OMO: which new TV?

[Bibio]

Originally Posted by daveyrach

Faster refresh rate will reduce any blur. I have a 100Hz LED Viera and blur isn't an issue at all.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S2 using Tapatalk 2

excuse my ignorance but i always thought the the refresh rate was dictated by the source...

Originally Posted by Bibio

excuse my ignorance but i always thought the the refresh rate was dictated by the source...

True with 99% of source material being no more than 60Hz higher refresh rates interpolate data between each frame to produce additional frames. But the data in those combined frames can only be based on the source frames and whatever mathematical magic the HDTV is employing to figure out the middle ground. This technique can help reduce judder, or the jerkiness that manifests when displaying footage on a display that doesn't share its native frame rate.

*These are not my own words just those from a site I looked at when researching refresh rates, here is the exact article: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2379206,00.asp

[Bibio]

exactly. a good TV wont need 100+hz to produce a decent picture so it's a way of cheating to make crap panels look better. if it's a new TV turn the 'motion blur' off and be marvelled in the picture quality.

buzz words in shops to entice punters '100hz' 'LED' with 'LED' being one of my pet hates as its not LED its LCD and the reason the tv's look better these days is because the LCD panels are that much better quality and the circuitry (drivers) are way more advanced, it's not as though the LED's are turning on and off and changing different colours to give you the picture all they are doing is producing the light at the edge or behind the panel.

TV are like soap powder they are always 'new improved' and need gimmicky names to sell them

[johnnyrod]

While widnow shoppping, plenty of technogeeks said if you leave it on 100+Hz all the time it's like watching an American soap i.e. slightly funny picture. As said, usual high street shop thing of selling bigger numbers.

Ahhh you see my reasoning for the 3d tv was it had 100hz native resolution where the smart one shown previously was 50. (100 and 200 with motion thingy turned on) is it not worth it then ?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[Bibio]

for what i know and it's not a lot 3d is different as it has to cycle between two pictures so double the refresh rate. take a blu-ray 3d film it will be 1080p 48hz but the same non blu-ray will be 1080p 24hz (both are dependent on source player and panel capability).

on a side note: i went to see the hobbit on sunday and it was shot in 4k the cinema that i was at had the capability to show the 4k and my lordy lord what a difference. bright and crisp is an understatement.

[Littlepeahead]

I'm so confused.

Ok so a 100hz 3d is actually 50hz standard ?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

Originally Posted by Bibio

for what i know and it's not a lot 3d is different as it has to cycle between two pictures so double the refresh rate. take a blu-ray 3d film it will be 1080p 48hz but the same non blu-ray will be 1080p 24hz (both are dependent on source player and panel capability).

on a side note: i went to see the hobbit on sunday and it was shot in 4k the cinema that i was at had the capability to show the 4k and my lordy lord what a difference. bright and crisp is an understatement.

Was that in 3D? Would be interested to know what camera thay was as Alexa wasn't shooting at 4k, but with the right lens the picture looks amazing. Unless it was shot on an Epic, which is used more on 3D rigs right now.

There will be 2K TV coming out (or are they on sale already, not sure not checked) It doesn't really matter becasue the broadcast standard shooting is 50mps, however actual HD transmission is a lot lower, not sure on the figure. You will get more motion blur, on fast moving images like sport ect. So you couldn't spend a lot of money on a expensive TV, however if the TX rate is at a low mps, second you haven't got the display device setup correctly then it make a massive difference.

Also 3D Tvs aren't worth buying becasue the technology will change in the next few years totally.

Originally Posted by Littlepeahead

I'm so confused.

How much do you want to spend?

Also for Sky HD, that will cost more money per month too.