TV question - for the wise masses of CP

[calgaryrocks]

Hi,
I am looking at buying a tv/home theatre system. I am looking at LCD tvs and am wondering how much of a difference the Hz makes, between 60Hz and 120Hz...from your experience? do you notice a difference watching hockey and football? (i understand it makes basically no difference for watching regular shows)
thanks

Calgaryrocks

[HotHotHeat]

To be simple, if you can afford the difference, it's worth it. Lots of stores have demonstrations that show the difference.

[TheyCallMeBruce]

Definitely. refresh rates are crucial. If you watch sports or fast action shows, you will notice the difference.

[OBCT]

Yes, in most cases.

Some brands implement their means to improved refresh rates differently than others. I don't remember the brands/models off hand, but I recall some controversy about "artificial" 120 Hz when the technology was new-ish (a year ago?). Something to do with skipping half the frames to achieve the "non choppy" effect, I believe, instead of actually doubling the frames like the name implies.

I don't know if this issue is still relevant for new TVs. For the most part, higher refresh rates are more than just hype - well-implemented, this technology is very noticeable for sports programming.

The best thing you can do if you're still wondering is to go into a TV store you like and ask for side-by-side demos of the same fast moving source material on two TVs you're interested in, one with 60 Hz and one with 120 Hz, and decide for yourself.

I don't know if your budget will allow for it, but the newest generations of displays are now coming out with 240 Hz refresh rates. That, LED active backlighting, wireless connectivity and super thin screens are the cool new TV tech of the moment.

[WindomURL]

Or get a plasma. LCD's have a long way to go to catch up to even two or three generations old plasmas. The current models are spec'ed at 600 Hz.

My opinion. Let's not start a holy war here.

[silentsim]

120Hz LCD's are very reasonably priced at the moment, for example Costco has a 52" 1080p 120hz for 1699!

[Kipper is King]

You may want to avoid the temptation to go with 240Hz. See this article: http://gizmodo.com/5397893/why-you-d...-<br /> lcd-tv

From what I understand, 120 Hz is just fine.

[OBCT]

Interesting article/video.

I think it's safe to say that 240 Hz isn't worth the upcharge at the moment. Still, judging by the user comments below, it seems as though some people prefer an increased refresh rate more than others, and that some manufacturers implement the technology "better" than others.


Another thing to keep in mind is response time. This is a key specification that sometimes goes unnoticed. The lower the response time of a display, the better fast motion content will look on it - and the less the display's refresh rate will matter. This and contrast ratio are the two areas plasmas have always excelled in and continue to excel in (which is why you don't see as much of a "240 Hz refresh rate" fervor surrounding plasmas as you do LCDs).

If only plasmas were versatile enough to be practical in backlit or glare-prone rooms.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Kipper is King

You may want to avoid the temptation to go with 240Hz. See this article: http://gizmodo.com/5397893/why-you-d...-<br /> lcd-tv

From what I understand, 120 Hz is just fine.

If you read that article more closely, and look at the link to the full article it sources, you'll see that mid to top tier LCD gear running at 60hz is perfectly fine.

And when you think about it, ATSC high definition video runs at 60hz. So why would you need to draw the same frame of video twice, when running at 120hz? There is literally no more information to draw, its coming it non-interlaced at exactly 60 frames a second. Furthermore, on LCD equipment, there is no fade like on an old phosphor tube, so refreshing the individual pixels more frequently does not improve their appearance.

I might be way off on this line of though though - but I wouldn't be suprised if its simply the case that the 120hz HD's have better panels generally than low-end 60hz gear.

[Esoteric]

If you plan on watching Blu ray movies, 120 hz is the only way to go. 60 hz can't properly interlace a 24p signal, while 120 hz can (120/24 = 5 times).

[Hack&Lube]

The only reason I would buy a 120Hz LCD is so that I could use 3D glasses!

[csnarpy]

i love my 120hz tv's but blue ray and hd on 240hz it simply amazing. No comparison.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by silentsim

120Hz LCD's are very reasonably priced at the moment, for example Costco has a 52" 1080p 120hz for 1699!

Link? I tried looking online but none with that price. Closest one was only 60 Hz.

[silentsim]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Link? I tried looking online but none with that price. Closest one was only 60 Hz.

It was taken off their web page, the old link was http://www.costco.ca/Browse/Product....at2341&topnav=

that gives you the product number at least, lol

It was a sharp aquos, 120hz 1080p 52" tv. Costco at Deerfoot Meadows had it in store last time I was there. $1699

[ma-skis.com]

Originally Posted by WindomURL

Or get a plasma. LCD's have a long way to go to catch up to even two or three generations old plasmas. The current models are spec'ed at 600 Hz.

My opinion. Let's not start a holy war here.

I had heard (crazy rumours) that plasmas were being phased out? is the LCD vs. Plasma debate still going strong? whoever the leader in plasma tv was had shifted to LCD...

all this is just off the top of my head possibly from some unreliable source.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by ma-skis.com

I had heard (crazy rumours) that plasmas were being phased out? is the LCD vs. Plasma debate still going strong? whoever the leader in plasma tv was had shifted to LCD...

all this is just off the top of my head possibly from some unreliable source.

The top plasma maker, Pioneer has stopped making them so I hear you can get some good deals relatively speaking, on their plasma's.

Panasonic, Samsung and LG are still going strong with the new Panasonic getting great reviews. The Samsung's are also good but I've heard complaints of a loud buzzing. The LGs are inexpensive but need to be updated with newer models.

I have two LCDs with 120hz and hockey looks great on them. A 60 Hz TV loses resolution in fast paced action, also a 120hz TV should have better overall specs than a 60hz TV from the same company.

My next TV may be a large plasma but I won't be using it for watching much SD TV or stations such as CNN with their scrolling bars as Plasma still needs some care to prevent burn in.

[Bob]

I find the interpolation introduced by 120 Hz and 240 Hz LCDs to be sickening and seriously off-putting. I've also yet to see a demonstration where the interpolation didn't seem to speed up and then slow down every once in a while--might be an artifact of the TVs I looked at, but still very strange, indeed. 120 Hz is fine for 5:5 pull-down at 24p (i.e. Blu-Ray), but then you're just stuck with the horrific breakup that's always present when panning (inherent with 24p). I prefer 60 Hz over 24p derivatives myself (both my plasmas will do 72 Hz 3:3 pulldown, and I don't like it).

I see the manufacturers have started a "Hz war" with plasmas now being billed at 600 Hz and the like. Should go nicely with the contrast war currently underway.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by WindomURL

Or get a plasma. LCD's have a long way to go to catch up to even two or three generations old plasmas. The current models are spec'ed at 600 Hz.

My opinion. Let's not start a holy war here.

Plasma refresh rates as spec'ed in advertising are about colour reproduction, not framerates:
http://www.popsci.com/node/30831

A 600hz Plasma is still running a 60hz refresh rate, just with finer control over colour per pixel.

[FurnaceFace]

I bought a second TV for the basement so I was looking more at cost than feature and bought the Best Buy/FS Insignia house brand 42" 120hz LCD. The colours are super vibrant (although I'm sure the dark pit of a basement adds to that) and the picture really good. I can't tell a diff (although I did not do a side by side) between it and the Panasonic plasma upstairs. For $800 though it's hard to beat. I understand they get top ratings by Consumer Reports too.

[calgaryrocks]

thanks for the input guys, I went with a 40" sony LCD with 120Hz, and its great (120Hz=great for hockey)