Printable View
Those functions make a movie or TV look much more fluid, but it's too far away from reality, it does not feel natural. This can vary between TVs, but they're all the same: no real 120Hz and weird motion scenes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingcarcas
If I have to choose one, Philips is the most non-natural feeling.
This LCD is nothing more but two panels on top of eachother, each panel running at 60Hz. The panels display the same frame, except with a different polarization, and when you wear the polarized glasses, the image becomes 3d, but still runs at 60hz. Without the glasses (and only one panel enabled), it is no more than a 60Hz run of the mill TN lcd. sorry to burst all your bubbles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxxxRacer
You guys are confusing 120Hz with interpolation technology. Interpolation technology (creating frames that are not there) requires 120Hz to operate, but they are exclusive of each other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingcarcas
120Hz by itself decreases sample-and-hold, which will result in less motion blur. 120Hz TV's are always running at 120Hz.
Interpolation technology adds frames to try and remove judder that is inherent in film based material. This is the "soap opera" effect people talk about. Every manufacturer has a different name for their interpolation technology. For example, Samsung calls their interpolation technology "AMP". Interpolation can be turned on/off, unlike 120Hz which is always on.
If you put it like that then 70mm sucks;) Look, all of this stuff works by manipulating what or how our brains process images/light. This will not work perfectly with everyone's processing power. Just as 85Hz on a CRT is great for most, it still give others problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
I like the look of it but it gives me no reason to ditch my 1600x1200 Dell 2001FP.
looks sexy - but is viewsonic still iffy with ATI cards? i recall 2 past 20" Viewsonic's i had, the whole ATI+DVI+viewsonic = many headaches!
RPGWiZaRD you say you can see the difference between refresh rates up to 100 Hz. I haven't had a CRT for a long time, but some of my friends still have those and to me the flickering bothers is very obvious below 85 Hz and puts an incredible strain on my eyes. (Haven't really compared between 85 Hz and 100 Hz, so I'm not sure whether I'd notice that difference.) If I was still using CRTs today, I would definitely have a 100 Hz one at the very least.
However, there is no inherent flickering in LCD panels. And AFAIK there are no native 75 Hz LCDs (the 75 Hz ones I'm aware of are really only 60 Hz LCDs that convert the 75 Hz input signal into a 60 Hz one), so how can you say the same for LCDs? Are you really sure you would notice going from a 60 Hz LCD to maybe a 75 Hz one? Not to mention going from say 85 Hz to 100 Hz?
Even watching 85 FPS material on a 100 Hz CRT is not remotely the same as comparing a theoretical 85 Hz LCD at 85 FPS to a theoretical 100 Hz LCD at 100 FPS as "telecine judder" or stuttering will be present (caused by certain whole or partial frames being shown longer or more times than others, when FPS is below the refresh rate) on the CRT. So, I'm not convinced.
Hopefully we'll be able to tell in the future (once SEDs finally come around). Until then, unless you have access to very special hardware (like research lab staff or something), it will be impossible to know for sure as we're limited to 60 Hz LCD screen. Even if native 75 Hz LCD screens were readily available, the major problem of LCDs today (imo) is still latency (input lag + response time can easily make even the newest LCDs lag a couple of frames behind a CRT and it's vary varying between models, anything from sub-10ms to 40ms+) so fair definite comparisons would still be hard to make.
krille, the problem is not that 60hz flickers on LCD like CRT, it doesn't as the image is not actually refreshed, a lit pixel stays lit. You are also correct on telecine judder. But there is another problem with LCD monitors for pc.
the problem is that with a 60hz LCD you have 2 BAD choices:
1. VSYNC OFF for smooth mouse response = disgusting screen tearing
2. VSYNC ON to fix tearing = input lag and the dreaded 30/60 effect in games which don't support triple buffer
On my CRT, with refresh rates 120hz or higher (I use 140hz for CS:S) I don't see the tearing anymore. With a true 120hz LCD we won't be forced to use vsync to avoid it.
it refreshes the screen 120 times per second ??... so then.. theres lesser strain on your eyes too.. :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by inCore
so when you;re seeing predator.. it actualy looks like arnold is singing ?? :D ok sorry... :ROTF:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingcarcas
FYI 120Hz with movies looks really really weird... like Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow weird. All movement is artificial looking and drives me crazy.
85Hz CRTs are crap. And don't call me slow! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
There is an abismal difference between Phillips and Sony for example, Sony is way better. Both are similar technologies, but they're doing nothing more than creating, on purpose, a false sensation of fluid. The good thing about native 120Hz monitors is that you don't need crappy tricks to fool one's mind like today's '120Hz' do. It looks 100% natural and like the original video was. Now they look accelerated, absolutely horrible IMO. In WinDVD you can obtain a similar effect with one of its options, but I can't remember which one. The result is way too 'fluid'.
and you know this how?Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
fINALLY!!! fINALLY!!!!! 120hZ, ABOUT TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ABOUT TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JUST ABOUT DAMN TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!
FINALLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I'd actually call you FAST:D The reason some can see refresh blocks on a Monitor at 85Hz and others can't because some folks Brain processes light signals faster. Their perception is harder to fool. ALL FEATURES are made to trick the "Minds Eye" or what's processed there. Or at least that's the way it was explained to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
I disagreed because all Features are tricks. The quality of those tricks determines the price difference. In other words, better tricks cost more money. There's NO such thing as real anything. NOTHING is a 100% natural=P You'd have to have 3D objects reflect light back to be a 100% natural.
Samsung LN46A650 46-Inch 1080p 120Hz LCD HDTV with RED Touch of Color
One of the cheaper TV's that I saw and worked.
Back on topic. I talked to a person who saw this Monitor and she said it would do well. *Most will like it very much. It's no argument that this or anything else for that matter, can please everyone.
Well that's right :D, when I say 100% natural is because it looks perfectly natural, but it isn't. Today's TVs don't even try to look natural in the first place, that's the difference. And if they are trying to do that, epic fail.
Do you have information we don't or your post is pure speculation? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
That Samsung above presented very good images to the small group folks looking at it. New models looks better and has better connections. As you define Natural, it was very much so. It wasn't better than much more expensive models. But it did something rare, it performed about as good as Samsung said it would. Closed and Open tests it shine. I spent wayy too much time just Gawking at it!Quote:
Originally Posted by STaRGaZeR
This one cracked my up though.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2008/03/11...ires-expletiv/
Quote:
Update: It's been fixed -- fun's over, kids.
You're confusing 120Hz with interpolation technology. 120Hz by itself does not give the effect you're thinking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobalt
Sorry to disappoint you, but that is not true in this case. That is how the Zalman 3D display works, but not how this one works. The ViewSonic truly displays 120 frames per second and then you use special active glasses that have LCD panels inside them to block the left and right eyes alternately. This will give each eye 60 fps, but that is only if you want to use this 3D technology and for normal games you will really get a 120Hz refresh rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by 003
Just read this if you will:
http://www.trustedreviews.com/displa...eoscopic-3D/p1
I'd love to have this monitor.
Well anything beats my 19" Flatron LCD. =P
I bet it still has only crappy 6(?) bit colour.... fail
I'm sold on the first one that supports 1920x1200! 1680x1050 just doesnt cut it for me.. but a good start.
We're finally coming out of the dark ages of 60Hz LCD tech...
I'm liking it so far:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Helmore
I much rather have passive since that's one less thing to break!
Actually you'd rather have Active shutter glasses. The reason is that the illusion is much stronger and robust with these than with passive colored glasses w/o shutters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Donnie27
The zalman 3d monitor and passive glasses result in a position dependant 3d effect. Tilt your far too far to one side, or be somewhat out of place, and the illusion is broken, leaving you to continually adjust your eyes and never move once you have the illusion going.
Active shutters will create the illusion independent of your position in front of the monitor, or the angle you are viewing at.
I don't want illusions, I want 120Hz LCD's, period.