What's the point in getting a 120 Hz TV, if the video you're watching is only 24-30 fps? Just upgrading the TV won't make the video refresh any faster than 24-30 frames per second. And there's no more data to be shown. Is it re-encoded at 120 fps and more data added somehow? I don't see how it works, unless you were to play video that runs at 120 fps native.

------------------

Because more is better!

Best description I have found:
http://www.pcmag.com/articl...,2817,2379206,00.asp

I have a 120Hz LED TV, and when watching HD Football games, I sometimes get extra footballs when watching a pass. This is due to the interpolation of frames caused by speeding up the refresh rate/frame rate of the video.

It is meant to smooth that motion, but if the camera that recorded it shows the ball 10 feet apart between frame one and two, the TV will try to slip a frame in between one and two and will result in seeing 2 or three footballs, almost like an "echo" effect on the screen for a split second.

quote Originally posted by Synthesis: Best description I have found: http://www.pcmag.com/articl...,2817,2379206,00.asp I have a 120Hz LED TV, and when watching HD Football games, I sometimes get extra footballs when watching a pass. This is due to the interpolation of frames caused by speeding up the refresh rate/frame rate of the video. It is meant to smooth that motion, but if the camera that recorded it shows the ball 10 feet apart between frame one and two, the TV will try to slip a frame in between one and two and will result in seeing 2 or three footballs, almost like an "echo" effect on the screen for a split second.

So its creating data that wasn't there originally? Takes those 2 frames, and does an average or something to figure out what the middle frame(s) should look like?

If it's a digital source, it's filmed at either 30, 60 or 120 fps. In all cases, a 120Hz monitor will display it as intended.
If it's a film source, it's filmed at 24fps. Replaying that on a 60Hz display means you have to interpolate because the 60Hz can refresh 2.5 times per frame shot at 24fps. So you end up with it either interpolating the half frame, or splitting the difference and showing one frame for 2 refreshes and one for 3 refreshes. Neither is an exact interpolation. 120Hz is an even multiplier of 24, so it can display 24fps sources smoothly with no interpolation artifacts.

I think the current crop of gaming consoles output video at 60 fps. And HD videos / broadcasts can go as high as 60 fps. But aside from that, the only consumer electronics device that would output video at 100 fps+ would be a gaming computer.

The obsession over frame rates, pixel counts, etc is just an excuse to get people to keep buying new stuff. I mean, you gotta keep up with the Joneses, right?

3D glasses.

The human brain can't break down anything past 60 hz (60fps), so anything past that mark is wasted on our vision. Modern 3D glasses use two lenses that filter on off in sequence. 120 hz divided by 2 is 60hz, the magic number for each lens.

Two years ago, you had to special order a 120hz monitor or TV in conjunction with a 3D pair of glasses in order to get stereoscopic vision. Now almost all TV's are industry standard 120 hz and have stereoscopic functionality built in. Sales reps will tell you that the image is seamless, smoother, and there's less motion blur with the faster refresh rate, but if you place a 120 hz TV next to a 60 hz TV, in a blind study, you won't be able to differentiate which is which.

In close, the 120hz technology is for the most part nonsensical hype, brought about by intense industry competition and the initial need for stereoscopic function.

I quite regularly full stop people bragging about their new 120 hz televisions, including one manager of Best Buy during his tech demonstration.

120 doesnt have anything to do with 3d, or at least that wasnt the driving force, and you cant see much better than 20FPS. The benefits from 120 are marginal at best, and usually only in very fast motion. It will usually crisp up the edges of fast moving things, but not so much as you could notice unless you had a 60 and 120 set side by side. 120 sets typcially have anit-judder processing as well, so its only part about the Hz and part about the chips. What you have to keep in mind, is this extra processing tends to introduce artifacts as well as make the whole picture look 'fake'.

And havent you heard? 240 is the new "must have" with 480 just around the corner. TVs hit a wall, much like computers a few years back, and manufacturers are having to create a demand where there is none. There was a huge boom when 720\1080 became mainstream and HD sources generated a tangable benefit from new hardware. That has passed, but they saw the money and are trying to artifically prop up the market with new 'features'.

Personally I would reccomend viewing some from both sets and making your own decision.

I totally agree that maybe technically, newer tvs are better whether its the 120 thing or 1080. The only thing ive noticed that is really a visible improvement is the change from analog to digital HD. Ive got 720 tvs and 1080s and 'see' NO difference. My living room tv is 1080, 120 and I can see a definate difference between DVD and VHS tapes. I also bought a Blue Ray player last year. I see absolutely no difference between my old DVD players and the Blue Rays pictures. Only reason I didnt return it was i didnt want to pay their outragous 'restocking fee'. If I can count the blades of grass in a scene on still frame with a reg DVD, what is Blue Ray supposed to do ?

quote Originally posted by Tinton: So its creating data that wasn't there originally? Takes those 2 frames, and does an average or something to figure out what the middle frame(s) should look like?

Absolutely correct. Half of what you see is created by the television. And worse if you have a 240Hz TV.

What is the real reason? Those who said "Not 3D" are correct. The reason is LCD technology. Once the practical limit of mode switching was reached (The ability of the liquid crystal to switch from opaque to clear to opaque again - about 4 -5ms), it was realized that this is still not as fast as the eye can pick up on. A baseball, a golf ball, a tennis ball or a hockey puck can move very quickly (dependent on angle) across a screen. So can many things in an action movie. The problem is that a liquid crystal can be wide open, showing the primary color that it is intended to, when it should be "closed." The object that the frame is supposed to represent can't be represented because the frame "moves" too quickly. The answer was in "overclocking" the display to minimize the smearing effect created.

Keep in mind that, as a gas based technology, Plasma displays are not subject to smearing. Why 600Hz sub field? Purely for marketing. Plasma displays are ten layers deep for contrast reasons. Some brilliant marketing guy took ten layers and multiplied by 60Hz - "600Hz sub field display."

All of this will be moot as OLED and similar LED based tech becomes available. They will have the benefits of both major technologies without the shortcomings of either. Maybe 5 - 10 years.

quote Originally posted by Blacktree: The obsession over frame rates, pixel counts, etc is just an excuse to get people to keep buying new stuff. I mean, you gotta keep up with the Joneses, right?

I miss analog. For several reasons.

quote Originally posted by User00013170: I miss analog. For several reasons.

I understand the sentiment; I'm a film guy myself.

OTOH, with four kids, my 55" TV and BD player are about 15 trips to the theater. After 15 movies, the thing pays for itself. Or the stereo that it's hooked up to.

quote Originally posted by L67: The human brain can't break down anything past 60 hz (60fps), so anything past that mark is wasted on our vision.

Not quite correct. The flicker-fusion threshold frequency depends upon a number of variables including image brightness, amount of visual field affected, ambient light level, duty cycle, and conditioning (i.e. previous experience with the stimulus). Two common examples: 1) Fluorescent lamps using magnetic ballasts have a flicker frequency of twice the power line frequency (i.e. 120 Hz in the U.S.), and it is responsible for headaches and visual disturbances in some individuals. 2) Motion pictures are usually shot (on film) at 24 frames per second, so when projected in theaters they are "double shuttered" or "triple shuttered" to raise the flicker frequency, but even then it's still annoyingly visible under certain conditions.

Many years ago I worked as a broadcast TV engineer, so I was used to looking at lab-quality monitors at 60 Hz (60 fields per second). During that time I toured the new Danish TV facility in Copenhagen, which operated at the European PAL standard of 50 fields per second. The Danish engineers proudly showed me one of their new monitors, which looked spectacular, and they commented that at 50 Hz the flicker was invisible. But to my eyes, conditioned to watching 60 Hz monitors, the 50 Hz Danish monitors all flickered like crazy.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-24-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Marvin McInnis: 2) Motion pictures are usually shot (on film) at 24 frames per second, so when projected in theaters they are "double shuttered" or "triple shuttered" to raise the flicker frequency, but even then it's still annoyingly visible under certain conditions.

quote No way should films and TV be shot at 30fps. Unless you want No Country for Old Men to look like Days of Our Lives. The goal of motion pictures is not to recreate reality, it's not even to show reality. I want to create a little psychic link between you and my pictures. I want to suck you into the world of the story, suspend your disbelief and make you forget about yourself and your life and just be in the moment of the film. By not showing enough visual information, we force the brain into filling in the gaps... it draws you in even more. It's part of how you let go to the point where you can laugh or cry or feel tense or afraid or elated. -Naim Sutherland

In that case then maybe we should shoot every movie in black & white at 16 fps ... like they did in the good old days. Maybe we should even consider doing away with the audio track and matteing in some grain, dust, and scratches.

I agree that we don't want feature films that look like TV soap operas, even when they are just elaborate soap operas, and I agree that technical perfection is usually not the primary goal, but working in the field I've also heard "art" invoked to rationalize ineptitude and/or poor attention to technical quality.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 01-27-2012).]

240hz is the upgrade. As noted the TV(computer) fills in the gaps. It gets rid of "judder" and jerkiness but a bad side effect you may want to look up is called "soap opera effect."

Patrick, I have a bunch of DVD players and recorders and a bunch of VHS as well as one LG Blue Ray. On my 1080 LCD tv thats connected to most of them, I can see a pretty huge difference from VHS to any of the DVDs, the Blue Ray dont look any different. I also copy and record all my shows on the DVD recorders, something I cant do with the Blue Ray player. Actually I think the BR player is not as clear or distinct as the others are, but that could just be my imagination. Most are connected with HDMI cables and the VHS and older DVD players use the component or composite cables. Ive even tried mixing around the cables to see if one or more might be weaker with no differences.