100Hz LCDs - are they worth it?
The latest spec to be thrown in to the LCD TV mix is the 100Hz refresh rate, but is it really worth the extra dough?
The 100Hz means the set will display a maximum of 100 frames per second - and there are sets which boast up to 200Hz refresh rates.
It's billed as an answer to choppy rapid movement scenes and enhanced fluidity, but from where I was standing, I couldn't really tell the difference between a standard LCD and a 100Hz display.
One issue with this feature is that sometimes you aren't receiving 100 frames per second from the source, which means the set compensates by adding intermediate frames or displaying the same frames more than once.
Many of the most common forms of media don't come close to 100Hz - Blu Ray disc media can be up to 60Hz, New Zealand's PAL TV system is 50Hz, a movie in the cinema is displayed at 24Hz and laptop monitors generally run at between 50Hz and 60Hz.
PS3 games run at between 30Hz and 60Hz, but recent news suggests a PS3 could run at up to 120Hz while generating 3D imagery.
The big questions, though, are how many frames per second do you need for something to become "smooth" and how far do you want to stray from the creator's original vision for the media?
As for how many frames per second the human eye is actually capable of detecting, that's another good question and an important one which is explored in depth at 100fps.com.
Most of these new models are generally coupled with motion-smoothing features which give the illusion of more frames and a smoother image - these include Sharp's "Fine Motion", Sony's "Motionflow" and many other variants.
These features work through motion interpolation - they create frames between those which are provided by the media to make it look more fluid. This can look a bit strange if the movie was originally filmed at 24Hz, which a vast majority of them were.
The folks over at hdtvtest.co.uk did a very thorough test on a Sharp 100Hz model, and noted: "In truth, there was virtually no notable improvement with 100Hz enabled, except for a reduction in perceivable trailing caused by backlight flicker."
This sentiment was shared by the CNET team, who said "100Hz on its own doesn't appear to significantly reduce motion blur ... The fact is, we haven't had a motion-blur problem with any of the newer 50Hz LCD TVs we've reviewed in recent times."
My personal opinion, after comparing 50Hz and 100Hz sets in person, is that the difference is minor. It does make rapid movement slightly smoother, and screen flicker is reduced some, but it probably wouldn't be a deciding factor for me.
The most important factor in how well a TV displays video is the video itself, and an HD video at 60Hz, 50Hz or even 24Hz is still good enough for me.
Of course, you could consider a high-frame-rate TV to be future-proofing - in the next few years we may start to see movies and games produced at 100Hz, but the question of how much is too much will remain a valid one.
What do you think? Have you checked out the 100Hz sets? Does the frame rate of some media bother you? Is this all marketing jive?
Join Connector on Facebook, Twitter @lukeappleby or email Luke at connectornz@gmail.com
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
Honestly the silliest article I have read this year. Have you actually stood in front of 2 TV's (one 50Hz the other 100Hz) and been demonstrated the difference? All you have done is condense information from different sources with out doing your own research... Good Copy and Pasting mate. The difference these days between models with and with out 100Hz is a few hundred dollars(KDL40EX400 - $1499rrp and KDL40EX500 $1799rrp) - bearing in mind you also pick up extra features such as swivel base.
So what Plasma's are generally over 600Hz, however all different technologies.
Its just another gimmick for sale people to pretend they know what they are talking about. So they can suck in potential buyers.
Personally I would go for a new technology Plasma if you are worried about the motion, especially if you are into fast moving movies and sport.
I am not sure why the uneducated mainstream seem to think LCD is a better technology. Plasma blacker blacks and smoother picture with natural tones, not overly bright fake colour tones.
The only benefit LCD have now is power consumption and if you really care about that, they the heck are you buying a large screen TV in the first place.
Most people by LCD as someone (like there grandma!) said LCD is better - read up and don't believe everything your hear.
Future proof with 1080p - 3D will be years away from being broadcast in NZ.
BTW I own one of each....
I saw the T.V's at Jb Hi-Fi which are 200hz and it looks fake. Unless its lots of action or high intensity sports everything seems like its moving 2 fast. I guess you get used to it after a while but personally I don't like it. Ive got a very nice 36" running 100 and its smooth enough for me.
Being that my computer runs at 60hz i see little point. With 3D tvs coming out, it will mean that 100hz, non-3D will be a waste of money even if movies etc are produced at higher frame rates in the future they will no doubt have a 3D option too.
In short - Buy two lower frame rate TVs or maybe a TV with a good sound system instead.
What? I went into the Sony Store in Riccarton Mall a couple of months ago and they had 200Hz LCD TV's on display next to 100Hz and 60Hz models. Get with the times please. :D
I have a friend who recently got their hands on a new Sony Bravia TV; I'm not sure of the model but it had Motionflow all over the menus, so I would assume it is actually a 100Hz set (possibly the W series, if not the X).
I hooked up my PS3 to their TV via HDMI, and the HD video was a LOT smoother than on my Panasonic TV - it was instantly noticeable, to be honest. As reference, I'm currently running the Panasonic TH-58PY700AZ (58", plasma, 1920x1080 native resolution), so my TV's not terrible by any means. The only differences between the two is theirs is LCD, with mine as plasma.... and theirs as 100Hz, with mine as not. Sure, Christina Lee's watchable in her own right on our screen, but the smoothness added an all-new dimension that I don't normally experience at home. ;)
It should be of note that when I pumped SD content through it things looked the same as on our screen at home (perhaps due to the video bitrate of the file I watched, maybe fps, etc), so your end result can only be as good as your source. But, when your source is high-quality... the difference stuck out like a case of jealous, fanboy-flavoured sour grapes.
I'd be interested to see if the difference was due to the 100Hz technology or the difference between plasma and LCD; I'd put my money on the 100Hz, though in order to verify that theory I'd need to find a 100Hz plasma to hook my console up to. :) My newest game, Final Fantasy XIII, runs fine on our TV, yes. But for some scenes the movement/frame rate feels a bit off, not entirely smooth... especially for wide, establishing shots that move across the landscape. If this COULD be fixed by plugging my console into a 100Hz TV.... then yes, I would pay the premium for it.
Sure, poor 'movement' may just be in the game. However, if I know there's a difference between Christina Lee on my screen and Christina Lee on my mate's TV... there could also be a difference between the game on my screen and the game on theirs, right?
I've done one very unscientific experiment on this: switching Motionflow on and off whilst watching Ice Hockey during the recent Winter Olympics coverage on Prime - delivered via Freeview (at 576p???).
It was a hard call, but I think the puck was marginally easier to follow with Motionflow on, but then I _wanted_ it to be, didn't I.
Fast moving sports viewing aside, three out of three viewers reckon that general overall picture quality definitely seems better with Motionflow off.
I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from this, but that is what myself, my son and the cat have to say, FWIW:-).
I just recently purchased a series 6 LCD Samsung 100HZ tv and there is a big difference especially in panning shots, I used to own a Toshiba 50HZ LCD and the difference on a bigger tv is huge, or maybe its because the 4MS response time combined with the 100HZ makes a big diff. There is a demo on the tv of 100HZ vs 50HZ and its there.
Own a Sony motionflow LCD 42" and a Samsung Series 7 55" LCD, Samsung looks better than the Sony even when the sony is running at 100Hz, Samsung still looks clearer, rapid movement looks better, think I wont see any difference because my eyes do not want to betray there master Samsung to looking at a Sony and thinking its better.
Wellington earthquake fear: No way in or out
Nightlife matriarch dies at show
Daily trivia quiz: February 17
Horsham Downs meditation pyramid planned
Schoolgirl sex video man guilty
Hit-and-run victim may have brain damage
Wellington earthquake fear: No way in or out
Dazzling Adele silences critics
Marryatt skips council debate to play golf
Horsham Downs meditation pyramid planned
I'm no ticket scalper, says Mallard
4.1 quake forces Jellie Park closures
Marryatt skips council debate to play golf
I have a Samsung 6 Series with 100Hz but to be honest I have always turned this off for regular tv/streamed media/freeview HD. It makes programs and movies look artificial and fake with speedy movements and unnatural motion. It seems to turn itself to 60Hz for the xbox so I don't see the point.