PDA

View Full Version : LCD 120 versus 240


vision
01-28-2011, 03:35 PM
I need to pick up a flat screen TV. I prefer the LCD-LEDs for a variety of reasons. Looking at a couple of Samsungs and viewing various movies I actually thought the 120 Hz models looked better than the 240 Hz models, but that could have been how they were set up.

But I have not been able to view a sports program or fast motion movie on the televisions. Is the difference between a 120 Hz refresh and 240 Hz significant when watching sports? The price difference is about $400 - $500. Thanks for the input.

east tx skier
01-28-2011, 03:37 PM
From all I have read, it's marketing hype. I have a 120 Hz Samsung full array LED and the picture is fantastic. I have no issues with motion blur. I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference. I can't and most of the geeks on the AVS forum agree.

Set up is pretty key. Get a setup disc or go to CNET or the AVS forum and use their settings for your model. I am still using the CNET settings on our 55" LED Samsung. I'm guessing those two TVs weren't set up the same. I can't think of a reason the 240 would not look as good if all other things were equal.

1redTA
01-28-2011, 05:06 PM
When I upgraded my 40" Sony Bravia, I went from a 1080i 60hz to the 40" Bravia 1080p. I could notice a difference. However, looking at the TVs we have recently gotten at work that are 240hz I can't notice any difference. The one constant I notice is the picture quality of Bluray over DVD. As long as the tv is capable of 1080p, I wouldn't worry about 240 v 120

Just look at the wireless and Internet apps such as Netflix. My tv does not have the Internet capablity so I am stuck using an xbox so my kids can watch movies

Table Rocker
01-28-2011, 05:40 PM
In my opinion there is no real value to 240Hz over 120Hz (and I own a 240) for watching TV or movies.

A 120Hz set is refreshing it's image 120 times per second. The image from the broadcaster or Blu-Ray player is at either 24 or 30 frames per second. That means the 120Hz display is refreshing the exact same image 5 times for 24fps material and 4 times for 30fps material. Is there a benefit to speeding those numbers up to 10 times and 8 times? It seems unlikely.

Where you might see a difference is hooked to a computer with a high end video card and playing games. I am not up on video card refresh rates, but they can exceed those of tv/blu-ray. Even then the differences would be negligible.

vision
01-28-2011, 08:13 PM
Thanks guys. That is quite helpful. I am going for the 120 Hz.

JimN
01-28-2011, 08:40 PM
I need to pick up a flat screen TV. I prefer the LCD-LEDs for a variety of reasons. Looking at a couple of Samsungs and viewing various movies I actually thought the 120 Hz models looked better than the 240 Hz models, but that could have been how they were set up.

But I have not been able to view a sports program or fast motion movie on the televisions. Is the difference between a 120 Hz refresh and 240 Hz significant when watching sports? The price difference is about $400 - $500. Thanks for the input.

How fast the refresh rate needs to be depends on what you'll be watching. If you're gaming or watching programming with extremely fast motion, the 240Hz will be better but it also depends on how much judder/jitter you can actually notice. Not everyone sees this the same- some can see florescent lighting flicker and some can't, so....

CantRepeat
01-28-2011, 09:52 PM
I've never seen an LCD or LCD-LED that had a fast enough refresh rate to keep up with sports action. Moreover, the grass always bleeds off.

Football, is one of the major sports that bleeds green all the time.

I've come to realize plasma is the only way to go when watching sports or even auto racing.

CantRepeat
01-28-2011, 09:55 PM
Read

http://reviews.cnet.com/240hz-lcd-tvs-what-you-need-to-know/

CantRepeat
01-28-2011, 09:59 PM
If you have a TV with a 120hz refresh rate that is 1080p/24 compatible (1920 pixels across the screen vs 1080 pixels down the screen, with a 24 frame per second rate). The TV ends up displaying 24 separate frames every second, but repeats each frame according to the refresh rate of the TV. In the case of 120hz each frame would be displayed 5 times within each 24th of a second.

Most people seem to see 60 fps as smooth.

georgea0731
01-28-2011, 10:04 PM
We picked up the 2009 top of the line, Samsung 46B8500 about a year ago. It was end of the year sale. Sales folks said it's 240 was basically 120 on 1/2 the screen and 120 on the other 1/2 of the screen. Thus 240! The new models may be different. Don't know if it can help or not, Just more info. for you to consider.

JimN
01-28-2011, 10:42 PM
If you have a TV with a 120hz refresh rate that is 1080p/24 compatible (1920 pixels across the screen vs 1080 pixels down the screen, with a 24 frame per second rate). The TV ends up displaying 24 separate frames every second, but repeats each frame according to the refresh rate of the TV. In the case of 120hz each frame would be displayed 5 times within each 24th of a second.

Most people seem to see 60 fps as smooth.

No, they see a static image at 60Hz as not flickering. Once you add fast motion, the distance covered during each frame looks like discreet increments. The faster the movement, the more it's noticed.

Also, the only time 24Hz is used is when they try to make it look like a movie shot on film. TV and video in general has always been 30 frames/second, with two fields per frame. Film is 24 frames/second.

JimN
01-28-2011, 10:47 PM
I've never seen an LCD or LCD-LED that had a fast enough refresh rate to keep up with sports action. Moreover, the grass always bleeds off.

Football, is one of the major sports that bleeds green all the time.

I've come to realize plasma is the only way to go when watching sports or even auto racing.

I have never seen an LCD that looks like the best plasma, but I also haven't seen a $6K LCD TV, either. The Pioneer Kuro was the best TV I have ever seen, bar none. The Panasonic TC-P50G25 I just installed is awfully good and it was less than $1300. I played the 2010 Crossroads Festival BD, shot in HD and from 3'-4', it still looked really good. No "mosquitos", no halo effect or anything like that. Plus, the black is great.

east tx skier
01-29-2011, 12:09 AM
I have not seen the latest plasmas, but I have seen plenty of plasmas I would not choose over my Samsung LED. There are quality products on both sides and also some that are not the top of the line. My TV probably isnt as great as the plasmas that came out last month. But in 2008, it was superior to most plasma sets. It's not a matter of LED is better than Plasma or vice versa anymore. It's more dependent on the specific models in question.

Patrick Hardy
01-29-2011, 01:03 AM
I have not seen the latest plasmas, but I have seen plenty of plasmas I would not choose over my Samsung LED. There are quality products on both sides and also some that are not the top of the line. My TV probably isn't as great as the plasmas that came out last month. But in 2008, it was superior to most plasma sets. It's not a matter of LED is better than Plasma or vice versa anymore. It's more dependent on the specific models in question.

It is most dependent on what kind of content you are watching and most importantly on what type of environment / room the TV is going into.

I bought a Sony 52" LCD 240 last year. I have it in a room with ample natural light, watch mostly sports and BD movies and completely satisfied with the TV.

If you are looking to place the TV in a home theater, with little to no natural lighting, than the plasma TV's are the best choice. If you are going to place the TV into a room with a lot of natural light than the LCD TV's would be a better choice IMO.

TallRedRider
01-29-2011, 01:33 AM
Anyone have any comments about reliability?

I blew up my Plasma TV twice and went with LCD now. I am plenty happy so far, but I do not consider myself any kind of videophile either.

The plasma that blew up was a Vizio from Costco...cost me $500 the first time I fixed it, then the second time, they said the screen arced, and repairing it had about a 50/50 chance it would happen again...and it would cost $700 to fix. So I threw it away.