100hz / 200hz - Is It Really Worth The Extra Money?

[Guest saulc]

I was just after some opinions regarding 100hz and 200hz TVs - are they really worth the extra money?

I have been told that our free to air TV will never be broadcast in 100hz because our broadcasting infrastructure can't handle it. I've also noticed that when playing my Xbox on my 100hz TV via HDMI it will still only display at 60hz.

I also had a problem when I got the Xbox - I only had RCA leads to connect it with, so I tried them. Using RCA I wasn't able to get the TV to recognise a 60hz signal - 50hz was OK. When I dragged the old 51cm clunker out of the bedroom and hooked this up it worked a treat at 60hz even though it's only a 50hz tv. Once I got the HDMI cable I was able to use the new TV.

Maybe my understanding regarding the screen refresh rate is a little mis-guided, but it was strange that a 100hz TV won't process a 60hz signal but a 50hz TV will

Anyhow I though it would be a good idea to raise this as when I speak to different people about this I get different thoughts. My father-in-law describes it as when you wave your hand in front of a 50hz image your hand will look jerky, but if you do it in front of 100hz+ it will appear smooth with fluid movement - he swears by 100hz.

[digitalj]

imo, anything more than 60Hz is pointless as it just introduces new artefacts that wouldn't be there if it was displayed natively (at 60Hz, 50Hz or 24Hz or what Frame Rate the source was captured in), while it can make it appear smoother and get rid of certain artefacts caused by low frame rates, converting a low frame rate to a higher frame can introduce new problems. 60Hz+ will only provide benefits if the source material is captured at a frame rate higher than 60Hz.

[madmax]

I agree there is no point, until tvs get to 600MHz, and are smart enough to detect the input frame rate and flash each image accordingly i.e. 10 times, 12 times and 25 times (for 60Hz, 50Hz and 24Hz respectively). Until then, anything in between such as 200MHz is not much use IMHO.

[davep]

I agree there is no point, until tvs get to 600MHz, and are smart enough to detect the input frame rate and flash each image accordingly i.e. 10 times, 12 times and 25 times (for 60Hz, 50Hz and 24Hz respectively). Until then, anything in between such as 200MHz is not much use IMHO.

wow, 600 million frames per second. I think we're a while off that :|

[alanh]

Madmax,

The figure is 600 Hz not 600 000 000 Hz.

The reason why the higher number is used for plasmas and not LCDs is that a plasma can only switch the display on or off. So to vary the colour and brightness they send an on and off signal to the display then number of times in a frame controls the brightness.

These images may be modified by motion compensation, however it cannot be done to every created sub frame otherwise the sharpness of moving edges will be reduced because it will not have the display on long enough.

AlanH

[Guest saulc]

Madmax,

The figure is 600 Hz not 600 000 000 Hz.

The reason why the higher number is used for plasmas and not LCDs is that a plasma can only switch the display on or off. So to vary the colour and brightness they send an on and off signal to the display then number of times in a frame controls the brightness.

These images may be modified by motion compensation, however it cannot be done to every created sub frame otherwise the sharpness of moving edges will be reduced because it will not have the display on long enough.

AlanH

Hi Alan,

Do you think the 100/200hz TVs currently available on the market are actually able to produce a decent image using a FTA broadcast? Does it really depend on the processor in the specific TV? My TV (Hisense 1080P 100hz 42" LCD) uses something called "Vivid Motion", which seems to be a waste of time as everyone suggests to just turn it off. Also are you able to add any thoughts on my original statement about my TV being able to handle an Xbox signal at 60hz via HDMI but not via RCA?

Regards

saulc

[Guest scorpian007]

Hi Alan,

Do you think the 100/200hz TVs currently available on the market are actually able to produce a decent image using a FTA broadcast? Does it really depend on the processor in the specific TV? My TV (Hisense 1080P 100hz 42" LCD) uses something called "Vivid Motion", which seems to be a waste of time as everyone suggests to just turn it off. Also are you able to add any thoughts on my original statement about my TV being able to handle an Xbox signal at 60hz via HDMI but not via RCA?

Regards

saulc

There is not much difference between 100Hz and 200Hz, but generally the 200hz TV's have better quality panels in them (i.e. Samsung Series 7 has better blacks and a 2ms panel as far as I know).

[indulis]

Spent ages looking at the Sony 100Hz and 200Hz screens and I could not detect *any* difference to my eyes, even on difficult scenes with lots of panning.

There was a big difference in sets with/without Motionflow or other image processing, and sets without it. Some of the video processing was better, other sets were worse.

Had a friend of the familty pay extra $ for the 200Hz Sony "Z" over the "W" which I recommended as "the set looked brighter" compared to the W. Didn't say anything to them, no point once they had bought it. Thought most people knew about the brightness and contrast controls on TV sets

[wrangler]

Unnatural-looking motion is a pet hate of mine.

I looked at these LCDs as they advertise 100Hz+ making motion look more "natural", but was unconvinced.

IMO plasma is better value at this price, with motion looking at least (or more) natural than the 100Hz and 200Hz LCD.

My G series Pana has "600Hz" sub-field drive- whatever that is.

All I know is motion (sports, action movies, panning etc.) and PQ looks good to my eyes.

[tonymy01]

I have been told that our free to air TV will never be broadcast in 100hz because our broadcasting infrastructure can't handle it. I've also noticed that when playing my Xbox on my 100hz TV via HDMI it will still only display at 60hz.

This 100/200Hz is nothing to do with the input, this is a fancy processing scheme that repeats and fakes information. Anything more than 24/25Hz movie, 50/60Hz video/sport is just not necessary on the broadcast/media side, so you will never get more than this and NO tv would know what to do as the technical standards for broadcast, bluray & DVD media is those frame rates. But these numbers have very very little to do with the 100/200Hz processing. You will find that the 60Hz you saw was the reported *input* standard, and nothing to do with the 100/120/200/whatever processing, which would still be done if you had it enabled. But this processing, as nearly everyone has said here time and time again, is a joke. Anything that makes up frames by predicting where movement will be between frames is always going to end up with artefacts on things, with halos around certain objects moving in opposite directions to the background, with edge sharpening, with "unnatural" looking flowing of movement (we are very used to seeing juddery movies, we have been viewing movies like this since the 1900s, so suddenly to turn a movie into a handi-cam look just looks very wrong), etc.

[Guest troymox]

My TV (Hisense 1080P 100hz 42" LCD)

This is reference your TV. I am thinking of purchasing the same one. Would you recommend it? What are the pro/cons??

Sorry this is off your topic just looking to buy soon so I was wanting to find someone that has that particular TV.

Cheers!

Edited December 8, 2009 by troymox

[soots]

Ive heard from many people that 200HZ post processing is excellent for sport, action, pans, etc on LCDs which lack fps. However, it adds render lag which is terrible for gaming, hence why all these sets come with a gaming mode to disable the post processing.

I have an unboxed Samung 52B750 (200HZ tv). A grade Ebay Ex-demo for $2300. I couldnt do a comparo in the shop because i couldnt find any B750s on display. Im basing this off others opinions as my deal was too good to pass up and i fell in love with the B650 which is similar but supposedly has inferior PQ. Pllugging it in later this week.

[t10001503559603]

Ive heard from many people that 200HZ post processing is excellent for sport, action, pans, etc on LCDs which lack fps. However, it adds render lag which is terrible for gaming, hence why all these sets come with a gaming mode to disable the post processing.

I have an unboxed Samung 52B750 (200HZ tv). A grade Ebay Ex-demo for $2300. I couldnt do a comparo in the shop because i couldnt find any B750s on display. Im basing this off others opinions as my deal was too good to pass up and i fell in love with the B650 which is similar but supposedly has inferior PQ. Pllugging it in later this week.

This whole "lets see which LCD has the highest MHZ" battle is just about LCD trying to match the motion offered by superior plasma panels. No LCD can handle motion even close to the the poorest plasma out there. And don't get lured in by all the "motion flow", "frame interpolation", "smooth motion" and all that other shite, all those settings do is insert artificial frames and either introduce artefacts in the picture or make everything look like it was shot on digital video. Don't believe any of this hype, if anything it degrades the quality and does not improve it.

The Pio panels do nothing near 200mhz and they have the best motion handling on the planet.

1000

[Owen]

Read this.

http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Response_Time_ShootOut.htm

You cant recreate motion information that was not captured in the video, all you can do is introduce blur to smooth it.

Some people like this motion blur/smoothing and some dont.

[JSmith]

No LCD can handle motion even close to the the poorest plasma out there.

Mate, what an absolute load of rubbish.

The new LCD's have excellent motion resolution.

"In terms of motion blur, the LN46A950 is capable of performing as well as the best plasma displays we've tested, as long as you're willing to engage its dejudder processing. We checked out the FPD Benchmark's motion resolution test and found that with both dejudder (in any strength) and LED Smart Motion engaged, the display resolved around 1,000 lines, which is about the same as we saw on the best plasma we've tested so far in this department, the Pioneer PDP-5020FD."

Your can read more here.

JSmith

[Owen]

Video does not have 1000 lines of motion resolution so unless watching test patterns turns you on motion resolution is a non issue.

When viewing video modern LCD's are fine and dont need 100-200Hz bullsh*t.

Both Plasma and LCD TV's also dont need motion interpolation unless you want film to look like video. 24fps film is not smooth in a cinema, why should it be in your home?

Edited December 8, 2009 by Owen

[soots]

wow way to crash the LCD thread Plasma boy lol

Some people notice things more than others. Some may be sensitive to black levels, contrasts, motionflow, or like me sharpness.

LCD and Plasma both sell well because theyre both excellent televisions with pros and cons for both of them.

IMO, LCD is far better because of sharpness and no IR. Motionflow/dejudder option is a great bonus.

Thats my opinion, and i dont need to try and convince plasma boys that its the word of the gospel.

[JSmith]

I don't think it is worth extra money, but if the panel has other features I want and is newer then I would still buy it. That said the panel I purchased has a 100Hz mode, and whilst I don't like it on high during the display of film based content (I have it on low then), sport and all other shows look great with it on low or high. Sure it introduces a few minor artifacts, but the effect in general is something I personally like. I guess it's a like it or don't type of feature. I certainly like having the option to use it or not though...

JSmith

[bugsy_pal1503561260]

I don't think it is worth extra money, but if the panel has other features I want and is newer then I would still buy it. That said the panel I purchased has a 100Hz mode, and whilst I don't like it on high during the display of film based content (I have it on low then), sport and all other shows look great with it on low or high. Sure it introduces a few minor artifacts, but the effect in general is something I personally like. I guess it's a like it or don't type of feature. I certainly like having the option to use it or not though...

JSmith

I would agree. I am considering a Sony Bravia 40" LCD in the Z series and the 200Hz thing is not really a selling point for me. It'll be interesting to try it out on the footy, but I am more interested in the other features of that series - especially the slim bezel design.