: Motionflow vs. 120 Hz refresh rate


Vandelay
2008-12-23, 01:04 AM
I am planning on picking up a Sony Z-series TV and have come across some foggy details on the 120hz offerings of this TV.

My understanding of the info is this:
-A 120hz refresh rate allows for 24, 30, 60 fps content to be displayed by repeating the frames (ie. no need for a 3:2 pulldown algorithm to display 24frames in a 60frame cycle)
-Motionflow (which is always attached to the 120hz label for Sony) is 120hz + an algorithm to reduce jitter by interpolating between frames, which can cause artifacts (defects) to be displayed on the screen.

My concern is this:
I am interested in the idea of a 120hz refresh rate for the simple reason that it makes sense given the common frame rates of right now (24,30,60), however I don't like the idea of the "motion enhancement" technology that tries to guess what happens between frames.

I would like to know if the Z-series TVs have the ability to do one without the other?

Searching through the manual online there is no mention of 120hz anywhere and only one mention of Motionflow (which also gives a warning about potential artifacts). To confuse matters more, right below the Motionflow section it mentions the CineMotion options which is for an inverse 3:2 pulldown. Why would there be options for a 3:2 pulldown on a 120hz TV??? Am I missing something?

hugh
2008-12-23, 07:42 AM
MotionFlow is the marketing term used by Sony for 120HZ technology on their sets.

A 120hz refresh rate allows for 24, 30, 60 fps content to be displayed by repeating the frames (ie. no need for a 3:2 pulldown algorithm to display 24frames in a 60frame cycle)

You would think so but that is not the way most manufacturers do it. (Sony I believe does which makes their 120HZ a little bit better)

jlet
2008-12-23, 03:40 PM
You still need the "CineMotion" inverse 3:2 pulldown feature to reverse the 3:2 pulldown used by the TV broadcasters.

Vandelay
2008-12-23, 04:42 PM
Ahh, I follow. I suspected that the "inverse" meant undoing a pulldown, but I didn't think there were any broadcasts/sources that were already in the 3:2 form.

So does anyone know if I disable the Motionflow on the TV, does it still operate at a 120hz refresh rate?

Lynx281
2008-12-24, 01:29 AM
I wouldn't worry so much, coming from a guy who has a D series Bravia (120Hz) I can tell you that from personal experience you will come to appriciate the "motionflow" functionality. Don't let it hold you back :D.

cooper83
2008-12-24, 02:01 PM
I can tell you that from personal experience you will come to appriciate the "motionflow" functionality.

And I'll be one to disagree and say that it makes everything looks completely fake and it's very distracting.

Lynx281
2008-12-25, 01:03 AM
And I'll be one to disagree and say that it makes everything looks completely fake and it's very distracting.
Do you have the settings on standard or high on the channel you have it on? If on high, turn it to standard and tell me if you still feel the same.

135iAndy
2008-12-25, 01:14 AM
I have a 120 mhz XBR with motionflow and we really think it is looking a lot better then the other 120mhz that we compared it to.
Its terrific watching hockey and car racing.

1500cc
2009-01-02, 10:11 PM
So does anyone know if I disable the Motionflow on the TV, does it still operate at a 120hz refresh rate?

AFAIK, 120Hz sets will always run at 120Hz ... there's no way to change that even if you wanted (but I don't know why you'd want to). I know that's the way with my Sammy 52A650 at least.

Also with my Sammy I can turn off the AMP (equivalent ot Motionflow), but I tend to leave it on the lowest setting.

Dadius
2009-01-02, 11:51 PM
And I'll be one to disagree and say that it makes everything looks completely fake and it's very distracting.


I feel the same way.

And I also fail to see how 120hz tvs can significantly increase performane for GAMING, which is what many people buy these tv's for, over 60hz equivalents. I mean, especially with the motion enhancer turned off.

I understand that there may be a few instances in a few games where the motion enhancers could smooth things out if you use them, but games are in waht 30 or 60 fps anyway most of the time? There is no need for 3:2 pulldown anyway, just repeating of frames right? so how would the extra hz make any difference at all for gaming, especially if you don't use or like the motion enhancer technology?

Lynx281
2009-01-04, 01:33 AM
And I also fail to see how 120hz tvs can significantly increase performane for GAMING, which is what many people buy these tv's for, over 60hz equivalents. I mean, especially with the motion enhancer turned off.


Play Gears of War, look at a wall and walk forward and backwards while switching the motionflow (or eqivalent) on and off. You'll notice why GAMING on a TV with 120hz is much, MUCH better.

Dadius
2009-01-04, 02:02 AM
Play Gears of War, look at a wall and walk forward and backwards while switching the motionflow (or eqivalent) on and off. You'll notice why GAMING on a TV with 120hz is much, MUCH better.


I'll notice why GAMING on a TV with 120hz is MUCH better? Or will I notice that ONE part of GEARS OF WAR looks MUCH better on your TV with the motion enhancers on than it does with it off?

If it's so much better, how come you have to look for certain things in certain games, while moving a certain way to even notice the positives?

And like said, I understand it makes a difference in a few instances with the motion enhancers on (Which most people would have to look for to notice), but how much difference does 120hz make fpr gaming with the motion enhancer OFF? None? ... Because not everyone likes the look of motion enhancer technology right?

Also, I don't see turning your motion enhancers on and off as a fair test for anything other than what it does on YOUR tv, which isn't to say that with it off, is exactly how it would look on a 60hz LCD. The 60hz tv is a different tv. And even even if it was confirmed that these specific issues look better ON 120HZ LCDs with motion enhancers on than on newer 60hz LCDs, that's still not my main point, although I would like to see some formal confirmation regarding this issue in gaming.

Sounds like there is a very specific set of circumstances required to even notice what you are talking about, which in all my quests for knowledge on this issue, I end up hearing again and again.

I just fail to see technically, how 120hz tvs can be significantly better than their 60hz equivalents for GAMING except for in certain parts of certain games. And it would be interesting to see the ratio between how frequent artifancts become apparent as a result of the motion enhancers vs how frequent the motion enhancers improve the image over a modern model 60hz equivalent LCD for gaming, and then averaging this ratio after testing like 30 games witha bunch of different people at different setting of motion enhancement.

Can someone please explain in technical terms how 120hz with motion enhancers on can benefit gaming in general, and not just in select instances in select games? And if these benefits outweigh the detriments realistically. I have looked into it but cannot find any signifcant reason to believe that the motion enhancers do more than just increase performance in a few select instances, or that the 120hz by istelf does anything at all, or that the benefits of the motion enhancers outweigh the artifacts caused as a result of these enhancers in gaming.

Is it fair to say that if you do not use the motionenhancer technology that 120hz LCDS will provide no performance enhancement over newer60hz LCDS for gaming?

Is it also fair to say that if you do use the motion enhancer technology that the downside could outweigh the upside?

I know what my eyes tell me, but my eyes arn't too picky as long as the tv is callibrated good, so that's irrelevant.

I would love to read more info on this.

Lynx281
2009-01-04, 11:34 PM
Dadius brings up a good point in that the motionflow may or may not be consistent but it is apparent and will definately be noticeable for many gamers. Furthermore, on a similar topic you don't have to be the picky type to notice the difference between 720P and 1080P on a 40" to notice the difference between 60Hz or 120Hz on any size TV. If you see a TV that you think would be great for you and the 120Hz option for the TV with the same specs (obviously except for the refresh rate) is availible, I would recommend going with the TV with the higher refresh rate.

To be fair we can put this to a vote, for people with first hand experience do you feel that gaming is much better with a higher refresh rate, or when looking at opportunity-cost is it not worth it to fork over the extra few $100 to get the set with the higher refresh rate, or is it not even noticeable at all?

nospam
2009-01-05, 02:35 AM
Games on my PS3 and 360 look noticeably sharper and focused in 120 Hz mode on my Samsung LN-T4669. To my eyes there is a huge improvement.

Like so many things, however, whether or not you in particular find that 120 Hz/Motion Flow improves image quality is up to you.

As for artifacting, the only visual quirks I have noted occur around reticles in shooting games, where you can sometimes see a bit of jitter or haloing around the reticle. It is a very minor flaw compared to the visual improvements I see with Motion Flow.

Speaking of cost, I was in the market for a 46" LCD when I bought my TV and the LN-T4669 had the best picture in its price range; 120 Hz was simply a nice bonus.

Dadius
2009-01-07, 03:31 AM
Games on my PS3 and 360 look noticeably sharper and focused in 120 Hz mode on my Samsung LN-T4669. To my eyes there is a huge improvement.


Is the huge improvement consistant and all over the place, or specefic to certain movements and areas of the screen in the game? Plus, if you went 60hz, you buy a completely different tv with a different set of specs and for considerably less money. Since many gamers abuse the crap out of their TV's, and are more likely to run them in scorch mode than for primary movie watching tvs, it makes sense to me to go a little cheaper if the TV is be used for gaming primarily. Is the extra "sharpness" and "focus" worth the, in some people's opinion, "loss of realism", and the creation of artifacts?

you don't have to be the picky type to notice the difference between 720P and 1080P on a 40" to notice the difference between 60Hz or 120Hz on any size TV

Well it's not the 120hz by itself that's noticed it's the result of the motion enhancement technology. An algorithm, as stated before, to reduce jitter by interpolating between frames. With it turned off like the original thread starter seemed to plan to do, I don;t think there would be any benefits. With it on, I agree that it is more noticeable than 720p to 1080p on a 40 inch, as a difference but not neccessarily that it is more noticeable than 720p to 1080p as a consistant improvement. Plus, that fake look just isn't appealing to some people even if it is "sharper", not to mention the artifacting. Different isn't always better.

If 120hz lcds were the same price as 60hz lcds, or even just slightly off I would agree that one should buy the 120hz version of the 60hz model their eyes picked out as most pleasing if it's available, even for gaming, just for the option of motion enhancement, even if you don't plan to use it. My main point regards price, and the fact the original thread starter seemed to want to use the tv with the motion enhancers off. I may have lost track of my own point a few times. And I totally agree that this stuff is largely subjective.

Gladguy
2009-01-27, 05:54 PM
Good discussion, this. Thread subscribed!

I'm currently looking at a new set to replace my 8yr old Samsung RPHDTV, and I'm looking for a set which will enhance my Xbox 360 gaming experience primarily (any TV I watch is in HD, and upscaled DVDs). I'm going to go with a 42" or 46" display, and I was thinking of sticking with a 720p plasma (to keep the cost down), but today I was at Best Buy and noticed a Samsung 1080p 120 Hz TV (I think it was the LNT4669) which looked outstanding in demo mode.

It really is a shame Best Buy doesn't hook up an Xbox 360 to these TVs.

Anyways, I'm following this discussion, and hope to get some guidance here!

nospam
2009-01-27, 06:17 PM
That is exactly the TV I have, and games on my 360 and PS3 look fantastic on it.

The only comparable TVs that I know of are the Sony XBR series (almost $1000 more in the same size TV with only slightly better picture quality), one of the Samsung LED backlit models (again, quite a bit more) or perhaps something in Panasonic's plasma lineup (better contrast).

Lynx281
2009-01-27, 11:09 PM
Speaking of Sony, if your going to go with an XBR model MAKE SURE IT HAS "LIVE COLOR CREATION" (fancy marketing name) the panels with that feature really make a VERY noticable difference that doesn't look fake.

Kallel00
2009-01-31, 12:25 PM
I leave AMP off mostly all the time with my Sammy LNA650 except maybe when I'm watching football.



Overall I think it's a semi-worthless gimmick , but see what's great about these options is they're optionnal, so anybody can do what pleases him instead of trying to convince the peanut gallery about his choice *wink*