 65LW6500), instead of using their own FPR version which works with tvs up to 55". (assuming
this is accurate...the google translation is atrocious). I've also seen other articles that said that LG had passive models in the UK last year in pubs for Sky TV which used the G
PR tech from AUO.
I've read that GPR's are estimated at ~4x as expensive as FPR (don't know exact $ amounts), so perhaps LG was simply looking at a way of minimizing the overall cost to consumers by only using a 120Hz panel on their already largest most expensive LW6500 model? Although why would they use 240Hz on their 47 and 55" LW6500 models then if they didn't think the lesser Hz really made a difference? I think rschleicher
made some really interesting points in post #214 that may apply.I'm curious as to whether there might be a discernable PQ difference between AUO's GPR panels and LG's FPR panels?
I think I recall reading a post where someone at this year's CES thought that AUO's passive tvs were the most impressive they had seen there, but I'm unable to find it now (and I think they mis-spelled AUO if I recall, 'cause they couldn't remember the exact name of the company...no matter, point made).
Maybe this might explain why some people thought the 3D of the 120Hz LW5600 series models didn't look as good as that of the (120Hz) 65LW6500? (which you'd think would otherwise be the same). Or maybe not.
I'd love to hear of someone doing a controlled environment A/B comparison between the 65LW6500 and 55LW5600.
Fun stuff to think about...