120 hertz too good?

[PhilV91]

I saw King Kong running on a 120 hertz television and while the picture was amazing and the movement very fluid it looked unrealistic to me and it seemed like it was easier to tell that it was computer animation on the screen. What are the opinions of the audioholics on that one! Based on that ill stay with my 60 hertz thank you very much!

 

[Bluesmoke]

That's not just 120hz, it's frame interpolation. You can turn it off. It does make things look 3d and like soap opera.

 

[annunaki]

Boo 120hz! Boo LCD (with inherent natural flaws that require gimmicky features to band aid)!.

Yay Plasma with no inherent motion issues!

 

[hxcmassacre]

I keep my 120hz on medium or low. High looks great if you are playing a pixar animated movie, but it does make live action look... weird. But it is something I would recommend. 60hz lcds have awful motion and plasma tvs still have a little too much judder during panning shots imho

 

[jostenmeat]

I keep my 120hz on medium or low.

Hello hxc, it's not a setting on 120hz, because that is an immutable frame rate. The medium or low setting, or any setting, is applied to frame interpolation. Just to be very clear.

That said, even if I don't really care so for it, or at least not yet, it would be interesting to see head-to-head competitions of the varying mftr's versions. They each design their own algorithm. I read an article recently at Projector Central, where the author preferred Panasonic's version to the others.

High looks great if you are playing a pixar animated movie, but it does make live action look... weird. But it is something I would recommend. 60hz lcds have awful motion and plasma tvs still have a little too much judder during panning shots imho

If you find that plasma has a bit too much judder, you'd probably think the same thing for the movie theater. In fact, maybe even real life has too much judder for you!!

Try this test:

Put open hand in front of your face. Wave back and forth. Judder!!

 

[rekced]

Boo 120hz! Boo LCD (with inherent natural flaws that require gimmicky features to band aid)!.

Yay Plasma with no inherent motion issues!

God dang I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[rekced]

I saw King Kong running on a 120 hertz television and while the picture was amazing and the movement very fluid it looked unrealistic to me and it seemed like it was easier to tell that it was computer animation on the screen. What are the opinions of the audioholics on that one! Based on that ill stay with my 60 hertz thank you very much!

I am not an expert by any means, but this is my explanation.

Blu-Ray movies are encoded at 24fps (24p). That is the same frame rate movies are filmed at and Blu-Ray/HD-DVD are the first technologies to preserve this frame rate for home video.

Q. What does 24p have to do with 120hz?

A. Let's back up to the theater where things should be ideal. You have a projector advancing film on a reel at the same rate the movie was filmed (24fps). Every time the film advances one time, the light behind the film turns on and off three times. The reason for this is because if there was only one burst of light every frame the screen would have a horrible flicker on it.

Q. So why not just film the movie at a faster rate say like 60 or 100 to reduce the flicker?

A. Because it was established many decades ago that 24fps gives the most desirable looking motion blur for cinema. Yes, certain kinds of blur are actually essential for cinema. If there are 3 bursts of light 24 times per second in the theater would give you 72 bursts per second (or 72hz).

So why 120hz and not 72hz or 96hz?

Because televisions at home receive more than one kind of signal. They could be getting 720p/60, 1080i, 1080p/60 or 1080p/24... Think of the lowest possible number all of those frame rates can go into evenly.... Yup, 120....

What happens to the picture of the frame rate doesn't go in evenly? You get 3:2 pull down. Example:

Q. So, do LCD televisions really give you a realistic cinema motion similar to the theater screen?

A. The honest answer is that I have not seen one. LCD is just a horrible technology in every way that has to do with true image quality compared to the theater or even plasma. Even with "120hz" the motion sucks, the black level sucks, the color detail sucks. Even the god damn viewing angle sucks.

Q. What does 120hz technology on newer LCDs actually do?

A. I am not sure, but it's not desirable to people who care about quality motion. The first indication that it sucks is that motion enhancement can be adjusted with the following options: off, low, medium or high. But wait a min! You want your screen motion to be accurate, don't you? This isn't like reverb on a guitar amp where you can screw up the sound as much as you want to cover up your bad playing. Oh... maybe that's what it's designed to do! Cover up the flaws in LCD panel technology that won't go away soon. What's it's really called is motion interpolation, as mentioned above. It is offensive to put it on a TV for this purpose. Ten years from now people will be laughing at it.

Another drawback of motion interpolation is that you'll get a lot of artifacts with certain brands when you turn it up, taking away from picture quality even more. The brands Vizio, Philips and Toshiba televisions are nasty in this area, just to name a few. Sony's MotionFlow feature isn't horrible, but turning the TV to cinema mode will lock MotionFlow to off. Sony knows it's not good to mess with the frame rate, but their stupid customers demand it. It's the kind of people who would probably want a plasma, but think they wear out in three years or aren't bright enough (HA!) So these people buy an LCD, but they don't like the motion of the 60hz models. So all the brands have to cover the junk with fluff to make the TVs leave the store.

Q. What does a 120hz LCD look like with motion interpolation turned off?

A. Like a similar TV with 60hz. I really can't tell much of a difference. If you ever see a split screen explaining the difference, know that they are usually simulated and not a true representation of the quality you will get.

 

[annunaki]

Good points about 120hz being the band aid.

After your post some may wonder why some manufacturers went LCD in the first place.

Here is the simple answer, money.

LCD's though typically a higher manufacturing cost, actually tend to have a better profit margin for the manufacturer. When Sony and others realized they were well behind the curve in the plasma game, they gave up on it and had to find something to keep them competitive in the flat panel arena. Enter in the marketing people and all the misinformation...

 

[scott911]

awesome, informative thead guys - thanks.

 

[rekced]

Good points about 120hz being the band aid.

After your post some may wonder why some manufacturers went LCD in the first place.

Here is the simple answer, money.

That could be a big part of it. But I remember the times when a number of manufactures went to LCD because people all over the industry just believed that everything would eventually go to that way. "It was just a matter of time" they said. A long time ago I claimed it wouldn't matter how much plasma manufactures do to to improve their product, a huge percentage of people will never buy them. They already have the following advantages and it made no difference:

-Better longevity (check box)
-Better response time (check box)
-Better viewing angle (check box)
-Deeper black level (check box)
-Higher contrast ratio (check box)
-Deeper colors (check box)
-Selection of brands/models that could satisfy a real videophile (check box)
-Ability to lay down or ceiling mount (check box)
-Risk of image retention (pretty much check box)

Now all they need to do is the following to destroy plasmas:

-Cut weight
-Reduce power consumption (wait 'til you see Panasonics extremely energy efficient panels in the near future! OMG)
-Brighter maximum brightness
-Guarantee their panels will not get uneven phosphor wear



Even if they did ALL of that do you think it would make a difference? Hell no. I had family members discredit my opinion because I suggested a plasma television because it was ideal for their application. They always have that friend at work or son who is an "engineer" who said not to buy one because one of the following will happen to you.

1.) You can't repair them if they break
2.) They "burn out" after a few years
3.) You have to refill the gas every few years. You either take it the local repair shop and pay more than the TV is worth OR order the gas illegally from Mexico and replace it yourself (no, I'm not joking. I have heard people say that).
4.) If you bump the TV and it falls the ground the gas can melt your skin and burn holes through your carpet. Similar to having a small nuclear reactor in your home (again, I'm not joking)
5.) They have an extreme amount of glare!!!!! (The person person will block their face and act as if they are a vampire who is being thrown directly into the sun. Plasmas must be 1000X worse than the bare glass on their CRT that "isn't too bad, just old).
6.) If one pixel goes out on a plasma the whole TV will stop working.
7.) They all make a buzzing sound
8.) The fans on the back are annoying
9.) After Sony dumped the Plasma so a bunch of guys bought their old technology and tried to make a buck off of customers who don't know any better. (Not joking)
10.) You can't transport them easily because minor bumps cause the electronics to break.

 

[juggy4805]

Wow, LCD gets no love here.


I just ditched my LG plasma for 120hz Samsung because of image retention. The plasma has a wonderful picture but the image retention ruined it.

 

[rekced]

Wow, LCD gets no love here.


I just ditched my LG plasma for 120hz Samsung because of image retention. The plasma has a wonderful picture but the image retention ruined it.

What is your application? How old was your LG? What model # if you recall? Did it have the Pixel shift/Aniti IR feature built in?

I abuse the crap out of my two year old Panasonic and nothing bad has happened. I game, use it as a monitor, leave DVD menus sitting, expose it to very hot environments, etc. It's a 600U 720P. No anti IR feature.

 

[bandphan]

Wow, LCD gets no love here.


I just ditched my LG plasma for 120hz Samsung because of image retention. The plasma has a wonderful picture but the image retention ruined it.

Lcd gets plenty of love

 

[Pyrrho]

Wow, LCD gets no love here.


I just ditched my LG plasma for 120hz Samsung because of image retention. The plasma has a wonderful picture but the image retention ruined it.

Not everyone here is rabidly anti-LCD. I own one, and would never buy a plasma set. However, neither is perfect. What one should do is to look at the pros and cons of each, and consider how one is going to use it, then decide what to buy. Here is a link to get one started on that:

http://www.crutchfield.com/learn/learningcenter/home/tv_flatpanel.html

Plasma and LCD are not the only types of TVs, so the best TV for a particular application might be neither plasma nor LCD. My guess is, in a few years, both plasma and LCD will die out in favor of OLED, though the future is notoriously difficult to predict with great accuracy, and in any case, that does not help one with what to watch now.

Looking at a few of each in stores isn't a bad idea either, especially if one has not looked at one recently, as they keep improving TVs. Of course, one would want to play with the picture adjustments in the store, as a particular set may be improperly adjusted and give one a false impression of poor quality.

You are also not the first person to have a problem with image retention. (Just do a couple of searches, for image retention and for burn-in.) You will undoubtedly not be the last, either, despite the insistence of many plasma fan-boys that it isn't really a problem. It isn't a problem if the TV is used in certain ways only, but if used in other ways, it can be a serious problem. If it were never a problem, manufacturers would provide a warranty against it, which, of course, none of them do.

 

[Pyrrho]

I saw King Kong running on a 120 hertz television and while the picture was amazing and the movement very fluid it looked unrealistic to me and it seemed like it was easier to tell that it was computer animation on the screen. What are the opinions of the audioholics on that one! Based on that ill stay with my 60 hertz thank you very much!

When going to a theater to see computer animation, one can clearly see that it is unrealistic. With a TV, if you want computer animation to look as realistic as possible, get so far from the screen that you can barely see the picture, and then it will look about as realistic as computer animation can look. The clearer and bigger the picture, the easier it is to see that a fake thing is fake.

 

[juggy4805]

What is your application? How old was your LG? What model # if you recall? Did it have the Pixel shift/Aniti IR feature built in?

I abuse the crap out of my two year old Panasonic and nothing bad has happened. I game, use it as a monitor, leave DVD menus sitting, expose it to very hot environments, etc. It's a 600U 720P. No anti IR feature.

It is a 42PG20. It is the lower end plasma. It is okay but I get image retention, even when using pixel shift. It isn't a bad TV, but I think the LN52A650 from Samsung is a better TV.

Nothing bad has happened either for me. However, certain instances like an all black screen shows image retention. My TV is on like 8 hours a day so the energy savings will also benefit.

 

[juggy4805]

Not everyone here is rabidly anti-LCD. I own one, and would never buy a plasma set. However, neither is perfect. What one should do is to look at the pros and cons of each, and consider how one is going to use it, then decide what to buy. Here is a link to get one started on that:

http://www.crutchfield.com/learn/learningcenter/home/tv_flatpanel.html

Plasma and LCD are not the only types of TVs, so the best TV for a particular application might be neither plasma nor LCD. My guess is, in a few years, both plasma and LCD will die out in favor of OLED, though the future is notoriously difficult to predict with great accuracy, and in any case, that does not help one with what to watch now.

Looking at a few of each in stores isn't a bad idea either, especially if one has not looked at one recently, as they keep improving TVs. Of course, one would want to play with the picture adjustments in the store, as a particular set may be improperly adjusted and give one a false impression of poor quality.

You are also not the first person to have a problem with image retention. (Just do a couple of searches, for image retention and for burn-in.) You will undoubtedly not be the last, either, despite the insistence of many plasma fan-boys that it isn't really a problem. It isn't a problem if the TV is used in certain ways only, but if used in other ways, it can be a serious problem. If it were never a problem, manufacturers would provide a warranty against it, which, of course, none of them do.

I having to adjust my watching habits to combat image retention. I listen to The Beatles- Love Album alot on DVD-A. I always have to turn on the white wash feature because the DVD-A screen is a static image. I can't wait to watch SD cable without worrying about black bars on the sides.

 

[annunaki]

Let's face the facts here. There are good & bad sets within both camps.

LG, no offense, falls into a poor example of what Plasma has to offer.

The upper end Samsung & Sony sets tend to be better examples of LCD, specifically the LED local dimming sets.

Comparing them head to head even in this case is not really the best example of comparing the two technologies.

It would be like comparing a 12" sub vs. a 15" where the 12" is an SVS PB-12 Plus and the 15" is a cheapo Sony and making one's conclusion based upon the comparison.

 

[BMXTRIX]

I saw King Kong running on a 120 hertz television and while the picture was amazing and the movement very fluid it looked unrealistic to me and it seemed like it was easier to tell that it was computer animation on the screen. What are the opinions of the audioholics on that one! Based on that ill stay with my 60 hertz thank you very much!

120hz technology is likely to be a core part of the future of displays, but we will all be better off if motion based frame interpolation is left in the trash.

Motion based frame interpolation is what creates the artificial 3D appearance that you are seeing on the display. What is going on is that there is processing within the display which accepts (for example) a Blu-ray 24 frame per second source, and then applies a deblurring algorythm to each frame. Instead of the smooth 1/24th of a second image which shows natural blur and movement, you end up with a frame which looks like it was shot at 1/200th of a second or faster. You can't even tell the people are moving at all if you were to look at a single frame!

The problem with all of this is basically that it IS unreal. Real time deblurring is an edge enhancement process which removes the natural way humans actually see. While we do end up with 120 unique frames per second, the frames themselves appear like you are looking at people through a strobe light. They lack the blur which is a very natural part of human vision.

What's amazing, is that we truly need the blur for things to look natural and accurate. In fact, the video game industry spent years working out how to add blur to motion to make it appear more natural. It's not that 120hz with frame interpolation looks like animation - it actually looks like BAD animation!

But, 120hz displays are not the culprit or bad guy in all of this. It is the motion adaptive frame interpolation which is to blame.

120hz is actually great for both plasma and lcd displays in that we get the removal of judder, much as we do with 96hz or 72hz displays on 24fps original sources. It is not done by adding new frames, but by repeating the same digital frame 3, 4, or 5 times. The 120hz method is one of the best, because it can be standardized within a display to handle both 24fps, 30fps, and 60fps original sources accurately.

Key word in all of this: Accurately.

LCD vs. plasma is a completely different debate and discussion and has little to do with 120hz displays and more importantly, motion adapte frame interpolation.

 

[rekced]

LG, no offense, falls into a poor example of what Plasma has to offer.

Yeah, I have tried to redeem plasmas with certain people, but it NEVER works. Most of the time it was a Vizio purchased years ago and something in the electronics died prematurely because of AmTran's superb "American quality". It's the same case here. We have a low end LG with most likely an extreme case temporary IR caused from a cheap sub par screen, vivid mode and cheap electronics generating a lot of heat.

I did a quick study about six months on about TV brands by finding out what TVs are returned to stores due to quality issues. As a whole, Panasonic plasma was more reliable than most LCD makers besides Sony. I would collect the states again next year to report all of the results of the 2009 models, but I know it wouldn't make a difference to those people who have already made up their mind.