100hz TVs ?
Nick S. Calliari
100hz TVs. In particular football. Could someone explain to me what these
problems are exactly. I'm thinking of buying a Panasonic TX36PF10, how bad
is it on this TV, anyone know ? Is it worth getting a 100hz TV ?
Thankyou for your help,
Nick
tim
hardly anyone can tell the difference, why do they bother making them
and selling them especially at the price they do?
Nick
For the same reason that manufacturers sell so many overpriced
cars in the UK - because there's plenty of mugs about !
Yes, 100Hz TV's do give flicker-free pictures, but stop and
consider how much memory you need to give a watchable picture in
colour. How many greyscales ? I looked at some 100Hz TV's
recently, and some corners had been cut to allow for less memory
to be fitted.
Nick.
Nigel Goodwin
<t...@grumpy.demon.co.uk> writes
>If there are so many problems and complaints about 100hz tv sets and
>hardly anyone can tell the difference, why do they bother making them
>and selling them especially at the price they do?
Simple!. They make more money on them!.
It's basically a 'value added feature', which means the customer is
happy to pay more for it. Rather like the 'stereo' TV's a fair few years
back, they only did stereo from an external stereo source (which back
then was only available from a pre-recorded tape in a hi-fi VCR). Yet
many people were happy to pay more money for a TV that had 'stereo'
printed on the front.
Also there is a percentage of customers who always have to have the
'best', they usually equate this to the most expensive, so paying more
for a 100Hz TV makes them happy (and the dealer!).
--
Nigel.
/--------------------------------------------------------------\
| Nigel Goodwin | Internet : nig...@lpilsley.demon.co.uk |
| Lower Pilsley | Web Page : http://www.lpilsley.demon.co.uk |
| Chesterfield | Official site for Shin Ki and New Spirit |
| England | Ju Jitsu |
\--------------------------------------------------------------/
Alan March
BTW, I've not met anyone
> yet who can see flicker on current 50Hz TV's, but apparently there are
> some who can!.
Speak for yourself. Flicker is extremely obvious to myself and most people
I know. Also the bounce of horizontal lines due to interlacing is terribly
annoying once youve noticed it.
The problem is that most people dont understand what they are seeing and
simply accept it faults and all.
I'm not saying that 100hz tvs are without problems. Our Philips has
problems tracking fast motion, but I definitley prefer that to flicker.
DualIP
David
"david" <da...@npark.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:82alce$lpc$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Nick S. Calliari wrote in message
> <82944d$lq$1...@nclient3-gui.server.dtn.ntl.com>...
> >I have heard about problems with the picture when viewing fast movement
on
> >100hz TVs. In particular football. Could someone explain to me what these
> >problems are exactly. I'm thinking of buying a Panasonic TX36PF10, how
bad
> >is it on this TV, anyone know ? Is it worth getting a 100hz TV ?
> >Thankyou for your help,
> >
> >Nick
> >
> I bought the TX 32PF10 Panasonic.
> If I have the said problem it has not bothered me.
> My previous set had 100hz too.
> Take a look at it in the shops.
> Regards
> David
>
>
I find that if I sit too close to the tv, the 100hz "faults" are noticeable.
However, when sitting back at a sensible distance, they become less
noticeable, if at all.
I really prefer looking at 100hz to 50hz now i have got used to it.
David
grahamw...@my-deja.com
movement on
> 100hz TVs.
[snip]
> Is it worth getting a 100hz TV ?
Yes. In fact I doubt that you will find a good quality large TV that
isn't 100Hz. Yes, there will always be teething problems with new
technology, but the quibbles about the treatment of motion in 100Hz sets
is distracting attention from the improvement in flicker reduction.
I don't watch soccer so I can't give you a definitive answer, but the
only "problems" I see are with quickly scrolling titles (and that could
be caused elsewhere in the long chain of events that is digital TV). I
have only fleeting seen the 36 inch PF10s - but they look pretty good.
Cheers
Graham
:o)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
grahamw...@my-deja.com
Nick <ni...@stonea.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Dec 1999 10:19:25 GMT, I believe
> t...@grumpy.demon.co.uk (tim) wrote:
>
> >>hardly anyone can tell the difference, why do they bother making
them
> >>and selling them especially at the price they do?
There are not "so many problems" - forums like this focus on and
"exagerate" problems. People buy 100Hz TVs because they look better
than 50Hz ones.
> Yes, 100Hz TV's do give flicker-free pictures, but stop and
> consider how much memory you need to give a watchable picture in
> colour. How many greyscales ? I looked at some 100Hz TV's
> recently, and some corners had been cut to allow for less memory
> to be fitted.
There will always be cheap and nasty TV sets - that's no reason not ot
embrace the best possible technologies. Some colour TVs are rubbish -
so should we avoid all colour TVs ?
James Follett
DJD....@btinternet.com "David" writes:
>I find that if I sit too close to the tv, the 100hz "faults" are noticeable.
>However, when sitting back at a sensible distance, they become less
>noticeable, if at all.
The human eye has many serious design flaws, not least being its
central or serial input vision. If you don't believe me, focus on
a word in the centre of book's page and, without shifting your focus,
try to discern what the words are around the word you're focussing on.
You should be able to make out the adjoining words, above, below, and
left and right, but beyond that the words dissolve into a blur.
When you contemplate a scene before you, you think you're seeing
the whole thing but you're not; your eyes are tracking rapidly to
scan the entire picture. Even when you peer through a viewfinder
to take a photograph, you're still a victim of your central vision.
But when you receive the prints, which are usually relatively small,
you are able to use most of your central vision to take in the
resulting image, and you wonder why the hell it is that you failed
to notice that lamppost sprouting out of Aunt Maud's head. For this
reason professional snappers learn to "scan the frame" before
clicking the shutter.
This flaw in our vision is most unsatisfactory. It means that all
manner of nasty things can creep up on you unawares and eat you. To
compensate for this major design cock-up, evolution has provided us
with periphreal vision that is sensitive to movement and bugger all
else. Okay, you may not recognise what it is that wants you for
dinner, but at least you become aware of its movement. You turn your
head to bring your central vision into play, identify whatever it
is, and shin up the nearest tree.
Today, with TV screens getter wider and houses getting smaller,
periphreal vision is coming into play when watching TV therefore
flicker below about 70 Hertz, which the brain "sees" as potentially
dangerous movement, is likely to become an increasing problem.
Sorry for a long, boring explanation of this phenomenon.
--
James Follett -- novelist http://www.davew.demon.co.uk
"Dominator/Mirage" (Random House/Arrow) ISBN: 0-09-187003-8 now in print.
"Earthsearch II" BBC Worldwide. ISBN: 0-563-55866-0. Tapes now available.
"The Temple of the Winds" and "Wicca" available from Severn House in 2000.
Tim B
news:nFPWOMA7...@lpilsley.demon.co.uk...> Calliari <nicolas....@dtn.ntl.com> writes
> >I have heard about problems with the picture when viewing fast movement
on
> >problems are exactly. I'm thinking of buying a Panasonic TX36PF10, how
bad
> >Thankyou for your help,
>
> There also seems many more complaints about digital reception with 100Hz
> sets, certainly there is a ridiculous number of conversions in the
> process:
>
> 1) convert analogue signal to digital and transmit it.
> 2) receive the digital signal and convert it back to analogue.
> 3) feed it into your 100Hz TV and convert it to digital again.
> 4) process it as digital, then convert back to analogue to feed the
> tube.
The solution to this is to get an IDTV. Certainly my WEGA looks absolutely
brilliant when I'm watching on-digital, some have speculated that this is
because the digital broadcast is decoded straight into the frame buffer.
There is occasional pixelisation (with lights turning on and off in the
house etc) but the motion smear only occurs when I'm watching poor quality
sources (namely VHS tapes). Turning off the noise reduction makes them much
better, but you still get some smear occasionally.
The only thing to do is to go and watch one, insist on seeming different
sources.
Tim.
dt records
it alot.
The pictures on analogue are like an oil-painting viewed thru` a net
curtain,
and the digital stuff all has CLEAR graduation contours on any solid colour
areas..
Dark areas become surreal.. and "smear" and "trailing" all show up on PAL
DVD.
The set doesn`t do SECAM either!!!
The bottome line? If your source material isn`t up to scratch then it`s
going to look
TERRIBLE on 100hz.. Basically the resolution and frame rate and quality is
effecivly
doubled - and that tells tales on any faulty source.. especially american
crap shot
on betacam.. it looks wierd.
All the above is spoofable out of.. but oe thing that is definatly the last
nail in the coffin is..
THE NOISE!!!!!
The basterd makes more noise then my fridge!! BEWARE OF THE BUZZ!! these
monsters make
a HORRIBLE whizzing Power-supply noise.. you`ll need to carpet your walls
and cieling
to avoid bieng driven MAD by the fizz in quiet parts of programmes..
BE WARNED.. 100Hz Sucks - and costs TWICE 50Hz..
grahamw...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <82944d$lq$1...@nclient3-gui.server.dtn.ntl.com>,
> "Nick S. Calliari" <nicolas....@dtn.ntl.com> wrote:
> > I have heard about problems with the picture when viewing fast
> movement on
> > 100hz TVs.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Is it worth getting a 100hz TV ?
>
> Yes. In fact I doubt that you will find a good quality large TV that
> isn't 100Hz. Yes, there will always be teething problems with new
> technology, but the quibbles about the treatment of motion in 100Hz sets
> is distracting attention from the improvement in flicker reduction.
>
> I don't watch soccer so I can't give you a definitive answer, but the
> only "problems" I see are with quickly scrolling titles (and that could
> be caused elsewhere in the long chain of events that is digital TV). I
> have only fleeting seen the 36 inch PF10s - but they look pretty good.
>
> Cheers
>
> Graham
>
> :o)
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
"Il mattino ha l'oro in bocca"
* atr...@iol.ie 愷~ Mr.Spring *
david
dt records wrote in message <384E7595...@iol.ie>...
Hi,
I would sugest, if I may, that you have it checked out by an engineer.
My TX-32PF10 Panasonic is fantastic, should yours not be this model, have
your dealer exchange it for this model.
Regards
David
grahamw...@my-deja.com
One - It sounds as though you need to disable some digital processing in
your chain. The TV probably has "Digital Noise Reduction" - it will
probably be better turned off.
Two - IMHO excessive noise is not a feature of 100Hz sets. It is either
a Panasonic issue or a faulty set - possibly the transformer is not
properly secured ?
Ron O'Brien
>I got a Panasonic about 3 weeks ago.. 100Hz etc.. and i have to say i hate
>it alot.
>
>
>The basterd makes more noise then my fridge!! BEWARE OF THE BUZZ!! these
>monsters make
>a HORRIBLE whizzing Power-supply noise.. you`ll need to carpet your walls
>and cieling
>to avoid bieng driven MAD by the fizz in quiet parts of programmes..
>
>BE WARNED.. 100Hz Sucks - and costs TWICE 50Hz..
>
You seem to be tarring all 100mhz TVs with the same brush.
I have a Sony TV with 100mhz and it is perfect. And although they (TV
dealers) warn you that you may get slight 'trailing' on fast moving
pictures, I have not noticed it with my highly critical eye.
If your Panasonic is as bad as you make out, what have you done about
it?
Buzzing....whizzing and fizzing!
If my TV made even the slightest noise it would be back a dealers within
seconds! Surely, that is your problem, you have a faulty set
--
Ron O'Brien
Rene Zuidema
<da...@npark.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
(may be partially quoted)
>Hi,
>I would sugest, if I may, that you have it checked out by an engineer.
>My TX-32PF10 Panasonic is fantastic, should yours not be this model, have
>your dealer exchange it for this model.
>Regards
>David
>
I concur.
My 5 years old 56 cm 100 Hz Philips Matchline is has no visible flaws
to my critical eye (within the limits of aa/bb 100 Hz). I use it
amongst others on a DSD3000 IRD (MPEG Embedded Irdeto), on RGB.
Slightly Off Topic:
In our lab we use a series of 50 / 100 Hz JVC TV's in several sizes.
Some wide screen - others not. The brand was selected on base of a
good deal. (poor base for selection - I know)
The picture quality of *all* models was dreadful. (poor definition,
heavy overshoot in black-white transitions; external OSD was blotty)
All the offending units were off-factory fitted with a "feature"
called "beam velocity modulation" or something much sounding like
that.
It can easily be disabled by disconnecting a 2 wire cable from the
tube neck PCB. (pull out the connector)
The quality is now up to par again.
Is JVC selling too good?
Best Regards, René Zuidema
david
In article <82mpeq$tr5$1...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk> you wrote:
: I would sugest, if I may, that you have it checked out by an engineer.
: My TX-32PF10 Panasonic is fantastic, should yours not be this model, have
: your dealer exchange it for this model.
Can I, with respect, point out that all this bickering about whether
100 Hz TVs are "fantastic" or "awful" is meaningless, because it is
all in the eye of the beholder. For any given 100 Hz technology (and
there are several) some people seem to notice (and dislike) the
artefacts and others seem either not to notice them or not to mind
them. That there *are* artefacts from the up-conversion is indisputable,
as no technology exists which can do it transparently. Whether the
artefacts are more or less unpleasant than 50 Hz flicker is a matter
of taste: personally I find the artefacts unacceptable.
Don't look *too* closely at your TV as you might start to see some of
the problems people have been complaining about, and once you can see
them you'll notice them more and more!
Richard.
Hi,
Richard,
Please see other postings to newsgroup.
Hope you get sorted out soon with your particulat tv.
Regards
David
dt records
> Hi,
> I would sugest, if I may, that you have it checked out by an engineer.
> My TX-32PF10 Panasonic is fantastic, should yours not be this model, have
> your dealer exchange it for this model.
> David
I`ve had 3 Brand New units.. From 2 batches - they all make the same noise..
dt records
Ron O'Brien wrote:
>
> If your Panasonic is as bad as you make out, what have you done about
> it?
>
Had it changed 3 times..
> Buzzing....whizzing and fizzing!
> If my TV made even the slightest noise it would be back a dealers within
> seconds! Surely, that is your problem, you have a faulty set
>
Indeed.. i am waiting for Panasonic`s latest excuse as we speak.. they have
been told in no uncertain terms to take the set away and replace it with a
quiet one.
They even left me a unit with the Tone controls biased towards bass hoping the
Buzz
was on the audio!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Understand? I`m dealing with people that think i`m thick...!
>
> --
> Ron O'Brien
dt records
> your chain. The TV probably has "Digital Noise Reduction" - it will
> probably be better turned off.
>
Sure.. every input source can be tweaked to perfection..
... but IT SHOULDN`T HAVE TO BE DONE! (not for 1500 quid anyway!)
>
> Two - IMHO excessive noise is not a feature of 100Hz sets. It is either
> a Panasonic issue or a faulty set - possibly the transformer is not
> properly secured ?
>
Been through all of this with Panasonic.. The Machine is Simply Noisey.
>
> Cheers
>
> Graham
>
> :o)
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
One day.. One day...
R. Mark Clayton
--
R. Mark Clayton
Rene Zuidema <creatron...@inter.nl.net> wrote in message
news:cu105s8f1lb7me0t8...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 8 Dec 1999 18:42:34 -0000, "david"
> <da...@npark.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> (may be partially quoted)
>
> >Hi,
> >I would sugest, if I may, that you have it checked out by an engineer.
> >My TX-32PF10 Panasonic is fantastic, should yours not be this model, have
> >your dealer exchange it for this model.
> >Regards
> >David
> >
Roger Hunwicks
> I got a Panasonic about 3 weeks ago.. 100Hz etc.. and i have to say i hate
> it alot.
>
> curtain,
> and the digital stuff all has CLEAR graduation contours on any solid colour
> areas..
>
I have just got a Panasonic 32PF10 and think it is wonderful.
I know what you mean about the graduation contours, but I have since
switched off AI processing and this has improved matters no end.
I am using an RGB signal from a Nokia ONdigital box.
Roger
david
Roger Hunwicks wrote in message ...
>
>I have just got a Panasonic 32PF10 and think it is wonderful.
>
>I know what you mean about the graduation contours, but I have since
>switched off AI processing and this has improved matters no end.
>
>I am using an RGB signal from a Nokia ONdigital box.
>
>Roger
Hi,
I agree that the Panasonic is great, How does the On digi work with W/s on
it ?
I am thinking of getting digi. for bbc/itv.,Does it switch to w/s mode ok
when a w/s programme appears.
I ask as I have a Humax and I can not get it work correctly with the Pana.
when w/s programmes appear.
Regards
David
- René -
<MCla...@btinternet.com> wrote:
(may be partially quoted)
when RGB is offered?
-René-
grahamw...@my-deja.com
dt records <atr...@iol.ie> wrote:
> > One - It sounds as though you need to disable some digital
processing in
> > your chain. The TV probably has "Digital Noise Reduction" - it will
> > probably be better turned off.
> >
>
> Sure.. every input source can be tweaked to perfection..
> ... but IT SHOULDN`T HAVE TO BE DONE! (not for 1500 quid anyway!)
[engage scouser mode]
"Calm down, calm down !" No need to shout !
Actually, I find that the *more* money I spend on kit then the *more*
options I get with which I can tweak. Witness a transistor radio will
have a volume knob - and maybe a tone knob. A "hi fi" will probably
have three tone controls (bass, mid and treble) along with left/right
balance. A DD 5.1 system will have volume settings for various
speakers, possibly time delay variables and different operating modes
(depending on whether you have a sub or not and if your centre speaker
is full range etc, etc, ...).
I like it that way !
R. Mark Clayton
your machine, but check the manual.
--
R. Mark Clayton
- René - <r.zu...@pijnenburg.nl> wrote in message
news:5qd95scr75bs4ua7h...@4ax.com...
Nigel Goodwin
<r.zu...@pijnenburg.nl> writes
>On Sat, 11 Dec 1999 01:51:06 -0000, "R. Mark Clayton"
><MCla...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> (may be partially quoted)
>>I should read the manual carefully. Alas the RGB pictures are still 50Hz!
>Not in my TV! Are you suggesting the scan rate is actually reduced
>when RGB is offered?
It's very common that the RGB inputs bypass all the digital processing,
and thus only give 50Hz frame rate.
Roger Hunwicks
da...@npark.freeserve.co.uk says...
> I agree that the Panasonic is great, How does the On digi work with W/s on
> it ?
I have the TV set to Auto/4:3 (I don't like the stretching effect of
Justified).
As far as I can tell it always gets the aspect ratio correct, although it
can take a few seconds to recognise a change in format. This can be
especially noticeable in ad breaks when it can switch in/out of WS quite
a few times.
Regards
Roger
jase...@my-deja.com
> I got a Panasonic about 3 weeks ago.. 100Hz etc.. and i have to say i hate
> it alot.
>
> The pictures on analogue are like an oil-painting viewed thru` a net
> curtain,
> and the digital stuff all has CLEAR graduation contours on any solid colour
> areas..
>
> DVD.
>
> The set doesn`t do SECAM either!!!
>
> The bottome line? If your source material isn`t up to scratch then it`s
> going to look
> TERRIBLE on 100hz.. Basically the resolution and frame rate and quality is
> effecivly
> doubled - and that tells tales on any faulty source.. especially american
> crap shot
> on betacam.. it looks wierd.
I have to agree. In addition, 100Hz TV's have horrendous problems with
compressed digital sources, and you're unlikely to completely overcome that,
sure they can fudge the issue with some more dodgy filters, but that
introduces problems of it's own.
TV manufacturers should take a leaf out of the hi-fi makers' book. To get the
best result strip the electronics to the bare minimum, and make sure that
every component along the way is of the very highest quality, and use
discrete components wherever possible, particularly in amplification. Tweak
the arse off it in the factory. And make the source media acceptable as well.
The problem is that as the digital TV becomes the norm, because companies
have made it for the uneducated masses quality is suspect. What they should
be doing is to give each channel a complete transponder, employ some discreet
compression, and effectively increase frequency response to about 20MHz, ie
that of the American HDTV. But it won't happen, simply because the TV
companies are a bunch of thieving robbing bastards.
In the meantime, My suggestion would be to buy a very high quality 50Hz
television, companies like Loewe might seem overpriced but give them a look
in, you'll find they give far more natural pictures than any over-complicated
junk from the likes of Sony.
Martin
television, companies like Loewe might seem overpriced but give them a look
in, you'll find they give far more natural pictures than any
over-complicated junk from the likes of Sony.<<<<
Try a 50Hz Wega.
IAN GARDNER
jase...@my-deja.com wrote in message <837pmv$n8v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>
>> I got a Panasonic about 3 weeks ago.. 100Hz etc.. and i have to say i
hate
>> it alot.
>>
>> The pictures on analogue are like an oil-painting viewed thru` a net
>> curtain,
>> and the digital stuff all has CLEAR graduation contours on any solid
colour
>> areas..
>>
>> Dark areas become surreal.. and "smear" and "trailing" all show up on PAL
>> DVD.
>>
>> The set doesn`t do SECAM either!!!
>>
>> The bottome line? If your source material isn`t up to scratch then it`s
>> going to look
>> TERRIBLE on 100hz.. Basically the resolution and frame rate and quality
is
>> effecivly
>> doubled - and that tells tales on any faulty source.. especially american
>> crap shot
>> on betacam.. it looks wierd.
>
>The problem is that as the digital TV becomes the norm, because companies
>have made it for the uneducated masses quality is suspect. What they should
>be doing is to give each channel a complete transponder, employ some
discreet
>compression, and effectively increase frequency response to about 20MHz, ie
>that of the American HDTV. But it won't happen, simply because the TV
>companies are a bunch of thieving robbing bastards.
I agree. I have said this all along. Television companys like Sky, BBC etc
are going for the multi channels per transponder. Yes, Digital tv is almost
acceptable (except for a few artifacts). But we should be going along the
route of High Quaily Picture like HDTV.
It would be like looking out of the window in picture quality and not like
looking through a room full of smoke! (As it is now).
--
SEE YER....
IAN.P.GARDNER..
SOUTH ENGLAND..
ISLE OF WIGHT..
http://www.gardner44.freeserve.co.uk
i...@gardner44.freeserve.co.uk