# 1080p24 vs 1080p60



## cneo (Oct 30, 2007)

Don't understand the difference or why my new Sony TV's that are 1080p would be compatible with p60 but not p24. Makes little sense to me, that DTV would use a format that apparently most tv's aren't compatible with.

Anyone have input on this? Otherwise see the link below:

"I know I have a 1080p-capable TV but I'm receiving a message that says my TV doesn't support DIRECTV's 1080p broadcast. What's wrong?"
---"DIRECTV broadcasts in a format called 1080p24. Your TV may be 1080p-enabled but may support a different format such as 1080p60. Rest assured that you will still be able to view the content; your receiver will automatically show it in the highest resolution your TV supports - 1080i in most cases."

see this link.

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/custom...0028&cat=faq_2


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Some reading for you.

http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=163291&highlight=1080p
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=159831&highlight=1080p
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=158295&highlight=1080p
http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=156534&highlight=1080p


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

> why my new Sony TV's that are 1080p would be compatible with p60 but not p24


The "simple answer" is Sony screwed you, just like me with my XBR2. Marketing promoted 1080p without mentioning the "60" limitation.
1080p/24 is used as movies are 24 fps, so it's a "direct" cross over. 1080p/60 is video game/computer generated and not a used broadcast format.
"Sony lied".


----------



## The Merg (Jun 24, 2007)

That's why the big thing for manufacturers to say now is that their TV is 120Hz. It's a multiple of 24 and 60, thus it will correctly display shows being broadcast in 1080p24 or 1080p60.

- Merg


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

The Merg said:


> That's why the big thing for manufacturers to say now is that their TV is 120Hz. It's a multiple of 24 and 60, thus it will correctly display shows being broadcast in 1080p24 or 1080p60.
> 
> - Merg


NOT ALL of them, some still doing 2:3 pull down, then multiply to 120 HZ. Read specs of each model closely !


----------



## cneo (Oct 30, 2007)

spartanstew said:


> Some reading for you.
> 
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=163291&highlight=1080p
> http://www.dbstalk.com/showthread.php?t=159831&highlight=1080p
> ...


Excellent response. Thanks for taking the time to set this out for me and others. These threads do to a large degree, though not entirely, clarify this issue. There still is some confusion, even within the listed threads, but I'm much more educated now than I was a few minutes ago. One thing I learned is that Sony didn't screw anyone over, but that no manufacturers were selling the advanced sets a few years ago except the extremely expensive Pioneer. In any event, Thanks.


----------



## cneo (Oct 30, 2007)

By the way, is the difference between the two that different or virtually inperceptable as some say?

Also, I watched some VOD previews which were listed in HD24, and only the single 1080p light was lit on my DVR, which I understand to mean that I'm not getting full 1080p. So what I am I getting then, 1080i?

The picture was fantastic, regardless.


----------



## NFLnut (Sep 29, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> The "simple answer" is Sony screwed you, just like me with my XBR2. Marketing promoted 1080p without mentioning the "60" limitation.


That's one way to look at it. I prefer the "DirecTV screwed us" response. I've read the tech discussions ad nauseum as to the "WHY" DirecTV does this, but it always leaves out the simple fact that DirecTV still chooses to broadcast in a format that MOST 1080p TV's, even high-priced models presently being manufactured, do not present.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

NFLnut said:


> That's one way to look at it. I prefer the "DirecTV screwed us" response. I've read the tech discussions ad nauseum as to the "WHY" DirecTV does this, but it always leaves out the simple fact that DirecTV still chooses to broadcast in a format that MOST 1080p TV's, even high-priced models presently being manufactured, do not present.


The manufactures choose not to support a format that is used on a daily basis by the large majority of Hollywood, which is where the large majority of content comes from that is not a live event....

Directv supported this format, because it can.. It sounds like the hardware can not support 60, so thats all fine with me... Something is better than nothing, especially when its actually a standardized and generally accept format by all the content providers....

As for Manufactures not supporting 24.. Its them being lazy and not wanting to spend the money on placing in the proper scaling processors, and yet still wanting to be able to market their products as 1080P...


----------



## DogLover (Mar 19, 2007)

cneo said:


> By the way, is the difference between the two that different or virtually inperceptable as some say?
> 
> Also, I watched some VOD previews which were listed in HD24, and only the single 1080p light was lit on my DVR, which I understand to mean that I'm not getting full 1080p. So what I am I getting then, 1080i?
> 
> The picture was fantastic, regardless.


Yes, you are getting 1080i.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

NFLnut said:


> That's one way to look at it. I prefer the "DirecTV screwed us" response. I've read the tech discussions ad nauseum as to the "WHY" DirecTV does this, but it always leaves out the simple fact that DirecTV still chooses to broadcast in a format that MOST 1080p TV's, even high-priced models presently being manufactured, do not present.


I don't think it is true today that "most" high-priced TVs do not support this format.

The list of TVs I have seen is outdated.

One can read reviews of TVs and get information that is more up-to-date.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

Most 1080p capable sets manufactured in the last 18-24 months support 1080p/24, unless they are the dirt cheap bottom of the line ones....true there are still a few that dont, but the list gets shorter everyday. The OP said his new Sony TV, then later says bought a few years ago, what model did you just buy that doesnt?


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

Make sure you go to sites that list all specifications for TVs.
Don't bother asking a sales droid.


----------



## ATARI (May 10, 2007)

jdspencer said:


> Make sure you go to sites that list all specifications for TVs.
> Don't bother asking a sales droid.


And make sure you verify it can do 1080p/120.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

NFLnut said:


> That's one way to look at it. I prefer the "DirecTV screwed us" response. I've read the tech discussions ad nauseum as to the "WHY" DirecTV does this, but it always leaves out the simple fact that DirecTV still chooses to broadcast in a format that MOST 1080p TV's, even high-priced models presently being manufactured, do not present.


Sony "screwed us" for the simple reason in the specs, they "should have" listed it as 1080p/60, but instead omitted that. Had they listed the real 1080p input/output, then it's on the consumer to read/know what they're buying.
Sony's newer TVs that support 1080p/24 DO LIST it.
Sony simply mislead consumers with a "lie of omission".

As for DirecTV, the Broadcom chips used in the receivers cannot output 1080p/60, but can 1080p/24. When the receivers first came out there was no 1080p output, so they didn't lie, but merely added a feature later to what we already had.


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

veryoldschool said:


> As for DirecTV, the Broadcom chips used in the receivers cannot output 1080p/60, but can 1080p/24. When the receivers first came out there was no 1080p output, so they didn't lie, but merely added a feature later to what we already had.


Even though it sucks for people like me with no 1080p24 TVs. (all mine are Panasonics from before this year when they started doing it.) DirecTV really did something that they never even thought they could do probably with the system to begin with and was probably never imagined when they drew the specs up. They figured out how to make it work, but since the chipset could only do the 24hz, some were left out. Still, overall, that is DirecTV doing us a favor, not screwing us.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Don't forget, the 1080p24 emerging came quickly as a result of the race between Dish and DTV.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Sony "screwed us" for the simple reason in the specs, they "should have" listed it as 1080p/60, but instead omitted that. Had they listed the real 1080p input/output, then it's on the consumer to read/know what they're buying.
> Sony's newer TVs that support 1080p/24 DO LIST it.
> Sony simply mislead consumers with a "lie of omission".


While everything you've stated is true, it's equally true of every other TV manufacturer at the time.

For the OP: most HD video cameras are 24p/24fps, and film-based content is all 24 fps. HD-DVD (when it existed) and Blu-Ray movies have always been 24p native, which is the format of the movies they deliver. When it comes to HD, the only 60 fps sources are computers, video game consoles (while playing games), and a few HD video cameras.

In the past, all TVs in the US were fixed at 60 Hz refresh and simply weren't capable of dealing with 24 fps content all that well. Many rules have changed with HD, and newer technology has allowed 24 fps support where it makes sense to have it, which is for most TV and movie content.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

BattleZone said:


> While everything you've stated is true, it's equally true of every other TV manufacturer at the time.


 Yes, but it was Sony that took my $4k for the TV, so I can't blame the others.


----------



## Zellio (Mar 8, 2009)

I hate 24hz. The only reason it looks good is due to camera motion blur.

And don't get me started on people who think your eyes can only see certain amount of fps. Thats technically only true with motion, and that is due to focusing on it. If you take into effect things like flashing objects (like, lights that blink on and off), your eyes can see 1000's of frames per second!


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

cneo said:


> By the way, is the difference between the two that different or virtually inperceptable as some say?
> 
> Also, I watched some VOD previews which were listed in HD24, and only the single 1080p light was lit on my DVR, which I understand to mean that I'm not getting full 1080p. So what I am I getting then, 1080i?
> 
> The picture was fantastic, regardless.


1080P/24 is indicated by both the 720p and 1080i leds being illuminated. If only the 1080 led was on, then you were seeing 1080i. Your answer to "how much different" can only be given by your eyes, but you should get a clue by "how great" the 1080i picture was.

In my opinion, the "better quality" that people see, especially with the DirecTV 1080p has far more to do with simply being a higher quality source than the fact that it's 1080p vs 1080i. In other words, if the 1080p VOD material was compressed as much as the 1080i broadcast material, I don't think you would see any difference between the two.


----------



## BattleZone (Nov 13, 2007)

Zellio said:


> I hate 24hz. The only reason it looks good is due to camera motion blur.


Your eyes absolutely can see the difference between 24 fps and faster frame rates. But there are reasons why shooting on film is still so popular, and frame rate is one of those reasons. Content shot at 30 fps "looks like video" and is noticably not the same look as film. For many things, the video look may be preferred and advantageous; live sports is a great example (though most HD cameras used for live broadcasts are 24 fps). But for film and TV shows, most directors want the 24 fps "film feel", as that's what everyone is used to, and many feel that some of the film "magic" is due to that.

IMO, it's really that 24 fps is just familiar, since that's the speed that's always been used. I'd bet that if 30 fps had been the standard film speed that movies had used for 100 years, people would hate 24 fps. But, history is what it is, and 24 fps is THE standard for film.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

P Smith said:


> Don't forget, the 1080p24 emerging came quickly as a result of the race between Dish and DTV.


Race? This was a "race"?

More likely it was a desperation move by DISH who was getting their butts handed to them on HD channel count, and needed something for their marketing to glom onto. While it really means very little (1080p24) in regards to it having any kind of technical edge, their marketing sluts were smart enough to realize that many folks would be dumb enough to fall for it anyway. DTV felt like they had to play catchup, because they also understood that level of gullability, and had to take a similar position on a technical point that actually means nothing just to take the bite out of DISH's technical bull**** spin.

As to the picture looking "fantastic", well, maybe it does. But it is still the same picture you see for 1080i. Same exact resolution, same exact colorimetry, same exact everything, pretty much. The frame rate is a tiny bit lower, but the perceived resolution for some motion is a tiny bit higher, and the judder is removed in 1080p24, assuming your TV is fairly new and compatible. Sounds pretty much like a wash.

Untrained observers tend to base their opinion of PQ on still images or images with little motion in them. It is natural to want to do that, just like it is natural to tune out the natural blur in nature when you move your eyes from one location and fix on a new location. But the difference between 1080p24 and 1080i30 is _entirely in the motion_. Its in the frame rate and the judder (or lack of judder). Still images in 1080p are identical to those in 1080i.

1080p24 via download has the _potential _to have better PQ (lower motion artifacting) because the file size is not limited to the satellite streaming bandwidth of typically delivered 1080i30. The key word there being "potential". Since DTV really makes little compromise to PQ in the first place, it would take a significantly larger file size to even pretend that there could be a real practical or viewable difference. But downloads of a huge size are not at all practical, which is also why we don't have 1080p60 available for download. Bottom line, the chance of a 1080p24 download being visually distinguishable from a 1080i30 sat channel are pretty minimal, except to those who have convinced themselves of that phantom significance.


----------



## cneo (Oct 30, 2007)

Still confused. Though not directly related to DTV, but pariphally so as it's related to the ultimate question of 1080p. I wonder if blu-ray is completely compatable with my Sony KDL-XBR2 (which doesn't display 1080p/24, that which I understand to be the same as Blu-ray output). Here's what the spec sheet for this tv says:

"is exactly what you need to reproduce the 1080p content that can be delivered by our cutting edge 1080p Bluray
disc™ player."

So what's the story? Will full blu-ray work with a non-1080p/24 tv? Or is it simply converted to 1080i, so that we get good picture but not what was/is fully intended by blu-ray?

sorry if this makes little sense, but am confused, as I said.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

cneo said:


> Still confused. Though not directly related to DTV, but pariphally so as it's related to the ultimate question of 1080p. I wonder if blu-ray is completely compatable with my Sony KDL-XBR2 (which doesn't display 1080p/24, that which I understand to be the same as Blu-ray output). Here's what the spec sheet for this tv says:
> 
> "is exactly what you need to reproduce the 1080p content that can be delivered by our cutting edge 1080p Bluray
> disc™ player."
> ...


When I talked to Sony about my XBR2, their blu-ray player [as most I think] has a "auto" or 24p setting, so the player will convert the blu-ray disk to 1080p/60.


----------



## cneo (Oct 30, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> When I talked to Sony about my XBR2, their blu-ray player [as most I think] has a "auto" or 24p setting, so the player will convert the blu-ray disk to 1080p/60.


ok good to hear. So the pic quality w/ a blu-ray player will still be an upgrade over my current standard DVD player (which by the way on these tvs, at least in my view, is already amazing)?


----------



## taz291819 (Oct 19, 2006)

Wow, some people are confused.

The display manufacturers didn't screw anyone regarding 1080p, and Directv didn't screw anyone by offering 1080p/24.

If your display doesn't accept a 1080p/24 signal, the Directv receiver will output a 1080i signal (after performing 2:3 pulldown). Your display will then convert that BACK to 1080p, just at a different frame rate. Picture quality will remain identical, the only thing you're missing (or technically including) is judder. If you don't know what judder is, you don't want to know, because you're probably not noticing it anyway. (Ignorance is bliss!) This also goes for Blu-Ray players.

Now, one area where some display manufacturers are screwing you is that not all 120Hz displays that accept 1080p/24 inputs are equal. As mentioned a few comments up, some displays accept the 1080p/24 input, perform 2:3 pulldown (to get it to 60p), and then display all the frames twice (to get it to 120Hz). This unfortunately re-introduces judder, so if you have a display like this (I do, and it wasn't a cheap display either), it doesn't make a difference what signal you send it.

How the manufacturers screwed us is by this process was/is NOT listed in the specs.

But like I said, if you don't know what judder is, or it doesn't bother you, don't worry about it.

BTW, the real way to handle a 1080p/24 signal (for 120Hz displays) is simply to show all frames 5 times. Yes, light fade has to be quick for true 120Hz displays.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> When I talked to Sony about my XBR2, their blu-ray player [as most I think] has a "auto" or 24p setting, so the player will convert the blu-ray disk to 1080p/60.


My Sony BD player upscales standard DVDs to 1080/60p and the picture is so close to BluRay that I rarely order BR disks form NetFlix.

I haven't seen an auto or 24p setting on mine. Haven't read the manual. I'll check it later. Seems to just play what you give it.

Rich


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

NFLnut said:


> That's one way to look at it. I prefer the "DirecTV screwed us" response. I've read the tech discussions ad nauseum as to the "WHY" DirecTV does this, but it always leaves out the simple fact that DirecTV still chooses to broadcast in a format that MOST 1080p TV's, even high-priced models presently being manufactured, do not present.





taz291819 said:


> Wow, some people are confused.
> 
> The display manufacturers didn't screw anyone regarding 1080p, and Directv didn't screw anyone by offering 1080p/24.
> 
> ...


I disagree with both of you. DIRECTV supported a part of the standard--the TV manufacturers did not support part of the standard (initially.) Even tho 24fps is part of the 1080p HDTV standard, many TV manufacturers seemed to feel that if they supported an optional standard, they optionally only support part of the optional standard. Bad form.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

NFLnut said:


> That's one way to look at it. I prefer the "DirecTV screwed us" response. I've read the tech discussions ad nauseum as to the "WHY" DirecTV does this, but it always leaves out the simple fact that DirecTV still chooses to broadcast in a format that MOST 1080p TV's, even high-priced models presently being manufactured, do not present.


DirecTV didn't screw you. When they started offering 1080p content, they put it out in the highest 1080 progressive refresh rate that the DirecTV DVR hardware is physically capable of producing, and that is 1080p24 (which also has the benefit of preserving the correct frame rate of the source instead of bastardizing it into a 60hz frame rate which cannot represent the exact and correct 24 fps cadence of film).

It's really a moot point anyway. The source material is 24fps and upconverting it to 1080p60 doesn't give you anything that you can't get by sending it to your TV in 1080i format and letting your TV do a 3-2 pulldown to convert the 1080i signal to a 1080p60 signal.

In other words, don't feel too bad that your 60Hz TV cant display a 1080p24 signal. It's all just marketing hype and BS anyway, since 1080p gives you nothing that 1080i can't already provide when the source material is a 24fps film.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

Zellio said:


> I hate 24hz. The only reason it looks good is due to camera motion blur.
> 
> And don't get me started on people who think your eyes can only see certain amount of fps. Thats technically only true with motion, and that is due to focusing on it. If you take into effect things like flashing objects (like, lights that blink on and off), your eyes can see 1000's of frames per second!


It doesn't matter how much you hate it. Virtually every movie is shot at 24fps (with a few very rare exceptions) and that's not going to change any time soon. In fact, I suspect that if they started to shoot movies at 60fps, most people would complain that it looks live video and doesn't have the correct "film look".


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

rich584 said:


> *My Sony BD player upscales standard DVDs to 1080/60p and the picture is so close to BluRay that I rarely order BR disks form NetFlix. *
> 
> I haven't seen an auto or 24p setting on mine. Haven't read the manual. I'll check it later. Seems to just play what you give it.
> 
> Rich


Your kidding right?

Since scaling in no way increases the source resolution, how in the world can standard DVDs sourced at a native of 720 x 480i @30fps max. dispersed over [email protected] in any way come close to the PQ of an HD movie natively recorded at [email protected] resolution?


----------



## jdspencer (Nov 8, 2003)

How do the newer 240hz TVs work in regard to this situation. Similar to 120hz as to the conversions done or what?


----------



## finaldiet (Jun 13, 2006)

Ok, guys. If I'm looking for the best picture I can get in a TV, what should I look for when buying one. I'm not very technical on what to look for. Thanks for any help.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

jdspencer said:


> How do the newer 240hz TVs work in regard to this situation. Similar to 120hz as to the conversions done or what?


Instead of repeating each 24fps film frame 5 times in a row to come up to the 120Hz refresh rate, they repeat each film frame 10 times in a row to come up to the 240Hz refresh rate.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

HoTat2 said:


> Your kidding right?
> 
> Since scaling in no way increases the source resolution, how in the world can standard DVDs sourced at a native of 720 x 480i @30fps max. dispersed over [email protected] in any way come close to the PQ of an HD movie natively recorded at [email protected] resolution?


(Movies are recorded at 24fps, not 60. And much higher resolution than 1080...)

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

Tom Robertson said:


> (Movies are recorded at 24fps, not 60. And much higher resolution than 1080...)
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


Thanks for the correction Tom;

Let me rephrase :sure:

How on earth can standard DVDs upscaled to [email protected]*"24"*  compare to movies recorded onto BD at that resolution?


----------



## bpratt (Nov 24, 2005)

jdspencer said:


> How do the newer 240hz TVs work in regard to this situation. Similar to 120hz as to the conversions done or what?


Some of the new 240hz TVs actually create new images between the ones that are broadcast. If an item like a football travels across your screen at 60 frames per second (like in a 720p or 1080p/60 broadcast), then the 240hz TV needs to show each frame 4 times to get to 240hz. If the football moves 1/2 inch between two 60hz frames, then some of the newer TVs will move the football an additional 1/8 inch 4 times between the two 60hz frames. This gives a smooth look to any moving object. The TV will also create a similar image for 1080i or 1080p/24 or 1080p/60. The difference is that 1080i only creates a full frame 30 times a second, so each full frame needs to be displayed 8 times. 10 times for 1080p/24.

This is similar to what large screen TVs did before HD. Since the only broadcasts were 480 lines, the large screen TVs would create an extra line between each two lines to give a clearer picture.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

HoTat2 said:


> Thanks for the correction Tom;
> 
> Let me rephrase :sure:
> 
> How on earth can standard DVDs upscaled to [email protected]*"24"*  compare to movies recorded onto BD at that resolution?


We got each others back. 

As to how? Well...

I have a 15" HD TV (well, sorta, it take 1080i component input). I suppose upscaled DVD's might look as good... 

Sorry, I don't mean to demean.  Just that from a far enough distance or small enough screen, most people likely won't see a difference. Especially with a very, very good upscaler chip.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

rich584 said:


> My Sony BD player upscales standard DVDs to 1080/60p and the picture is so close to BluRay that I rarely order BR disks form NetFlix.
> 
> I haven't seen an auto or 24p setting on mine. Haven't read the manual. I'll check it later. Seems to just play what you give it.
> 
> Rich


Well, then I'm going to return my Sony BD player, because my DVDs don't come out anywhere close to Blu-ray quality...


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> Your kidding right?
> 
> Since scaling in no way increases the source resolution, how in the world can standard DVDs sourced at a native of 720 x 480i @30fps max. dispersed over [email protected] in any way come close to the PQ of an HD movie natively recorded at [email protected] resolution?


You gotta try it. I know it sounds strange, but it's true. I have a Panny plasma 1080p TV. I was astonished at the difference between my Sony upscalers and the Sony BD player's upscaling ability. I don't have any idea "why", I just know what I see. It's not quite as good as the BR disks, but is a lot better than 1080i (which is really good on my TV).

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> Thanks for the correction Tom;
> 
> Let me rephrase :sure:
> 
> How on earth can standard DVDs upscaled to [email protected]*"24"*  compare to movies recorded onto BD at that resolution?


They don't upscale to 1080/24p. They upscale to 1080/60p. You really have to see it. I had a new Panny BD player before I bought the Sony and it didn't upscale as well as the Sony.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

paulman182 said:


> Well, then I'm going to return my Sony BD player, because my DVDs don't come out anywhere close to Blu-ray quality...


Mine's a BDP-BX1. I tried a Panny and a Sammy BD players and they didn't come close to the Sony.

Rich


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rich584 said:


> You gotta try it. I know it sounds strange, but it's true.
> 
> Rich


"But what does Fred say"? :lol:


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> "But what does Fred say"? :lol:


He watches both and is happy with both. He's looking forward to an unusually snowy winter at the moment.

Rich


----------



## harsh (Jun 15, 2003)

veryoldschool said:


> "But what does Fred say"? :lol:


Willlllllllllllmaaaaaaaaaaaa?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

harsh said:


> Willlllllllllllmaaaaaaaaaaaa?


Different Fred, but an appreciated chuckle...again.

Rich


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

finaldiet said:


> Ok, guys. If I'm looking for the best picture I can get in a TV, what should I look for when buying one. I'm not very technical on what to look for. Thanks for any help.


A good place to start is here:

www.cnet.com


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

rich584 said:


> They don't upscale to 1080/24p. They upscale to 1080/60p. You really have to see it. I had a new Panny BD player before I bought the Sony and it didn't upscale as well as the Sony.
> 
> Rich


Ok;

One day I'm going to get this statement correct :lol:, so to rephrase once again:

"How does a movie on a standard DVD recorded at only 720 X 480i @30fps max. and then scaled up to 1920 X 1080P @60fps almost match the PQ of one recorded onto BD at 1920 X 1080P @24fps then in turn scaled to [email protected]?

And if I didn't word it correctly this time I simply give up 

I can understand this happening on a small screen TV from a distance as in Tom's prior example of his 15 in. But if this is really true then I'd have to say the concept of the "HD DVD" is another prime candidate for the "gimmick" category.

I don't have a BD player personally, but in a related comparison I'd say, when I compare any of my standard anamorphic DVDs upscaled to my TV's native resolution of [email protected], be it either by the DVD player or the TV set's internal scaler, the picture definitely looks softer and not nearly as sharp as when I see the same movie broadcast by DirecTV at their characteristic [email protected] for the premium channels.

But oh well...:whatdidid


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> Ok;
> 
> One day I'm going to get this statement correct :lol:, so to rephrase once again:
> 
> ...


Don't give up, this is a good argument. I think. I do have a hard time following the technical dialog in some posts and this is one.

To get back to your question: I don't know. But I know what I see. And I see a really good picture when I put a standard DVD in my Sony BD player. Since I got the Sony, I've asked this question to several people: _What do you think of the PQ of this BluRay player?_ I've always asked the question with a standard DVD in the Sony. I realize the question is a bit misleading. But, everyone has said the same thing. They've agreed that it is a great picture. And none of them could believe that the disk was just a standard DVD when I told them.



> I can understand this happening on a small screen TV from a distance as in Tom's prior example of his 15 in. But if this is really true then I'd have to say the concept of the "HD DVD" is another prime candidate for the "gimmick" category.


The Sony BD player is hooked up to a 50" Panny plasma. It's not a large room.



> I don't have a BD player personally, but in a related comparison I'd say, when I compare any of my standard anamorphic DVDs upscaled to my TV's native resolution of [email protected], be it either by the DVD player or the TV set's internal scaler, the picture definitely looks softer and not nearly as sharp as when I see the same movie broadcast by DirecTV at their characteristic [email protected] for the premium channels.


I would rate the PQ this way: BR is the best, that's a given. Next is the 1080/60p that the Sony upscales a standard DVD to. Then the 1080i, then the 720p, which is pretty close to the 1080i depending what show you're watching. _Castle_ was broadcast in 720p by ABC last season and it had beautiful PQ, for instance. If we watch an upscaled DVD on the BD player and then watch a program in 1080i, the difference is obvious.

Rich


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

rich584 said:


> I would rate the PQ this way: BR is the best, that's a given. Next is the 1080/60p that the Sony upscales a standard DVD to. Then the 1080i, then the 720p, which is pretty close to the 1080i depending what show you're watching. _Castle_ was broadcast in 720p by ABC last season and it had beautiful PQ, for instance. If we watch an upscaled DVD on the BD player and then watch a program in 1080i, the difference is obvious.


It is difficult to see how 1080 lines of resolution upconverted from just 480 lines could look anything like a source recorded at 1080. The additional detail is just not there to begin with.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Only if millions micro demons will repaint initial picture (720x480) to HD format using real brain and artist's skills.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

paulman182 said:


> It is difficult to see how 1080 lines of resolution upconverted from just 480 lines could look anything like a source recorded at 1080. The additional detail is just not there to begin with.


And yet the difference is very apparent. I've got two Sony upscalers and two Sammy upscalers and they don't have anywhere near the PQ of the BD player when it is upscaling. I don't know why, but it is really obvious. And completely unexpected.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

P Smith said:


> Only if millions micro demons will repaint initial picture (720x480) to HD format using real brain and artist's skills.


Maybe that's how Sony does it. For all I know, you might have hit it right on the head. :lol:

Rich


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

P Smith said:


> Only if millions micro demons will repaint initial picture (720x480) to HD format using real brain and artist's skills.


So that's how the upscaler chips do it--and why they are so expensive. Tho micro demons come cheap--millions still start looking like real money.


----------



## CCarncross (Jul 19, 2005)

I'll tell you that the difference between BD and upscaled DVD's on my Sony is night and day on my KDS-60A3000....


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Zellio said:


> I hate 24hz. The only reason it looks good is due to camera motion blur.
> 
> And don't get me started on people who think your eyes can only see certain amount of fps. Thats technically only true with motion, and that is due to focusing on it. If you take into effect things like flashing objects (like, lights that blink on and off), your eyes can see 1000's of frames per second!


Well, that's not at all true, and here is the proof:

http://webvision.med.utah.edu/temporal.html

There is a critical difference between "people who think your eyes can only see a certain amount of fps" and those who have actually proven that they _can not_ see beyond a certain number of images per second. There is a temporal integration limitation as well as a temporal summation limitation that are brick walls in human visual perception.

From what the experts on the subject have been able to discover, these limitations act to cause a point in frequency called the "critical flicker frequency" which is a point in "fps", to simplify this into the same language being spoken here, where a flickering image flickers at a rate high enough to where the images blend together in perception as a solid image. IOW, "fps" above this frequency are imperceptible by human vision.

It is affected by a number of things, such as brightness (higher luminance raises the CFF), the blanking period between images (a larger blanking period also raises the CFF) the size of the image (a larger image also raising the CFF), etc. And peripheral vision has a much higher CFF that does foveal vision, so it varies by whether you are looking directly at an image or seeing it "out of the corner of your eye". But even under the most perfect of conditions the CFF is still below 60 fps, and typically in viewing TV images, under about 40. And a field rate of 60 from the typical 1080p display makes flicker a moot point altogether.

Rest assured, if the CFF were higher than 60, the NTSC would probably have fixed that by doubling the retrace rate to 120 Hz back in 1953. The ATSC began with the same starting point as did the NTSC, which was "what are the limitations of human perception and how can we use that to create a system where the flaws in the system (it's inability to mimic nature perfectly) will be effectively unnoticeable?" CFF was one of the most important perceptual models used. None of that is me guessing. You can look it up.

This also exactly why film projectors, which must blank the screen with a shutter in order to move the next frame into place, expose each frame twice, raising the effective fps to 48. 48 fps is generally above the CFF while 24 fps is generally below it, so doing this makes for a smoother-perceived image with minimal flicker, compared to raw 24 fps. In the case of a LCD TV, there is no blanking period between images (the upcoming image paints directly over the previous one without blanking the screen first) which means the CFF is very low for modern FPs, probably under 40 even for the most critical viewing, possibly much lower. The flicker problem solved by removing the screen blanking time, the focus moves to motion artifacts, such as judder from pulldown, which 120 Hz technology also removes.

Disregarding the CFF altogether, the fact that there is no screen blanking means that there would be perceptibly no difference between an image that stayed on the screen for 1/24th of a second (such as true 1080p24) or one that repeated 5 times (such as 1080p24 on a 120 Hz display) or 10 times (such as 1080p24 on a 240 Hz display) within that period.

Bottom line, while 120 Hz allows dispensing with film-based judder, the 5 scans of each image are perceptibly no different that a single longer scan, meaning that the 5 scans are simply a byproduct that has no visual effect. 240 Hz is therefore not perceptibly better in any way than 120 Hz, either.

And if you extend the argument to motion, and to interpolated frames (which is I believe the future of all video display and which will be a huge contribution to compression efficiency and PQ, not to mention a large part of high-quality 3D), 120/240/480 also does not yield anything perceptible in terms of PQ, because the temporal integration and summation limitations of human vision mean that interpolated frames above 60 fps would not be perceptible. There's that damned brick wall again.

Interpolated frames above 24 fps, to an equivalent fps of 60, though, will be significant indeed, once the technology gets there. And once that technology becomes ubiquitous, source material can be acquired and sent at 24 fps and perceived with the PQ of 60 fps. This means 1080p60 quality from 1080p24 sources, which is probably what all broadcast and cable/DBS will convert to at that point. _With_ 3D.


----------



## cygnusloop (Jan 26, 2007)

CCarncross said:


> I'll tell you that the difference between BD and upscaled DVD's on my Sony is night and day on my KDS-60A3000....


I second this with my KDS-60A3000. DVD's look pretty good, but it is really no contest when a good Blu-ray is playing.


----------



## mdavej (Jan 31, 2007)

24fps is vastly over rated. Judge for yourself.
http://www.projectorcentral.com/judder_24p.htm
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=17186593
If your tv doesn't have it, don't worry. You're not missing anything.


----------



## taz291819 (Oct 19, 2006)

rich584 said:


> I would rate the PQ this way: BR is the best, that's a given. Next is the 1080/60p that the Sony upscales a standard DVD to. Then the 1080i, then the 720p, which is pretty close to the 1080i depending what show you're watching. _Castle_ was broadcast in 720p by ABC last season and it had beautiful PQ, for instance. If we watch an upscaled DVD on the BD player and then watch a program in 1080i, the difference is obvious.
> 
> Rich


A 1080i broadcast (with high bitrate) should always look better than upscaled DVD. Or, a D-Theater tape (1080i) should definitely look better than upscaled DVD.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

taz291819 said:


> A 1080i broadcast (with high bitrate) should always look better than upscaled DVD. Or, a D-Theater tape (1080i) should definitely look better than upscaled DVD.


Geez, I'll just have to run out and get a D-Theater tape.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> Thanks for the correction Tom;
> 
> Let me rephrase :sure:
> 
> How on earth can standard DVDs upscaled to [email protected]*"24"*  compare to movies recorded onto BD at that resolution?


They can't... But they can look a lot better than a regular dvd presentation.. its all about the upscaler inside the machine...

I have a older Denon DVD player.. DVD5900. It was the high end, THX certified monster.... It upscales all dvds to 1080i or 720p (just before 1080p was out) and it does a better job of scaling than my blu ray dvd player does.. proof once again that there is a lot more to picture quality than when it was made and if it can output a higher resolution.. Quality of the scaler and unit itself is a HUGE determining factor (my player weighs like 30 lbs or something... and not because they added a brick inside to weight it down.. and you should see all the color controls....)


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> They can't... But they can look a lot better than a regular dvd presentation.. its all about the upscaler inside the machine...
> 
> I have a older Denon DVD player.. DVD5900. It was the high end, THX certified monster.... It upscales all dvds to 1080i or 720p (just before 1080p was out) and it does a better job of scaling than my blu ray dvd player does.. proof once again that there is a lot more to picture quality than when it was made and if it can output a higher resolution.. Quality of the scaler and unit itself is a HUGE determining factor (my player weighs like 30 lbs or something... and not because they added a brick inside to weight it down.. and you should see all the color controls....)


C'mon, tell him the downside. How much did that monster cost? :lol:

Rich


----------



## -Draino- (May 19, 2008)

BattleScott said:


> 1080P/24 is indicated by both the 720p and 1080i leds being illuminated. If only the 1080 led was on, then you were seeing 1080i.


I never knew this.

My Sammy always shows 1080i. I have tried the 1080P that Dtv uses for a trailer to advertise there 1080P, but my TV still shows 1080i.

My TV says it can display 60 or 24 but I have never seen this either. I have native set to on so the TV does the scaling.

I wish there was a way to test all of this and have my TV show me something other than 1080i


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

-Draino- said:


> I never knew this.
> 
> My Sammy always shows 1080i. I have tried the 1080P that Dtv uses for a trailer to advertise there 1080P, but my TV still shows 1080i.
> 
> ...


Did you look in the manual? My Panny shows 1080p when I hit the "info" button on the remote, but doesn't differentiate between 1080/24p and 1080/60p.

Rich


----------



## yyygac2 (Jul 12, 2008)

veryoldschool said:


> The "simple answer" is Sony screwed you, just like me with my XBR2. Marketing promoted 1080p without mentioning the "60" limitation.


The XBR2 is what? 4 years old?


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

yyygac2 said:


> The XBR2 is what? 4 years old?


Mine is like 2.5+, but again, had Sony listed the 1080p as 1080p/60 [as they do now] I wouldn't feel "mislead".


----------



## yyygac2 (Jul 12, 2008)

An August 2006 review of the XBR2 at *UltimateAVmag.com* (http://www.ultimateavmag.com/flatpaneldisplays/806sonykdl46/) clearly states the XBR2 doesn't support 1080p/24...



> _Style is fine, but we're here for the nuts and bolts. The BRAVIA XBR2 will accept all standard definition and high definition video sources, up to and including 1080p/60 *(but not 1080p/24)*, and offers a wide range of inputs and outputs (see "Specifications") including three HDMI inputs and an RGB input for a computer. _


I'd bet I could find other reviews which also indicate the limitation as well.

I don't know why you keep posting that Sony screwed you. No offense, but did you do your homework prior to your purchase?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

yyygac2 said:


> An August 2006 review of the XBR2 at *UltimateAVmag.com* (http://www.ultimateavmag.com/flatpaneldisplays/806sonykdl46/) clearly states the XBR2 doesn't support 1080p/24...
> 
> I'd bet I could find other reviews which also indicate the limitation as well.
> 
> I don't know why you keep posting that Sony screwed you. No offense, but did you do your homework prior to your purchase?


You would expect a TV advertised as supporting a standard would, in fact, support the standard, of which 1080p24 is a solid part. That's why.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

yyygac2 said:


> I don't know why you keep posting that Sony screwed you. No offense, but did you do your homework prior to your purchase?


"I know" foolish me for reading what Sony published about what I was interested in buying from them.


----------



## yyygac2 (Jul 12, 2008)

VOS:
I know you're ticked and I understand. Sony was advertising "Full 1080p" at the time and you *assumed* that it ment it supported all 1080p input modes when in fact they only meant 1920x1080 resolution. Shades of the old Marx Bros. ass/u/me skit? 

Getting up to speed on HD took me 8 months of internet research to be able to make a semi-intelligent HD purchasing decision (I know I'm a slow learner). It was especially hard to keep in check for that long the urge to buy a TV to satisfy my desire for HD. With looking at comparisions of LCD vs. Plasma technology and 720 vs. 1080 and progressive vs. interlaced and 24 vs. 30 vs. 60 fps and 60 vs. 120 (now vs. 240) Hz along with reading many product reviews - it sure was a daunting task. If I was in your place I know I'd be more pissed at myself than at Sony. BTW, I bought a XBR6 - but when I started looking to buy the XBR4 (the model generation after your XBR2) was the current series line - maybe you were just too close to the bleeding edge of HD when you made your purchase. I'm sure that I had the benefit of more research information as I started my purchasing decision, I'd guess about 8 months after yours, in Sep. '07.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

yyygac2 said:


> VOS:
> I know you're ticked and I understand. Sony was advertising "Full 1080p" at the time and you *assumed* that it ment it supported all 1080p input modes when in fact they only meant 1920x1080 resolution. Shades of the old Marx Bros. ass/u/me skit?
> 
> Getting up to speed on HD took me 8 months of internet research to be able to make a semi-intelligent HD purchasing decision (I know I'm a slow learner). It was especially hard to keep in check for that long the urge to buy a TV to satisfy my desire for HD. With looking at comparisions of LCD vs. Plasma technology and 720 vs. 1080 and progressive vs. interlaced and 24 vs. 30 vs. 60 fps and 60 vs. 120 (now vs. 240) Hz along with reading many product reviews - it sure was a daunting task. If I was in your place I know I'd be more pissed at myself than at Sony. BTW, I bought a XBR6 - but when I started looking to buy the XBR4 (the model generation after your XBR2) was the current series line - maybe you were just too close to the bleeding edge of HD when you made your purchase. I'm sure that I had the benefit of more research information as I started my purchasing decision, I'd guess about 8 months after yours, in Sep. '07.


Um... 1080p24 is 1920x1080...

Again, 1080p24 is part of the standard that TV makers should follow--many did not. They fibbed, people are justified in being pissed, etc.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## smiddy (Apr 5, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> They can't... But they can look a lot better than a regular dvd presentation.. its all about the upscaler inside the machine...
> 
> I have a older Denon DVD player.. DVD5900. It was the high end, THX certified monster.... It upscales all dvds to 1080i or 720p (just before 1080p was out) and it does a better job of scaling than my blu ray dvd player does.. proof once again that there is a lot more to picture quality than when it was made and if it can output a higher resolution.. Quality of the scaler and unit itself is a HUGE determining factor (my player weighs like 30 lbs or something... and not because they added a brick inside to weight it down.. and you should see all the color controls....)


Did that one have the Farudja (spelling) chipset in it? I have the DVD-3910 and it does and it does quite a bit better than my Sony BD-S550 does at upscaling DVDs to 1080i or 720p. For that matter, it does better at 480p too. Product Sheet for DVD-3910.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

yyygac2 said:


> VOS:
> I know you're ticked and I understand. Sony was advertising "Full 1080p" at the time and you *assumed* that it ment it supported all 1080p input modes when in fact they only meant 1920x1080 resolution. Shades of the old Marx Bros. ass/u/me skit?
> 
> Getting up to speed on HD took me 8 months of internet research to be able to make a semi-intelligent HD purchasing decision (I know I'm a slow learner). It was especially hard to keep in check for that long the urge to buy a TV to satisfy my desire for HD. With looking at comparisions of LCD vs. Plasma technology and 720 vs. 1080 and progressive vs. interlaced and 24 vs. 30 vs. 60 fps and 60 vs. 120 (now vs. 240) Hz along with reading many product reviews - it sure was a daunting task. If I was in your place I know I'd be more pissed at myself than at Sony. BTW, I bought a XBR6 - but when I started looking to buy the XBR4 (the model generation after your XBR2) was the current series line - maybe you were just too close to the bleeding edge of HD when you made your purchase. I'm sure that I had the benefit of more research information as I started my purchasing decision, I'd guess about 8 months after yours, in Sep. '07.


"At the time" the XBR3 was out, but it too turned out to be only 1080p/60.
"Since 1080p/60" isn't broadcast and blu-ray is 1080p/24, "All Sony had to do was" list what 1080p the TV would accept, or put a small * and a footnote. Had any of their documents "defined" what the 1080p was, then I wouldn't have the feelings I do. Their "lack" of this is why I say they lied, misrepresented, whatever.
I bought their product here and expected NTSC/ATSC standards. They helped develop blu-ray and knew "damn well" these were 1080p/24.
I've been buying Sony TVs since '74 and been happy, but "omitting" the specs, leaves the consumer to "assume" [trust] Sony is selling them a good and useful product, and for what I paid, I'm pissed.


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

-Draino- said:


> I never knew this.
> 
> My Sammy always shows 1080i. I have tried the 1080P that Dtv uses for a trailer to advertise there 1080P, but my TV still shows 1080i.
> 
> ...


The 1080p infomercial isn't actually a 1080p source. As far as I know, there is nothing available right now (for free) to use as test. When it was first brought out, they had an "Incredible Hulk" trailer that was 1080p you could download and test with, but it is no longer out there.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

BattleScott said:


> The 1080p infomercial isn't actually a 1080p source. As far as I know, there is nothing available right now (for free) to use as test. When it was first brought out, they had an "Incredible Hulk" trailer that was 1080p you could download and test with, but it is no longer out there.


"Perhaps" the short play before the "buy it now" prompt stops PPV could be used.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

TomCat said:


> Well, that's not at all true, and here is the proof:
> 
> http://webvision.med.utah.edu/temporal.html
> 
> ...


All very interesting; 

And you certainly have added fuel to the "don't bother, save your greenbacks" category with all this (for me anyhow) as I am in the market for a new HDTV and was intrigued by the 120 Hz and up screen refresh rate models. But was really turned off by the jump in price point of around ~$200-$300 over the standard 60 Hz sets unless these higher refresh frequency sets really made a noticeable difference in reducing motion blur on fast moving images along with the complete elimination of film judder.

However, if all the above is true, and while judder theoretically exist on 60 Hz sets what with the alternating 2/60 sec., 3/60 sec. film frame display rate, for the life of me I really cannot detect it when viewing movies even when I'm consciously looking for it. 

Therefore I will likely not bother and just save my hard earned money (axiomatic for today's economy) by staying with the 60 Hz models.

Thanks for the info. TomCat


----------



## -Draino- (May 19, 2008)

BattleScott said:


> The 1080p infomercial isn't actually a 1080p source. As far as I know, there is nothing available right now (for free) to use as test. When it was first brought out, they had an "Incredible Hulk" trailer that was 1080p you could download and test with, but it is no longer out there.


I guess I need a true 1080P source to test. As someone pointed out in the post after, I suppose I could try to purchase a show then cancel before I have to actually pay. How much time is that???


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

rich584 said:


> C'mon, tell him the downside. How much did that monster cost? :lol:
> 
> Rich


Well, it cost me $800 brand new when it first hit the market, but it would have cost him $2500 

It paid to work for Good Guys!

There is a reason some units cost more..


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

smiddy said:


> Did that one have the Farudja (spelling) chipset in it? I have the DVD-3910 and it does and it does quite a bit better than my Sony BD-S550 does at upscaling DVDs to 1080i or 720p. For that matter, it does better at 480p too. Product Sheet for DVD-3910.


Yep, but mine is a little more robust... (and I believe it is actually a higher end processor)

http://www.usa.denon.com/ArchivedDV...odel=DVD-5900&imageField.x=20&imageField.y=11


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> All very interesting;
> 
> And you certainly have added fuel to the "don't bother, save your greenbacks" category with all this (for me anyhow) as I am in the market for a new HDTV and was intrigued by the 120 Hz and up screen refresh rate models. But was really turned off by the jump in price point of around ~$200-$300 over the standard 60 Hz sets unless these higher refresh frequency sets really made a noticeable difference in reducing motion blur on fast moving images along with the complete elimination of film judder.
> 
> ...


The best thing to do is look at the sets for yourself. Not all sets are equal. There is a reason some cost more. Sometimes its hype, sometimes its PQ... You must decide for yourself.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Well, it cost me $800 brand new when it first hit the market, but it would have cost him $2500
> 
> It paid to work for Good Guys!
> 
> There is a reason some units cost more..


You mean that had a $2500 MSRP on it? Wow! How many miles to the gallon that get? :lol:

Rich


----------



## BattleScott (Aug 29, 2006)

-Draino- said:


> I guess I need a true 1080P source to test. As someone pointed out in the post after, I suppose I could try to purchase a show then cancel before I have to actually pay. How much time is that???


If you're simply looking to verify that your set supports the DirecTV 1080p/24 material, it should be long enough. I doubt it will be long enough to make any physical evaluation of PQ for you though...


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

-Draino- said:


> I guess I need a true 1080P source to test. As someone pointed out in the post after, I suppose I could try to purchase a show then cancel before I have to actually pay. How much time is that???


No purchase and cancellation is necessary. Just start playing any 1080p PPV. If you don't accept the purchase option on the popup box in the lower right corner of the screen, the PPV will continue to play until the free preview of the first 5-7 minutes elapses. You can even do it on a box that isn't hooked up to a phone line and doesn't allow PPV ordering via the remote control.... although you get a different (and bigger) popup box during the free preview period.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

HoTat2 said:


> All very interesting;
> 
> And you certainly have added fuel to the "don't bother, save your greenbacks" category with all this (for me anyhow) as I am in the market for a new HDTV and was intrigued by the 120 Hz and up screen refresh rate models. But was really turned off by the jump in price point of around ~$200-$300 over the standard 60 Hz sets unless these higher refresh frequency sets really made a noticeable difference in reducing motion blur on fast moving images along with the complete elimination of film judder.
> 
> ...


As a point of further clarification, I really think judder is pretty invisible on fast-moving content. IOW, I think removing judder will probably be least effective in improving "motion blur" the faster the image is moving. I think that the faster the images are moving, the more probable that any judder would get lost in the motion altogether anyway, and that removing it would not really significantly make a real difference.

As we have learned, fast-moving content in HD as delivered has its own host of motion issues due to compression, and these are issues that removal of judder has no positive bearing on. Removing the judder would only allow those other artifacts to be seen even "more clearer", ironically, which means judder removal could be viewed as a net loss rather than a net gain in PQ.

This is similar to why I have to laugh when LCD screens are excoriated for having slower pixel refresh rates than plasmas, as it is another case of "better being actually worse". First, modern LCDs have a pixel refresh rate of about 4 ms, which is glacially slow compared to plasma. But is that really an issue? Not really, because the refresh rate of 720p and 1080p60 (the fastest refresh rate available in HD) is only 17 ms, meaning that LCD pixel will completely refresh _13 ms sooner than the next illumination will even happen_, making that a complete non-issue. Actually, if the refresh rate were a bit slower, it could help to mask some of the motion artifacts that we see from compression, ironically, and improve PQ rather than degrade it.

Where judder (3:2 pulldown judder) seems to be most noticeable is on slow pans and zooms. We are accustomed to the flicker of moving images being worse on slow pans and zooms (thoughtful producers and directors even avoid this on purpose to avoid aggravating the situation) because it is more predictable and noticeable than on significantly faster-moving images, but those slow pans and zooms become even more noticeable and even more objectionable when the flicker is not constant, and when there is judder, there is a little bit more unsmoothness to the flicker of pans and zooms.

On a slow pan or zoom, one can predict that the images will flicker a bit (while whatever happens with fast motion is usually unpredictable at all), but we expect that flicker to be constant. It is a bit unnerving when the predicted flicker happens unevenly, which is why judder is objectionable and why it is less noticeable on fast-moving content. But removing the judder can only make the unavoidable (at 24 fps) flicker of slow pans and zooms microscopically more tolerable than they are with it, so it is a very tiny incremental improvement even then, and probably not really an improvement at all to fast motion.

Of course the removal of judder is also sometimes (whenever the original source is video rather than film) less important than a higher refresh rate. 1080i is slightly higher (at 30 fps) while 720p is more than twice that of 1080p24 (at 60 fps), which is why some channels (FOX, ABC, MyTV) opt for that, as it has less motion artifacts at the expense of a bit of resolution. So the advantages of 1080p24 (that your set might be able to conquer judder) can often be outweighed by the fact that the frame or field rate of other formats is higher, which also can conquer motion artifacts but in another, usually more-effective, manner.

Bottom line, it is not then quite so confusing as to why you can't see a difference. The difference is very slight, and possibly not worth the additional cost, especially since there may not be that much 1080p24 material available anyway.

But true, we do buy our TV sets for what they can do today as well as what they can still do for us 10 years later (hopefully) and 120 Hz technology is the cutting edge and will be more valuable if the industry moves toward 1080p24. I expect 3D to pre-empt that within 5 years, however.

But my recommendation would be to save the extra $200-$300 unless you expect a large portion of your viewing to be Blu-Ray or DOD, and to realize that you are not really even then getting much of a premium in PQ if you instead opt to pay the extra premium for 120 Hz technology.

It's a classic "mine's bigger than yours" issue. Many of those who buy the 120 Hz technology pay extra simply for bragging rights, and not because it actually makes a visible difference in their PQ; it's just that most in that category don't know that quite yet, thanks to the power of manufacturer hype.


----------



## taz291819 (Oct 19, 2006)

Tomcat, I agree with everything you wrote. While judder does bother me with slow pans, I've grown accustomed to it.

And you're right, 120hz and 240hz displays are really only going to be needed when 3D is introduced. 3D needs at least 120hz, that's with judder, and 240hz to remove judder.

I disagree with the 5 year mark, it'll be introduced next year, and it'll be big come Christmas 2011. Sky is about to introduce a HD 3D channel using the Sensio method, and I would hope Directv would follow in their footsteps.

The nice thing about Sensio's method is that current 3D-Ready displays that have been on the market the past two years (Sammy's and Mits) are compatible. You'll lose some resolution due to the checkerboard method, but it's a nice stop-gap until the really good 240hz 1080p 3D displays hit the market, especially in the 60"+ size range.


----------



## LarryFlowers (Sep 22, 2006)

taz291819 said:


> Tomcat, I agree with everything you wrote. While judder does bother me with slow pans, I've grown accustomed to it.
> 
> And you're right, 120hz and 240hz displays are really only going to be needed when 3D is introduced. 3D needs at least 120hz, that's with judder, and 240hz to remove judder.
> 
> ...


Any 3D method that requires the wearing of glasses will fail miserably. It will be relegated to the realm of geekdom and will never succeed.


----------



## jazzyjez (Jan 2, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> You would expect a TV advertised as supporting a standard would, in fact, support the standard, of which 1080p24 is a solid part. That's why.
> 
> Cheers,
> Tom


I have to agree with Tom on this too. It's a standard that was largely ignored by the manufacturers because they could get away with it (IMHO). I was also very surprised (and disappointed) when I discovered that my very expensive (to me) Panasonic 1080p plasma, in addition to its inability to accept native 24p, would also not accept 1080/50 - now I know that's something that most people here wouldn't care about - but what is interesting is that when I researched this a little, I found out that the same model they sold in Europe did support all possible frame rates: (e.g. 1080 at 24, 50 and 60) as well as all other variants (720/50, 720/60, PAL 576i/p and NTSC 480i/p). Why is this? Well it's because in Europe the manufacturers have to, by law, support all possible modes in order for it to be labelled as HD; in the US there's no such requirement so they disable those features on their TVs sold here; I was told it was to avoid support issues! So many of these recent TVs could support 24p if the manufacturers provided the firmware updates (or link settings) to do so - will they, I doubt it when 99% of their customers don't even begin to understand the difference.


----------



## cartrivision (Jul 25, 2007)

LarryFlowers said:


> Any 3D method that requires the wearing of glasses will fail miserably. It will be relegated to the realm of geekdom and will never succeed.


I agree, and anyone who thinks that 3DTV will be anything more than a gimmick "specialty" feature present on a very small percentage of new TVs that are sold 5 years from now (let alone, one year from now), is fooling themselves.

People were saying that all the major movies would soon be in 3D back when this picture was taken... 








...and we're still waiting for that to happen.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

In another 1080p thread, Tomcat posted:


> TomCat said:
> 
> 
> > "Full 1080p capable" doesn't really mean anything, because the words do not represent any standard or suite of standards, just as "hi-fi" doesn't really mean anything specific regarding audio quality. 1080p typically (but not strictly) refers to a suite of formats that includes (but is not forced to include or support) 1080p24, 1080p60, and 1080i30. Using the term "full" or "capable" is not recognized to connote anything anywhere in the industry. "True HD" is another empty and meaningless term, terms popular with marketers who can claim them precisely because they don't promise anything, just hint or suggest at it. It is misleading to use such a term, and that is exactly why marketers use them.
> ...


First off there are some standards that have been around for awhile. Most notably is the ATSC broadcast standards that include 1080p24 and 1080p30. But did not include 1080p60.

At CES 2007, there was an effort underway to have a 1080p feed for manufacturers to use showing off their TVs. Alas, at that time, so many TVs that supported "1080p" didn't even support the standard, that channel was abandoned. (Things you learn standing in line with Joe Kane. Really nice guy.) 

As has been mentioned "DIGITALEUROPE (formerly EICTA) maintains the HD ready 1080p logo program that requires the certified TV sets to support 1080p24, 1080p50 and 1080p60, without overscan/underscan and picture distortion." (from Wikipedia, which also confirms that the US voluntary labels are way behind with no guarantees.)

I have no problem with a manufacturer not being native with 1080p24. But to not accept it is not appropriate. To claim 1080p and not accept the standard is lying (in my opinion). To just pick another frequency because it's easy and call that 1080p isn't helpful--it's confusing. Just look at the number of 1080p threads here at DBStalk. DIRECTV followed the standard (and the best format for film reproduction as well), yet so many TVs can't support the best. Bah on the TV makers!

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## Lee L (Aug 15, 2002)

jazzyjez said:


> I have to agree with Tom on this too. It's a standard that was largely ignored by the manufacturers because they could get away with it (IMHO). I was also very surprised (and disappointed) when I discovered that my very expensive (to me) Panasonic 1080p plasma, in addition to its inability to accept native 24p, would also not accept 1080/50 - now I know that's something that most people here wouldn't care about - but what is interesting is that when I researched this a little, I found out that the same model they sold in Europe did support all possible frame rates: (e.g. 1080 at 24, 50 and 60) as well as all other variants (720/50, 720/60, PAL 576i/p and NTSC 480i/p). Why is this? Well it's because in Europe the manufacturers have to, by law, support all possible modes in order for it to be labelled as HD; in the US there's no such requirement so they disable those features on their TVs sold here; I was told it was to avoid support issues! So many of these recent TVs could support 24p if the manufacturers provided the firmware updates (or link settings) to do so - will they, I doubt it when 99% of their customers don't even begin to understand the difference.


The problem is technical and has to do with the refresh rate of the panels. They can make their TVs accept a 1080p/24 signal, but it would then be manipulated electronically to fit the panel which can only display in a multiple of 60hz. It would look bad, so the manufacturers decided not to add it in many sets until they had panels that could refresh fast enough to be a multiple of 24 and 60.

I guess they could have added more costly circuitry to a set and make its price higher, while delivering a picture that does not take advantage of any increase in quality, but they did not. The main issue is that some manufacturers did not make the specs that clear.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Lee L said:


> The problem is technical and has to do with the refresh rate of the panels. They can make their TVs accept a 1080p/24 signal, but it would then be manipulated electronically to fit the panel which can only display in a multiple of 60hz. It would look bad, so the manufacturers decided not to add it in many sets until they had panels that could refresh fast enough to be a multiple of 24 and 60.
> 
> I guess they could have added more costly circuitry to a set and make its price higher, while delivering a picture that does not take advantage of any increase in quality, but they did not. *The main issue is that some manufacturers did not make the specs that clear*.


This is my main grief with Sony. "A lie of omission". Had they listed what the 1080p was, then I'd feel different.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

Lee L said:


> The problem is technical and has to do with the refresh rate of the panels. They can make their TVs accept a 1080p/24 signal, but it would then be manipulated electronically to fit the panel which can only display in a multiple of 60hz. It would look bad, so the manufacturers decided not to add it in many sets until they had panels that could refresh fast enough to be a multiple of 24 and 60.
> 
> I guess they could have added more costly circuitry to a set and make its price higher, while delivering a picture that does not take advantage of any increase in quality, but they did not. The main issue is that some manufacturers did not make the specs that clear.


Actually it's just a matter of chips inside the TV. Look for different models of Broadcom/ATI/AMD Xillion chips in those TVs. Counting volume of TV sets a difference in price of chips $50...200 (low vs high end) wouldn't be so dramatic to cover your technical arguments.


----------



## jazzyjez (Jan 2, 2006)

Lee L said:


> The problem is technical and has to do with the refresh rate of the panels. They can make their TVs accept a 1080p/24 signal, but it would then be manipulated electronically to fit the panel which can only display in a multiple of 60hz. It would look bad, so the manufacturers decided not to add it in many sets until they had panels that could refresh fast enough to be a multiple of 24 and 60.
> 
> I guess they could have added more costly circuitry to a set and make its price higher, while delivering a picture that does not take advantage of any increase in quality, but they did not. The main issue is that some manufacturers did not make the specs that clear.


I'm prepared to be corrected on this, but I don't believe that's true. The days of fixed refresh rates are long gone: even for CRT based displays it was back in the days of vacuum tubes when the electronics had its vertical scan generator derived from the line frequency, this was then locked by the sync pulses within the transmission. So it's my assertion that all of the panels in question already do support multiple native frame rates - as can be seen by the manufacturers' european versions. Even my TV will also work at a native 48Hz - but only in the monitor mode at reduced resolution. Despite this, they disable the 24p mode on the US model, but don't on the UK one. I think the Sony owners will find the same is true for them. It was nothing to do with technology limitations, it was purely market control.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

jazzyjez said:


> I'm prepared to be corrected on this, but I don't believe that's true. The days of fixed refresh rates are long gone: even for CRT based displays it was back in the days of vacuum tubes when the electronics had its vertical scan generator derived from the line frequency, this was then locked by the sync pulses within the transmission. So it's my assertion that all of the panels in question already do support multiple native frame rates - as can be seen by the manufacturers' european versions. Even my TV will also work at a native 48Hz - but only in the monitor mode at reduced resolution. Despite this, they disable the 24p mode on the US model, but don't on the UK one.* I think the Sony owners will find the same is true for them.* It was nothing to do with technology limitations, it was purely market control.


I called Sony and after a lengthy "discussion" [moving up the CSR chain] of the XBR2/XBR4, they claimed it was the panel that was the limiting factor. Maybe I was still not getting the "straight scoop", but it was their "specialist" for the XBR line.


----------



## jazzyjez (Jan 2, 2006)

jazzyjez said:


> I have to agree with Tom on this too. It's a standard that was largely ignored by the manufacturers because they could get away with it (IMHO). I was also very surprised (and disappointed) when I discovered that my very expensive (to me) Panasonic 1080p plasma, in addition to its inability to accept native 24p, would also not accept 1080/50 - now I know that's something that most people here wouldn't care about - but what is interesting is that when I researched this a little, I found out that the same model they sold in Europe did support all possible frame rates: (e.g. 1080 at 24, 50 and 60) as well as all other variants (720/50, 720/60, PAL 576i/p and NTSC 480i/p). Why is this? Well it's because in Europe the manufacturers have to, by law, support all possible modes in order for it to be labelled as HD; in the US there's no such requirement so they disable those features on their TVs sold here; I was told it was to avoid support issues! So many of these recent TVs could support 24p if the manufacturers provided the firmware updates (or link settings) to do so - will they, I doubt it when 99% of their customers don't even begin to understand the difference.


Just as a follow-up to my own post, where I stated that US customers wouldn't be interested in 1080/50 support. *If* the TV manufacturers had complied with fully supporting the various standards in the US as they're forced to in Europe - and by the way, 25p/50i is also defined within the ATSC standard - then it may also have been possible, in the future to have DirecTV broadcast overseas sports in its native format too.
It's exactly the same logic as applies to wanting to watch movies in their native 24p format: ultimately it provides a truer picture given the ability of the display to handle it. Although the broadcast quality frame-rate converters employed, e.g. by ESPN when watching international sports, do a remarkably good job, you can still see motion artifacts. Certainly this is a bit obscure compared to the requirements for movies, but with the manufacturers limiting what US customers get, it effectively closes that door when it needn't have been. Basically I just don't like the fact that I get fewer features on my US TV because the manufacturers decide that American customers don't need such things. This is a good example of where the FCC should really have stepped in and required all HDTVs to be multi-standard.


----------



## jazzyjez (Jan 2, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> I called Sony and after a lengthy "discussion" [moving up the CSR chain] of the XBR2/XBR4, they claimed it was the panel that was the limiting factor. Maybe I was still not getting the "straight scoop", but it was their "specialist" for the XBR line.


I guess I can't comment directly on the Sony product, but for the comparitive example with the Panasonic product - these were the specs for the 2008 model that I had taken directly from their US and UK web sites respectively. You can see we get the raw end of the deal!

US version
Receiving System: ATSC/QAM/NTSC
Compatible Signal Formats: 1080p/1080i/720p/480p

UK version
Receiving System: PAL -I, DVB; AV-NTSC: PAL-525/60, NTSC, M-NTSC
Applicable Scanning Formats:
525 (480)/60i, 525 (480)/60p, 625(576)/50i, 625 (576)/50p, 750 (720)/50p, 750(720)/60p, 1125 (1080)/50i, 1125 (1080)/60i, 1125 (1080)/50p (HDMI only), 1125(1080)/60/24p (HDMI only)


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

jazzyjez said:


> I guess I can't comment directly on the Sony product, but...


Wasn't disagreeing with your point, but was just "adding" some Sony feedback.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> I called Sony and after a lengthy "discussion" [moving up the CSR chain] of the XBR2/XBR4, they claimed it was the panel that was the limiting factor. Maybe I was still not getting the "straight scoop", but it was their "specialist" for the XBR line.


That very well may be true. LCD's have a native refresh rate and it may be that your TV's panel simply doesn't have one that has any common multiple to get to 24fps.

Even though your TV doesn't support 1080p/24, there is still an advantage to having a native "1080p" panel. When you watch 1080i/p content, there will be no rescaling of the image. All it has to do is either deinterlace the 1080i signal or use 3:2 pulldown on the 1080p/24 signal. This has much less of a degrading effect on the picture than all the "rehashing" that goes in to getting a 1080i or 720p signal to fit a 768p native panel.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

rudeney said:


> That very well may be true. LCD's have a native refresh rate and it may be that your TV's panel simply doesn't have one that has any common multiple to get to 24fps.
> 
> Even though your TV doesn't support 1080p/24, there is still an advantage to having a native "1080p" panel. When you watch 1080i/p content, there will be no rescaling of the image.* All it has to do is* either deinterlace the 1080i signal or *use 3:2 pulldown on the 1080p/24 signal*. This has much less of a degrading effect on the picture than all the "rehashing" that goes in to getting a 1080i or 720p signal to fit a 768p native panel.


Yeah, if it only would. :lol:
The damn thing just displays "unsupported signal".


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> I called Sony and after a lengthy "discussion" [moving up the CSR chain] of the XBR2/XBR4, they claimed it was the panel that was the limiting factor. Maybe I was still not getting the "straight scoop", but it was their "specialist" for the XBR line.





rudeney said:


> That very well may be true. LCD's have a native refresh rate and it may be that your TV's panel simply doesn't have one that has any common multiple to get to 24fps.
> 
> Even though your TV doesn't support 1080p/24, there is still an advantage to having a native "1080p" panel. When you watch 1080i/p content, there will be no rescaling of the image. All it has to do is either deinterlace the 1080i signal or use 3:2 pulldown on the 1080p/24 signal. This has much less of a degrading effect on the picture than all the "rehashing" that goes in to getting a 1080i or 720p signal to fit a 768p native panel.


Makes no sense to me... :nono2:

As that's still no legitimate excuse for the TV not accepting a 1080P/24 Hz input because of alleged "limitations of the panel." Whatever the native display requirements of the panel the video processing chips simply apply the necessary conversion to accommodate it. For example for 1080P/24 Hz the processing circuits need just add 3:2 pull-down to the incoming frames to pad it up to a 60 fps signal.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> Makes no sense to me... :nono2:
> 
> As that's still no legitimate excuse for the TV not accepting a 1080P/24 Hz input because of alleged "limitations of the panel." Whatever the native display requirements of the panel the video processing chips simply apply the necessary conversion to accommodate it. For example for 1080P/24 Hz the processing circuits need just add 3:2 pull-down to the incoming frames to pad it up to a 60 fps signal.


You make the assumption the chips needed are the there.
"I wanted" a firmware update, but [at the time] it wasn't an option. I "went down the road" of trying to buy the boards needed to update mine, which was when the panel limitations came up.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

veryoldschool said:


> Yeah, if it only would. :lol:
> The damn thing just displays "unsupported signal".


Yeah, it's like my Panasonic. it does 1080p/60, but if I feed it a 1080p/24 signal, it does "weird things". My BRD player has to handle the 3:2 pulldown.


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> Makes no sense to me... :nono2:
> 
> As that's still no legitimate excuse for the TV not accepting a 1080P/24 Hz input because of alleged "limitations of the panel." Whatever the native display requirements of the panel the video processing chips simply apply the necessary conversion to accommodate it. For example for 1080P/24 Hz the processing circuits need just add 3:2 pull-down to the incoming frames to pad it up to a 60 fps signal.


But then imagine how mad consumers would be to discover that their TV touted as being 1080p/24 capable is actually doing a pulldown?


----------



## jazzyjez (Jan 2, 2006)

veryoldschool said:


> Wasn't disagreeing with your point, but was just "adding" some Sony feedback.


No I didn't think you were and I appreciate your comments. I think you've "suffered" with Sony just like I have with Panasonic. As was said previously, these changes didn't come suddenly so the TVs should have been prepared to handle these formats. For any standard still in a state of flux - as may have been true say around 2005/6 - they could have designed with firmware updates in mind. Yet again I say that magically all their euro models managed to handle all the standards but somehow they don't over here, doesn't make sense. I still have a 20-year old Panny CRT (bought in Europe), and that handles both 50 and 60Hz, and yet my 2008 plasma doesn't - that's not technology that's in our way, it's marketing practices.


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> You make the assumption the chips needed are the there.
> "I wanted" a firmware update, but [at the time] it wasn't an option. I "went down the road" of trying to buy the boards needed to update mine, which was when the panel limitations came up.


No I was trying to say that unless the ASIC processing chips to support 1080P/24 Hz were not commercially available (at reasonable prices for consumers anyhow), and/or not firmware upgradable to it when the XBR2 was produced. Then there is really no legitimate basis for Sony and other manufacturers not to have equipped their sets for 1080P/24 Hz capability due to "constraints of the panel's native display rate."

IOW, "no 1080P/24 Hz because of panel display limitations" sounds like a total non-sequitur to me...


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> IOW, "no 1080P/24 Hz because of panel display limitations" sounds like a total non-sequitur to me...


"Hey I'm with you", but I also don't know about their panels enough to challenge them either.
Refresh rates have always been "limited" on the high end, not the low end, but :shrug:


----------



## HoTat2 (Nov 16, 2005)

rudeney said:


> But then imagine how mad consumers would be to discover that their TV touted as being 1080p/24 capable is actually doing a pulldown?


But aren't they already doing that with many 60 Hz flat panel sets today that are listed as 1080P/24 Hz capable in the specs.?


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

veryoldschool said:


> "Hey I'm with you", but I also don't know about their panels enough to challenge them either.
> Refresh rates have always been "limited" on the high end, not the low end, but :shrug:


My guess, based on the comments here, is the glass and lcd panel is willing but the panel electronics is weak...

I don't know how expensive the components are that would manipulate the panel display frequency. I do know good scalers aren't cheap. But I would think any scalers already in the units should be able to handle 1080p24 as well as they handle 1080i, 720p, 480i/p, etc.

Cheers,
Tom


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

HoTat2 said:


> No I was trying to say that unless the ASIC processing chips to support 1080P/24 Hz were not commercially available (at reasonable prices for consumers anyhow), and/or not firmware upgradable to it when the XBR2 was produced. Then there is really no legitimate basis for Sony and other manufacturers not to have equipped their sets for 1080P/24 Hz capability due to "constraints of the panel's native display rate."
> 
> IOW, "no 1080P/24 Hz because of panel display limitations" sounds like a total non-sequitur to me...


I did point above to Xillion chips what been manufactured from year 2001, those chip used for HDTV sets and had SW/FW what could be upgraded assuming presence of high-end models what could handle all formats in silicon.


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

Tom Robertson said:


> My guess, based on the comments here, is the glass and lcd panel is willing but the panel electronics is weak...
> 
> I don't know how expensive the components are that would manipulate the panel display frequency. I do know good scalers aren't cheap. But I would think any scalers already in the units should be able to handle 1080p24 as well as they handle 1080i, 720p, 480i/p, etc.
> 
> ...


"me too", having bought the XBR "line" with the "pro" scaler, but.... [I'm still screwed ]


----------



## rudeney (May 28, 2007)

HoTat2 said:


> But aren't they already doing that with many 60 Hz flat panel sets today that are listed as 1080P/24 Hz capable in the specs.?


i guess we are getting into semantics here (not you and I, but the manufacturers). I am sure there are TV's that accept a 1080p/24 input, and then convert them to a 60hz image via 3:2 pulldown. That's not much different than a TV with a 768p native panel accepting a 720p or 1080i signal. We all know it's going to get converted to 768p.

Given that many people can't tell any visible difference between an upconverted DVD and a BRD, it won't matter to the majority of consumers. For those geeks and technophiles who really want true 1080p/24, it's very important to know if this is what you are getting natively on the panel, or is it just getting "processed".

The bottom line is that there are three possibilities here when a TV stets that it's "1080p":

1. The panel can natively display 1080p (i.e. it's native resolution is 1920x1080) but that does not necessarily mean it supports all frame rates.

2. The panel can natively display 1080p and it can accept a 1080p/24 input, but it converts the frame rate to match a multiple that the panel can natively handle (likely 60hz)

3. The panel can natively display 1080p and it's native frame rate is a multiple of 24fps, which properly displays a 1080p/24 input signal without any pulldown conversion.

The problem is knowing which is the case, especially between #2 and #3.


----------



## Zimmy (Jul 22, 2008)

HoTat2 said:


> All very interesting;
> 
> And you certainly have added fuel to the "don't bother, save your greenbacks" category with all this (for me anyhow) as I am in the market for a new HDTV and was intrigued by the 120 Hz and up screen refresh rate models. But was really turned off by the jump in price point of around ~$200-$300 over the standard 60 Hz sets unless these higher refresh frequency sets really made a noticeable difference in reducing motion blur on fast moving images along with the complete elimination of film judder.
> 
> ...


Well, all these scientific articles about what the human eye perceives is nice and all, I would just ask you go to the store and see for your own self.

I loved my Samsung 61" DLP until I started seeing the 120hz sets.
There is a huge difference, at least with film based content, to my eyes.


----------



## taz291819 (Oct 19, 2006)

HoTat2 said:


> Makes no sense to me... :nono2:
> 
> As that's still no legitimate excuse for the TV not accepting a 1080P/24 Hz input because of alleged "limitations of the panel." Whatever the native display requirements of the panel the video processing chips simply apply the necessary conversion to accommodate it. For example for 1080P/24 Hz the processing circuits need just add 3:2 pull-down to the incoming frames to pad it up to a 60 fps signal.


That's kind of the point. If your display, such as mine, accepts a 24Hz signal, but performs 3:2 pulldown, you're not getting the benefits of 24Hz. It's the same thing as having the receiver send your display a 30Hz signal, with a "film" flag enabled. The display is still going to perform the 3:2 pulldown regardless, so you're not missing anything at all.

I'd rather a display not accept the signal at all than make consumers "think" they're seeing a 24Hz signal properly. Now that is deception.


----------



## taz291819 (Oct 19, 2006)

LarryFlowers said:


> Any 3D method that requires the wearing of glasses will fail miserably. It will be relegated to the realm of geekdom and will never succeed.


Movie theaters are doing quite well with 3D, and you have to wear glasses.

And while I don't like 3D films that use 3D as a gimmick (things coming at you), I do like it when it expands the depth of field. Football will look amazing (as stated by folks who have already seen it) in 3D, with or without glasses.


----------



## P Smith (Jul 25, 2002)

taz291819 said:


> That's kind of the point. If your display, such as mine, accepts a 24Hz signal, but performs 3:2 pulldown, you're not getting the benefits of 24Hz. It's the same thing as having the receiver send your display a 30Hz signal, with a "film" flag enabled. The display is still going to perform the 3:2 pulldown regardless, so you're not missing anything at all.
> 
> I'd rather a display not accept the signal at all than make consumers "think" they're seeing a 24Hz signal properly. Now that is deception.


Then if follow your mind and response by manufacturer's: the source device must do the 2:3 pull-down conversion; what really happening in Blu-Ray players, Dish/DTV/cable DVRs.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

taz291819 said:


> Movie theaters are doing quite well with 3D, and you have to wear glasses.
> 
> And while I don't like 3D films that use 3D as a gimmick (things coming at you), I do like it when it expands the depth of field. Football will look amazing (as stated by folks who have already seen it) in 3D, with or without glasses.


Well, I have to wear glasses and I'll not be buying any TV that forces me to either buy a specially made pair of glasses or wear glasses on top of glasses. The last 3D movie I went to was an Imax movie in NYC and I had to wear a helmet that covered me like a motorcycle helmet. Never been back.

Rich


----------

