It's a 52 inch actually I made a cock up

And he's not concerned. Just wanted to know if it was worth it.

Cheers for that chaps

I'd be more concerned about response time and contrast ratio as they are things you'll notice more than refresh rate.

Also Higher refresh rate TV's are generally active 3D capable ones as they have to show twice as many frames per second.

[Edited on 10-01-2013 by DaveyLC]

quote:

---

Originally posted by FlaFFy_91
Cheers chaps. As I said its one of them lg smart ones that you wave at to do shit with internet and all that business. Dunno why but he wants one

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FlaFFy_91
So 60hz for a grand or 400hz for 1800. You guys are saying it wouldn't be worht the extra 800 for just a every day joe. ?

---

Cheers chaps. As I said its one of them lg smart ones that you wave at to do shit with internet and all that business. Dunno why but he wants one

Even £1k for a 42" TV sounds expensive.

no

So 60hz for a grand or 400hz for 1800. You guys are saying it wouldn't be worht the extra 800 for just a every day joe. ?

Since we're on the subject of TV's, clearly some people don't give a fuck:lol:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20957218

I'm the same way. I'd never buy something purely based on looks, but I'd never buy something that didn't look good either.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Balling
In the end, TV's today are all fairly good and if you buy any mid to high end model, no average consumer will be disappointed.

---

Exactly what Kyle said.

The big issue here is, that both the Plasma and LCD numbers are "made up" in the sense that they only tell half the story.

An LCD panel can essentially have a phenomenal refresh rate, but a shitty interpolation, terrible colour transition or undersized processor which all undermine the refresh rate.

No numbers can tell you if a screen is good or not, unfortunately. You'll have to rely on your eyes (which can be an issue if the screen can only be seen in a showroom) or reviews (which can be an issue for a whole number of reasons).

In the end, TV's today are all fairly good and if you buy any mid to high end model, no average consumer will be disappointed.

I'm pretty sure the Plasma statistics for refresh rate are largely irrelevant as per Balling's post.

Retailers are just throwing the higher figures around to score sales - as my Nana will walk into a shop and pick the product with the highest numbers.

Be aware that Hz on plasma screens are different to LCDs,

Normally LCDs are the 50/60 or 100/120 ones but Plasmas start at much higher numbers (due to the nature of the technology.

i.e. don't think that a 400Hz plazma is necessarily better than a 120Hz LCD due to the frequency. There are many other factors

:lol:

GTFO with your Plasma, Long live CRT

If only there was a technology where this wasn't an issue...

*cough* Plasma! *cough*

Yeah indeed - I've got a Sony Bravia and I've got two refresh rates to choose from. I actually prefer the lower refresh rate, but everybody is different.

That's correct, how ever go to high on the herz and some times you can encounter problems if the procesor can't deal with the speed, best thing is to go some look at the one he's after in a shop take a Blu ray with you and test it out.

I originally wanted an LG but on fast moving images I could see lag and slight blurring round sharp edges when close up. Apparently that's a trait for LG televisions some people can't see it or doesn't bother them but it did me so went with Sony

Every one has different opinions though

The frequency (measured in hz) is the refresh rate of your TV. 60hz has your image "redrawn" 60 times per second.

If you imagine one of those cartoon flickbook things - the faster you flick the pages, the smoother the animation appears to be.

The problem however is that speeding up the "flicks" speeds up the animation, and in TV terms everything would be in fast forward! When the refresh rate exceeds the framerate of the image - modern televisions are able to artificially insert frames to keep the image playing at the same speed, but use more refreshes.

You then can run into a problem where your refresh rate cannot be evenly divided by your frame rate... so a standard film @ 24fps does not "fit" into 60hz evenly. The TV corrects for this but proper videophiles can see the image "judder" as a result of this, and it's more apparent on bigger screens.

120hz or 240hz however is different - you can divide these evenly by the framerate so the video ultimately ends up being smoother.

I've probably got some of the lingo wrong, but that's my understanding of it!

The more hertz you have, the less motion blur you have on the screen on fast moving images e.g. a game of football. 60hertz is fairly old technology now I believe?

(Wait for someone else to verify this, could be wrong!)

My boss is after a new telle found one of the lg smart tvs in like 42" all the gadgets for A grand. But it's only 60hertz
Now the next one up is 400hertz for 1800. Same everything else

What the difference? What is the hertz in lamens terms?