Market for new HDTV

I read that one should look for a TV that has a 120 frame refresh
rate, something similar to a pc rate, although pc's are usually in the
60 to 70 range. Correct me if i am wrong...anyhoo, i was researching a
couple of TV's that are recomended...the Toshiba and one from Samsung.
Now, for the first time i heard a consumer complain about the Samsung.
It said that it has a bulb, I believe he called it, that usually has
to be replaced every 3 or 5 years, and now they alone cost $250...Does
anyone know anything about what he was talking about, before i make
another mistake?

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:30:27 -0800, Anthony wrote:

Now, for the first time i heard a consumer complain about the Samsung.
It said that it has a bulb, I believe he called it, that usually has to
be replaced every 3 or 5 years, and now they alone cost $250...Does
anyone know anything about what he was talking about, before i make
another mistake?

He's talking about a projector or RPTV (Rear Projection TV) more than
likely. LCD's use CFL backlighting and newer ones that are a LOT more
expensive use LED backlighting.



--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm
Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php

On Nov 29, 11:30*am, Anthony wrote:
I read that one should look for a TV that has a 120 frame refresh
rate, something similar to a pc rate, although pc's are usually in
the
60 to 70 range. Correct me if i am wrong...anyhoo, i was
researching a
couple of TV's that are recomended...the Toshiba and one from
Samsung.
Now, for the first time i heard a consumer complain about the
Samsung.
It said that it has a bulb, I believe he called it, that usually
has
to be replaced every 3 or 5 years, and now they alone cost
$250...Does
anyone know anything about what he was talking about, before i make
another mistake?

Since there is no video more than 60 PFS, 120 Hz refresh is mostly a
marketing gimmick. Your $250 bulb is, like Wes said, for a rear
projector. You can usually replace one for half that ( I got one for
$80) particularly if you buy just the bulb itself and not the entire
mount. I think Samsung has abandoned rear screen DLPs and only
Mitsubishi still makes them but chack Ron's experience in another
thread "Mitsubishi WD60737 - Side Bars".

BTW what was your first mistake?

G²

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:30:27 -0800 (PST), Anthony
wrote:

I read that one should look for a TV that has a 120 frame refresh
rate, something similar to a pc rate, although pc's are usually in the
60 to 70 range. Correct me if i am wrong...anyhoo, i was researching a
couple of TV's that are recomended...the Toshiba and one from Samsung.
Now, for the first time i heard a consumer complain about the Samsung.
It said that it has a bulb, I believe he called it, that usually has
to be replaced every 3 or 5 years, and now they alone cost $250...Does
anyone know anything about what he was talking about, before i make
another mistake?

I purchased 2 Westinghouse 42" LCD 1080 displays 6 months apart. They
were and still are low end products with a then suggested bulb life of
30,000 hours. The first of them is on at least 8 hours a day, as both
are also the monitors for the PCs which provide their pictures. I
bought the first just over 4 years ago. All flat panel digital TVs
have a lamp. Not all brick & mortar sales people are aware of this (
or at least not all will admit awareness).

As to refresh rate, to each his own. We're not sports enthusiasts, so
the most motion intense video shown on our screens may have been
"Speed" by Timothy Leary;-)

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:31:24 -0800 (PST), G-squared
wrote:

On Nov 29, 11:30*am, Anthony wrote:
I read that one should look for a TV that has a 120 frame refresh
rate, something similar to a pc rate, although pc's are usually in
the
60 to 70 range. Correct me if i am wrong.....

Since there is no video more than 60 PFS, 120 Hz refresh is mostly a
marketing gimmick.
....

One of the reasons for 120 is actually the low frame rate used in film
material. 120 is the common integer multiple of 24 and 60.

The other reasons for using a higher display frame rate are the
following:

The first scenario is with material that is truly interlaced
content at 60Hz wich shows the objects at a new position in each field
(= half frame) .

Consider an LCD with essentially a steady back light.
The problem here is a blurring that is created in our eyes when a
picture is shown for 16ms at one position on the screen before it
moves to the next position and is held still. The blurring is created
when we try to follow the motion (of a scrolling news ticker for
example).

In this scenario the goal is to reduce this blur width by moving the
objects on the screen to a new (calculated) position between the
positions in the input material. 120Hz (8ms) means that the blur
effect is halved. (Interpolating to 240Hz should decrease this part of
the blur further, but there is also a response time in the LCD pixels
that might limit the visible advantage.)


The second scenario, which for me is more important, is when the
material is from the low frame rate of film. (In Europe it is common
to play back 24Hz material frame by frame in a 2:2 sequencing so
that the shown frames effectively is showing as progressive material.
That means that we don't have the 3:2 "judder" but the displayed
motion is 25Hz and this is so low that the low frequency "judder" or
stroboscope effect is visible.
This is similar to the 24Hz from a Blu-Ray when played back at 24Hz.

The goal with the processing with such material is to achieve a
smoother motion.

In both these scenarios, the key point is that new positions of the
objects must be calculated in the intermediate frames.

The discussion above is based on LCD that is backlit with effectively
a steady backligth but the low frequency stroboscope effect can also
be seen on plasma panels.

I have no experience of DLP:s but LCD based projection should behave
like above.

/Jan

"Jan B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:31:24 -0800 (PST), G-squared
wrote:

On Nov 29, 11:30 am, Anthony wrote:
I read that one should look for a TV that has a 120 frame refresh
rate, something similar to a pc rate, although pc's are usually in
the
60 to 70 range. Correct me if i am wrong.....

Since there is no video more than 60 PFS, 120 Hz refresh is mostly a
marketing gimmick.
...

One of the reasons for 120 is actually the low frame rate used in film
material. 120 is the common integer multiple of 24 and 60.

The other reasons for using a higher display frame rate are the
following:

The first scenario is with material that is truly interlaced
content at 60Hz wich shows the objects at a new position in each field
(= half frame) .

Consider an LCD with essentially a steady back light.
The problem here is a blurring that is created in our eyes when a
picture is shown for 16ms at one position on the screen before it
moves to the next position and is held still. The blurring is created
when we try to follow the motion (of a scrolling news ticker for
example).

In this scenario the goal is to reduce this blur width by moving the
objects on the screen to a new (calculated) position between the
positions in the input material. 120Hz (8ms) means that the blur
effect is halved. (Interpolating to 240Hz should decrease this part of
the blur further, but there is also a response time in the LCD pixels
that might limit the visible advantage.)


The second scenario, which for me is more important, is when the
material is from the low frame rate of film. (In Europe it is common
to play back 24Hz material frame by frame in a 2:2 sequencing so
that the shown frames effectively is showing as progressive material.
That means that we don't have the 3:2 "judder" but the displayed
motion is 25Hz and this is so low that the low frequency "judder" or
stroboscope effect is visible.
This is similar to the 24Hz from a Blu-Ray when played back at 24Hz.

The goal with the processing with such material is to achieve a
smoother motion.

In both these scenarios, the key point is that new positions of the
objects must be calculated in the intermediate frames.

The discussion above is based on LCD that is backlit with effectively
a steady backligth but the low frequency stroboscope effect can also
be seen on plasma panels.

I have no experience of DLP:s but LCD based projection should behave
like above.

/Jan

Maybe a bit off topic, but in theatres film runs at 24 fps, however the
shutter in the projector flashs each frame twice, so the flash rate is 48
time per second. That's why you don't notice the strobe effect when
watching the movie.

"Jan B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:31:24 -0800 (PST), G-squared
wrote:

On Nov 29, 11:30 am, Anthony wrote:
I read that one should look for a TV that has a 120 frame refresh
rate, something similar to a pc rate, although pc's are usually in
the
60 to 70 range. Correct me if i am wrong.....

Since there is no video more than 60 PFS, 120 Hz refresh is mostly a
marketing gimmick.
...

One of the reasons for 120 is actually the low frame rate used in film
material. 120 is the common integer multiple of 24 and 60.

I completely agree, 120Hz eliminates the uneven playback we're (60Hz
regions) all used to with the 3:2 pulldown. While in London I got a chance
to see film played in PAL and was quite impressed. Now with 120Hz we get to
watch that same film rate without flicker and without the speedup.

No gimmick, all improvement which is why I'm waiting to get more $ or for
120Hz to drop in price where I can afford it. 120Hz is a must have feature
for me. ;-)

Chas wrote:
"Jan B" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:31:24 -0800 (PST), G-squared
wrote:

On Nov 29, 11:30 am, Anthony wrote:
I read that one should look for a TV that has a 120 frame refresh
rate, something similar to a pc rate, although pc's are usually in
the
60 to 70 range. Correct me if i am wrong.....
Since there is no video more than 60 PFS, 120 Hz refresh is mostly a
marketing gimmick.
...

One of the reasons for 120 is actually the low frame rate used in film
material. 120 is the common integer multiple of 24 and 60.

The other reasons for using a higher display frame rate are the
following:

The first scenario is with material that is truly interlaced
content at 60Hz wich shows the objects at a new position in each field
(= half frame) .

Consider an LCD with essentially a steady back light.
The problem here is a blurring that is created in our eyes when a
picture is shown for 16ms at one position on the screen before it
moves to the next position and is held still. The blurring is created
when we try to follow the motion (of a scrolling news ticker for
example).

In this scenario the goal is to reduce this blur width by moving the
objects on the screen to a new (calculated) position between the
positions in the input material. 120Hz (8ms) means that the blur
effect is halved. (Interpolating to 240Hz should decrease this part of
the blur further, but there is also a response time in the LCD pixels
that might limit the visible advantage.)


The second scenario, which for me is more important, is when the
material is from the low frame rate of film. (In Europe it is common
to play back 24Hz material frame by frame in a 2:2 sequencing so
that the shown frames effectively is showing as progressive material.
That means that we don't have the 3:2 "judder" but the displayed
motion is 25Hz and this is so low that the low frequency "judder" or
stroboscope effect is visible.
This is similar to the 24Hz from a Blu-Ray when played back at 24Hz.

The goal with the processing with such material is to achieve a
smoother motion.

In both these scenarios, the key point is that new positions of the
objects must be calculated in the intermediate frames.

The discussion above is based on LCD that is backlit with effectively
a steady backligth but the low frequency stroboscope effect can also
be seen on plasma panels.

I have no experience of DLP:s but LCD based projection should behave
like above.

/Jan

Maybe a bit off topic, but in theatres film runs at 24 fps, however the
shutter in the projector flashs each frame twice,

Why on earth would that be?


so the flash rate is 48
time per second. That's why you don't notice the strobe effect when
watching the movie.

CLicker wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 11:30:27 -0800 (PST), Anthony
wrote:

I read that one should look for a TV that has a 120 frame refresh
rate, something similar to a pc rate, although pc's are usually in the
60 to 70 range. Correct me if i am wrong...anyhoo, i was researching a
couple of TV's that are recomended...the Toshiba and one from Samsung.
Now, for the first time i heard a consumer complain about the Samsung.
It said that it has a bulb, I believe he called it, that usually has
to be replaced every 3 or 5 years, and now they alone cost $250...Does
anyone know anything about what he was talking about, before i make
another mistake?

I purchased 2 Westinghouse 42" LCD 1080 displays 6 months apart. They
were and still are low end products with a then suggested bulb life of
30,000 hours. The first of them is on at least 8 hours a day, as both
are also the monitors for the PCs which provide their pictures. I
bought the first just over 4 years ago. All flat panel digital TVs
have a lamp. Not all brick & mortar sales people are aware of this (
or at least not all will admit awareness).

As to refresh rate, to each his own. We're not sports enthusiasts, so
the most motion intense video shown on our screens may have been
"Speed" by Timothy Leary;-)

Would love to hear further about "the bulb" (that requires replacement) in
LCD TV's. Aren't they basically huge flat screen computer monitors? If so,
I have used the same LCD screen (17") for years and years and years....and
it's at my work so it is on constantly. I have yet to replace anything. I
also have a 52" Sony LCD, but it is fairly new. My point is that even if
there is a life for LCD TV's it may be so long that you won't care once it
does wear out.

As stated above, Rear Projection Televisions have a projection bulb, and it
will burn out. But RPTV's are generally for screen sizes over 60" (unless
you have mega-bucks) and they most likely won't even be on the market in a
year or two.

From a technical point of view, 120hz is probably the way to go. There is
some excellent techical information in these posts. As you can tell I am no
scientist, but try this experiment. Go someplace....electronics store or a
friends house...and compare 60hz to 120hz. See if you can see any
difference in 99% of the types of shows you will be watching such as sports,
action movies or even games. Compare that to what you are watching now, and
to the difference in price between 60 and 120hz. Good luck.

On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 19:34:25 -0800, "stevev"
wrote:


CLicker wrote in message
.. .

I purchased 2 Westinghouse 42" LCD 1080 displays 6 months apart. They
were and still are low end products with a then suggested bulb life of
30,000 hours.


Would love to hear further about "the bulb" (that requires replacement) in
LCD TV's.

Where do you see the word "replacement" in my text?

Are you suggesting that LCDs do not have a "bulb" (light source)? Or
that 30,000 hours is too short a time for you? I doubt seriously that
either of these sets will still be here anywhere near their 30,000th
hour of play time. Then again, I may not be here either, that's 5
years of "on time" for me.