40" LCD Television -- 60 or 120 Hz?

[fundmark19]

If you are on a budget look to vizio great tv's even better prices!

[photon]

Originally Posted by SebC

Not if it's interpolating. Also for 24fps it can go 5, 5, 5, 5... instead 3, 2, 3, 2, 3...

Sure for 24fps I understand the difference.

And good point about the interpolation, but I guess that depends on the source material doesn't it?

Broadcast HD allows for up to 720p/60 (60 frames per second) or 1080i/30 (30 frames or 60 fields per second), and I forgot about that, so a broadcast at 720p/60 would take advantage of a 60Hz TV the best.

And 1080i would be interpolated (or de-interlaced I guess) to 1080p/60, but do the two fields actually contain different information? Or are they just the even and odd lines from the same frame? If the latter, then there's no more information being added so you're still just doing 2,2,2,2 or 4,4,4,4 for 60Hz or 120Hz.

So one question is what do the satellite and cable providers in Canada actually broadcast stuff in? 720p/60 or 720p/30 (I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that they all broadcast in 720p)?

If 720p/60, then a 120Hz TV makes sense, 60Hz to give the best frame rate for sports, and the 120Hz for 1080p/24 input from Blu-ray.

ETA: I don't think it would interpolate between frames though would it? Interpolating between full 1920x1080 frames 30 or 60 times a second seems like a lot of data to process (like half a GB per second, or 10MB per hundredths of a second), requiring more horsepower than would be affordable in a TV, but DSPs and stuff I guess might make that possible.

[Vulcan]

So one question is what do the satellite and cable providers in Canada actually broadcast stuff in? 720p/60 or 720p/30 (I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that they all broadcast in 720p)?

I know that some OTA broadcasts like CBC are in 1080i which according to my computer graphic card is 30Hz. Other broadcasters (Fox?) use 720p 60Hz, which is supposed to be better for sports as it handles motion better but it isn't as good picture quality.

The providers such as Bell and Shaw are supposed to send the signal just as they receive it but Bell doesn't as they can cram more 720p signals onto a transponder than they can 1080i, so all their stations are 720p.

Whether 120Hz or 240Hz is better for fast moving sports like hockey, I can't really say as it may just be that the higher end TVs with 120Hz just have better parts but I've heard of people turning off the motion adjustments when watching film and turning it on for sports. On a personal level I have an old 1080i CRT HDTV that has no problem handling motion. I also have a 240Hz LCD and it handles motion better than my 120Hz TV but for me neither are distracting.

[Icon]

I have a 120Hz TV and absolutely love it. It can give a "3D while not being 3D" effect to movies/HD tv that to me adds alot of realism to the picture.

Plus its awesome for sports.

My dad just bought a 480Hz tv for their new place... haven't seen it in action yet... I'm worried it's going to cause some serious tv envy and a trip to the store for me...

[Tinordi]

Do you need 120 hz for watching sports?

Yes.

Next.

[Malkin Cookies]

LG 42" LCD 1080p 120Hz at ol' Future Shop for $639

My only concern is I've heard mixed reviews on TruMotion... anyone have this tv?

http://www.futureshop.ca/en-CA/produ...51b3735a70en02

[Vulcan]

I have a similar LG (LH40) that's two years older and it's been great for me. Look for an IPS panel (has a "Y" in the fourth position of the product code) as not all LGs have this panel.

[RT14]

I had a 47" LG "240Hz" Tru Motion, and while LG's picture quality and colors are amazing, the Tru motion lacked. Blurriness was still apparent at high speeds, although not as much as when I left it on 60hz.

[TorqueDog]

^ I have to wonder at what point the human eye stops being able to tell the difference between refresh rates. 60 Hz to 120 Hz made a difference because of its ability to match the frame rate of the source content.

Originally Posted by Vulcan

Yeah, I understand that but all the smaller 720p plasmas have that resolution and I've never heard that this causes distortion. That is one of the limitations of plasma though, they couldn't do HD in sizes under 42".

Anyways the Panasonic Plasma S30 linked by kunkstyle, has 1080p and looks like the better TV and the better deal if someone wants a plasma.

Well let's say your source is 720p (1280x720). A set with a native 1024x768, has to upscale the vertical and downscale the horizontal to fit that resolution, then it stretches the picture to fit a 16:9 aspect ratio. By nature of this, you're distorting the picture. You could use a 1366x768 source, which would leave your vertical untouched but scales the horizontal down before stretching.

The picture still looks 'correct' from an aspect perspective, but the clarity and detail isn't the same.

Content that is natively 1024x768 (PC) will be displayed in the wrong aspect ratio.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by photon

ETA: I don't think it would interpolate between frames though would it? Interpolating between full 1920x1080 frames 30 or 60 times a second seems like a lot of data to process (like half a GB per second, or 10MB per hundredths of a second), requiring more horsepower than would be affordable in a TV, but DSPs and stuff I guess might make that possible.

Many TVs can interpolate between frames:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_interpolation