50Hz LCD's are HORRIBLE!

[jake_the_fake1]

Dr.Grass said:

jake_the_fake1 said:

Dr.Grass said:

disolitude said:
lol...50 HZ LCD. No such thing in America but Europeans feel your pain.

DLP was the best...Plasmas are good. 120 HZ HZ is...meh...depends on the manufacturer and their stabilization methods.

There is no LCD TV on the markey that is truly 120 HZ yet. They just insert their own frames in to a 60 HZ signal.

I'm no techno buff, but my LCD is 200Hz. Would that not be truly 120Hz at least?

no, that is just image proccessing feature available, which is usually turned off by default.

What you want is the pannels native refresh rate to be 120hz.

Technically speaking if a pannel has a refresh rate of 8ms, that equates to 125hz, the problem is that were trying to compare hertz from different technologies, it's just apples and arranges, essentially speaking the lower the regresh rates for LCD the better the pannel is.

If anyone has noticed they are now advertising 600Hz subfield on plasma TV, but this is not the same as the hertz on LCD, again because the difference of technologies, the hertz that plasma are advertised with is in fact the native refresh rate of plasma screens and is always active, with out it plasma tech simply doesn't work, the funny thing it's always been there but just never used as part of the marketing untill now, what still holds true is the fact that the high the hertz the better the pannel.

Gotta love how marketing work, grab any random number that is big, and then say, "wow people look at this tv, it has x number and it's awesome cuz of it, buy it now!" and then people think it's better and just buy it LOL.

You know, for a guy with a degree in Physics I am incredibly confused at the mo!

All I know is that my 200Hz LCD looks lightyears ahead of the 50Hz Bravia I had.

Disable the 200hz feature and I can almost assure you it's the same as the bravia, perhaps a little better if it's a 2ms pannel, since most all bravias are 8ms.