Flat screen TV question

I am thinking about getting a TV. There is a big price difference between the 120 Hz refresh rate and 240 Hz refresh rate. Anyone have any experience with the observable quality difference? The price difference seems to be a factor of 2 ($3500 vs $7000).

What is your wallet's refresh rate?

The higher refresh rate will reduce some blurring of rapidly changing scenes. I have both and my eyes cannot tell the difference.

H_Rocket said:

The higher refresh rate will reduce some blurring of rapidly changing scenes. I have both and my eyes cannot tell the difference.

Click to expand...

That's what I figured, but I've never seen them side by side. I can't imagine there are any movies available at higher than 60Hz, except maybe for the Hobbit, so seems like a waste.

I've heard it can matter in high def sports watching. I don't care that much so it it would be a matter of perception.

That's a LOT of money for not much, IMHO...

I can see a LITTLE difference between a 60Hz set and a 120 Hz, but I don't see ANY difference between 120 and 240's when I've shopped for TV's... sounds like you're going for the high-end models...

Which is okay... I've looked at them, but knew I wasn't going to spend $3500 bucks on a TV... I looked at the "mainstream" models and settled on an LG, which I'm quite happy with. Had all the features I was looking for and a good reputation. Can't complain at all.... I spent around a thousand for a 47 inch-- that money now would get you a 55 at least with the same features...

Later! OL JR

luke strawwalker said:

That's a LOT of money for not much, IMHO...

I can see a LITTLE difference between a 60Hz set and a 120 Hz, but I don't see ANY difference between 120 and 240's when I've shopped for TV's... sounds like you're going for the high-end models...

Which is okay... I've looked at them, but knew I wasn't going to spend $3500 bucks on a TV... I looked at the "mainstream" models and settled on an LG, which I'm quite happy with. Had all the features I was looking for and a good reputation. Can't complain at all.... I spent around a thousand for a 47 inch-- that money now would get you a 55 at least with the same features...

Later! OL JR

Click to expand...

Actually, I'm looking at 75" sets from Samsung. I already have a 55", but want to upgrade. There don't seem to be any 60 Hz in that size. 120 is the min. Oh, and both models (the 120 and 240 Hz) are 3D.

dward said:

Oh, and both models (the 120 and 240 Hz) are 3D.

Click to expand...

That is where I draw the line. I can't see any use in the whole 3D TV thing. I would look more into the smart TV features.

Of course that is my $0.02 and YMMV.

H_Rocket said:

That is where I draw the line. I can't see any use in the whole 3D TV thing. I would look more into the smart TV features.

Of course that is my $0.02 and YMMV.

Click to expand...

My TV is an LG smart TV with 3D. I wasn't really interested in the 3D, but it's a default. I've only watched a couple of 3D programs and they're a lot better than seeing 3D in a movie theater. The smart aspect is great though. I got rid of my Dish because there wasn't much worth watching, added an electronic antenna for local stations and added both Netflix and Hulu Plus. Now there's too much to choose from!

Anyone with a LG Smart TV may want to read this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25018225: "LG investigates Smart TV 'unauthorised spying' claim"
https://doctorbeet.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/lg-smart-tvs-logging-usb-filenames-and.html: "LG Smart TVs logging USB filenames and viewing info to LG servers"

We have three flat screens -- Sony 55", Samsung 35?" (I don't recall the exact size), and an....Insignia, I think, 27". The first is 240Hz, the second 120Hz, the third I can't remember, I think it's only 60Hz.

The Sony is 2nd from the top in that size (wanted the built-in wireless along with the Gorilla Glass, due to flying pet toys), the Samsung is lower midrange.

The different between the two TVs is significant. First is the number of inputs -- for a lot of folks it does make a difference. The second is picture; Samsung is the best selling LCD brand at the moment, but I think the Sony has a sharper picture. The Samsungs are "brighter" but I think they're over-saturated.

As for 240 vs 120, based on the reading I did when I was shopping for the big TV, 240 makes more of a difference if you're watching 3D. 3D doesn't work for me (that whole lack of binocular vision thing), but my youngest son likes it.

Compare the image on the two TVs, preferably with the exact same movie. Buy the one whose picture you like the best.

-Kevin

The 240 Hz models may just look better and that's bottom line. However, technically 240 Hz is problematic, the best sources are 60 Hz at best. The extra frames have to come out of thin air. It works well with a perfect signal but can do some crazy things with lesser signals and I've seen a few people notice some artifact it generates and have to turn that feature off for most material. Also it might be said some makers cheat in their definition of 240 Hz, although what Sharp is doing with illuminating only 1/4 of the panel at any instant makes a lot of sense in getting the LCD panel to work better, rather than a form of processing.

All digital sources use compressed data. In the case of satellite and cable, the compression is so strong that the extra bandwidth needed for 60 Hz (e.g. 720p) reduces the effective framerate at least as much as it increases it. Color info is only sent once every 2 frames. So you're really only starting with about 15 fps and full detail occurs at about 2 fps. If you have a fast eye you can see the detail be lost when motion occurs, and fill in rapidly but not instantaneously when motion stops.

troj said:

Buy the one whose picture you like the best.

Click to expand...

And that is why Kevin get to be "Wielder Of the Skillet Of Harsh Discipline, Potentate of Perilous Pans" - he is so much smarter than he looks. Of course a bag of hammers is smarter than Kevin looks.

Seriously. Set the specs aside and as far as the display quality is concerned - buy the one that is pleasing to your eye.


My 240HZ TV is a top-end Sony and it has more inputs than our data center here at work. As much as it makes me bring up lunch I agree with KT -> The Samsung has a brighter picture and I much prefer the Sony. However it will come down to the viewing environment as to which is "better"

The 240hz feature isn't going to make a difference most of the time, but it will make the 3D better.

We have a 55" Samsung in the family room and the picture on it is amazing. Some Blu-Ray movies actually look as if you're looking through a window.

I don't think you can really compare the quality of pictures in stores, though. Unless it's one of those darkened showroom types of places, the lighting will be wrong and the TVs will not be adjusted right.

The out of the box settings on most TVs are horrible (the "soap opera effect"). They are set to be very bright because of the harsh lighting in most stores. Once you purchase a TV, you can find recommended settings on line that are an excellent start for tweaking them to your own preferences.

Edit: Even inexpensive TVs have really good picture quality now and ones like Sony and Samsung have excellent pictures. You can get an idea of the quality of the pictures from online reviews. Sometimes it's other things, like the number of inputs, that may be a bigger factor in your choice. And, be aware that the sound quality from the speakers built into most (all?) flat-screen TVs is horrible. You'll likely need to feed the audio to a stereo receiver or a "sound bar."

-- Roger

dward said:

I am thinking about getting a TV. There is a big price difference between the 120 Hz refresh rate and 240 Hz refresh rate. Anyone have any experience with the observable quality difference? The price difference seems to be a factor of 2 ($3500 vs $7000).

Click to expand...

I suspect there are other differences between the models you are comparing than just the refresh rate. That seems like too large a difference for just a higher refresh rate.

-- Roger

I am curious as to why anyone would make a $3500 decision by asking a question about televisions on a rocketry forum. Now, I am wondering why I am reading this and why I am posting a reply... I think I will go to work now.

mkadams001 said:

I am curious as to why anyone would make a $3500 decision by asking a question about televisions on a rocketry forum. Now, I am wondering why I am reading this and why I am posting a reply... I think I will go to work now.

Click to expand...

The Watering Hole: An area where general discussions can take place, that don't necessarily fit well into other categories. This can relate to rocketry, general chat, or any other topic not prohibited by TRF rules and guidelines.

Believe it or not, like many people, model rocketeers also own TV's and unlike a TV or consumer electronics forum, are less likely to have extreme biases when it comes to their television. Enjoy your work.

I looked up my tv and it says 600hz. Huh ? Its a plasma if that makes sense.
Watch sports all the time and I dont see any blur or lapse. crystal clear.

dward said:

Actually, I'm looking at 75" sets from Samsung. I already have a 55", but want to upgrade. There don't seem to be any 60 Hz in that size. 120 is the min. Oh, and both models (the 120 and 240 Hz) are 3D.

Click to expand...

Well I should hope not... 60Hz sets are junk IMHO... too much judder and "ghosting" on moving images (which is practically everything now considering modern trends in cinematography; it's not just sports anymore with rapid camera movements!)

I don't know if the 240 refresh rate makes much difference with 3D or not... my 8 year old daughter LOVES the 3D sets and she can stand there forever watching stuff in 3D, but that's not in the budget anytime soon...

Later and good luck! OL JR

PS. From what I've read, Samsung is one of the better brand options...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_display

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refresh_rate

https://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2123777

rocketsaway said:

I looked up my tv and it says 600hz. Huh ? Its a plasma if that makes sense.
Watch sports all the time and I dont see any blur or lapse. crystal clear.

Click to expand...

A lot of people actually complain about the higher refresh rate because it gives everything a "Soap Opera" look. Americans are used to 24 or 30 fps. Most people turn it off. Technology has gotten so uniformly good in the last decade that manufacturers are literally making s--- up to differentiate their product.

If the two TVs are truly the same, save your money and get the 120. Or wait for 4K to become widely available/cheaper.

r12ski said:

A lot of people actually complain about the higher refresh rate because it gives everything a "Soap Opera" look. Americans are used to 24 or 30 fps. Most people turn it off. Technology has gotten so uniformly good in the last decade that manufacturers are literally making s--- up to differentiate their product.

If the two TVs are truly the same, save your money and get the 120. Or wait for 4K to become widely available/cheaper.

Click to expand...

Thought about the 4K option too. I think they play 4K in cinemas, but I have no idea how'd you go about buying a movie for a personal home cinema. Are there sources I'm unaware off for 4K movies? Is that something anyone sees coming down the pipeline in the next five years?

Actually, the problem with 4k is not the distribution, it is the human eye. On a 60" TV at optimal viewing distance, you'd have a hard time noticing the difference between 1080p and 4k. If you get a larger tv, you might notice a slight difference, but you better be putting it in a small auditorium.

Helpful links:
https://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/17/why-you-dont-need-a-4k-tv/?_r=0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimum_HDTV_viewing_distance

rocketsaway said:

I looked up my tv and it says 600hz. Huh ? Its a plasma if that makes sense.
Watch sports all the time and I dont see any blur or lapse. crystal clear.

Click to expand...

Plasma's are superior but that is another religious war thread topic.

600Hz plasma is apples-oranges comparison to LCD refresh rate.

LCD pixels are multivalued brightness. The LCD refresh rate is the frequency the pixel changes its value or the frame rate.

Plasma pixels are either on or off. To get difference brightness in a plasma pixel you change the on time duty cycle. That has to be done at a high frequency ~600Hz. This is not the frame rate of the picture.

Motion bluring is not alone due to the refresh rate. It also is strongly related to the speed of the LCD. Cheaper LCD's are slow. You can drive them a 1000Hz and they will still blur.

The main driver to 120Hz from 60Hz is mainly from viewing movies which are at a frame rate of 24Hz. A 60Hzpanel cannot faithfully play a 24Hz movie without occasionally inserted repeat frames in the signal (because 24 is not evenly divisible into 60). This is observable to some brains as a jerky or non-smooth motion in the program.

The move to 120Hz fixes this problem (24 goezinta 120 5 times).

The benefit and cost of 240Hz is mostly due to the superior panel used in those sets that can be driven at 240hz, not so much the frequency.

I think the biggest advantage of 240 hz vs 120 hz is when you're using 3D. Other than that you probably couldn't tell any difference.

As Luke pointed out earlier, 60 hz is not fast enough to completely fool your brain and you'll notice flicker. Looking at a computer monitor for very long that uses 60 hz can give a lot of people a headache.

In a 3D TV the glasses block every other image to each eye, so that your eyes see slightly different pictures and can perceive depth. If your 3D TV has a 120 hz refresh rate and you're watching a 3D movie with the glasses, each eye is only exposed to 60 images a second instead of the full 120. On a 240 hz screen you'll still get 120 hz in each eye, and it'll look a bit better.

That's my understanding of how it works anyway. I could be completely wrong.

240 hz isn't worth $3500 to me. Get the 120 hz one, buy a crap ton of rocket stuff with the money you're not spending and still have a lot left in your wallet.

jderimig said:

Plasma's are superior but that is another religious war thread topic.
[...]
Motion bluring is not alone due to the refresh rate. It also is strongly related to the speed of the LCD. Cheaper LCD's are slow. You can drive them a 1000Hz and they will still blur.
[...]
The benefit and cost of 240Hz is mostly due to the superior panel used in those sets that can be driven at 240hz, not so much the frequency.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is another case where the specs that matter the most are hard to come by, while the ones thrown around only hint at the ones that matter. (Another case is PCs, main CPU clock speed is no indicator of the various latencies that govern typical operation).

I have seen great improvement in the lower cost LCD panel brands. The original ones were terrible, some new ones give Samsungs a run for their money (Samsung agrees, because their lower end models use them).

As to plasma, the optimum lighting condition for demoing a LCD is a bright room such as a store. The optimum for the original spaced protection glass plasmas were moderate light, and the new ones work well in a dark room (of course the optimum climate to enjoy them is cold).

plasmas are far superior to even the highest end LED tv's in picture quality and refresh rate. the problems that come with plasmas are, in my experience you can sometimes notice the frames cycling, especially with indirect viewing. burn in is still a problem, despite people saying it isn't...it's definitely a LOT better than it was, but it's still there...leaving netflix on too long or watching cartoon network for hours on end may pose problems to your 4 figure TV set...and it isn't warranteed on any plasma set. they're also dim as compared with LED's...(as someone said though, i find they're better for viewing at home, and they look very dim on the walls of a super bright best buy or something similar...).

i was going to go for a panasonic ST60 plasma, but due to its input lag, and select few reviews stating that they experienced burn in on their sets, i've decided on the vizio m601-a3r. nowhere near as good a picture as the panasonic, but a very good picture nonetheless, same price point, much better input lag, thinner, more energy efficient, and no burn in to worry about.

the 80" vizio is also a great looking set, you may want to take a look in-fact.

also, most higher end TV's are 120hz, even though standard sources in the USA are 60hz, the TV's processor will slip identical frames in between the real frames, which smooths motion blur and jutter. 240hz is used in most if not all 120hz TV's in 3d mode ONLY. they market them as 240hz though, because that's their max capability. you'll find on any TV you buy these days what's called "soap opera effect" mode. useful for sports, but that's about it. watching movies on it is terrible (most TV's come with this mode enabled btw), it eliminates the small amount of jutter in the background blur, as well as sharpens the background blur, which makes things look like backdrops. some movies are unwatchable (i have a samsung 46" that i hated, until i turned the SOE mode off). all it does is insert identical frames between the real ones to smooth out the motion. just an FYI.

also, if you want the best of the best, in that price range, look at the panasonic ZT60 panel. they're being discontinued next year, never to be made again...simply the best picture quality available...period. but plasma...so there's that...

r1dermon said:

also, if you want the best of the best, in that price range, look at the panasonic ZT60 panel. they're being discontinued next year, never to be made again...simply the best picture quality available...period. but plasma...so there's that...

Click to expand...

GT panels are an excellent value also. Do not know if you can get them over 65" though.

r1dermon said:

...watching cartoon network for hours on end may pose problems...

Click to expand...

Well yes....:rofl: