By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - 50Hz LCD's are HORRIBLE!

NNN2004 on 26 December 2009
jake_the_fake1 said:
Dr.Grass said:
jake_the_fake1 said:
looks like your eyes have the same sensitivity as mine, you should of gone for a Plasma TV like I have.

The 100Hz and all that crap is bullshit, it's simply a work around for the limitations of LCD technology, but it makes things move and feel fake, and in some cases causes artifacting on the image, however, it's suitable for the majority of the market which is why it's standard on LCD now days.
The other work around is to simply buy a panel with a refresh rate of 2ms, but their hard to find and usually more expensive, the most common panels are 8ms, which is why it affects sensitive eyes.

I my self went with a Plasma because when I was tv shopping I always noticed 2 things, 1) LCD colours and blacks were crap incomparison to plasma, and 2) I always saw the image stutter on LCD which no one could see except me, the Plasma sets I saw never had this issue with my eyes, and at the end of the day I went for my Panasonic plasma.

I know people will say plasma burns in, but these days it's no longer an issue as it was once, the thing is no technology is perfect. Plasma does have it's own problem, it's phosphor decay lag is one of them, in other words when an image say is panning really fast from black to white then in between where the 2 colours meet their is this green tinge, but only when the image is paning fast and only when the image has an excessive amount of black and white images, but even under these conditions it's not that noticeable....

to be honest I'd rather the flaws that plasma have than the stutter my eyes see with LCDS and no the 100hz as In said makes things smooth what it feels like the image has been speed up something like .5 and just looks unrealistic and fake, well to my eyes.... for the reason mentioned above I hold plasma technology as the pinnacle of TV tech currently around when it comes to price, size, picture quality, and inherent tech flaws...but this is just my opinion.


Why I didn't go for Plasma:

1) We have the most expensive electrcity in the world here in South Africa and due to another government F*CK up it could increase by 400% over the next 2 years. Plasmas suck a lot more power.

2) I have a SERIOUS problem with buying anything that has a half life. My parents still use their 10y/o Sony Trinitron flatscreen and it's still great. You're plasma will be finished one day...

I know Plasma holds some very good advantages, but the above two points are just too much for me.

BTW, my LCD has 2ms response time and 200Hz, so it's really smoooth. The difference between mine and anything cheaper is obvious to me now.

But I have to agree with you, Plasmas are better for most people who game or watch sports...

EDIT: I would say LED's are the pinnacle. Wouldn't you agree?

One would think, but the simply answer is no.

I work in a samsung call center and get many calls about them, since they are fist gen LED there are teething problems which is a given, they'll get better for sure, but for now, it's Plasma > LCD > LED.

Oh and in case your curious what issues we have, LED burning in...basically it's like 1st gen plasma's again, not as bad of course but it's one of top reasons customers call up, it makes it worse when they just spent 7k AUS on the dam thing...I don't get these people, they won't buy a top of the line Pionner plasma cuz 7k is to much, but hey they are buying 1st gen LED for 7k...argh some people just don't have comon sense...or the Samsung marketing a hella good XD

the plasma is superior to the lcd but i dont know why people prefer lcd ? is it because of the old burn issue ? 



Around the Network
Dr.Grass on 26 December 2009

Tallgeese101 said:


In my experience the 100 hz+ technologies are more of a marketing gimmick in mid-range TVs that often reduce the picture quality by over processing and 'haloing' the image.

 

I have to very, very strongly disagree with you. Go to any shop that has them lined up next to each other with a Bluray playing. The Trumotion (or whatever) TV's are a lot better. I wouldn't have spent the price of 1.5 PS3's on upgrading if it wasn't an obvious difference.



jake_the_fake1 on 26 December 2009
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.



Dr.Grass on 26 December 2009
NNN2004 said:

man its too late for me lol .. i got the same bravia that you talk about its the same 40" but i think with 60hz not sure .. i compared my new lcd with my one year old samsung plasma and i found the plasma colors is far way better than this bravia lcd also for the plasma there is no blur at all do to the 0.001 response time while my suffer alot of blur do to the lack of the 100hz.. the only advantage for the bravia against the plasma samsung is the full hd 1080p ... what should i say i cant do anything now i already bought it lol ....  :(

The 10Hz difference is simply due to regional standards differing.

I really feel for you. You should try and take it back if it's not too late, or you could try and sell it. I would honestly reccommend that for any gamer. It's weird,the 40" Bravia is selling boatloads at the mo.



Dr.Grass on 26 December 2009
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.



Around the Network
NNN2004 on 26 December 2009
Dr.Grass said:
NNN2004 said:

man its too late for me lol .. i got the same bravia that you talk about its the same 40" but i think with 60hz not sure .. i compared my new lcd with my one year old samsung plasma and i found the plasma colors is far way better than this bravia lcd also for the plasma there is no blur at all do to the 0.001 response time while my suffer alot of blur do to the lack of the 100hz.. the only advantage for the bravia against the plasma samsung is the full hd 1080p ... what should i say i cant do anything now i already bought it lol ....  :(

The 10Hz difference is simply due to regional standards differing.

I really feel for you. You should try and take it back if it's not too late, or you could try and sell it. I would honestly reccommend that for any gamer. It's weird,the 40" Bravia is selling boatloads at the mo.

the problem is we dont have return service here if you buy something you cant return it back unless its have manufacture issues .. so thats make a one choice for me.



jake_the_fake1 on 26 December 2009
NNN2004 said:
jake_the_fake1 said:
Dr.Grass said:
jake_the_fake1 said:
looks like your eyes have the same sensitivity as mine, you should of gone for a Plasma TV like I have.

The 100Hz and all that crap is bullshit, it's simply a work around for the limitations of LCD technology, but it makes things move and feel fake, and in some cases causes artifacting on the image, however, it's suitable for the majority of the market which is why it's standard on LCD now days.
The other work around is to simply buy a panel with a refresh rate of 2ms, but their hard to find and usually more expensive, the most common panels are 8ms, which is why it affects sensitive eyes.

I my self went with a Plasma because when I was tv shopping I always noticed 2 things, 1) LCD colours and blacks were crap incomparison to plasma, and 2) I always saw the image stutter on LCD which no one could see except me, the Plasma sets I saw never had this issue with my eyes, and at the end of the day I went for my Panasonic plasma.

I know people will say plasma burns in, but these days it's no longer an issue as it was once, the thing is no technology is perfect. Plasma does have it's own problem, it's phosphor decay lag is one of them, in other words when an image say is panning really fast from black to white then in between where the 2 colours meet their is this green tinge, but only when the image is paning fast and only when the image has an excessive amount of black and white images, but even under these conditions it's not that noticeable....

to be honest I'd rather the flaws that plasma have than the stutter my eyes see with LCDS and no the 100hz as In said makes things smooth what it feels like the image has been speed up something like .5 and just looks unrealistic and fake, well to my eyes.... for the reason mentioned above I hold plasma technology as the pinnacle of TV tech currently around when it comes to price, size, picture quality, and inherent tech flaws...but this is just my opinion.


Why I didn't go for Plasma:

1) We have the most expensive electrcity in the world here in South Africa and due to another government F*CK up it could increase by 400% over the next 2 years. Plasmas suck a lot more power.

2) I have a SERIOUS problem with buying anything that has a half life. My parents still use their 10y/o Sony Trinitron flatscreen and it's still great. You're plasma will be finished one day...

I know Plasma holds some very good advantages, but the above two points are just too much for me.

BTW, my LCD has 2ms response time and 200Hz, so it's really smoooth. The difference between mine and anything cheaper is obvious to me now.

But I have to agree with you, Plasmas are better for most people who game or watch sports...

EDIT: I would say LED's are the pinnacle. Wouldn't you agree?

One would think, but the simply answer is no.

I work in a samsung call center and get many calls about them, since they are fist gen LED there are teething problems which is a given, they'll get better for sure, but for now, it's Plasma > LCD > LED.

Oh and in case your curious what issues we have, LED burning in...basically it's like 1st gen plasma's again, not as bad of course but it's one of top reasons customers call up, it makes it worse when they just spent 7k AUS on the dam thing...I don't get these people, they won't buy a top of the line Pionner plasma cuz 7k is to much, but hey they are buying 1st gen LED for 7k...argh some people just don't have comon sense...or the Samsung marketing a hella good XD

the plasma is superior to the lcd but i dont know why people prefer lcd ? is it because of the old burn issue ? 

Plasma still have the stigma of burn in associated to it, but that's just one side, the other side is manufacturers prefering LCD tech and promoting it more...because their profit margins are larger and/or it's a cheaper tech in general to make



jake_the_fake1 on 26 December 2009
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.



Dr.Grass on 26 December 2009
jake_the_fake1 said:
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.

Oh I see what you mean. Still, since my panel has that feature and it makes it look smooth as silk, I don't really mind your list of arguments above.

EDIT: So what's the downside then? No 3d-ready?



NNN2004 on 26 December 2009
jake_the_fake1 said:
NNN2004 said:
jake_the_fake1 said:
Dr.Grass said:
jake_the_fake1 said:
looks like your eyes have the same sensitivity as mine, you should of gone for a Plasma TV like I have.

The 100Hz and all that crap is bullshit, it's simply a work around for the limitations of LCD technology, but it makes things move and feel fake, and in some cases causes artifacting on the image, however, it's suitable for the majority of the market which is why it's standard on LCD now days.
The other work around is to simply buy a panel with a refresh rate of 2ms, but their hard to find and usually more expensive, the most common panels are 8ms, which is why it affects sensitive eyes.

I my self went with a Plasma because when I was tv shopping I always noticed 2 things, 1) LCD colours and blacks were crap incomparison to plasma, and 2) I always saw the image stutter on LCD which no one could see except me, the Plasma sets I saw never had this issue with my eyes, and at the end of the day I went for my Panasonic plasma.

I know people will say plasma burns in, but these days it's no longer an issue as it was once, the thing is no technology is perfect. Plasma does have it's own problem, it's phosphor decay lag is one of them, in other words when an image say is panning really fast from black to white then in between where the 2 colours meet their is this green tinge, but only when the image is paning fast and only when the image has an excessive amount of black and white images, but even under these conditions it's not that noticeable....

to be honest I'd rather the flaws that plasma have than the stutter my eyes see with LCDS and no the 100hz as In said makes things smooth what it feels like the image has been speed up something like .5 and just looks unrealistic and fake, well to my eyes.... for the reason mentioned above I hold plasma technology as the pinnacle of TV tech currently around when it comes to price, size, picture quality, and inherent tech flaws...but this is just my opinion.


Why I didn't go for Plasma:

1) We have the most expensive electrcity in the world here in South Africa and due to another government F*CK up it could increase by 400% over the next 2 years. Plasmas suck a lot more power.

2) I have a SERIOUS problem with buying anything that has a half life. My parents still use their 10y/o Sony Trinitron flatscreen and it's still great. You're plasma will be finished one day...

I know Plasma holds some very good advantages, but the above two points are just too much for me.

BTW, my LCD has 2ms response time and 200Hz, so it's really smoooth. The difference between mine and anything cheaper is obvious to me now.

But I have to agree with you, Plasmas are better for most people who game or watch sports...

EDIT: I would say LED's are the pinnacle. Wouldn't you agree?

One would think, but the simply answer is no.

I work in a samsung call center and get many calls about them, since they are fist gen LED there are teething problems which is a given, they'll get better for sure, but for now, it's Plasma > LCD > LED.

Oh and in case your curious what issues we have, LED burning in...basically it's like 1st gen plasma's again, not as bad of course but it's one of top reasons customers call up, it makes it worse when they just spent 7k AUS on the dam thing...I don't get these people, they won't buy a top of the line Pionner plasma cuz 7k is to much, but hey they are buying 1st gen LED for 7k...argh some people just don't have comon sense...or the Samsung marketing a hella good XD

the plasma is superior to the lcd but i dont know why people prefer lcd ? is it because of the old burn issue ? 

Plasma still have the stigma of burn in associated to it, but that's just one side, the other side is manufacturers prefering LCD tech and promoting it more...because their profit margins are larger and/or it's a cheaper tech in general to make

i think your right even some sellers still believe that plasmas still have burn issues .. before i chose the bravia i saw the new Panasonic plasma 2009 models thats withthe full time- full hd and 2.000.000 contrast but when i told the seller that i want this one he said to me ( no sir dont take plasma TVs its have burn issues )!!? then i told them that i have a samsung plasma from one year and it dont have any burn issue then he said ( its will have burn soon ) !! .. my bro heard his words and argue me to buy the sony bravia because its sony ( sony mean quality for most of people here ) so i ended up with the bravia lcd that i want to sell now.