TR Forums

So I want to get a 1080p tv for my gaming consoles, computer, and for watching tv. I know that 120hz tv's cost more but do you really see the difference? I was kinda thinking if I got a 60hz tv then I would see screen tearing when playing games. What do you all think?

Having just been through this exercise, I settled on a compromise with which I am 100% happy: the Sharp LC37GP1U. It's only 60Hz, but the 37" screen image quality doesn't suffer. With significantly larger screens, the difference becomes apparent. The ONLY feature the LC37GP1U lacks that I wanted is a PIP function -- it doesn't support that feature. Otherwise, it works flawlessly as both a television, a gaming display, and a computer monitor (at full resolution with my system). Ghosting is minor to the point of being unnoticeable except with the fastest high-action games.

Caveat: I'm not a gamer; however, both of my nephews are -- PS3, Wii, Xbox 360 and computer games. I really don't understand how they have time for real life.

Edited to add: The Sharp's speakers are crap (as are almost all built-in speakers in LCD televisions). I connected the Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 speakers (intended for computer use) directly to the audio output of the television and the sound is exceptional. I do not have it set up with home theater AV electronics -- just the external speakers.

My biggest concern is the screen tearing issue that i noticed with my current 24" westinghouse display. I'm trying to avoid that if possible. I'm looking at getting something around 30-38 inches.

Do you guys know if the 120 Hz thingy happens at output, or is it an interpolation done in the hardware of the TV? I guess, do you need like special video disks that are 120 Hz, or special video players that do 120 Hz, or do you just need the 120 Hz TV?

60/120hz is the refresh rate of the screen: how many times the image is rescanned onto the screen from the frame buffer, every second. So, no; you do not need anything except the 120hz tv.

The reason to go 120Hz is because film content is better displayed without judder. Because 120 is divided evenly by 24. This is noticed more often on slow pans in movies where the video will appear to skip a little bit as the camera is panning.

The 120hz refresh rate on the screen is really nice because it is a multiple of each of the common video frame rates. 24 fps, 30 fps, and 60 fps. For instance, it eliminates the need for a 3:2 pulldown and makes content from 24fps (movies) sources look much smoother.

I probably haven't explained this really well, but Vrock or one of the other video buffs will probably be able to clarify.

-SF

For gaming, I would definitely recommend the 120 Hz screen. Everything will appear smoother and you will find yourself seeing so much more than before -- I have personally experienced this and have been nothing short of impressed. It's actually incredible how much detail and subtle motion / interactions that game developers put into a game, that people never see.

Taddeusz wrote:

The reason to go 120Hz is because film content is better displayed without judder. Because 120 is divided evenly by 24. This is noticed more often on slow pans in movies where the video will appear to skip a little bit as the camera is panning.

I like the logic and this definitely makes sense, but the conclusion that film content is better displayed is false. Most people find that they prefer live-action film content to be slightly "juddery" to the liquid-smooth frame rate that most British television employs -- myself included in that crowd.

I have found that I like 120 Hz best for animated films and gaming, but 60 Hz is better for live-action film. Many screens give you the ability to toggle between 60 and 120, in which case you can experiment for yourself and choose your preferred method.

JdL wrote:

Taddeusz wrote:

The reason to go 120Hz is because film content is better displayed without judder. Because 120 is divided evenly by 24. This is noticed more often on slow pans in movies where the video will appear to skip a little bit as the camera is panning.

I like the logic and this definitely makes sense, but the conclusion that film content is better displayed is false. Most people find that they prefer live-action film content to be slightly "juddery" to the liquid-smooth frame rate that most British television employs -- myself included in that crowd.

I have found that I like 120 Hz best for animated films and gaming, but 60 Hz is better for live-action film. Many screens give you the ability to toggle between 60 and 120, in which case you can experiment for yourself and choose your preferred method.

You are assuming the 120Hz == frame interpolation, which isn't necessarily the case. You can have interpolation at 60Hz, creating the liquid-smooth look you mentioned. Telecine judder is not the film effect you are refering to. The judder is created because 60Hz is not perfectly divisible by 24Hz, ie. certain frames get displayed longer than others. The traditional film projector doesn't have this issue. 120Hz displays let you display 24/30/60 Hz content without judder, whether or not you choose to use frame interpolation.


BTW, screen tearing is not dependent on refresh rate. If the frame buffer output is not syncronized to the vertical refresh of the display you will have tearing at any refresh rate. I suppose if your refresh rate became fast enough then tearing would become a non issue, but in reality, vertical synchronization is a function of the output device. I didn't think this was a problem with devices other than PC's nowadays? I guess some Xbox 360 games allow you to turn off vsync, but other than there where exactly is this a problem?

Noob question: does plasma TVs have this 60Hz vs 120Hz business? Or I don't need to care?

Apparently lots of people are confused by 120hz TVs. Even this CNET editor gets it wrong. First he starts talking about motion blur, which is completely separate from refresh rate, then he goes on to label film's low frame rate as "judder." Way to educate the masses .

Flying Fox wrote:

Noob question: does plasma TVs have this 60Hz vs 120Hz business? Or I don't need to care?

Any display operating at a fixed refresh rate is going to have issues somewhere along the line displaying content from various frame rate sources. I know some plasmas can run at 72Hz for film content, negating the judder issue, but I'm not sure how widespread that capability is.

crazybus wrote:

Flying Fox wrote:

Noob question: does plasma TVs have this 60Hz vs 120Hz business? Or I don't need to care?

Any display operating at a fixed refresh rate is going to have issues somewhere along the line displaying content from various frame rate sources. I know some plasmas can run at 72Hz for film content, negating the judder issue, but I'm not sure how widespread that capability is.

So what refresh rate plasma TVs are doing these days?

Flying Fox wrote:

So what refresh rate plasma TVs are doing these days?

It's difficult to cut through the marketing-speak but Pioneer advertises both Standard 3:2 Pulldown (60Hz) and "Advanced Cinema" 3:3 Pulldown (72Hz) with their Plasmas. That sounds to me like it can operate at a screen refresh of either 60 or 72 Hz. LG has a new "120Hz" plasma that is supposed to support 2:2 film mode for 48Hz. Panasonic advertises a similar film mode.

What's different about plasma displays vs. LCD is that each pixel gets pulsed hundreds of times per second (hence Panasonic's so called 480Hz sub-field drive) rather than being lit continuously, making refresh rate comparisons a little muddy. I guess this is why a plasma display could operate at 48Hz without noticeable flicker.

So it seems like most of the big players have features in place to eliminate telecine judder by varying refresh rate. AFAIK LG is the only one selling a 120Hz plasma. That's kind of a gimmicky feature on a plasma though since image persistence isn't an issue and they have the ability to run at 48/72Hz for film. The "motion smoothing" frame-interpolation algorithms some of these displays have don't need 120Hz either.

crazybus wrote:

Flying Fox wrote:

So what refresh rate plasma TVs are doing these days?

It's difficult to cut through the marketing-speak but Pioneer advertises both Standard 3:2 Pulldown (60Hz) and "Advanced Cinema" 3:3 Pulldown (72Hz) with their Plasmas. That sounds to me like it can operate at a screen refresh of either 60 or 72 Hz. LG has a new "120Hz" plasma that is supposed to support 2:2 film mode for 48Hz. Panasonic advertises a similar film mode.

What's different about plasma displays vs. LCD is that each pixel gets pulsed hundreds of times per second (hence Panasonic's so called 480Hz sub-field drive) rather than being lit continuously, making refresh rate comparisons a little muddy. I guess this is why a plasma display could operate at 48Hz without noticeable flicker.

So it seems like most of the big players have features in place to eliminate telecine judder by varying refresh rate. AFAIK LG is the only one selling a 120Hz plasma. That's kind of a gimmicky feature on a plasma though since image persistence isn't an issue and they have the ability to run at 48/72Hz for film. The "motion smoothing" frame-interpolation algorithms some of these displays have don't need 120Hz either.

So in other words, I don't have to worry too much about this stuff once I pony up the extra cash for the plasmas, right?

Flying Fox wrote:

So in other words, I don't have to worry too much about this stuff once I pony up the extra cash for the plasmas, right?

If you want to eliminate telecine judder, then yeah you do have to be careful, at least with what's out there now. All current Pioneers are good. Besides that you have to look at each model individually. Frame interpolation is gimmicky IMO so I couldn't care less about that.

Honestly though, unless you're super picky or know what you're looking for it's probably not that big of a deal. I've managed to survive watching 24fps movies on my 60hz LCD so far. Ignorance may be bliss, but apathy is rapture .