Too late, that one's already been asked too.1HandInMyPocket said:2 weeks into the new year and it's finally been asked. Now how soon till someone asks in the massage forum "where can I find a RMT that does a happy ending" .
120hz is an interesting thing. There's a diminishing return on everything above 30p (60 interlaced cycles, NTSC broadcast) as a matter of psychophysics. The deal is that films are typically ~24p and 60i output is achieved by spreading two images across five frames (3:2 pulldown), which causes a noticable stutter with things like camera panning. Since 24 goes into 120 pretty cleanly, this goes away.Spiker said:I'm in the market for a new LCD, thinking of a 46" Samsung. What is the verdict on the new 120hz models, is it worth the added cost? For normal TV viewing, movies, sports, no gaming is it better to just go basic 1080p or go all out?
It has nothing to do with the resolution and everything to do with the frame rate. The problem is that film doesn't divide evenly into traditional displays, producing a stutter, but this is corrected at 120hz. If you still don't understand, then you really do need to see it. It shouldn't do anything for cable/satellite broadcast, but should show up on Blu-ray, but don't quote me on that.Spiker said:I appreciate the response, not to be a smart ass but could you please try and explain this in layman's terms? Realistically, it doubles the cost of the set so it really merits some research. Also, given 1080i cable/satellite feeds, is there really any benefit? Will it be noticeable only on a blu-ray for example?
Cheers!