TV 100hz or 200hz
Page 1 of 3 Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
nightfox




Posts: 601

PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 16:46    Post subject: TV 100hz or 200hz
I've been looking for a tv for some time now that i will use mainly for my ps3 and sometimes for my pc, so im wondering whats the difference between 200 and 100hz tv's and is it worth getting one with 200hz.
Back to top
Przepraszam
VIP Member



Posts: 14502
Location: Poland. New York.
PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 17:51    Post subject:
you must go and see the difference in real life at the store

for me its just marketing bullshit


Back to top
Paintface




Posts: 6877

PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 18:07    Post subject:
i watch movies in 24hz mode, i cant stand the fake 100/120hz "smoothness"
Back to top
Aeon




Posts: 8700
Location: Netherlands
PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 18:16    Post subject:
Paintface wrote:
i watch movies in 24hz mode, i cant stand the fake 100/120hz "smoothness"

+1
Back to top
nouseforaname
Über-VIP Member



Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 18:55    Post subject:
besthijacker wrote:
for me its just marketing bullshit


+1

also considering you can barely see a difference when they're side by side at the store, when you only have one at home it's not like you'll know what the difference is anyways (you'll be too happy with your new hdtv to give a shit anyways Wink)


asus z170-A || core i5-6600K || geforce gtx 970 4gb || 16gb ddr4 ram || win10 || 1080p led samsung 27"
Back to top
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢



Posts: 73220
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 19:01    Post subject:
Paintface wrote:
i watch movies in 24hz mode, i cant stand the fake 100/120hz "smoothness"

Aye, that's how they were meant to be watched, not interpolated by some stupid TVs. Want the smooth effect of cheap cameras? Watch soap operas.

Any TV that does not allow to switch to 24Hz mode is not worth having.
Back to top
TSR69
Banned



Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 19:15    Post subject:
Cinema is 24 fps although modern cinema projectors light each frame twice to create a smoother picture.
Ideally your TV has a refresh rate that is the same or several (2,3,4) times of that of the fps of your video source.
PAL DVD (dunno about blu-ray) comes with 25 fps, movies will just be sped up to go from 24 -> 25, same with the audio.
If you have good ears and good memory for music you can actually hear the pitch and pace of songs in movies being altered.


Formerly known as iconized
Back to top
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢



Posts: 73220
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 19:36    Post subject:
Duplicated frames are nothing bad really.

Blu-ray specs only allow for 24p, 50i and 60i. 25p is not a legal mode for Blu-rays.

These TVs do something else. They take two frames and interpolate into higher fps count. That is create intermediate steps between frames to smooth transition. Worst TVs don't take into consideration scene change, etc, and the result can be really bad. More advanced ones take into consideration scene changes and switch to frame duplication to allow more natural interpolation, but it's still bad. Purist enjoy the frame delay of 24Hz.
Back to top
nightfox




Posts: 601

PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 20:07    Post subject:
ok thx for the answers.Another question are LED tvs better than normal LCDs in terms of black levels, contrast and so on
Back to top
TSR69
Banned



Posts: 14962
Location: Republic of the Seven United Provinces
PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 20:19    Post subject:
iNatan wrote:
Duplicated frames are nothing bad really.

Blu-ray specs only allow for 24p, 50i and 60i. 25p is not a legal mode for Blu-rays.

These TVs do something else. They take two frames and interpolate into higher fps count. That is create intermediate steps between frames to smooth transition. Worst TVs don't take into consideration scene change, etc, and the result can be really bad. More advanced ones take into consideration scene changes and switch to frame duplication to allow more natural interpolation, but it's still bad. Purist enjoy the frame delay of 24Hz.

That is pretty silly, won't it make more sense then to buy a monitor that supports all kinds of frame rates and a standalone HDTV tuner?

nightfox wrote:
ok thx for the answers.Another question are LED tvs better than normal LCDs in terms of black levels, contrast and so on

The main advantage of LED TV is lower energy consumption.


Last edited by TSR69 on Sun, 29th Aug 2010 20:25; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
Mortibus




Posts: 18053
Location: .NL
PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 20:23    Post subject:
all i know is after watching led tv for an hour i came home and wanted to throw away my lcd, but i can't afford led atm, so i'm stuck with 60hz Sad
Back to top
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢



Posts: 73220
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 20:30    Post subject:
iconized wrote:
That is pretty silly, won't it make more sense then to buy a monitor that supports all kinds of frame rates and a standalone HDTV tuner?

Well, apparently some people like the "smooth" feeling they get. Laughing Probably moms that sit all day and watch soap operas and are used to the cheap, blurry DV look (shot at 60i).
Back to top
Werelds
Special Little Man



Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 20:36    Post subject:
LED TV's do indeed tend to have better contrast and black levels than traditional LCD TV's, yes.

Like Mortibus says, once you see the difference between a LED LCD (regardless of whether it's edge-lit or fully lit) and the "old" CCFL-backlit LCD's, you'll never want the latter again Razz

@ Mortibus: LED TV's are still LCD TV's, and not every LED TV does more than 60 Hz Wink
Back to top
velum




Posts: 1106

PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 20:40    Post subject:
if ya want to do 3d at some point get the 200hz if not 100hz


Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one
Back to top
Mortibus




Posts: 18053
Location: .NL
PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 20:46    Post subject:
iNatan wrote:
iconized wrote:
That is pretty silly, won't it make more sense then to buy a monitor that supports all kinds of frame rates and a standalone HDTV tuner?

Well, apparently some people like the "smooth" feeling they get. Laughing Probably moms that sit all day and watch soap operas and are used to the cheap, blurry DV look (shot at 60i).


yeah some of us prefer a smooth ride Cool Face

pwerelds wrote:
LED TV's do indeed tend to have better contrast and black levels than traditional LCD TV's, yes.

Like Mortibus says, once you see the difference between a LED LCD (regardless of whether it's edge-lit or fully lit) and the "old" CCFL-backlit LCD's, you'll never want the latter again Razz

@ Mortibus: LED TV's are still LCD TV's, and not every LED TV does more than 60 Hz Wink


oh my jebus what happend, for once u agree with me Cool Face

well i know the difference between edge and full led, and 50 hz led doesn't look much better than lcd, tv i was watching was 42" samsung 100 hz, it blew me away literaly, i was awatching avi rip of astroboy and while there were some pixelation in the background, hence 700mb rip it looked awesome, my gf actually asked me if it was full hd Razz
Back to top
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢



Posts: 73220
Location: Ramat HaSharon, Israel 🇮🇱
PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 20:58    Post subject:
Could be also that console lol wut want to smooth their puny machines' pathetic 20fps shame with artificial 120 "OMG my console does 120 fps its amazing!!one" Laughing
Back to top
Mortibus




Posts: 18053
Location: .NL
PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 21:13    Post subject:
yez that too, i mean we've been lied to for centuries, paying taxes and all that, might as well enjoy it for once Very Happy
Back to top
ixigia
[Moderator] Consigliere



Posts: 65085
Location: Italy
PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 21:21    Post subject:
Televisions are so 90s... when you do have a PC why would you need a TV? Very Happy
Back to top
Hfric




Posts: 12017

PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 23:19    Post subject:
ixigia wrote:
Televisions are so 90s...why not plug it directly to your brain with MuzaKX

+1


Back to top
Mister_s




Posts: 19863

PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 23:39    Post subject:
There's a noticeable difference between 50Hz and 100Hz, but I didn't see a big difference with 200Hz. A good LED TV will usually have better picture quality, but that's obvious since you'll have to pay more.

PS: goddam you Ati for crappy 24Hz support Sad
Back to top
Nui
VIP Member



Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 23:44    Post subject:
ixigia wrote:
when you do have a PC why would you need a TV? Very Happy
bigger screen.
Which is why i would very much welcome television sized monitors. And to use better/different technologies, as there is still no display type for monitors with good black levels it seems.

Quote:
so im wondering whats the difference between 200 and 100hz tv's and is it worth getting one with 200hz.
This only applies to LCDs and normally only helps when frame rate interpolation is activated. It helps getting a sharper picture during movement because it alleviates the Hold-type property of LCDs. It comes with the side effect of very weird looking motion hence the negative reaction in this thread Wink. Without such feature a motion on LCDs (exception follows) is inferior to CRT/Plasma.
Some costly LCDs now come with backlight blinking. Basically they let their backlight flicker at highspeed making them a non Hold-type display. Then they are on par with CRT/Plasma.

With Plasma or CRT it doesnt really matter wether you have 100Hz or 200Hz. Should look the same.

With 3D the whole thing changes again.

Mister_s wrote:
PS: goddam you Ati for crappy 24Hz supprt Sad
hmm? Since quite a few card generations ATI provides the refreshrate of "23Hz" which is 24p. What kind of a problem do you have?
Back to top
nouseforaname
Über-VIP Member



Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 23:46    Post subject:
ixigia wrote:
Televisions are so 90s... when you do have a PC why would you need a TV? Very Happy


not everyone is living out of their bedrooms Wink


asus z170-A || core i5-6600K || geforce gtx 970 4gb || 16gb ddr4 ram || win10 || 1080p led samsung 27"
Back to top
Frant
King's Bounty



Posts: 24645
Location: Your Mom
PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 23:46    Post subject:
Isn't it interesting that a high quality CRT still hasn't been surpassed by "high tech LED/LCD" monitors except where sizes above 34" is concerned?


Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
Back to top
Nui
VIP Member



Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 23:49    Post subject:
Frant wrote:
Isn't it interesting that a high quality CRT
But CRTs could be beaten by Plasmas - in most areas at least. But noooo the world considers them too power-hungry and it will take a while until we hit blacklevels beyond Pioneer (which quit 2 years ago, now) Rolling Eyes
Back to top
Frant
King's Bounty



Posts: 24645
Location: Your Mom
PostPosted: Sun, 29th Aug 2010 23:54    Post subject:
Plasmas? Not any plasma I've seen.


Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!

"The sky was the color of a TV tuned to a dead station" - Neuromancer
Back to top
Nui
VIP Member



Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
PostPosted: Mon, 30th Aug 2010 00:02    Post subject:
I did say "could".

If you think CRTs make a good picture, then you should like Plasma to a certain extend. Only their black level still isn't deep enough.
Have you seen a plasma at someones house with natural settings? Most Plasma have useless filters so they fade out in shops.

You could look out for certain Elite Kuros from Pioneer. Those have the greatest native contrast built to this day. They also come with almost perfect colors and gamma. Measured, so not just my oppinion
Back to top
PumpAction
[Schmadmin]



Posts: 26759

PostPosted: Mon, 30th Aug 2010 00:18    Post subject:
Anyone knows what's with Sony's XEL-2? Should've been release last year, no? Sad

(for those who don't know about it, it's supposed to be a TV with 0.3 mm depth (not 3 mm!) and 27" screen, Full HD, contrast 1:1.000.000)

The current XEL-1 has 11", quarter Full HD and is 3 mm [b[fat[/b] Cool Face


=> NFOrce GIF plugin <= - Ryzen 3800X, 16GB DDR4-3200, Sapphire 5700XT Pulse
Back to top
Nui
VIP Member



Posts: 5720
Location: in a place with fluffy towels
PostPosted: Mon, 30th Aug 2010 00:26    Post subject:
Last i've heard Sony stopped with OLED already.
I hope Laser will be more successful. Razz


kogel mogel
Back to top
nouseforaname
Über-VIP Member



Posts: 21306
Location: Toronto, Canada
PostPosted: Mon, 30th Aug 2010 01:14    Post subject:
yeah, sony is out of the OLED game for now but Sammy and LG are forging ahead. Don't expect anything reasonably priced for the next couple of years though Wink

http://www.slashgear.com/samsung-wants-a-42-inch-oled-tv-ready-to-go-in-2011-1485673/
http://hd.engadget.com/2010/08/19/lg-parading-31-inch-oled-tv-among-other-sets-at-ifa-2010/


asus z170-A || core i5-6600K || geforce gtx 970 4gb || 16gb ddr4 ram || win10 || 1080p led samsung 27"
Back to top
PumpAction
[Schmadmin]



Posts: 26759

PostPosted: Mon, 30th Aug 2010 01:29    Post subject:
I'd be happy with a 24" full-hd oled @ 300 euro. But seems as if this'll take 4-5 years :/


=> NFOrce GIF plugin <= - Ryzen 3800X, 16GB DDR4-3200, Sapphire 5700XT Pulse
Back to top
Page 1 of 3 All times are GMT + 1 Hour
NFOHump.com Forum Index - Hardware Zone Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)  


Display posts from previous:   

Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group