How much of this article is true about LCDs (esp. 60 v 120 Hz)?

[blastingcap]

http://www.maximumtech.com/display-...itor-hdtv-companies-cook-their-specs?page=0,2

I'm not familiar enough with the topic, but I want to know if it's worth springing for a 120 Hz TV if what the article says is true...

 

[blastingcap]

anyone? bueller?

 

[LtGoonRush]

Are you talking about real displays that refresh at 120Hz and support 120Hz input (often used for active shutter 3D), or fake 120Hz displays that just do framerate conversion to 120Hz? That article is about the latter, a TV from 2008. I basically wouldn't trust anyone who tried to demonstrate the real world effects of a feature using four year old TVs, at best it's just not relevant to current models, and at worst it's wrong because it's outdated.

I wouldn't pay extra for a TV or monitor that just does framerate conversion to 120Hz, in fact for gaming this processing adds additional frames of delay. It can look nice if you're distracted by the jerkiness of 24fps video, but it can also look ugly if badly implemented, and the smoothness of the video can seem weird to people used to lower framerates. On the other hand, I WOULD pay extra for a monitor that could really display 120Hz and accept a 120Hz input signal, as that would really improve gaming and significantly lower latency (as latency is a fixed number of frames, and at 120Hz each frame takes half as long).

 

[blastingcap]

Are you talking about real displays that refresh at 120Hz and support 120Hz input (often used for active shutter 3D), or fake 120Hz displays that just do framerate conversion to 120Hz? That article is about the latter, a TV from 2008. I basically wouldn't trust anyone who tried to demonstrate the real world effects of a feature using four year old TVs, at best it's just not relevant to current models, and at worst it's wrong because it's outdated.

I wouldn't pay extra for a TV or monitor that just does framerate conversion to 120Hz, in fact for gaming this processing adds additional frames of delay. It can look nice if you're distracted by the jerkiness of 24fps video, but it can also look ugly if badly implemented, and the smoothness of the video can seem weird to people used to lower framerates. On the other hand, I WOULD pay extra for a monitor that could really display 120Hz and accept a 120Hz input signal, as that would really improve gaming and significantly lower latency (as latency is a fixed number of frames, and at 120Hz each frame takes half as long).

Thanks!

 

[LokutusofBorg]

I will just say that there is no way the current active shutter 3D tech could work if the pixel response time wasn't low enough to make two different frames cycling back and forth at 120Hz not appear muddy. Most LCD TVs use VA panels, which are the slowest of the three panel types (TN, VA, IPS). Unless a TV is a 3D model, then the 120Hz claims are likely just motion interpolation and doubtful any improvement in the panel.

Applying this to computer monitors directly is a little hard, because most (all?) 120Hz monitors are TN panels, which have the fastest pixel response time of the three panel types. Check some TFT Central reviews of any of the good 120Hz monitors and they should have info on the actual response time of the monitor.

Also, this article is from May 2010, so 3D-capable sets were just barely beginning to show up. This tech makes fairly significant advances every year. Good current 120Hz or 3D-capable TVs/monitors are probably better than anything tested in that article. Not to mention the article says in their testing that nobody could actually see any motion blur. Which is actually a rather weird conclusion, and seems to cast doubt on everything they tried to lay out for the first half of the article.

 

[d3fu5i0n]

[...]

+1

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

LCD's dont have a refresh rate in reality. They dont have a electrongun and dont have the same limitation as a CRT in blanking the screen. But we see one in windows because the gpu still works on receiving frames on the frame buffer so a LCD needs to emulate a crt to be compatible with the hardware.

If you take a 1000/response time then you should get the refresh rate it can do. But you will never see that total but manufacturers limit it.

 

[Ben90]

LCD's still have a refresh rate. Your arguement is one of: "They don't have refresh rates if we discount the fact that they need to refresh the screen"

Yes, 1000/Response time should give the maximum ghost free refresh rate possible. This has nothing to do with how they display the image. While similar do not get them confused.

The only way for a monitor to operate without a true refresh rate is for the individual pixels to be changed in accordance to the ones in a solo frame buffer. No one wants to go back to a single frame buffer so every monitor technology is going to have some sort of a refresh rate even if it uses magic to draw the screen.