100Hz or 50Hz - Are there *good* reasons to go for 100Hz
Declan Higgins
I'm wrestling with the problem of choosing a 32" widescreen TV.
I was thinking in terms of the Sony 32fx60 or 32fx65 but various dealers
have tried to persuade me that 50Hz is a better option. They say that
100Hz is cack for fast moving material (football/car racing etc).
Is the the 100Hz or is the the Digital processing. If it is the digital
processing can this not be switched off ?
I plan to watch a alot of DVDs - should this affect my decision ?
If this is all mentioned in a FAQ somewhere then please point it out to
me.
Thanks in advance ....
Declan
--
Remember to remove NO-SPAM-HERE from my email address if replying
Liam Williams
the picture looks great - though I cannot switch to 50Hz, so I do not know
how much better the picture looks with 100Hz. I always leave the Noise
Reduction Off. The picture looks fine when watching MOTD. The only time I
notice a 100Hz jerkiness effect is when watching horizontally scrolling
credits at the end of TV programs.
David Perry
dhig...@NO-SPAM-HEREmy-deja.com (Declan Higgins) writes:
>I'm wrestling with the problem of choosing a 32" widescreen TV.
>I was thinking in terms of the Sony 32fx60 or 32fx65 but various dealers
>have tried to persuade me that 50Hz is a better option. They say that
>100Hz is cack for fast moving material (football/car racing etc).
>
>Is the the 100Hz or is the the Digital processing. If it is the digital
>processing can this not be switched off ?
>
>
>I plan to watch a alot of DVDs - should this affect my decision ?
>
Increasing the field or frame rate without motion compensation is always going
to produce the psycho-visual phenomena of judder and blur during motion.
How apparent and annoying this is depends upon the susceptibility of the
viewer; therefore it is something you need to assess for yourself via practical
experience. Don't rely on third party opinion.
Indeed there is many types of digital and analogue processing that can degrade
the image further, particularly during motion scenes. The culprits are usually
forms of noise reduction that don't employ motion compensation and line flicker
reduction techniques that use temporal averaging. Usually these and other
processes can be switched off, but there can be other inaccessible processes
within the TVs video formatting and digitising that can cause some loss of
definition on motion scenes. Slight digital noise reduction may still be
applied in the early stages of input signal formatting and digitising even when
the user DNR is switched off.
Best to test the technology for yourself.
Cheers.
NMA
quite annoying. It seems that different manufacturers, and even the same
manufacturer among its models, don't always get it right. 100Hz technology
in TVs should have matutred by now and I am quite sure many current TVs in
the market do get it right. I have a 100Hz Samsung TV and I am very happy
with it (I only use it to watch DVDs). I am certain that this TV does not
have any problem displaying fast moving pictures.
"Declan Higgins" <dhig...@NO-SPAM-HEREmy-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8FE5E661Cdhig...@62.253.162.102...
>
> I'm wrestling with the problem of choosing a 32" widescreen TV.
> I was thinking in terms of the Sony 32fx60 or 32fx65 but various dealers
> have tried to persuade me that 50Hz is a better option. They say that
> 100Hz is cack for fast moving material (football/car racing etc).
>
> Is the the 100Hz or is the the Digital processing. If it is the digital
> processing can this not be switched off ?
>
>
> I plan to watch a alot of DVDs - should this affect my decision ?
>
Gary Dodd
<8FE5E661Cdhig...@62.253.162.102>...
>
>I'm wrestling with the problem of choosing a 32" widescreen TV.
>I was thinking in terms of the Sony 32fx60 or 32fx65 but various dealers
>have tried to persuade me that 50Hz is a better option. They say that
>100Hz is cack for fast moving material (football/car racing etc).
>
>Is the the 100Hz or is the the Digital processing. If it is the digital
>processing can this not be switched off ?
>
>
>I plan to watch a alot of DVDs - should this affect my decision ?
>
>If this is all mentioned in a FAQ somewhere then please point it out to
>me.
>
>Thanks in advance ....
>
A 100Hz set will digitally sample all video inputs, probably with a 8 bit
Analogue to digital converter. Your DVD player will have a 10 bit digital to
analague converter.
This will mean that very smooth subtle changes of colour in an image will
have be shown with distinct steps. This is like a computer image where not
enough colour resolution is used and is called posterisation.
On a 50Hz set, the RGB input will have a straight path to the tube. A 100Hz
set will sample it, process it to allow colour control etc then reconvert it
to analogue then on to the tube guns.
I gave up on my Panasonic 100Hz and replaced it with a cheaper 50Hz which I
now think is much better.
100Hz maybe better in the future when high quality A/Ds become cheaper but
for now I personally prefer a solid 50Hz set. I don't notice any flicker!
pli...@my-deja.com
Here's why.
Any 100Hz TV has to digitise an analogue signal. Every single 100Hz TV
I've seen does not utilise adequate enough bit depth throughout this
image path to resolve enough intensity changes in order to make this
sampling transparent. (normally the frame buffer is the culprit) You are
basically throwing away picture info before you even get to the 100Hz
picture stage.
What does this mean?
Contouring/banding across what should be smoothly graduating areas of
colour. (smokey scenes are good for this effect). You've basically
crushed the image. There is also an associated loss of high frequency
detail.
This effect tends to be more noticable the cleaner the signal gets as
the level of noise inherent in the lower quality signals
(RF/composite)effectively hides the banding. Step up to a cleaner signal
type (RGB for example) and the banding becomes more evident.
The mapping into YUV colourspace of the normaly "pristine" RGB signal
path also gives the manufacturer an opportunity to sabotage the RGB
signal in a similar way to the composite one.This means high frequency
filtering ( crap noise reduction) non-uniform colour representation
(red-push/blue push/green push flesh tone manipulation) Scan Velocity
Modulation (overly aggressive sharpening technique which distorts the
picture).
And of course the problems associated with fast motion.
Benefits : less percievable flicker (if you sit a 100Hz tv next to a
50Hz TV): less obvious line structure on zoomed material. (read that as
blurry).
50Hz disadvantages: possible percievable flicker in bright areas.
(525/60 material ie region1 dvd does not suffer from this at all in my
opinion) Fairly obvious line structure on zoomed material (525/60 worse
than 625/50 of course)
Advantages: none of the above problems associated with 100Hz.
I sit in front of a hi-res prog scanned monitor all day and I don't have
a problem with 50Hz flicker when I watch TV in the evenings.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
David Perry
<ga...@STOPSPAMramar.co.uk> writes:
>A 100Hz set will digitally sample all video inputs, probably with a 8 bit
>Analogue to digital converter.
Some TVs have used 7bit ADC.
> Your DVD player will have a 10 bit digital to analague converter.
The video data is 8bit on the DVD. This is dithered to 10bit with the
intention of improving the dynamic range and reduce quantisation errors which
can cause posterisation and noise.
>This will mean that very smooth subtle changes of colour in an image will
>have be shown with distinct steps. This is like a computer image where not
>enough colour resolution is used and is called posterisation.
Not in all cases but is fairly typical and varies from TV to TV even if they
all use 8bit ADC, DAC.
>On a 50Hz set, the RGB input will have a straight path to the tube. A 100Hz
>set will sample it, process it to allow colour control etc then reconvert it
>to analogue then on to the tube guns.
Some 50Hz TVs also have digital chassis.
Try the Philips 36PW9525 or 32PW9525 which use 9bit triple ADCs.
pli...@my-deja.com
Ideally you need 16bit.
None do.
David Perry
>12bit frame buffers.
>Ideally you need 16bit.
>None do.
The Metz Artos uses 16bit buffers, component 4:2:2 format. However, as the
ADCs are 8bit the posterization is still a problem but colour resolution is
very good. The most impressive 100Hz TV I have seen in this respect. All
other TVs I know of use 4:1:1 sample format which throws away 50% of the colour
resolution from RGB or component sources such as DTV and DVD.
The capture of the input at greater than 8bit is the most important stage, the
use of 8bit within the rest of the processing shouldn't cause undue problems
provided they don't start messing with the grey scale.
The Philips TVs I mentioned (PW9525 range) use 9bit ADC 4:4:4 format then
convert to 8bit 4:1:1 for processing and then output via 10bit 4:4:4 format via
dither and interpolation.
pli...@my-deja.com
willia...@my-deja.com
Does this explain why on my Panasonic TX36PF10 I sometimes see a series of
what are effectivelyvery feint vertical bars covering the screen with
slightly different colour shading (about 10 across the screen)?. I only
notice them with analogue TV - particularly with football. It is almost as
though there is image on top of the picture which remains static. A loss in
colour resolution on an image which is fairly constant in colour - eg sky or
grass would have an effect like this but why does it produce perfect bars.
This is my 3rd set so it does appear to be an inherent "feature".
Any Thoughts ?
Thanks
William
In article <8ubpqu$l9v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
willia...@my-deja.com
gareth young
"Declan Higgins" <dhig...@NO-SPAM-HEREmy-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8FE5E661Cdhig...@62.253.162.102...
>
> I was thinking in terms of the Sony 32fx60 or 32fx65 but various dealers
> have tried to persuade me that 50Hz is a better option. They say that
> 100Hz is cack for fast moving material (football/car racing etc).
>
> Is the the 100Hz or is the the Digital processing. If it is the digital
> processing can this not be switched off ?
>
>
> I plan to watch a alot of DVDs - should this affect my decision ?
>
> If this is all mentioned in a FAQ somewhere then please point it out to
> me.
>
> Thanks in advance ....
>
speaking personally i always leave my sony fq75 switched to 50hz as it just
seems better that way.
--
Gareth.
that fly.....is your magic wand.
Carlo
something wrong. As for terrestial reception there are a number of draw back
which u have to weigh up
Also if u get a large (32 and bigger) widescreen u ought to really go for
100hz
Also if u buy 50Hz you will always have that doubt.
I accept some (minor) problems with 100hs. but whe watching DVDs through my
home cinema setup they are flawless at 50Hz ???
Carlo
Declan Higgins <dhig...@NO-SPAM-HEREmy-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8FE5E661Cdhig...@62.253.162.102...
>
> I'm wrestling with the problem of choosing a 32" widescreen TV.
> I was thinking in terms of the Sony 32fx60 or 32fx65 but various dealers
> have tried to persuade me that 50Hz is a better option. They say that
> 100Hz is cack for fast moving material (football/car racing etc).
>
> Is the the 100Hz or is the the Digital processing. If it is the digital
> processing can this not be switched off ?
>
>
> I plan to watch a alot of DVDs - should this affect my decision ?
>
> If this is all mentioned in a FAQ somewhere then please point it out to
> me.
>
> Thanks in advance ....
>
> Declan
Declan Higgins
<973677207.12657.0...@news.demon.co.uk>:
>Declan Higgins wrote in message
><8FE5E661Cdhig...@62.253.162.102>...
>>
>>I'm wrestling with the problem of choosing a 32" widescreen TV.
>>I was thinking in terms of the Sony 32fx60 or 32fx65 but various
>>dealers have tried to persuade me that 50Hz is a better option. They
>>say that 100Hz is cack for fast moving material (football/car racing
>>etc).
>>
>>Is the the 100Hz or is the the Digital processing. If it is the digital
>>processing can this not be switched off ?
>>
>>
>>I plan to watch a alot of DVDs - should this affect my decision ?
>>
>>If this is all mentioned in a FAQ somewhere then please point it out to
>>me.
>>
>>Thanks in advance ....
>>
>
>
>A 100Hz set will digitally sample all video inputs, probably with a 8
>bit Analogue to digital converter. Your DVD player will have a 10 bit
>digital to analague converter.
>
>This will mean that very smooth subtle changes of colour in an image
>will have be shown with distinct steps. This is like a computer image
>where not enough colour resolution is used and is called posterisation.
>
>On a 50Hz set, the RGB input will have a straight path to the tube. A
>100Hz set will sample it, process it to allow colour control etc then
>reconvert it to analogue then on to the tube guns.
>
>I gave up on my Panasonic 100Hz and replaced it with a cheaper 50Hz
>which I now think is much better.
>
>100Hz maybe better in the future when high quality A/Ds become cheaper
>but for now I personally prefer a solid 50Hz set. I don't notice any
>flicker!
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Well - I went and auditioned a few sets today. As usual the sales
assistant was completely biased towards brand <X> (this time Panasonic)
and implied that all other sets were very inferior by comparison.
I had been thinking on the Sony 32fx60 but he put me off it by demoing
the zoom modes. In comparison to the panasonic (tx32pk20) 'just' mode the
sony seemed to lose alot more of the original picture.
He maintained that the 100Hz picture from the Panasonic did not show any
trails etc with sports etc. He pointed me at the Dec 2000 review of the
tx32pk20 in What tv & video mag which gave it 10/10 for picture.
Can anyone else comment on this model ?
Juha Laurila
Carlo wrote:
> DVDs on 100HZ are awesome.
As I understand,
1. DVD's on 100Hz are awsome
2. Analogue tv on 100Hz is bad.
Based on these two, I make two assumpitons:
1. VHS on 100Hz is bad
2. Digi-tv on 100Hz is awsome.
Am I right?
-Juha
Double Doom
"Juha Laurila" <jula...@st.jyu.fi> wrote in message
news:3A0A81B8...@st.jyu.fi...
No, but not far off.
100hz on a with a good quality source, will show a fantastic picture.
100hz with a poor quality source, will potentially have a worse picture than
the 50hz equivalent.
You will find that 100hz sets make the errors and artefacts stand out more
than a 50hz set. So, although digital tv should, in theory, look great on
100hz sets, the channels which have high compression will actually appear
worse on a 100hz set.
As for DVDs, yes, they look awesome on 100hz.
David
Damo
like the Sony KV32FQ75? You know your covered then.
--
Damo
de...@thatgrin.delsen.freeserve.co.uk
(Wipe thatgrin. off before replying)
In article <8FE5E661Cdhig...@62.253.162.102>,
dhig...@NO-SPAM-HEREmy-deja.com (Declan Higgins) wrote:
>
> I'm wrestling with the problem of choosing a 32" widescreen TV.
> I was thinking in terms of the Sony 32fx60 or 32fx65 but various
dealers
> have tried to persuade me that 50Hz is a better option. They say that
> 100Hz is cack for fast moving material (football/car racing etc).
>
> Is the the 100Hz or is the the Digital processing. If it is the
digital
> processing can this not be switched off ?
>
> I plan to watch a alot of DVDs - should this affect my decision ?
>
> If this is all mentioned in a FAQ somewhere then please point it out
to
> me.
>
> Thanks in advance ....
>
> Declan
> --
> Remember to remove NO-SPAM-HERE from my email address if replying
>
pli...@my-deja.com
"Carlo" <c_saltal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> DVDs on 100HZ are awesome. No one can dispute that and if they do
they got
> something wrong.
A couple of us just did and explained our position far better than you
matey boy.
Simon Pocock
"David Perry" <dperr...@aol.com.NJM> wrote in message
news:20001108074249...@nso-da.aol.com...
improvement over the older 100Hz sets which only used 6bit ADCs
--
Simon.
Carlo
Sky is not bad but not as good as DVD
Juha Laurila <jula...@st.jyu.fi> wrote in message
news:3A0A81B8...@st.jyu.fi...
>
>
> Carlo wrote:
>
> > DVDs on 100HZ are awesome.
>
Carlo
<pli...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8uedn5$qv1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
pli...@my-deja.com
"Carlo" <c_saltal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Yes but sometimes people just need it in plain old english
>
> <pli...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
OK then 100Hz degrades the available image quality off the source.
And some people wouldn't know a decent picture if it bit them on the
arse and will constantly argue that black is white in order to justify
their bad purchase decisions.
pli...@my-deja.com
Damo <del...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Why not get yourself a set a that provides both 50Hz and 100Hz modes,
> like the Sony KV32FQ75? You know your covered then.
>
> --
> Damo
That will probably fix some of the motion issues as long as the DRC is
reasonable enough. But you're still looking at crushed bit-depth. Its
not switching off the Analogue to digital sampling stage.
Stan The Man
>In article <8uf1kr$vg4$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Carlo" <c_saltal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Yes but sometimes people just need it in plain old english
>>
>> <pli...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
>OK then 100Hz degrades the available image quality off the source.
>
>And some people wouldn't know a decent picture if it bit them on the
>arse and will constantly argue that black is white in order to justify
>their bad purchase decisions.
>
>
Quite. Interpolation MUST degrade the image and 100Hz is interpolated.
Stan
--
Stan The Man
+++Naked Under This Macintosh+++
DELETE X if replying
David Perry
writes:
>In article <8ugha5$k45$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, <pli...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <8uf1kr$vg4$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>,
>> "Carlo" <c_saltal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Yes but sometimes people just need it in plain old english
>>>
>>> <pli...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>
>>OK then 100Hz degrades the available image quality off the source.
>>
>>And some people wouldn't know a decent picture if it bit them on the
>>arse and will constantly argue that black is white in order to justify
>>their bad purchase decisions.
>>
>>
>Quite. Interpolation MUST degrade the image and 100Hz is interpolated.
Only if you use a zoom mode of some sort.
Damo
without an ADC. Be that good or bad.
--
Damo
de...@thatgrin.delsen.freeserve.co.uk
(Wipe thatgrin. off before replying)
In article <8ughea$kbs$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
pli...@my-deja.com
Damo <del...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> No, but lets face it, some day soon you won't be able to buy a TV
> without an ADC. Be that good or bad.
>
> --
> Damo
And one day soon you'll be able to shag Marilyn Monroe doggy style in
all its holographic beauty...
Until then and until domestic manufacturers learn a bit about imaging
science I'll stick with my lovely 50Hz PK1.
stuart.hutchinson
<pli...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8urd20$s45$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Carlo
which u have to weigh up
Also if u get a large (32 and bigger) widescreen u ought to really go for
100hz
Also if u buy 50Hz you will always have that doubt.
home cinema setup they are flawless. At 50Hz ???
Carlo
pli...@my-deja.com
"Carlo" <c_saltal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> DVDs on 100HZ are awesome. No one can dispute that and if they do
>they got something wrong.
I just did and I haven't got anything wrong. I perform ADA image
conversions day in day out for the motion picture film industry. I know
inadequate bit-depth when I see it and its there on every single 100Hz
TV. Why take a video image and screw it up purely to make it a bit more
stable. It might be "stable" but its mushed to hell.
>As for terrestial reception there are a >number of drawbacks which u
>have to weigh up
> Also if u get a large (32 and bigger) widescreen u ought to really go
>for 100hz
I have a 32" 50Hz widescreen and it blows away my previous 100Hz 32"
widescreen.
>Also if u buy 50Hz you will always have that doubt.
What doubt? Doubt that you have a nice clean picture or doubt that you
might be talking out your ass?
> I accept some (minor) problems with 100hz. but when watching DVDs
>through my home cinema setup they are flawless. At 50Hz ???
> Carlo
Just contradicted yourself go away and content yourself with your
"flawless" home cinema. All I can say is that you are easily pleased.
Next time how about backing your statements up with a bit of info
instead of spouting your opinions to all and sundry.
Juha Laurila
pli...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I just did and I haven't got anything wrong. I perform ADA image
> conversions day in day out for the motion picture film industry. I know
> inadequate bit-depth when I see it and its there on every single 100Hz
> TV. Why take a video image and screw it up purely to make it a bit more
> stable. It might be "stable" but its mushed to hell.
You seem to know what you're saying.
I'll be watching watching DVD-movies and Digi-TV with a 50Hz or a 100Hz
Panasonic TAU tv, which I'll be buying soon. I can't notice any flickering
of image in a 50Hz tv, so are there any good reasons for me to go for
100Hz?
-Juha
Stan The Man
<jula...@st.jyu.fi> wrote:
>
>I'll be watching watching DVD-movies and Digi-TV with a 50Hz or a 100Hz
>Panasonic TAU tv, which I'll be buying soon. I can't notice any flickering
>of image in a 50Hz tv, so are there any good reasons for me to go for
>100Hz?
I don't know about DVD but I watch Sky Digital all the time on my 50hz
Panasonic Tau 28in and the picture is superb. I was very prepared to
pay the extra for the 100hz and I researched long and hard looking at
the two side by side in every showroom I could find. It was very clear
to me that the 50hz picture was superior to the 100hz for digital
transmissions (and I assume that this would be true for all digital
images, including DVD, which arrive at your set in already highly
compressed and interpolated form and cannot logically be improved by
further interpolation - which is what is applied to convert from 50 to
100hz).
My comparison of terrestial pictures gave the opposite result. Because
the conversion from alalogue to digital is being done once only, the
100hz set produced a better and more stable picture. But I don't watch
terrestial TV.
The previous poster appears to have no axe to grind either way and
seems to know what he's talking about.
A.Hodgkinson
> I'll be watching watching DVD-movies and Digi-TV with a 50Hz or a
> 100Hz Panasonic TAU tv, which I'll be buying soon. I can't notice
> any flickering of image in a 50Hz tv, so are there any good reasons
> for me to go for 100Hz?
Not that I can think of; for equivalent tube quality the 100Hz TV
*should* be significantly more expensive and, flicker reduction
aside, exhibit inferior picture quality. Watch out for 50Hz TVs
with framestores for gimmicks like freeze frame, mind.
Oh, and if you're into games that use light guns or similar
devices, they'll work on a 50Hz TV, but fail on the 100Hz...
--
TTFN, Andrew (on behalf of myself, not my employer).
"Hold tight, lad, and think of Lancashire Hotpot!" - A Grand Day Out
pli...@my-deja.com
>
> I'll be watching watching DVD-movies and Digi-TV with a 50Hz or a
100Hz
> Panasonic TAU tv, which I'll be buying soon. I can't notice any
flickering
> of image in a 50Hz tv, so are there any good reasons for me to go for
> 100Hz?
>
> -Juha
>
Only if you want to degrade the available quality from your source. Stay
with 50Hz. Flicker is easy to live with. 100Hz artifacts are evil once
you see tham you will ALWAYS see them. The 50Hz Tau and Wegas are good
sets. My preference is for the Panasonics. The DK1 is good the PK1 is
great but a bit pricier and thin on the ground now.
John Wallace
>Just contradicted yourself go away and content yourself with your
>"flawless" home cinema. All I can say is that you are easily pleased.
>Next time how about backing your statements up with a bit of info
>instead of spouting your opinions to all and sundry.
Next time how about you learn how to debate and to compose a civilised
response, rather than perpetuating the usenet playground?
John
pli...@my-deja.com
>
> Next time how about you learn how to debate and to compose a civilised
> response, rather than perpetuating the usenet playground?
>
> John
>
How about you go show your Grandmother how to suck eggs.
Carlo
The sort of I got a bigger penis than you.
<pli...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8utmer$q2b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8us7od$g9d$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Carlo" <c_saltal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > DVDs on 100HZ are awesome. No one can dispute that and if they do
> >they got something wrong.
>
> I just did and I haven't got anything wrong. I perform ADA image
> conversions day in day out for the motion picture film industry. I know
> inadequate bit-depth when I see it and its there on every single 100Hz
> TV. Why take a video image and screw it up purely to make it a bit more
> stable. It might be "stable" but its mushed to hell.
>
> >As for terrestial reception there are a >number of drawbacks which u
> >have to weigh up
> > Also if u get a large (32 and bigger) widescreen u ought to really go
> >for 100hz
>
> I have a 32" 50Hz widescreen and it blows away my previous 100Hz 32"
> widescreen.
>
> >Also if u buy 50Hz you will always have that doubt.
>
> What doubt? Doubt that you have a nice clean picture or doubt that you
> might be talking out your ass?
>
> > I accept some (minor) problems with 100hz. but when watching DVDs
> >through my home cinema setup they are flawless. At 50Hz ???
> > Carlo
>
> Just contradicted yourself go away and content yourself with your
> "flawless" home cinema. All I can say is that you are easily pleased.
> Next time how about backing your statements up with a bit of info
> instead of spouting your opinions to all and sundry.
>
>
Double Doom
<pli...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8utmer$q2b$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <8us7od$g9d$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Carlo" <c_saltal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > DVDs on 100HZ are awesome. No one can dispute that and if they do
> >they got something wrong.
>
> I just did and I haven't got anything wrong. I perform ADA image
> conversions day in day out for the motion picture film industry. I know
> inadequate bit-depth when I see it and its there on every single 100Hz
> TV. Why take a video image and screw it up purely to make it a bit more
> stable. It might be "stable" but its mushed to hell.
This is turning into another slanging match, which always happens when we
discuss 50hz vs 100hz.
I have a 100hz set and a 50hz set in a different room. Both good models.
At times, I would prefer to watch the 50hz set and other times the 100hz set
is better. I put this down to the quality of the transmission. 100hz sets
look worse on poor recordings/transmissions than a 50hz set but with a good
quality transmission/recording 100hz is better than the 50hz. This is of
course my opinion and how I view it.
It is best to repeat what has been said before.
Check out both and make your own mind up. Some people prefer 100hz, others
50hz. There are times when 50hz will give the best picture and times when
100hz will give the best picture. If you sit close to the tv, you will
almost certainly be better with 50hz, the further back you go, the better
the 100hz picture becomes (due to flicker, which not everyone can see so
this could be a irrelevant to you). 100hz sets seem to suffer with worse
factory default settings than 50hz sets so don't always rely on the tv shop
setting it up right.
David
ViNNY
Artificially adding 50 fields per second is guesswork on the part of the
TV - it's no different to turning your colour, contrast and brightness to
max. It might look "better" to you, but it isn't realistic.
-Vin
Allen Legg
Am I right in thinking Normal, DRC 50 & DRC 100, cover the usual Hz
Ratings? Or is DRC 50 not the same as 50Hz?
Anyway..... As long as your happy I guess......
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000 20:38:44 -0000, "Carlo"
<c_saltal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>DVDs on 100HZ are awesome. No one can dispute that and if they do they got
>something wrong. As for terrestial reception there are a number of draw
>backs
>which u have to weigh up
>Also if u get a large (32 and bigger) widescreen u ought to really go for
>100hz
>Also if u buy 50Hz you will always have that doubt.
>I accept some (minor) problems with 100hz. but when watching DVDs through my
>home cinema setup they are flawless. At 50Hz ???
>Carlo
>
><pli...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8urd20$s45$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> In article <8uh12t$vvp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
>> Damo <del...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> > No, but lets face it, some day soon you won't be able to buy a TV
>> > without an ADC. Be that good or bad.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Damo
>>
>> And one day soon you'll be able to shag Marilyn Monroe doggy style in
>> all its holographic beauty...
>>
>> Until then and until domestic manufacturers learn a bit about imaging
>> science I'll stick with my lovely 50Hz PK1.
>>
>>
David Perry
<allen...@btinternet.com> writes:
>Perhaps TV's should come with the option like the Sony Wega's
>
>Am I right in thinking Normal, DRC 50 & DRC 100, cover the usual Hz
>Ratings? Or is DRC 50 not the same as 50Hz?
>
DRC50 mode is 50Hz interlaced
DRC100 is 100Hz interlaced
DRC50 generates 4 pixels for every 1 input pixel
DRC100 generates 2 pixels for every 1 input pixel (actually uses the same
addrssing system as DRC50 but truncates the pixel output)
Although in both modes the output format of the DRC system is addressible by
the display electronics, all the pixels are not realised on the screen of any
CRT TV or RPTV or LCD TV or Plasma TV or any video grade projector.
David Perry
writes:
The extra 50 fields are not artificially generated they are simply repeated
fields, that is the main cause of motion judder and blurring in 100Hz TVs.
Yes, by the strict definition of the term interpolation these inserted extra
fields are interpolated but are not artificially generated.
'Artificial' interpolated image pixels are generated when using the many types
of zoom modes designed to make 4:3 images fit the 16:9 shape of widescreen TVs.
pli...@my-deja.com
"Carlo" <c_saltal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dont we all just hate a smart ass who thinks he knows it all.
> The sort of I got a bigger penis than you.
>
There we go pathetic epithets: last recourse of a dying man.
And certainly in comparrison to you Carlo I do know it all but of course
comparitively thats not saying much.
Something you seem very familiar with.
John Wallace
>.
>>
>> Next time how about you learn how to debate and to compose a civilised
>> response, rather than perpetuating the usenet playground?
>>
>> John
>>
>
>How about you go show your Grandmother how to suck eggs.
Q.E.D.
John
A.Hodgkinson
<URL:mailto:dperr...@aol.com.NJM> wrote:
> In article <3a12e...@d2o313.teliauk.com>, "ViNNY" <vi...@ultramail.co.uk>
> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > Artificially adding 50 fields per second is guesswork on the part of
> > the TV - it's no different to turning your colour, contrast and
> > brightness to max. It might look "better" to you, but it isn't
> > realistic.
>
> The extra 50 fields are not artificially generated they are simply
> repeated fields, that is the main cause of motion judder and
> blurring in 100Hz TVs.
As we've already discussed at length, this is not the case except in
some rare sets that offer an ABAB repeat mode. Nearly all 100Hz sets
at least default to a motion tracking repeat mode which involves
interpolation, since video-based sources allow motion between
interlace fields which defeats simple alternating field repeat
approaches. These would be ideal for film sourced DVDs, of course.
Sets which repeat each field twice before moving onto the field,
AABB-style, are not generating frames, but they are not reducing
line twitter either - it's almost a 50Hz simulation mode - so you
don't even benefit from this most invasive flicker aspect of 50Hz
TVs. You only get the whole-display flicker reduction, which isn't
what seems to bother the majority of people, and introduce blurring
into horizontal motion with it [1]. AABB is mostly a waste of time,
and only typically present because the interpolation used in the
other modes are sufficiently invasive and disturbing with the right
material that a lot users will want an option to switch it off.
> Yes, by the strict definition of the term interpolation these
> inserted extra fields are interpolated but are not artificially
> generated.
In anything other than simple field doubling, they *are* artifically
generated. 100Hz TVs contain some remarkably sophisticated tricks,
but they're only partially effective and the crummy DACs and ADCs
used are what really screw the end result up.
Regardless of field repeat mode, bit depth crushing is the primary
reason a 100Hz picture can *never* match 50Hz, unless the set
manufaturer has seen fit to provide 10-bit ADCs to an appropriately
deep framestore. Examples are between rare and non-existant. This
is why 50Hz gets such a strong recommendation from me, anyway.
All IMHO, I guess, though the technical stuff is factual - E&OE ;-)
[1] An odd perceptual effect that I've never been entirely clear
on; surely you're showing each field for 1/25 sec in the right
place in 100Hz AABB mode, just like 50Hz, so why does it seem
to blur / judder when there is definitely no image processing?
pli...@my-deja.com
> Regardless of field repeat mode, bit depth crushing is the primary
> reason a 100Hz picture can *never* match 50Hz, unless the set
> manufaturer has seen fit to provide 10-bit ADCs to an appropriately
> deep framestore. Examples are between rare and non-existant. This
> is why 50Hz gets such a strong recommendation from me, anyway.
>
God damn right!
Simon Pocock
"David Perry" <dperr...@aol.com.NJM> wrote in message
> >news:20001110085037...@nso-cr.aol.com...
> >>> In article <101120001231561681%ma...@mac.comX>, Stan The Man
> ><ma...@mac.comX>
> >> writes:
> >>
> >>>Quite. Interpolation MUST degrade the image and 100Hz is interpolated.
> >>
> >> Only if you use a zoom mode of some sort.
> >
> >TV - it's no different to turning your colour, contrast and brightness to
> >max. It might look "better" to you, but it isn't realistic.
>
> The extra 50 fields are not artificially generated they are simply
repeated
> fields, that is the main cause of motion judder and blurring in 100Hz TVs.
extra
> fields are interpolated but are not artificially generated.
>
the system tries to smooth out the inherent judder that the simple field
repeat systems use.
> 'Artificial' interpolated image pixels are generated when using the many
types
> of zoom modes designed to make 4:3 images fit the 16:9 shape of widescreen
TVs.
>
It's only done on a line basis to fill in the 'missing' lines, the 'pixels'
are stetched horizontally.
--
Simon.
David Perry
<andrew.h...@pace.co.uk> writes:
>[1] An odd perceptual effect that I've never been entirely clear
> on; surely you're showing each field for 1/25 sec in the right
> place in 100Hz AABB mode, just like 50Hz, so why does it seem
> to blur / judder when there is definitely no image processing?
Your brain is expecting a moving object to be in a different place for each
frame or field picture it is presented with as it tries to track the motion.
For film material, say at 25fps, a moving object will be in a new position
every 25th of a second yet on a 100Hz TV the brain is presented with that
moving object 100 times per second so as it tracks the expected natural motion
trajectory it will expect that object to have moved every 100th of a second.
However, that object still has only 25 motion phases so the brain is presented
with each motion phase in the same place for 4 images which it can't assimilate
readily and the resultant psycho-visual phenomenon is judder and blur, a sort
of multiple imaging of motion or smearing of edges of moving image areas or
objects.
It is not an artefact that can be eliminated unless new true motion phases are
generated to replace those repeat images.
Most 100Hz TVs use simple AABB repeating of fields to pad out the 100Hz output,
they may then use fixed or adaptive filters to supress impulses and transitions
in the image so as to reduce the remaining 50Hz interline twitter. This
function can usually be turned off on many TVs.
Other approaches (less common) may use temporal averaging to reduce interline
twitter and the algorithm may be called motion adaptive in that it monitors the
luminance changes within thresholds from field to field but does not actually
track motion, it simply adapts its interpolation to reduce artifacts in areas
where there have been significant luminance changes between fields. This is
really a half hearted standards conversion of the field rate without proper
consideration of vertical-temporal correlation and true motion from frame to
frame of field to field. It will in most cases smooth images in certain
circumstances but will also cause additional blurring and sawtooth artifacts on
edges in motion.
Declan Higgins
on 15 Nov 2000 dperr...@aol.com.NJM (David Perry) burbled in
<20001115160054...@nso-cr.aol.com>:
>In article <3a12e...@d2o313.teliauk.com>, "ViNNY"
><vi...@ultramail.co.uk> writes:
>
>>"David Perry" <dperr...@aol.com.NJM> wrote in message
>>news:20001110085037...@nso-cr.aol.com...
>>>> In article <101120001231561681%ma...@mac.comX>, Stan The Man
>><ma...@mac.comX>
>>> writes:
>>>
>>>>Quite. Interpolation MUST degrade the image and 100Hz is
>>>>interpolated.
>>>
>>> Only if you use a zoom mode of some sort.
>>
>>Artificially adding 50 fields per second is guesswork on the part of
>>the TV - it's no different to turning your colour, contrast and
>>brightness to max. It might look "better" to you, but it isn't
>>realistic.
>
>The extra 50 fields are not artificially generated they are simply
>repeated fields, that is the main cause of motion judder and blurring in
>100Hz TVs. Yes, by the strict definition of the term interpolation these
>inserted extra fields are interpolated but are not artificially
>generated.
>
>'Artificial' interpolated image pixels are generated when using the many
>types of zoom modes designed to make 4:3 images fit the 16:9 shape of
>widescreen TVs.
>
>
>
Point taken that the image is digitally processed on 100Hz tvs ->
loss,reduction in quality.
But is it not similar to the 'loss' in quantisation of audio
on CD. While technically inferior to LPs most people cannot tell the
difference and a fair percentage will in fact say that CD is better.
--
Remember to remove NO-SPAM-HERE from my email address if replying
pli...@my-deja.com
>
> Point taken that the image is digitally processed on 100Hz tvs ->
> loss,reduction in quality.
> But is it not similar to the 'loss' in quantisation of audio
> on CD. While technically inferior to LPs most people cannot tell the
> difference and a fair percentage will in fact say that CD is better.
> --
> Remember to remove NO-SPAM-HERE from my email address if replying
>
No its more like taking a CD and MP3ing the analogue output then
recording the analogue output off the MP3 onto CD and listening to that
on your CD player rather than the original source CD.
Gav
Actually the quantization analogy was closer to the truth.
Heres my shot at an analogy: Its like taking a 16 bit audio .wav file
ripped from a Minidisc and quantizing it to 14bit (you can try this with
an audio editor to hear the effects)
Remember - most source material in a home cinema system will likely
be off DVD or some sort of digital TV broadcast (satellite or
terrestrial) so its already been quantized _and_ been through a lossy
compression process at some stage in the cycle before it reaches the TV
inputs.
The point is, its the relatively low resolution of the ADCs in the
telly thats at fault (as I believe you were originally saying).
Gavan
--
Highlander: There should have been only one.............
Double Doom
<pepto...@lycosmail.com> wrote in message
news:srha3toapql8mlprs...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 15 Nov 2000 13:48:22 GMT, pli...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Stay
> >with 50Hz. Flicker is easy to live with.
>
> it very informative and when I buy my next tv I will go with a 50 Hz
> set because of what I have read.
>
> Unfortunately my old tv went on the blink at the weekend and I may
> have to get that new tv sooner than I thought. This could be a
> blessing in disguise as I have been meaning to get a big widescreen
> tv. I am normally very sensitive to layer changes, lip sync, etc so I
> think I will probably notice the flicker; especially now that I have
> been told to look for it! Is this apparent on all 50Hz tvs or is it
> only noticeable on larger tvs? I am just wondering why I have never
> noticed it before? Perhaps it is just because I did not know it was
> there to look for?
>
> Also, what widescreen sets do you recommend? In this thread Panasonic
> have been mentioned and the ones I have seen in show rooms have looked
> good.
>
> thanks.
100hz vs 50hz comes down to personal taste. I have a 28" 50hz set and a
32" 100hz set and prefer the 100hz set much more.
100hz sets have the same factory setting defaults as their 50hz equivalent
model which they shouldn't. So if, for example, you leave digital noise
reduction on with a 100hz set you will reduce the picture quality. They can
take a bit more tweaking with the settings than a 50hz set. 100hz sets are
poorer if you have high brightness/contrast settings.
100hz sets do show up the faults in transmissions and recordings more than a
50hz set but if you get a good quality source, the 100hz set should show the
picture better than the 50hz set. DVD and 100hz sets are a dream match.
If you sit very close to the tv, you are probably better off with a 50hz.
The further back you go, the 100hz will appear to have a better picture.
50hz flicker is more noticeable the further back you go.
Go and take a look for yourself and do not be swayed by comments made by
individuals as everyone's eyes, viewing positions and how they have their tv
set up are different.
Personally, I prefer the Toshiba sets.
David
Siman
No ones right and wrong it's just personal preference and once I noticed the
flicker I can see it all the time on every TV.
A.Hodgkinson
<URL:mailto:b...@bob.net> wrote:
> Personally I'd go for 100hz, you can't see pixeling on my set hardly
> ever. No ones right and wrong it's just personal preference
Well, sort of. Audio from a CD is of lower noise and lower
distortion than audio from vinyl, but it isn't perfect, and the
artifacts it has mean some people prefer vinyl sound over CD.
It's vaguely analogous to 100Hz sets. There are sound and easily
understood reasons why the picture from a 100Hz set *must* be
worse than from an equivalent tube quality 50Hz set for an
interlaced video source, and they've been explained at length
here. Despite this, some people prefer 100Hz, as they find the
artifacts of 100Hz sets more bearable than those in 50Hz sets;
then again, maybe that's just because more people know what to
look for in 50Hz sets and if they ever recognised the awful
stuff their 100Hz set was doing, they'd hate it... =9*P
It's much less clear cut for progressive sources such as film
material, mind you.
Juha Laurila
Double Doom wrote:
> 100hz vs 50hz comes down to personal taste. I have a 28" 50hz set and a
> 32" 100hz set and prefer the 100hz set much more.
Me too. I spent hours comparing 50Hz and 100Hz tv's and I didn't see a real
difference between them. I liked the 100Hz slightly more and I bought it.
> 100hz sets do show up the faults in transmissions and recordings more than a
> 50hz set but if you get a good quality source, the 100hz set should show the
> picture better than the 50hz set. DVD and 100hz sets are a dream match.
But why do I keep hearing & reading that 100Hz and DVD doesn't look good. I saw
DVD's on a couple of 100Hz sets and I thought the picture was very good and
everyone here seems to like 100Hz & DVD. On the other hand, all dealers seem to
recommend 50Hz with DVD's and I've read that the filters that are in 100Hz sets
mess up with the very fine details in DVD source. Which way is it?
-Juha
John Wallace
<andrew.h...@pace.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <914uf4$js5$1...@soap.pipex.net>, Siman
><URL:mailto:b...@bob.net> wrote:
>
>> Personally I'd go for 100hz, you can't see pixeling on my set hardly
>> ever. No ones right and wrong it's just personal preference
>
>Well, sort of. Audio from a CD is of lower noise and lower
>distortion than audio from vinyl, but it isn't perfect, and the
>artifacts it has mean some people prefer vinyl sound over CD.
Which means, in other words, that it's just personal preference?
I listen to people banging on and on about the perils of 100hz
processing, and that is absolutely fine as far as they talk about
their own eyes. When they start trying to tell me what I am seeing in
my house, with my eyes and using my setup - you've just got to laugh.
>It's vaguely analogous to 100Hz sets. There are sound and easily
>understood reasons why the picture from a 100Hz set *must* be
>worse than from an equivalent tube quality 50Hz set for an
>interlaced video source, and they've been explained at length
>here.
Equally there are reasons why pictures from a 50hz set *must* look
worse than 100hz in other aspects, flicker for example. Throw in a
touch of personal preference, an ounce of personal tolerance levels,
several different sets, sourcesm lighting levels, cables and what have
you and you end up with an argument that is inconclusive whatever way
you look at it. The only people who are wrong are those who tell you
they are right.
John
Double Doom
Some people get an opinion and do not change that opinion even if the
technology moves on. 100hz sets when they first came out had a number of
problems. That is not necessarily the case now however.
Well, all I can say is that I have linked my dvd player up to the 50hz and
the 100hz set and the 100hz set wins hands down. However, if I have the
digital noise reduction filter turned on, with the 100hz set, the 50hz set
looks better. Many people view the sets as they are seen in the shop. If
the factory defaults are crap, then what do you expect to see.
I would recommend, again, that you go and view for yourself and make your
own mind up without any prejudice.
It could be that the people in here that prefer 100hz sets are willing to
spend the time to set up the tv correctly. Those that keep the brightness
and colours etc on the high factory defaults will not get a decent picture
on their 100hz set.
David
A.Hodgkinson
<URL:mailto:djd....@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Some people get an opinion and do not change that opinion even if
> the technology moves on. 100hz sets when they first came out had a
> number of problems. That is not necessarily the case now
> however.
It is, since many broadcasts are still at 50 fields/sec, not 25
frame/sec, and as long as there can be motion between the fields
the same fundamental reason why 100Hz sets are stuffed exists. A
100Hz set must invent picture information.
David Perry
<andrew.h...@pace.co.uk> writes:
>In article <FntZ5.40699$eT4.3...@nnrp3.clara.net>, Double Doom
><URL:mailto:djd....@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> Some people get an opinion and do not change that opinion even if
>> the technology moves on. 100hz sets when they first came out had a
>> number of problems. That is not necessarily the case now
>> however.
>
>It is, since many broadcasts are still at 50 fields/sec, not 25
>frame/sec, and as long as there can be motion between the fields
>the same fundamental reason why 100Hz sets are stuffed exists. A
>100Hz set must invent picture information.
Why?
A.Hodgkinson
<URL:mailto:dperr...@aol.com.NJM> wrote:
Oh well, here we go again... =8*P
Suppose a tennis ball travels on-screen from the bottom left hand to
top right hand corner of the screen. It takes 3/50ths of a second to
do this. The broadcaster is using standard, interlaced video cameras
to transmit the pictures.
The 50 Hz set does this:
Time (s) Field Picture
0.00 1st Tennis ball in bottom left hand corner
0.02 2nd Tennis ball in middle of screen
0.04 3rd Tennis ball in top right hand corner
0.06 4th Bright flash - a spectator takes a flash photo
0.08...
A 100Hz set, in its most crude form, would just repeat each field
twice. But this doesn't eliminate flicker; line twitter will still
happen as the fields are still alternating odd-even 25 times a
second, which is visible. So the 100Hz manufacturer makes the set
digitise the two fields. The first field is shown, then the second,
then the first again, then the second, then we move onto the next
frame.
So our simple anti-twitter 100Hz set does this:
Time (s) Field Picture
0.00 1st Tennis ball in bottom left hand corner
0.01 2nd Tennis ball in middle of screen
0.02 1st Tennis ball (back) in bottom left hand corner
0.03 2nd Tennis ball in middle of screen
0.04 3rd Tennis ball in top right hand corner
0.05 4th Bright flash - a spectator takes a flash photo
0.06 3rd Tennis ball in top right hand corner
0.07 4th Bright flash (again) - spectator takes photo
0.08...
Oh dear. That's obviously totally broken; the ball moves forwards,
then backwards, then jumps forward, and then there's a double flash
from the photograph that someone took. Disaster.
Possible solutions:
1) Give up and just show field 1, field 1, field 2, field 2. Yes,
you *do* elimintate persistence based full-frame flicker, which
normally you can best see out of the corner of your eye if the
whole screen is a bright colour, especially all white. But this
doesn't elimiate the real killer, 25Hz line twitter, which gets
more important the larger the TV, since the scan lines are
physically taller. You'll also make stuff look juddery because
of the psychoperceptual effects of viewing a scanned device;
the brain expects motion between the pictures, but instead it
sees the same thing twice. This is what causes the "blurring"
effect you see with things like horizontal scrolling credits when
100Hz TVs are put into what they call "50Hz mode", but still scan
at 100Hz.
2) Ignore the artifacts and hope everyone uses progressive sources.
Here, the 1st and 2nd interlace fields all come from the same
picture - there's no motion between the two. This would work
really well, and look great, but unfortunately very few TVs offer
such a simple mode because if you had any interlaced video shown,
it'd look awful, as demonstrated, and users can't be trusted to
switch it themselves rather than just complain the TV is broken.
3) Use method (1), and run a vertical flicker filter - literally,
blur the display vertically. Similar kinds of things to reduce
flicker to acceptable levels is in theory done at the broadcast
end or the mastering end (for e.g. DVDs) but people still see
a flicker. Anyway, this blurs the display; bad. Some TVs do this
all the same... You often can't turn it off. We had a Phillips
TV in the office for ages which would show a fairly flickery
static picture for about half a second, then you'd see an anti
flicker (blur!) filter run across the screen when the TV decided
there was no motion so it could get away with it.
4) The final and commonly used solution is to interpolate between
the fields. So you show the first field, then an interpolation
between fields 1 and 2, then the second, then interpolation
between 2 and 3, and so-on. There are some pretty sophisticated
motion tracking algorithms inside even relatively cheap 100Hz
sets, but this can be easily confused by noise, MPEG artifacts
(see below), things moving counterways (e.g. left hand scrolling
gameshow credits whilst the host walks to the right to chat to
the winning contestant). Anyway, you're inventing stuff that
doesn't exist in the original transmission.
The fact that (4) is the only remotely acceptable solution, assuming
it is used in conjunction with at least (3) and hoping that the TV
offers (2) as an option or could do (1) in true 50Hz rather than
pseudo-50Hz, is my answer to your question of "Why?".
That's the fundamental reason - interlaced video source cannot be
double scanned without artifacting. Meanwhile, there's the whole
issue of digitising the incoming video signal in order to repeat or
interpolate frames in the first place.
This can be a severe problem. It should be possible to do this with
minimal degredation, though there must be at least *some* even in
the best possible circuitry as there's a two stage conversion to
digital and back to analogue going on that a 50Hz set avoids.
Unfortunately cheapo DACs, ADCs and/or framestores plus odd
processing usually results in crushing of bit depth. The result is
posterisation - banding - effects on areas with similar tone, e.g.
clear skies, shiny metals e.g. clean cars, etc. and can be really
annoying.
Digital TV uses MPEG compression, and the blocking and posterisation
this produces to a greater or lesser degree depending on source
quality and transmission bit depth are one reason why you sometimes
see people say that 100Hz and DTV don't mix; the added posterisation
of the TV can amplify the original MPEG problems to a level where
they become obvious when before it'd be fine, and the moving edges
and blocks that a human can barely see can really confuse motion
tracking stuff in 100Hz sets and lead
What amazes me is that people say 100Hz plus DVD is a marriage made
in heaven, almost in the same breath as they say 100Hz plus DTV is a
problem. DVD uses the same compression scheme as MPEG, and judging
from some of the discs I own, artifact-less high bitrate pictures
are clearly not a foregone conclusion! I guess DVD is at least
typically sufficiently better than digital TV over Sky or Digital
Terrestrial, that the problems described above don't get hit.
If all of the above sounds fine to you and acceptable in place of
the flicker of a 50Hz set, then get a 100Hz one. That's fine.
At least now I've a nice long post I should be able to refer people
to via. Deja next time the question gets asked...! :-)
pli...@my-deja.com
Carlo
reflect on my purchase. Just but a 32" 100HZ not 50Hz and have done with
it. There are arguments against, but u will always regret if u dont buy
100hz and once u had 100Hz you can always tell the cheapskates with 50Hz.
Not only by the image but also because they are always waving the 50Hz flag.
A.Hodgkinson
<URL:mailto:c_saltal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [...] you can always tell the cheapskates with 50Hz. Not only by
> the image but also because they are always waving the 50Hz flag.
Kewl. Never been called a cheapskate before.
A.Hodgkinson
In article <ant13162...@ether228.cam.pace.co.uk>, A.Hodgkinson
<URL:mailto:andrew.h...@pace.co.uk> wrote:
> [...] and the moving edges and blocks that a human can barely see
> can really confuse motion tracking stuff in 100Hz sets and lead
...to an outbreak of people not finishing their sentences.
Ahem.
pli...@my-deja.com
You're the one who confuses Gladiator with Spartacus.
Very reliable opinions.
pli...@my-deja.com
on fact in addition to our eyes.
I had a 100Hz TV. From day one I found the picture vastly inferior to a
good 50Hz set for all the reason's we've stated.
I still maintain if you think a 100Hz image is superior to a quality
50Hz image then you wouldn't know a good picture if it bit you on the
arse.
Dave Cooper
>
> Those that keep the brightness and colours etc on the high factory
> defaults will not get a decent picture on their 100hz set.
>
> David
>
>
settings that in a typical livingroom give a 'garish' picture.
And yet in so many showrooms the TV's 'screen-mode' is wrongly set.
Personally I think the 100hz sets give a 'plastic' look to the images.
Regards, Dave C.
--
__ __ __ __ __ ___ _____________________________________________
|__||__)/ __/ \|\ ||_ | /StrongArm RiscPc (RISCOS4) PcCard ZFC & MAUG
| || \\__/\__/| \||__ |/RINGS:-Acorn,SFReview & Classical Music.Also
_________________________/Sci-Fi,DTP,Backdrops.Email d...@argonet.co.uk
Homepage-inc.freephotos http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/dac/index.html
Guy Dawson
Carlo wrote:
> Not only by the image but also because they are always waving the 50Hz flag.
The 50Hz owners are the ones playing Time Crisis on a PSX!
Guy
-- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Guy Dawson I.T. Manager Crossflight Ltd
g...@crossflight.co.uk 07973 797819 01753 776104
marantz_23
really want to see the difference between them, watch the copy right
text warning at the beginning of the disks. The 50Hz will flicker a
little around the letters and the 100Hz won't. But it all comes down to
personnel choice in the end. What's the point of shelling out for
something thats meant to be better if you can't see that it is better.
Simon
Stuart
whistle, then a 100hz set is inaudible.
Those that know how annoying a 50hz set can be, especially when your not
actually watching it, makes it a very good reason to go for 100hz.
Stuart
www.stu.org.uk
stuart.hutchinson
Stuart <stu...@stu.org.uk> wrote in message
news:92i5pb$7a8i9$1...@ID-17980.news.dfncis.de...