The Glade 4.0 :: View topic

120hz is good for fast moving shows, especially sporting events.

Those new LED tv's look brilliant...

I cannot stand the new AutoMotion Plus bullshit (and/or 120hz; I haven't done enough research to tell whether or not the 120hz is the ultimate culprit; Samsung apologists blame the AMP). I had to suffer through watching it wreck everything fed into it while at my father-in-law's over the Christmas holiday. It's an utter abomination. It absolutely destroys all sense of flow and wreaks havoc on the audience's perception of an actor's sense of timing (both comedic and dramatic) and relegates everything to looking like a cheap, shot-on-video soap opera. When I say "everything," of course, I'm talking about proper entertainment (movies and scripted TV shows), not sports or news or other things shot at 30fps.

Well how many FPS the human eye can see isn't really relevant in this circumstance, in a PC sure because your output can conceivably be that high, on a TV no, it will be 60hz at most, the best picture quality will be if the TV can match the output singnal thus not having to do things like 3:2 pulldown which reduces picture quality, that why they have the 1080p/24 format, all movies are shot in 24hz, the TV matches that input directly resulting in a better image quality, really the high refresh rates are a marketing gimmick.

The only way a 120/240hz tv can really look better than a 60hz tv is if you're comparing a movie being input to the tv over the standard 1080p/60 input which uses the 3:2 pulldown, the 120/240 evenly divide 24 and thus can show each frame 5 or 10 times respectively, but it has no benifit over a 60hz TV using the 1080p/24 input, which I belive most or maybe all have at this point, I know my Sony TV I got dec 2008 has it.

Am I confused? Why are we talking about FPS? 60hz versus 120hz is about refresh rate. How quickly the image on the screen transitions to the next frame. When watching sports or action-scenes on my 60hz Bravia I end up with a blurred transition, when watching the same scenes on a 120hz TV the transition is smooth and clean, the image maintains its integrity from frame to frame.

So yes the input may be limited to 24-30 FPS but how quickly and cleanly the images are presented makes all the difference.

Again I may be confused so feel free to correct me

Author:	Divinity [ Sat Jan 09, 2010 4:17 pm ]
Post subject:	60Hz vs 120Hz
Alright, within the next few weeks, I'm looking to buy a new TV. I've been trying to research the difference between a 60Hz and a 120Hz. I can't seem to get any definitive answers on what's best, so thought I'd ask for honest feedback. I get what the actual "difference" is between the two, but I am reading things like the 120Hz is SO clear, it's almost distracting. Does anyone else find this? Is the 120Hz better with blue ray? The price difference between the two isn't a lot really, $400-$500. I don't mind forking out the extra money, but I'm interested in those that have either the 60 or 120 and can maybe share their opinion.

Author:	Müs [ Sat Jan 09, 2010 4:43 pm ]
Post subject:
120hz is good for fast moving shows, especially sporting events. I've never heard of clarity being distracting. Given similarly priced tvs, get the 120hz one.

Author:	Hopwin [ Sat Jan 09, 2010 4:44 pm ]
Post subject:
120hz blows away 60. If you go to your local Bext Buy/whatnot you can clearly see the difference between the two. To me it is a clearer difference than HD versus non-HD.

Author:	Hopwin [ Sat Jan 09, 2010 4:44 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Müs wrote: 120hz is good for fast moving shows, especially sporting events. and action-oriented TV shows and movies.

Author:	Divinity [ Sat Jan 09, 2010 5:48 pm ]
Post subject:
Thanks everyone. I really appreciate the feedback.

The Glade 4.0 https://gladerebooted.net/

60Hz vs 120Hz https://gladerebooted.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=1382	Page 1 of 1

Author:	SuiNeko [ Sat Jan 09, 2010 5:56 pm ]
Post subject:
Really? How can it be so much better ? Do they actually broadcast shows with more frames per second?

Author:	FarSky [ Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:41 pm ]
Post subject:
I cannot stand the new AutoMotion Plus bullshit (and/or 120hz; I haven't done enough research to tell whether or not the 120hz is the ultimate culprit; Samsung apologists blame the AMP). I had to suffer through watching it wreck everything fed into it while at my father-in-law's over the Christmas holiday. It's an utter abomination. It absolutely destroys all sense of flow and wreaks havoc on the audience's perception of an actor's sense of timing (both comedic and dramatic) and relegates everything to looking like a cheap, shot-on-video soap opera. When I say "everything," of course, I'm talking about proper entertainment (movies and scripted TV shows), not sports or news or other things shot at 30fps.

Author:	Sasandra [ Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:51 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: 60Hz vs 120Hz
I can't tell the difference at all personally, nothing will be output to your tv at anything over 60hz so all it's doing is showing the same frame two times, it's like interpolation, the quality is only as good as the weakest link.

Author:	Corolinth [ Sat Jan 09, 2010 8:34 pm ]
Post subject:
The reason you're not getting a definitive answer is because there isn't one. http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Author:	Sasandra [ Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:02 pm ]
Post subject:
Well how many FPS the human eye can see isn't really relevant in this circumstance, in a PC sure because your output can conceivably be that high, on a TV no, it will be 60hz at most, the best picture quality will be if the TV can match the output singnal thus not having to do things like 3:2 pulldown which reduces picture quality, that why they have the 1080p/24 format, all movies are shot in 24hz, the TV matches that input directly resulting in a better image quality, really the high refresh rates are a marketing gimmick. The only way a 120/240hz tv can really look better than a 60hz tv is if you're comparing a movie being input to the tv over the standard 1080p/60 input which uses the 3:2 pulldown, the 120/240 evenly divide 24 and thus can show each frame 5 or 10 times respectively, but it has no benifit over a 60hz TV using the 1080p/24 input, which I belive most or maybe all have at this point, I know my Sony TV I got dec 2008 has it.

Author:	Corolinth [ Sat Jan 09, 2010 11:49 pm ]
Post subject:
It is very relevant, because you use the human eye to see and not a television. The human eye also does not see in terms of a frame rate, which is what complicates things. All of the things you have mentioned are a byproduct of the human eye and brain attempting to turn a series of still-frame images into the continuous image it ordinarily deals with. Incidentally, all of the things you bring up are discussed in the page I linked.

Author:	Rafael [ Sun Jan 10, 2010 3:03 am ]
Post subject:
Those new LED tv's look brilliant...

Author:	Kaffis Mark V [ Sun Jan 10, 2010 7:52 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Rafael wrote: Those new LED tv's look brilliant... Oh God, the color on LEDs is mind boggling.

Author:	Darkroland [ Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:48 am ]
Post subject:	Re:
FarSky wrote: I cannot stand the new AutoMotion Plus bullshit (and/or 120hz; I haven't done enough research to tell whether or not the 120hz is the ultimate culprit; Samsung apologists blame the AMP). I had to suffer through watching it wreck everything fed into it while at my father-in-law's over the Christmas holiday. It's an utter abomination. It absolutely destroys all sense of flow and wreaks havoc on the audience's perception of an actor's sense of timing (both comedic and dramatic) and relegates everything to looking like a cheap, shot-on-video soap opera. When I say "everything," of course, I'm talking about proper entertainment (movies and scripted TV shows), not sports or news or other things shot at 30fps. I can't stand it either. Everything looks so "fake" to me. I turned it off immediately. The closest comparison I could draw was to old movies on VHS, where they "pan-and-scanned" the picture, but would occasionally have to fake-pan across it to get to another part of the action (I remember close encounters of the third kind doing this a lot). Very similar effect, doesn't look anything like an actual camera pan, just feels like everything is sliding around.

Author:	Talya [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 12:01 pm ]
Post subject:
For the record, Blu-Ray movie framerates are 24 FPS (if you think that's low, it's the same as what movies are filmed in. Film cameras catch motion blur and so they never feel choppy to the human eye.) Increasing from 60Hz to 120Hz doesn't help movie-viewing at all. All 120Hz does with a Blu-Ray is refresh the same image 5 times in a row instead of 2-3 times. And Automotion Plus (that Farsky mentions) is an attempted interpolation of the frames in between. It's artificial and it's garbage. It looks like total crap. There are only two things 120 Hz TVs are good for (and even then different people will tell you different things regarding how much difference it makes): Gaming, and any of the actual 3D gimmicks (Such as in the movie Avatar or it's associated console games) require at least 120 Hz --and sometimes additional accessories or specialized screens-- in order to work.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	LadyKate [ Tue Jan 19, 2010 12:19 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Sasandra wrote: Well how many FPS the human eye can see isn't really relevant in this circumstance, in a PC sure because your output can conceivably be that high, on a TV no, it will be 60hz at most, the best picture quality will be if the TV can match the output singnal thus not having to do things like 3:2 pulldown which reduces picture quality, that why they have the 1080p/24 format, all movies are shot in 24hz, the TV matches that input directly resulting in a better image quality, really the high refresh rates are a marketing gimmick. The only way a 120/240hz tv can really look better than a 60hz tv is if you're comparing a movie being input to the tv over the standard 1080p/60 input which uses the 3:2 pulldown, the 120/240 evenly divide 24 and thus can show each frame 5 or 10 times respectively, but it has no benifit over a 60hz TV using the 1080p/24 input, which I belive most or maybe all have at this point, I know my Sony TV I got dec 2008 has it. Heh, I didn't realize you were such a knowledgeable nerd, Sasandra. (please take that as a compliment!) Color me impressed!!

Author:	Hopwin [ Wed Jan 27, 2010 10:21 am ]
Post subject:
Am I confused? Why are we talking about FPS? 60hz versus 120hz is about refresh rate. How quickly the image on the screen transitions to the next frame. When watching sports or action-scenes on my 60hz Bravia I end up with a blurred transition, when watching the same scenes on a 120hz TV the transition is smooth and clean, the image maintains its integrity from frame to frame. So yes the input may be limited to 24-30 FPS but how quickly and cleanly the images are presented makes all the difference. Again I may be confused so feel free to correct me

Author:	Talya [ Fri Feb 05, 2010 3:39 pm ]
Post subject:	Re:
Hopwin wrote: Am I confused? Why are we talking about FPS? 60hz versus 120hz is about refresh rate. How quickly the image on the screen transitions to the next frame. When watching sports or action-scenes on my 60hz Bravia I end up with a blurred transition, when watching the same scenes on a 120hz TV the transition is smooth and clean, the image maintains its integrity from frame to frame. So yes the input may be limited to 24-30 FPS but how quickly and cleanly the images are presented makes all the difference. Again I may be confused so feel free to correct me FPS and Refresh Rate are essentially the same thing, although they originate on different devices. While Refresh Rate is the rate at which the display refreshes the next frame, FPS represents how quickly the image source (such as a blu-ray player, game console or a satellite decoder box)--which supplies those frames--transitions to the next frame. It is another type of refresh rate. The total rate of refresh is only as high as the the lowest point in the bottleneck, minus a bit for synchronization. The display cannot show more distinct frames than the image source is capable of sending it, nor can the image source force the display to show more frames than it's capable of displaying. For example, if your monitor refreshes at 120Hz, and your video card only sends 55 FPS, your total refresh rate from one frame to the next is slightly less than 55FPS. If your monitor refreshes at 60 Hz, but your framerates are 85 FPS, your actual refresh rate is going to be just under 60 FPS. It's very possible your source for sports is greater than 60Hz. I've heard they really ramp up the framerates for live sporting events.

Author:	Talya [ Fri Feb 05, 2010 4:32 pm ]
Post subject:
I should note that it used to matter with CRTs...the faster the refresh rate, the less "screen flicker" there was. LCDs have no "screen flicker." When your refresh rate is higher than your source frame rate, the screen is just redrawing the same image multiple times. (So a 120Hz TV redraws a 24 FPS blu-ray frame 5 times before it is fed a new one.)