PDA

View Full Version : Electronics 120hz vs 240hz?


kpic
05-29-2010, 12:06 PM
The price difference between 120hz to 240hz LCD TVs is at least a few hundred in the 46" range.

I understand there is a real difference between 120hz to 240hz in how fast it will refresh but for those of you who have (or had) both is it that noticeable in the "real world" watching sports\auto racing etc?

OnTheWarpath58
05-29-2010, 12:15 PM
Paging Hamas.

I'm not terribly knowledgeable on the subject, but my understanding is that the price difference between 120 and 240 isn't worth it.

Now, IMO, there's a HUGE difference between 60 and 120. I'm not sure I'd want a 60 if someone gave it to me.

This post brought to you by oxycodone and moderate knee pain.

Bane
05-29-2010, 12:18 PM
120 Hz means that the still pictures are refreshing at 120 times per second while the stat 240 Hz means that they are refreshing at 240 times per second.


I have both in my house and to me there isn't a whole lot a "noticeable" difference if any that I can tell TBH.

kpic
05-29-2010, 12:55 PM
Now, IMO, there's a HUGE difference between 60 and 120.


Yeah, when we replaced (let's call it) the wife's TV and went from 60 to 120 I noticed a big difference, now that we are in the market to replace "my" TV where I watch a lot of sports I was wondering if the same held true for 120 to 240 to justify the price increase or if it was just hyped science tech where you will never notice.

Bane
05-29-2010, 01:32 PM
Yeah, when we replaced (let's call it) the wife's TV and went from 60 to 120 I noticed a big difference, now that we are in the market to replace "my" TV where I watch a lot of sports I was wondering if the same held true for 120 to 240 to justify the price increase or if it was just hyped science tech where you will never notice.

It'll be like when they make them refresh at 1,000 times per second,do you think your eyes will be able to tell that its so much better?

I have 2 55" lcds.One is a 120 and one is a 240 (bought them 2 years apart just FYI) and I honestly can't see the big deal.Maybe my eyes are old,or I'm just not watching the right stuff to make the difference clear cut.:shrug:

Pants
05-29-2010, 01:34 PM
Get plasma. :)

Buck
05-29-2010, 01:36 PM
I don't know if this is still the case, but 240 HZ used to be fake.

They would split the screen into 4 panels that each refreshed on their own at 60 HZ each and called it 240 HZ.

You want to make sure thats not the case.

DaneMcCloud
05-29-2010, 04:22 PM
It'll be like when they make them refresh at 1,000 times per second,do you think your eyes will be able to tell that its so much better?

I have 2 55" lcds.One is a 120 and one is a 240 (bought them 2 years apart just FYI) and I honestly can't see the big deal.Maybe my eyes are old,or I'm just not watching the right stuff to make the difference clear cut.:shrug:

You'd probably notice if you were watching 3D TV, which is where all of this is heading.

Well, that and holographic TV.

Sure-Oz
05-29-2010, 04:31 PM
Anyone think these 3dhdtv's and 3dblurays are going to last? I saw one with avatar on it the other day, looked incredible. DIdn't need glasses

DaneMcCloud
05-29-2010, 04:36 PM
Anyone think these 3dhdtv's and 3dblurays are going to last? I saw one with avatar on it the other day, looked incredible. DIdn't need glasses

More and more films will be shot with 3D technology in the coming years and eventually, everything will be shot in 3D. There's a difference between shooting in 3D and shifting non-3D images to create a "stereo effect".

Direct TV now can provide 3D images, so I do think it's the future.

'Hamas' Jenkins
05-29-2010, 04:50 PM
I have a 240 Hz TV, but there's really not much of a difference. The most important thing is to get a 120, not only for reduction in blur and judder (and better TVs have ways of mitigating this), but also to watch Blu-Ray in 24 FPS without the need for 3:2 pulldown.

Sure-Oz
05-29-2010, 05:00 PM
More and more films will be shot with 3D technology in the coming years and eventually, everything will be shot in 3D. There's a difference between shooting in 3D and shifting non-3D images to create a "stereo effect".

Direct TV now can provide 3D images, so I do think it's the future.

That's pretty cool, looks like ill be spending more money in the future on electronics.

googlegoogle
05-29-2010, 05:08 PM
3dtv =joke

Bane
05-29-2010, 05:35 PM
You'd probably notice if you were watching 3D TV, which is where all of this is heading.

Well, that and holographic TV.

Maybe,but I'm thinking the human eye would never see the difference between being refreshed 120 vs 240 a second.I'm not even sure the brain could process the difference in real time,but I'm always up for seeing something I don't fully undertand.

Zebedee DuBois
05-29-2010, 05:45 PM
quadraphonic

DaneMcCloud
05-29-2010, 06:48 PM
Maybe,but I'm thinking the human eye would never see the difference between being refreshed 120 vs 240 a second.I'm not even sure the brain could process the difference in real time,but I'm always up for seeing something I don't fully undertand.

I think it would depend on the content.

If you to watching a baseball game, probably not. But with something like Avatar (and what they have planned for the future of cinema), probably so.

But it sounds like you're set, either way. :thumb:

Param
05-29-2010, 09:27 PM
The price difference between 120hz to 240hz LCD TVs is at least a few hundred in the 46" range.

I understand there is a real difference between 120hz to 240hz in how fast it will refresh but for those of you who have (or had) both is it that noticeable in the "real world" watching sports\auto racing etc?

avsforum?

aturnis
05-30-2010, 12:06 AM
There are a lot of things I HATE watching in 120 and prefer 60. It can tend to make things look weird and move oddly. Don't really know how to describe, just take the "silver screen" effect of hollywood away and makes it look like a soap opera...

Buck
05-30-2010, 01:43 AM
I'm going to get a new TV soon.

I have a 60 HZ 42" Phillips LCD HDTV that I bought for $1200 a few years ago. It would probably cost me $500 now.

I'm not sure if I should go bigger (YES), but I cant go too expensive. 120 HZ at least, and maybe 46"?

I wonder whats the least expensive good TV following my criteria. Also, I don't care if its LCD or Plasma.

BCD
05-30-2010, 02:53 AM
I'm going to get a new TV soon.

I have a 60 HZ 42" Phillips LCD HDTV that I bought for $1200 a few years ago. It would probably cost me $500 now.

I'm not sure if I should go bigger (YES), but I cant go too expensive. 120 HZ at least, and maybe 46"?

I wonder whats the least expensive good TV following my criteria. Also, I don't care if its LCD or Plasma.Just get an LED and be done with it. If you do not want to spend that much, get a plasma and you won't have to worry if its 120 or 240hz...

kpic
05-30-2010, 05:00 AM
avsforum?

Why do that? I was told everything you need you can get right here at CP.

UteChief
05-30-2010, 11:55 AM
From what I understand only Samsung and Sony have a true 240hz tv. That was the case in 2009. 2010 models may be different. I think the biggest difference is between 60 to 120 also, but there is a difference between 120 and 240. Most people won't see it.