Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
366 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Our year and a half old LG 42 lcd blew up and Costco did give us a full refund...
so we put in an extra 250 bucks and got the least expensive 60 hrz led. To my way of thinking I am not a gamer and I do not see any difference in the broadcast 1080i at 60 hertz with an extra frame thrown in to get a 120 output. Plus the power consumption of the 60 hertz tv is less than the 120. So it should be less susceptible to over heat problems which is what killed the LG.

I really like the fact that it runs at a lot lower wattage than a back lit lcd.

Turns out that the LG ran at over 240 watts and did not have adequate venting. So it should have had a fan. Even though I was careful to make sure the convection path of the air vents was not obstructed. It actually would heat our living room after we re-insulated and re-did our windows!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
366 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Greetings

http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Response_Time_ShootOut.htm

An interesting article about motion blur ....

regards
Thanks for the link...I thought the 120-240hertz thing was mostly hype to up sell product and sure enough it is. Afterall 24 frames per second is the motion picture standard. So watching an old movie like Gone with the Wind with a 60 hertz led lcd is going to be about as good as you can get it... short of watching it on the big screen.

I cannot see paying an extra 200 bucks just so that I can boast about my higher refresh rates!

The kicker is that to achieve higher refresh you need to shoot more voltage through capacitors and in doing so you need to have more potential ....ergo you are going to create more power supply resistance heat. Perhaps LED tech will help reverse the trend to higher power consumption.

I saw one article that slammed todays LCD tech stupidity and showed that today tv power consumption is actually getting higher than good old CRTs!

I can see the day coming when 1 gigahertz refresh rate tvs will need to be water cooled with huge fans. 1000 watts of power consumption will become the norm for the upscale the couch potatoe. Trouble is that you will need to watch tv only in an air conditioned room so your tv does not blow up!...the only upside is that if you heat with electricity then your tv will save you from having to buy a space heater during the winter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
We have a 60Hrz in one room and a 240Hrz in another. The difference to our eyes is stunning. We now spend the majority of our viewing time watching the 240Hrz.

To each his own, I guess. We're thrilled with ours.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
366 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
To my eyes leds at 60 hertz are just as good as the 120s.

We have a 60Hrz in one room and a 240Hrz in another. The difference to our eyes is stunning. We now spend the majority of our viewing time watching the 240Hrz.

To each his own, I guess. We're thrilled with ours.
I have read that some people can actually process visual images faster and therefore 60hertz can sometimes cause visual distortion or flicker. My old pair of eyes are not that sharp although I still have 20-15 distance vision, I cannot catch motion blur with a well done DVD in mpeg2 or even a blueray at 24fps for that matter.

Perhaps the quality of the frame interpolation between cinema standard 30 frames ps and the sync to 60 hertz is the difference. Some DVDs that I have seen are poorly encoded and do have screen artifacts. So I guess it is the old GIGO thing...if you do a crap job creating the digital file or signal then todays high tech tvs will show it for certain.

I will say the line definition and ease on the eyes is significantly better with an led lit tv than a straight back lit lcd even at 120hertz+. When it comes defined colour and black scale gradient leds are better hands down...the difference is striking even to my old tired eyes.:eek: Perhaps there really are some benefits in being over the hill.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
220 Posts
I am telling you we have a 60hz LCD and a 120hz LCD and
for sports and standard def the 120hz really does eliminate
lot's of blurring while the 60hz smears and blurs really bad
especially on sports and even when watching nature shows
like a tiger running the whole 60hz TV ghosts and the pixels
just jump around it, while the 120hz TV the animals running
are crisp and also the blur is rarely noticable, only when
there was like 20 000 bats flying all over the 120hz screen
there was very little blur. People say they see no difference
between 120hz and 240hz so a 120hz is fine with a good response
time, but there is a very big difference between a 120hz and 60hz
so I would say the 120hz is worth the extra cash, but don't pay
more for 240hz and it also seems like they are going to stop
at 240hz as early this years there was suppose to be 480hz
LCD's but they canceled it. Also the 60hz LCD uses up more
power than the 120hz LCD and more heat lol.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top