|
|
LED Or LCD
I am going to buy a new TV set.I need to know if the LED are better than
LCD? What is the pros and cons?.Also is 220 hertz better then 120 hertz?. Thanks for any input as I am not up to the new technology. Vietnam Vet 82 Abn.Div. 1969 |
LED Or LCD
"Vet" wrote:
I am going to buy a new TV set.I need to know if the LED are better than LCD? What is the pros and cons?.Also is 220 hertz better then 120 hertz?. Thanks for any input as I am not up to the new technology. Vietnam Vet 82 Abn.Div. 1969 They are both LCD sets. LED is a later version of backliting. Personally I'd go for the LED if the price difference isn't too great.. |
LED Or LCD
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:25:57 +1300, Mutley
wrote: "Vet" wrote: I am going to buy a new TV set.I need to know if the LED are better than LCD? What is the pros and cons?.Also is 220 hertz better then 120 hertz?. Thanks for any input as I am not up to the new technology. Vietnam Vet 82 Abn.Div. 1969 They are both LCD sets. LED is a later version of backliting. Personally I'd go for the LED if the price difference isn't too great.. LCD panel with LED backlight exist in several versions depending on what characteristic the designer is trying to improve. "Standard" LCD TV use backlight of type CCFL. The most basic versions use a fixed setting for the amount of backlight it uses. That is not good because the ability to block the light by the LCD pixels is somewhat limited. Therefore it is better to have control over the amount of light so that the brightness (depending on your room lighting) is not unessisarily bright. This is then a static setting to adapt to your room and will provide better blacks (instead of greish or blueish "black") and also better shadow details. Next step is to include a dynamic regulation of the backlight, the whole screen at the same time, depending on the picture content. If done too agressively you will notice and be irritated, but if done subtle it will improve the subjective maximum contrast. This is where one version of LED backlight comes in. LED backlight with local dimming controls the backlight for a local area (but not individual pixels) with the aim to create even higher subjective maximum contrast. Some possible drawbacks exist with a noticable gloria around sharp bright objects like text etc. Another version of LED backlight focus on building very thin panels. These do not use local dimming. A possible drawback can be (worse) uneven backlighting. Also the colour of these LED:s can vary between models (as is true also for CCFL models). The sensitivity for side angle viewing can also vary (as CCFL). As always, you need to judge the complete picture (with various types of material) to make the best trade-off. The update frequency (60/120/240 or in Europe 50/100/200) when talking about LCD involves motion interpolation between frames and affects the characteristics for motion, both in film material (24/25Hz content) and broadcast material (60/50Hz interlaced content). Compare and look for smoother and/or sharper motion of bright objects. If the motion interpolation is too agressive, artifacts around moving contours can be irritating. /Jan |
LED Or LCD
"Vet" wrote in message ... I am going to buy a new TV set.I need to know if the LED are better than LCD? What is the pros and cons?.Also is 220 hertz better then 120 hertz?. Thanks for any input as I am not up to the new technology. the LED sets are in fact lcds as well - it's just that instead of using flourescent tubes to light the screen they use LEDs. in theory they can be better - they can illuminate only the parts of the screen that need it. leaving the black bits as black instead of dark grey, but some don't do that so your only gain is in power saving. true LED sets - OLEDs - organic leds, are still some way off - you'll pay 11 thousand dollars for a 10 inch set that isnt even HD. the LED backlit sets cost more so you need to see both in action to decide if you want to pay the extra. -- Gareth. that fly...... is your magic wand.... http://dsbdsb.mybrute.com you fight better when you have a bear! |
LED Or LCD
Vet wrote:
I am going to buy a new TV set.I need to know if the LED are better than LCD? What is the pros and cons?.Also is 220 hertz better then 120 hertz?. Thanks for any input as I am not up to the new technology. Vietnam Vet 82 Abn.Div. 1969 While you'll get some useful info here, there are websites that are educational, such as CNET and consumer reports. -- john mcwilliams |
LED Or LCD
"Jan B" wrote in message ... On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:25:57 +1300, Mutley wrote: "Vet" wrote: I am going to buy a new TV set.I need to know if the LED are better than LCD? What is the pros and cons?.Also is 220 hertz better then 120 hertz?. Thanks for any input as I am not up to the new technology. Vietnam Vet 82 Abn.Div. 1969 They are both LCD sets. LED is a later version of backliting. Personally I'd go for the LED if the price difference isn't too great.. LCD panel with LED backlight exist in several versions depending on what characteristic the designer is trying to improve. "Standard" LCD TV use backlight of type CCFL. The most basic versions use a fixed setting for the amount of backlight it uses. That is not good because the ability to block the light by the LCD pixels is somewhat limited. Therefore it is better to have control over the amount of light so that the brightness (depending on your room lighting) is not unessisarily bright. This is then a static setting to adapt to your room and will provide better blacks (instead of greish or blueish "black") and also better shadow details. Next step is to include a dynamic regulation of the backlight, the whole screen at the same time, depending on the picture content. If done too agressively you will notice and be irritated, but if done subtle it will improve the subjective maximum contrast. This is where one version of LED backlight comes in. LED backlight with local dimming controls the backlight for a local area (but not individual pixels) with the aim to create even higher subjective maximum contrast. Some possible drawbacks exist with a noticable gloria around sharp bright objects like text etc. Another version of LED backlight focus on building very thin panels. These do not use local dimming. A possible drawback can be (worse) uneven backlighting. Also the colour of these LED:s can vary between models (as is true also for CCFL models). The sensitivity for side angle viewing can also vary (as CCFL). As always, you need to judge the complete picture (with various types of material) to make the best trade-off. The update frequency (60/120/240 or in Europe 50/100/200) when talking about LCD involves motion interpolation between frames and affects the characteristics for motion, both in film material (24/25Hz content) and broadcast material (60/50Hz interlaced content). Compare and look for smoother and/or sharper motion of bright objects. If the motion interpolation is too agressive, artifacts around moving contours can be irritating. /Jan Hey, Jan - - really nice coverage of the range of backlighting from CCFL to local dimming! Thanks for taking the trouble to be logical and thorough - - very helpful. |
LED Or LCD
The dog from that film you saw wrote:
"Vet" wrote in message ... I am going to buy a new TV set.I need to know if the LED are better than LCD? What is the pros and cons?.Also is 220 hertz better then 120 hertz?. Thanks for any input as I am not up to the new technology. the LED sets are in fact lcds as well - it's just that instead of using flourescent tubes to light the screen they use LEDs. in theory they can be better - they can illuminate only the parts of the screen that need it. leaving the black bits as black instead of dark grey, but some don't do that so your only gain is in power saving. true LED sets - OLEDs - organic leds, are still some way off - you'll pay 11 thousand dollars for a 10 inch set that isnt even HD. the LED backlit sets cost more so you need to see both in action to decide if you want to pay the extra. CCFL last 5-10 yrs; LED backlit will work 'forever' ... even if something goes, it might just be a single pixel backlight, or in the worse case a row (or column or a block) but if the Hi-V for the CCFL goes you have an all black screen. |
LED Or LCD
RickMerrill wrote:
The dog from that film you saw wrote: "Vet" wrote in message ... I am going to buy a new TV set.I need to know if the LED are better than LCD? What is the pros and cons?.Also is 220 hertz better then 120 hertz?. Thanks for any input as I am not up to the new technology. the LED sets are in fact lcds as well - it's just that instead of using flourescent tubes to light the screen they use LEDs. in theory they can be better - they can illuminate only the parts of the screen that need it. leaving the black bits as black instead of dark grey, but some don't do that so your only gain is in power saving. true LED sets - OLEDs - organic leds, are still some way off - you'll pay 11 thousand dollars for a 10 inch set that isnt even HD. the LED backlit sets cost more so you need to see both in action to decide if you want to pay the extra. CCFL last 5-10 yrs; LED backlit will work 'forever' ... even if something goes, it might just be a single pixel backlight, or in the worse case a row (or column or a block) but if the Hi-V for the CCFL goes you have an all black screen. I think if the past 20 years are anything to go by and if you've had the set for 10 years it most likely will be replaced as a technology upgrade. |
LED Or LCD
"Mutley" wrote in message ... CCFL last 5-10 yrs; LED backlit will work 'forever' ... even if something goes, it might just be a single pixel backlight, or in the worse case a row (or column or a block) but if the Hi-V for the CCFL goes you have an all black screen. I think if the past 20 years are anything to go by and if you've had the set for 10 years it most likely will be replaced as a technology upgrade. some of us are such tv freaks we look forward to the time when we ' have ' to get a new tv! -- Gareth. that fly...... is your magic wand.... http://dsbdsb.mybrute.com you fight better when you have a bear! |
LED Or LCD
Mutley wrote:
RickMerrill wrote: The dog from that film you saw wrote: "Vet" wrote in message ... I am going to buy a new TV set.I need to know if the LED are better than LCD? What is the pros and cons?.Also is 220 hertz better then 120 hertz?. Thanks for any input as I am not up to the new technology. the LED sets are in fact lcds as well - it's just that instead of using flourescent tubes to light the screen they use LEDs. in theory they can be better - they can illuminate only the parts of the screen that need it. leaving the black bits as black instead of dark grey, but some don't do that so your only gain is in power saving. true LED sets - OLEDs - organic leds, are still some way off - you'll pay 11 thousand dollars for a 10 inch set that isnt even HD. the LED backlit sets cost more so you need to see both in action to decide if you want to pay the extra. CCFL last 5-10 yrs; LED backlit will work 'forever' ... even if something goes, it might just be a single pixel backlight, or in the worse case a row (or column or a block) but if the Hi-V for the CCFL goes you have an all black screen. I think if the past 20 years are anything to go by and if you've had the set for 10 years it most likely will be replaced as a technology upgrade. My 30 year old Sony TV is still going strong; most current TV content doesn't merit anything better, anyway. |
LED Or LCD
The dog from that film you saw wrote:
"Mutley" wrote in message ... CCFL last 5-10 yrs; LED backlit will work 'forever' ... even if something goes, it might just be a single pixel backlight, or in the worse case a row (or column or a block) but if the Hi-V for the CCFL goes you have an all black screen. I think if the past 20 years are anything to go by and if you've had the set for 10 years it most likely will be replaced as a technology upgrade. some of us are such tv freaks we look forward to the time when we ' have ' to get a new tv! How sad ... |
LED Or LCD
On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 09:30:39 -0600, cjt
wrote: I am going to buy a new TV set.I need to know if the LED are better than LCD? What is the pros and cons?.Also is 220 hertz better then 120 hertz?. Thanks for any input as I am not up to the new technology. the LED sets are in fact lcds as well - it's just that instead of using flourescent tubes to light the screen they use LEDs. in theory they can be better - they can illuminate only the parts of the screen that need it. leaving the black bits as black instead of dark grey, but some don't do that so your only gain is in power saving. true LED sets - OLEDs - organic leds, are still some way off - you'll pay 11 thousand dollars for a 10 inch set that isnt even HD. the LED backlit sets cost more so you need to see both in action to decide if you want to pay the extra. CCFL last 5-10 yrs; LED backlit will work 'forever' ... even if something goes, it might just be a single pixel backlight, or in the worse case a row (or column or a block) but if the Hi-V for the CCFL goes you have an all black screen. I think if the past 20 years are anything to go by and if you've had the set for 10 years it most likely will be replaced as a technology upgrade. My 30 year old Sony TV is still going strong; most current TV content doesn't merit anything better, anyway. My old Philips TV made in mars 1976 and still going strong. |
LED Or LCD
Vet wrote:
I am going to buy a new TV set.I need to know if the LED are better than LCD? What is the pros and cons?.Also is 220 hertz better then 120 hertz?. Thanks for any input as I am not up to the new technology. Vietnam Vet 82 Abn.Div. 1969 I recently bought a 55 inch Vizio from Costco. It is an LCD TV, with LED back lighting. What that does, is illuminate the LCD image using LEDs for brightness. They are used in place of a fluorescent light in older sets. This TV has what is called "local dimming". That dims the LEDs behind a dark areas of the screen. It makes the black levels much better than older LCD TV's, and that makes the picture appear more like a movie theater. I wouldn't buy another LCD TV if it didn't have that technology, or something new that replaces it. It makes a big difference. The TV also has a 240 Hz picture. That makes the TV generate intermediate images between the ones in the source material, so that there are 240 images each second. That minimizes the blur that is common with LCD TV sets during fast action. I never noticed the blur, but I did find that the "smooth motion" associated with 240 Hz resulted in everything looking like a soap opera. I turned that off, and I don't miss it. As with everything else in life, your mileage may vary. -- Jim |
LED Or LCD
Ken wrote:
My old Philips TV made in mars 1976 and still going strong. Those Martian TV's are the best! :-) |
LED Or LCD
cjt wrote:
My 30 year old Sony TV is still going strong; most current TV content doesn't merit anything better, anyway. P'raps. But just one good show in true HD makes it worthwhile for me. MMV. -- john mcwilliams |
LED Or LCD
JimH wrote:
Ken wrote: My old Philips TV made in mars 1976 and still going strong. Those Martian TV's are the best! :-) I dunno. My Venetian set was pretty good. But now everything I have was made in the Far East. -- john mcwilliams |
LED Or LCD
John McWilliams wrote:
JimH wrote: Ken wrote: My old Philips TV made in mars 1976 and still going strong. Those Martian TV's are the best! :-) I dunno. My Venetian set was pretty good. But now everything I have was made in the Far East. Venetian ain't Venusian. Vizio is an American company. Their web page says that they have two offices in the U.S. with 160 people. I don't know where they manufacture though. |
LED Or LCD
John McWilliams wrote:
cjt wrote: My 30 year old Sony TV is still going strong; most current TV content doesn't merit anything better, anyway. P'raps. But just one good show in true HD makes it worthwhile for me. MMV. I know what you mean. I used to feel the way the OP does, until I got an HDTV and saw a Sunrise Earth show titled "Bison before Breakfast". Nature programs in HD can restore your soul. ;) bj |
LED Or LCD
Ken wrote:
My 30 year old Sony TV is still going strong; most current TV content doesn't merit anything better, anyway. My old Philips TV made in mars 1976 and still going strong. My 60+ year old DuMont black & white TV is still going strong. Geez... |
LED Or LCD
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:59:44 -0500, "Vet" wrote:
I am going to buy a new TV set.I need to know if the LED are better than LCD? What is the pros and cons?.Also is 220 hertz better then 120 hertz?. Thanks for any input as I am not up to the new technology. Vietnam Vet 82 Abn.Div. 1969 Most of the LED sets cost rather more right now. If this is your first HD set, the best of the old technology right now goes pretty cheaply. I'd go for that, plan on replacing it in five years as the new LED technologies finish development. Right now something like a 42" 120hz 1080 Vizio goes for about $500, that's probably about the sweet spot. A Sony 720 32" 60hz for about $400 isn't bad, either, for broadcast especially. That said, *now* I will ask the questions that should have come first! As always, what size set are you looking for, do you have any price constraints, and what do you plan to watch on it? J. |
LED Or LCD
http://barelybad.com/xwdthemes_110596.htm
"cjt" wrote My 30 year old Sony TV is still going strong; most current TV content doesn't merit anything better, anyway. Profeel? |
LED Or LCD
"chicagofan" wrote in message
... | John McWilliams wrote: | cjt wrote: | | | My 30 year old Sony TV is still going strong; most current TV content | doesn't merit anything better, anyway. Quit bragging... My Sony XBR is only 23 years old! :) -- Regards, Richard Harison | | P'raps. But just one good show in true HD makes it worthwhile for me. | | MMV. | | | I know what you mean. I used to feel the way the OP does, until I got | an HDTV and saw a Sunrise Earth show titled "Bison before Breakfast". | Nature programs in HD can restore your soul. ;) | bj |
LED Or LCD
On Dec 24 2009, 8:14*am, JimH wrote:
Vet wrote: I am going to buy a new TV set.I need to know if the LED are better than LCD? What is the pros and cons?.Also is 220 hertz better then 120 hertz?. Thanks for any input as I am not up to the new technology. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Vietnam Vet * * * * * * * * * * * * * *82 Abn.Div. 1969 I recently bought a 55 inch Vizio from Costco. It is an LCD TV, with LED back lighting. What that does, is illuminate the LCD image using LEDs for brightness. They are used in place of a fluorescent light in older sets. This TV has what is called "local dimming". That dims the LEDs behind a dark areas of the screen. It makes the black levels much better than older LCD TV's, and that makes the picture appear more like a movie theater. I wouldn't buy another LCD TV if it didn't have that technology, or something new that replaces it. It makes a big difference. The TV also has a 240 Hz picture. That makes the TV generate intermediate images between the ones in the source material, so that there are 240 images each second. That minimizes the blur that is common with LCD TV sets during fast action. I never noticed the blur, but I did find that the "smooth motion" associated with 240 Hz resulted in everything looking like a soap opera. I turned that off, and I don't miss it. As with everything else in life, your mileage may vary. -- Jim Actually the 240 Hz only helps 24fps material, because it can sync on each frame. 240 is evenly divisible by 24. It has no effect on 30fps or 60fps input since the frames don't change faster than 30 or 60Hhz, the extra refreshes don't accomplish anything. |
LED Or LCD
"ToMh" wrote in message
... On Dec 24 2009, 8:14 am, JimH wrote: Vet wrote: I am going to buy a new TV set.I need to know if the LED are better than LCD? What is the pros and cons?.Also is 220 hertz better then 120 hertz?. Thanks for any input as I am not up to the new technology. Vietnam Vet 82 Abn.Div. 1969 I recently bought a 55 inch Vizio from Costco. It is an LCD TV, with LED back lighting. What that does, is illuminate the LCD image using LEDs for brightness. They are used in place of a fluorescent light in older sets. This TV has what is called "local dimming". That dims the LEDs behind a dark areas of the screen. It makes the black levels much better than older LCD TV's, and that makes the picture appear more like a movie theater. I wouldn't buy another LCD TV if it didn't have that technology, or something new that replaces it. It makes a big difference. The TV also has a 240 Hz picture. That makes the TV generate intermediate images between the ones in the source material, so that there are 240 images each second. That minimizes the blur that is common with LCD TV sets during fast action. I never noticed the blur, but I did find that the "smooth motion" associated with 240 Hz resulted in everything looking like a soap opera. I turned that off, and I don't miss it. As with everything else in life, your mileage may vary. -- Jim Actually the 240 Hz only helps 24fps material, because it can sync on each frame. 240 is evenly divisible by 24. It has no effect on 30fps or 60fps input since the frames don't change faster than 30 or 60Hhz, the extra refreshes don't accomplish anything. 120hz is also evenly divisible by 30,60 & 24 -- Regards, Richard Harison |
LED Or LCD
ToMh wrote:
On Dec 24 2009, 8:14 am, JimH wrote: Vet wrote: I am going to buy a new TV set.I need to know if the LED are better than LCD? What is the pros and cons?.Also is 220 hertz better then 120 hertz?. Thanks for any input as I am not up to the new technology. Vietnam Vet 82 Abn.Div. 1969 I recently bought a 55 inch Vizio from Costco. It is an LCD TV, with LED back lighting. What that does, is illuminate the LCD image using LEDs for brightness. They are used in place of a fluorescent light in older sets. This TV has what is called "local dimming". That dims the LEDs behind a dark areas of the screen. It makes the black levels much better than older LCD TV's, and that makes the picture appear more like a movie theater. I wouldn't buy another LCD TV if it didn't have that technology, or something new that replaces it. It makes a big difference. The TV also has a 240 Hz picture. That makes the TV generate intermediate images between the ones in the source material, so that there are 240 images each second. That minimizes the blur that is common with LCD TV sets during fast action. I never noticed the blur, but I did find that the "smooth motion" associated with 240 Hz resulted in everything looking like a soap opera. I turned that off, and I don't miss it. As with everything else in life, your mileage may vary. -- Jim Actually the 240 Hz only helps 24fps material, because it can sync on each frame. 240 is evenly divisible by 24. It has no effect on 30fps or 60fps input since the frames don't change faster than 30 or 60Hhz, the extra refreshes don't accomplish anything. 240 is also evenly divisible by 30, 60, and 120 |
LED Or LCD
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:13:33 -0500, "LightByrd"
wrote: "ToMh" wrote in message ... On Dec 24 2009, 8:14 am, JimH wrote: Vet wrote: I am going to buy a new TV set.I need to know if the LED are better than LCD? What is the pros and cons?.Also is 220 hertz better then 120 hertz?. Thanks for any input as I am not up to the new technology. Vietnam Vet 82 Abn.Div. 1969 I recently bought a 55 inch Vizio from Costco. It is an LCD TV, with LED back lighting. What that does, is illuminate the LCD image using LEDs for brightness. They are used in place of a fluorescent light in older sets. This TV has what is called "local dimming". That dims the LEDs behind a dark areas of the screen. It makes the black levels much better than older LCD TV's, and that makes the picture appear more like a movie theater. I wouldn't buy another LCD TV if it didn't have that technology, or something new that replaces it. It makes a big difference. The TV also has a 240 Hz picture. That makes the TV generate intermediate images between the ones in the source material, so that there are 240 images each second. That minimizes the blur that is common with LCD TV sets during fast action. I never noticed the blur, but I did find that the "smooth motion" associated with 240 Hz resulted in everything looking like a soap opera. I turned that off, and I don't miss it. As with everything else in life, your mileage may vary. -- Jim Actually the 240 Hz only helps 24fps material, because it can sync on each frame. 240 is evenly divisible by 24. It has no effect on 30fps or 60fps input since the frames don't change faster than 30 or 60Hhz, the extra refreshes don't accomplish anything. 120hz is also evenly divisible by 30,60 & 24 The 240Hz or 120Hz frame update (or 200/100Hz in Europe) on these models does not only repeat the original frames. It estimates the motion vectors and calculates intermediate positions of the objects. The effect is most visible on 24Hz (and in Europe also 25Hz) material, but it also has a sharpening effect on 60Hz (50Hz) intterlaced material. This can be seen for example on "news tickers" with horizontal scroll. Without this feature the objects are held still on the screen for a rather long period (17ms or longer) between each 'jump' to a new position. When our eyes try to follow the motion (with a constant speed) the still picture creates "motion blur" in our eyes. What ToMh and Richard describe above is (only) the other reason of selecting a frame rate of 120Hz (or 240), which is, that it is possible to perform 5:5 (10:10) repeating sequences for 24Hz material to get rid of the uneven judder that 3:2 sequencing in 60Hz creates. /Jan |
LED Or LCD
"Jan B" wrote in message
... | On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:13:33 -0500, "LightByrd" | wrote: | | "ToMh" wrote in message | ... | On Dec 24 2009, 8:14 am, JimH wrote: | Vet wrote: | I am going to buy a new TV set.I need to know if the LED are better than | LCD? What is the pros and cons?.Also is 220 hertz better then 120 | hertz?. | Thanks for any input as I am not up to the new technology. | Vietnam Vet | 82 Abn.Div. 1969 | | I recently bought a 55 inch Vizio from Costco. It is an LCD TV, with LED | back lighting. What that does, is illuminate the LCD image using LEDs | for brightness. They are used in place of a fluorescent light in older | sets. This TV has what is called "local dimming". That dims the LEDs | behind a dark areas of the screen. It makes the black levels much better | than older LCD TV's, and that makes the picture appear more like a movie | theater. I wouldn't buy another LCD TV if it didn't have that | technology, or something new that replaces it. It makes a big difference. | | The TV also has a 240 Hz picture. That makes the TV generate | intermediate images between the ones in the source material, so that | there are 240 images each second. That minimizes the blur that is common | with LCD TV sets during fast action. I never noticed the blur, but I did | find that the "smooth motion" associated with 240 Hz resulted in | everything looking like a soap opera. I turned that off, and I don't | miss it. | | As with everything else in life, your mileage may vary. | | -- | Jim | | Actually the 240 Hz only helps 24fps material, because it can sync on | each frame. 240 is evenly divisible by 24. It has no effect on 30fps | or 60fps input since the frames don't change faster than 30 or 60Hhz, | the extra refreshes don't accomplish anything. | | | 120hz is also evenly divisible by 30,60 & 24 | | The 240Hz or 120Hz frame update (or 200/100Hz in Europe) on these | models does not only repeat the original frames. It estimates the | motion vectors and calculates intermediate positions of the objects. | | The effect is most visible on 24Hz (and in Europe also 25Hz) material, | but it also has a sharpening effect on 60Hz (50Hz) intterlaced | material. This can be seen for example on "news tickers" with | horizontal scroll. | | Without this feature the objects are held still on the screen for a | rather long period (17ms or longer) between each 'jump' to a new | position. When our eyes try to follow the motion (with a constant | speed) the still picture creates "motion blur" in our eyes. | | What ToMh and Richard describe above is (only) the other reason of | selecting a frame rate of 120Hz (or 240), which is, that it is | possible to perform 5:5 (10:10) repeating sequences for 24Hz material | to get rid of the uneven judder that 3:2 sequencing in 60Hz creates. | /Jan Jan... So what about sets that claim a refresh rate of say 8ms? Or is that just what they are *capable* of? -- Regards, Richard Harison |
LED Or LCD
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 10:00:17 -0500, "LightByrd"
wrote: .... Jan... So what about sets that claim a refresh rate of say 8ms? Or is that just what they are *capable* of? I guess you are thinking of "Response Time". These numbers are often in the region of 8ms. It does not specify how often the display is "refreshed". The Response Time is a parameter that specify how long time it takes one LCD pixel to change luminance level. (usually back and forth between 2 levels). If it takes too long, it creates smearing or "comet trails" from moving objects. One of the reasons for introducing frame rate upsampling using motion interpolation is that if the objects are shown static on screen for 17ms (while we move our focus point) there was more to gain in motion sharpness by reducing that time to half (using 120Hz) than to reduce the reponse time further. It is also the reason why the actual "Response Time" is often not given for panels with motion interpolation. They call it "BEW" (=Blur effective Width) or similar. These numbers are often down to 3 or even 1 ms. /Jan |
LED Or LCD
On Jan 6, 2:02*am, Jan B wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:13:33 -0500, "LightByrd" wrote: "ToMh" wrote in message .... On Dec 24 2009, 8:14 am, JimH wrote: Vet wrote: I am going to buy a new TV set.I need to know if the LED are better than LCD? What is the pros and cons?.Also is 220 hertz better then 120 hertz?. Thanks for any input as I am not up to the new technology. Vietnam Vet 82 Abn.Div. 1969 I recently bought a 55 inch Vizio from Costco. It is an LCD TV, with LED back lighting. What that does, is illuminate the LCD image using LEDs for brightness. They are used in place of a fluorescent light in older sets. This TV has what is called "local dimming". That dims the LEDs behind a dark areas of the screen. It makes the black levels much better than older LCD TV's, and that makes the picture appear more like a movie theater. I wouldn't buy another LCD TV if it didn't have that technology, or something new that replaces it. It makes a big difference. The TV also has a 240 Hz picture. That makes the TV generate intermediate images between the ones in the source material, so that there are 240 images each second. That minimizes the blur that is common with LCD TV sets during fast action. I never noticed the blur, but I did find that the "smooth motion" associated with 240 Hz resulted in everything looking like a soap opera. I turned that off, and I don't miss it. As with everything else in life, your mileage may vary. -- Jim Actually the 240 Hz only helps 24fps material, because it can sync on each frame. 240 is evenly divisible by 24. It has no effect on 30fps or 60fps input since the frames don't change faster than 30 or 60Hhz, the extra refreshes don't accomplish anything. 120hz is also evenly divisible by 30,60 & 24 The 240Hz or 120Hz frame update (or 200/100Hz in Europe) on these models does not only repeat the original frames. It estimates the motion vectors and calculates intermediate positions of the objects. The effect is most visible on 24Hz (and in Europe also 25Hz) material, but it also has a sharpening effect on 60Hz (50Hz) intterlaced material. This can be seen for example on "news tickers" with horizontal scroll. Without this feature the objects are held still on the screen for a rather long period (17ms or longer) between each 'jump' to a new position. When our eyes try to follow the motion (with a constant speed) the still picture creates "motion blur" in our eyes. What ToMh and Richard describe above is (only) the other reason of selecting a frame rate of 120Hz (or 240), which is, that it is possible to perform *5:5 (10:10) repeating sequences for 24Hz material to get rid of the uneven judder that 3:2 sequencing in 60Hz creates. /Jan Also note that not all TVs that are 120Hz have the motion interpolation feature, and for those that do, many people claim it actually makes things worse. Films are shot at 24fps, do you really want your TV mucking with that? Plus I have yet to see any review were anybody could see much of a difference for live TV. If you see and are pleased with the difference, then it's probably worth it, the price isn't much different anymore, plus I believe most TVs can let you disable this feature. The 120hz for 24fps Movies does make sense though. |
LED Or LCD
"Jan B" wrote in message
... | On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 10:00:17 -0500, "LightByrd" | wrote: | ... | Jan... | So what about sets that claim a refresh rate of say 8ms? | Or is that just what they are *capable* of? | | I guess you are thinking of "Response Time". | These numbers are often in the region of 8ms. | It does not specify how often the display is "refreshed". | | The Response Time is a parameter that specify how long time it takes | one LCD pixel to change luminance level. (usually back and forth | between 2 levels). | If it takes too long, it creates smearing or "comet trails" from | moving objects. | | One of the reasons for introducing frame rate upsampling using motion | interpolation is that if the objects are shown static on screen for | 17ms (while we move our focus point) there was more to gain in motion | sharpness by reducing that time to half (using 120Hz) than to reduce | the reponse time further. | | It is also the reason why the actual "Response Time" is often not | given for panels with motion interpolation. They call it "BEW" (=Blur | effective Width) or similar. These numbers are often down to 3 or even | 1 ms. | /Jan Thanks... Had my terms a little skewed. -- Regards, Richard Harison |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:24 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HomeCinemaBanter.com