LED TV's 240Hz vs. Plasma's 600Hz: Differences, Pros, and Cons?

[Baasha]

What is the difference between the much-hyped 240Hz refresh rate of the LED TVs and the 600Hz one of the Plasmas?

The latter models are a LOT cheaper now, especially without 3-D capability.

And, wouldn't it be a no-brainer to take a 600Hz refresh rate over a seemingly measly 240Hz?

 

[sivart]

Not really apples to apples, but I can quickly tell if a TV is a 120Hz vs. a plasma by watching hockey or golf and keeping your eye on the puck/ball. After watching my 4 year old plasma, I can still see "trails" on some of the new 120Hz TV's.

Haven't seen any 240Hz other than in stores and I'm not going to use their source as accurate representation of what I'd watch.

 

[s44]

What is the difference between the much-hyped 240Hz refresh rate of the LED TVs and the 600Hz one of the Plasmas?

The latter models are a LOT cheaper now, especially without 3-D capability.

And, wouldn't it be a no-brainer to take a 600Hz refresh rate over a seemingly measly 240Hz?

No. 600hz is a scam thrown in purely for marketing. So is 240hz, but at least that tells you that the set can, like any 120hz set, do proper 5:5 (10:10) pulldown of 24hz movies (i.e. any shot on film).

 

[bobdole369]

plasma by watching hockey or golf and keeping your eye on the puck/ball.

Everyone here is correct. In fact I recently described this to a friend considering sacrificing refresh rate for screen size and I told him to go ahead. It went something like:

( 32" 120hz or 37" 60hz)??
me: "do you watch hockey or golf? The reason you would want >60hz is if you play a ton of games, or watch hockey or golf, on my 60hz set thats the only time I've wished for >refresh rate, was watching exactly those 2 things."

 

[ChAoTiCpInOy]

All marketing gimmicks.

 

[Apex]

What is the difference between the much-hyped 240Hz refresh rate of the LED TVs and the 600Hz one of the Plasmas?

The latter models are a LOT cheaper now, especially without 3-D capability.

And, wouldn't it be a no-brainer to take a 600Hz refresh rate over a seemingly measly 240Hz?

That question is a misunderstanding of what those specs actually mean, and what they're for. They're actually to address very different things. It's just totally misunderstood by both sides (the people who buy on numbers, and the people who think everything is marketing).

The hz rate for LCD panels (60hz, 120hz, 240hz, 480hz) is to address the inherent slowness of LCD panels, in terms of response time. Because LCD panels take 2ms or longer (typically 6-8ms or higher for grey to grey, the easiest and fastest colors to switch from) to switch from one plane to another, you get ghosting, judder, motion lag, or other motion artifacts. The higher hz panels do help reduce these problems, but they also add new ones. The most noticable problem is it changes the appearance of background images, often making them stick out unnaturally.

Plasmas are so fast their response time is undefined. However, in LCD terms, it would be an equivalent of roughly 0.001ms. Because of that, you don't have the same motion issues.

When talking about plasmas, the 600hz (or 840hz on Pioneer plasmas) refer to the subfield drive. 600hz means the display is processing 10 sub-pictures per frame, while 840hz means 14 sub-pictures per frame. What this allows the display to do is to keep the full 1920 x 1080 resolution while the picture moves.

What is a dirty little secret in the display industry is that those shiny new 1080p displays that everyone goes so crazy over often cannot actually resolve all of that info once there's motion. The faster the motion, the lower the resolution. In fact, most 1080p LCD HDTVs from just a couple years ago would drop clear down to 480 lines or so once motion speeds up.

At 10 subfields, a full 1080 lines are resolved even with relatively fast motion.

This being said, the human eye is NOT good at picking up resolution with respect to motion. In other words, when looking at a static picture, our eyes can easily tell the difference between a high-res and a low-res image. However, once there's motion, we have a much harder time telling.

How much of an effect this will be depends on the perception of the individual, as it does vary from person to person.

 

[s44]

The hz rate for LCD panels (60hz, 120hz, 240hz, 480hz) is to address the inherent slowness of LCD panels, in terms of response time.

Maybe for some. It's much more useful for addressing the uneven division of 24 (fps) into 60 (hz), providing correct frame display times (each frame shown 5, 10, 20 times instead of alternating 2 and 3) for viewing movies.

Remember, most high-res content is way slower than 60hz. There isn't a single 1080p60 native source outside of a high-end PC playing games. Again, the "120hz" and up sets are designed to deal with this by interpolating frames to make, say, a 1080i signal smoother. (For movies, this is obviously an alternative to 5:5 or 10:10 pulldown -- and a worse one to most eyes.)

Plasma solutions (generally 72hz modes) haven't worked as well.

 

[Apex]

Maybe for some. It's much more useful for addressing the uneven division of 24 (fps) into 60 (hz), providing correct frame display times (each frame shown 5, 10, 20 times instead of alternating 2 and 3) for viewing movies.

Remember, most high-res content is way slower than 60hz. There isn't a single 1080p60 native source outside of a high-end PC playing games. Again, the "120hz" and up sets are designed to deal with this by interpolating frames to make, say, a 1080i signal smoother. (For movies, this is obviously an alternative to 5:5 or 10:10 pulldown -- and a worse one to most eyes.)

Plasma solutions (generally 72hz modes) haven't worked as well.

That's very fair. Video judder is often caused by the cadence issues introduced by 24 into 60, and higher refresh panels do address this as well.

 

[0roo0roo]

as said marketing.
lotta lcd stuff is bs.
what is the extra hz they are quoting, sometimes they are just flashing the backlight on and off. srsly. though it does work, flashing the backlight on and off does help the lcd image quality a bit, pulse image is better than a slow analog change. but still the 240hz tends to be a bit of bs, esp the initerpolated motion flow stuff which is just horrible. you don't get cheap processors which can interpolate quality frames, hd image is 2 million pixels, and generating real 240 frames from 60 is bullsh*t.

120hz where it is just making 24p possible due to being an evenly divisible number, is fine.

in any case all this hz is just to catch up with plasma which doesn't have problems iwth slow pixels. though they've had to resort to hz marketing anyways. sometimes companies just have to go with what works, if one side lies, the other has to as well, because it works. i've heard enough people parrot the led tv's are the best, thinking it is a whole new panel tech.. to see how it works.

 

[nico07]

I can speak to owning both a Sony KDL46VL160 (120Hz) 10-bit color panel and now a LG 60PV450 (600Hz) television. I had upgraded because the LG is an affordable 60" television. Both first of all are capable of displaying both 60Hz television and games, as well as 24Hz blu ray movies. For any geeks out there 60Hz is not divisible by 24Hz, so movies traditionally have needed a 72Hz (72/24=3), 120Hz (120/24=5), 240Hz (240/24=10), 480Hz (480/24=20) or even 600Hz (600/24=25) refresh rate to play back correctly. Previously a black frame had to be added to playback 24Hz videos, DVD's on a standard 60Hz monitor, hence 3:2 pulldown formats. Playing back movies at their natural rate makes the movie more fluid. This fluidity can make movies seem live and almost "fake" because we have been conditioned to watch movies using a 3:2 pulldown for years.
My Sony would play back movie scenes very well and had excellent color, but would at times slightly blur a scene when panning. This is much less evident on the 600Hz plasma. The only con per say on the plasma is a slight flicker when watching it indirectly. Ultimately plasma can change states faster than an LCD (the underlying technology of any LED screen, as LED is only a backlight) can change from on to off. For around a $1000 price tag a 60" plasma is much more affordable than a 60" LCD/LED television and ultimately has better color depth as well. The pros and cons of plasma still apply, but the pros are getting better than they have been.

Plasma pros: Most vivid colors, fastest motion, best viewing angles, deep blacks
Plasma cons: (historically, but not as true anymore) more power, more heat, thicker design, shorter life, washed out picture with sun shining.

LCD/LED pros: thinnest designs, good motion, power efficient, long life
LCD/LED cons: poor viewing angles, okay color, uneven back lighting.

 

[Gintaras]

This being said, the human eye is NOT good at picking up resolution with respect to motion. In other words, when looking at a static picture, our eyes can easily tell the difference between a high-res and a low-res image. However, once there's motion, we have a much harder time telling.

How much of an effect this will be depends on the perception of the individual, as it does vary from person to person.

Nice post, but for people could be good to know, that not all channels broadcast at resolution they do state. Using "Info" button on remote, I've noticed, that some channels broadcasting 720 look better than some claim to broadcast 1080.

I've played .MKVs that looked better that channel claims to broacast @ 1080...

 

[lamedude]

It still technically 1080i even if low bitrate makes look worse than DVD. 720P needs less bits so its less likely to turn to crap when its overcompressed by TV provider.