New TV - 100, 200 or 400hz, does it really matter?
Discussion
Looking at a 47' approx TV.
Now the price seems directly linked to the refresh rate. The higher the number, the higher end the TV.
Now I am told that the higher rate shows itself as smoother movement and action with less smearing.
After standing like a lemon with a blank expression staring at tellies for too long in John Lewis this afternoon, I struggled to tell the difference.
What actual experience do people of the PH massive have on this matter? Is it with the extra and can you tell the difference when you get the TV set up at home?
Thanks
TS
Now the price seems directly linked to the refresh rate. The higher the number, the higher end the TV.
Now I am told that the higher rate shows itself as smoother movement and action with less smearing.
After standing like a lemon with a blank expression staring at tellies for too long in John Lewis this afternoon, I struggled to tell the difference.
What actual experience do people of the PH massive have on this matter? Is it with the extra and can you tell the difference when you get the TV set up at home?
Thanks
TS
Some Gump said:
Buy the one you like the look of. Not only are the specs meaningless, a chep s
te telly now is better than the all singing one from a few years back...
That's garbage.te telly now is better than the all singing one from a few years back...My 2004 Pioneer 434 is still providing better images than any cheap s
te available today.And as for my 2008 Pioneer Kuro, it's still the best native 1080p TV ever made and *nothing* has come close to it yet.
As for the OP, if you think higher numbers are better, get a plasma....they're 600Hz.....so it must be better.
Edited by Flawless Victory on Sunday 28th October 23:37
The high Hz modes are only any good if you want films to look like they were made on a video camera as I find it just lends a certain 'look' to the image that spoils the filmic quality. I have the option on one of my TVs and my new projector will have it too, but it stays turned off.
TVs are built more and more to a price, so while you can get some pretty big screens for little money these days I don't reckon they'll last anything like as long as TVs from years gone by.
TVs are built more and more to a price, so while you can get some pretty big screens for little money these days I don't reckon they'll last anything like as long as TVs from years gone by.
Some Gump said:
Buy the one you like the look of. Not only are the specs meaningless, a chep ste telly now is better than the all singing one from a few years back...
This. I have a 5 year old, Philips 42 inch Ambilight thing. I got it cheap(ish) from John Lewis as the refresh rate was "only" 50, as opposed to the new model 100Hz that was just coming in.te telly now is better than the all singing one from a few years back...It's superb to this day with crystal clear HD performance, excellent audio and great features, and nothing has ever gone wrong with it - it appears to be built like a tank. Don't get too hung up on spec: test a few, then decide.
I bought my boy a cheap 37" screen to play PS3 games on about a year ago, from Richersounds.
The salesman said I should pay a bit more and go up to 200mhz as it was for gaming and actually showed me two tvs next to each other with a 'Cars' DVD playing on them both.
There was a smoother, more natural movement of images across the screens on the 200mhz when directly comparing to the 100mhz sat right beside it. But you really had to try hard to spot it.
But, in my opinion, not enough to justify the extra £100 notes it was going to cost (a 3rd again on the price), especially as I was never going to be using it.
My cheap choice doesn't seem to adversely effected my boy's ability to kick ass on COD or FIFA.
The salesman said I should pay a bit more and go up to 200mhz as it was for gaming and actually showed me two tvs next to each other with a 'Cars' DVD playing on them both.
There was a smoother, more natural movement of images across the screens on the 200mhz when directly comparing to the 100mhz sat right beside it. But you really had to try hard to spot it.
But, in my opinion, not enough to justify the extra £100 notes it was going to cost (a 3rd again on the price), especially as I was never going to be using it.
My cheap choice doesn't seem to adversely effected my boy's ability to kick ass on COD or FIFA.
You might have found that for gaming then motionflow (or whatever it's called) would be better turned off due to it causing extra lag that gamers don't like, so maybe a good choice anyway. Not a gamer myself, but seen plenty of complaints on AVforums about lag on certain displays causing issues.
Not a gamer myself, but seen plenty of complaints on AVforums about lag on certain displays causing issues.Mr E said:
Flawless Victory said:
And as for my 2008 Pioneer Kuro, it's still the best native 1080p TV ever made and *nothing* has come close to it yet.
My Kuro went bang. A FlossyThePig said:
Don't most BluRay players use 1080/24p as a default setting?
The majority do if it is film based content, though many concerts and documentaries use 1080/60i as they tend to be recorded on video cameras rather than film. I've even seen the odd BluRay at 1080/50i too, but 24p is by far the most common. Adding extra frames by the display is pure guesswork (though very clever guesswork) and personally I don't care for the effect as it just makes films look like TV dramas to me (aka 'soap opera effect'). Gassing Station | Home Cinema & Hi-Fi | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff