LG shows off 480 Hz TV

OMG.... if your going to display the first fastest refreshing lcd tv in the world, you could make your first impression my turning down the blue and Synchronizing the colors.

Yeah, I noticed that right away.

As any photographer knows.. it's about white balance. The camera is normalized to the girl and background.. so the screen looks blue because of the difference in colour temperature between what look like tungsten lighting for the scene and the inherent blueness of lcd dsiplays.

At least it's an honest picture not some digitized messed about with thing that all you guys are so obviously used to seeing that when you see reality you can't accept it as such and start whining about "should have done this.. should have done that". You lot and your ignorance of technical matters related to film, video and cameras is mind boggling sometimes.

how can you honestly believe the tv looks that blue in real life? they are demonstrating a new display, why the hell would they miss something so simple as to not make it look like crap. I wouldnt worry too much about correcting their mistakes, they are smarter than you

She's cute.

The tv sounds expensive :(

Originally posted by bryston:

---

The tv sounds expensive :(

---

Having recently nearly purchased a LG 42" 7000 and decided not to.

The 7000 is currently their top spec LCD model, however its 100hz and not 120hz, i dont think i even seen a 120hz model.

Secondly virtually all reports i read of LG LCDS from this range said they have massive problems displaying 24FPS Blueray video and are not smooth, giving jerking in the motion every few seconds. To be honest have not seen this fault with a previous phillips or sony bravia engine LCD's, im sticking well away from LG in the future.

i have 60 hz lcd tv, and whehter i watch a 120 hz or a 60 hz lcd it doesnt make a difference. This panel refresh stuff is completely overrated. what matters is the resolution and contrast. And if you people like a high response then get a plasma, thats why its there for.

it might matter in the future, but right now 120 Hz is the good stuff the graphics Card in my HTPC can do 240 with 16bit color and resolution of 1280x720 which is 720p.

id be more concerned about power drain and Panel heat, than anything else.

SN--

Varnull you maybe right. I don't really care. its just that for a demo shot it looks bad, besides i don't care about the woman in the picture ether. The LCDTV is the star here not her:)

Personally im agitated with the quickness in which these features are updated. They generally arent noticable and cost out the a$$.On top of the fact it makes everything seem old. I mean i know it sounds like im bashing adavances in technology and the way they do it is designed to make money but us as consumers should be smart enough to not allow this system to continue.

plazma247, it will depend on which region you live in. 100Hz TV's are marketed for those that are on PAL broadcast and 120Hz TV's for NTSC. As the original broadcast coming into the TV is 50Hz for PAL and 60Hz for NTSC, the previous mentioned effectively doubles the refresh rate.

I personally feel that this technology is purely a marketing strategy (and unfortunately it works!). As the original refresh rate is 50Hz/60Hz, anything beyond that is created with algorithms that produce extra frames that were never there to begin with. I am not sure how much the human eye can perceive beyond 100 frames per second. However, I can say that working in a busy Audio Visual Retail store, the bigger numbers certainly attract interest.

I do agree with Globe08, I feel a little nervous about the fact that often times companies will work on technology that looks good on paper and helps to lift sales figures to those that don't know any better. I would much rather see true advances in technology. For example, as we have seen recently LED backlights introduced to replace CCFL backlighting in LCD's... That's innovation.

Originally posted by DXR88:

---

OMG.... if your going to display the first fastest refreshing lcd tv in the world, you could make your first impression my turning down the blue and Synchronizing the colors.

---

You guys do realize that watching an original broadcast is still at 60Hz, right? What they really should be focusing on is the response time of the display and the contrast as mentioned above.

And Ryu77, I don't even notice a difference beyond 75FPS most of the time. I wonder how OLED's will take off in the future. They seem like a very superior choice, but I'd like to one of them at 52".

i thought Hz's where the response time? the faster the Hz's the more responsive the display.

Well it sorta is, but response time refers to each pixel and how quickly they can change (GtG, which is how fast a pixel can change from one shade to another, and BtB which I think is how fast the pixel can go from one color to another).

Hz use to be the response time for CRT displays because it stood for how fast the entire screen refreshed per second. The higher it was on a CRT, the better the image and the less strain it caused on your eyes. With LCD's, you don't really need that high of a refresh rate. LCD's don't have one electron gun that prints an entire screen, rather they have single pixels that turn on from a digital source.

Anyway, perhaps someone like varnull could explain this a lot better than I did.

the Source(external device) is the controller. thats the way its been for years. if your receiver(tv) cannot Do 120hz's the set will blank out or downsample to the correct frequency. i don't find having 480Hz's a problem its a tad overkill at the moment when there are other current LCD issue's that can be tackled.

i find it musingly accurate to the analogy that my Sports car can do 480MPH to your SUV's 120MPH, regardless of how fast they can go the law still requires you to do 60MPH.

Many of you have some good info to pass around. To help me follow the 120hz vs 60hz argument, should I shell out for the 120 or stay with the 60? And if 60hz is the "standard" for now is there a push to increase this to 120hz in the future? Or is 60hz here to stay? I have still been putting the purchase of a bigscreen off cause I want to make the best choice for my money and make it somewhat future proof ;)

all i know my mointer set at 50 htz flickers set to 70 htz no more flicker . just clear viewing .so why would i need more ?

Originally posted by badkrma:

---

Many of you have some good info to pass around. To help me follow the 120hz vs 60hz argument, should I shell out for the 120 or stay with the 60? And if 60hz is the "standard" for now is there a push to increase this to 120hz in the future? Or is 60hz here to stay? I have still been putting the purchase of a bigscreen off cause I want to make the best choice for my money and make it somewhat future proof ;)

---

Originally posted by DXR88:

---

Originally posted by badkrma:

---

Many of you have some good info to pass around. To help me follow the 120hz vs 60hz argument, should I shell out for the 120 or stay with the 60? And if 60hz is the "standard" for now is there a push to increase this to 120hz in the future? Or is 60hz here to stay? I have still been putting the purchase of a bigscreen off cause I want to make the best choice for my money and make it somewhat future proof ;)

---

almost all 32in+ LCD TV's do 120hz's, NTSC standerd dictates that 60hz's is the defacto for all OTA and cable/satellite transmissions. however some things can break that limit for better viewing Such as computers graphics. i don't know if blueray does or not now,but i bet it can.

---

to true Ryu77, it all goes back to the CRT 60 to 75 was one hell of a eye reliever, the 75 to 85 reduced headaches and if your CRT could do 120 you where the shit.

i do believe that it does make a slight difference, in bigger LCD panels. ofcourse what looks good in 60hz to me may not be so with you.

some people have eagle eye's capable of seeing the slightest distortion,
same with audio.

Yeah but under incandescent lighting 60Hz is not largely a problem, as far as im aware most of the headaches were caused by people being under strip (florescent) lighting that operating at 60Hz and there fore created visual issues (flickering) with monitors running at lower refresh rates. Especially 60Hz screens which frequency matched the frequency of the lights, in the same way a timing gun is used on an engine.

As far as im aware no one i know got a headache from 75Hz or above, this is why the range from 75Hz upwards was commonly known as flicker free.

Originally posted by DXR88:

---

OMG.... if your going to display the first fastest refreshing lcd tv in the world, you could make your first impression my turning down the blue and Synchronizing the colors.

---