120 Hz

[ramicio]

TVs listed 120 Hz only take in 60 Hz. The 2 monitors in existence that are truly 120 Hz are only 1680x1050.

24 x 5 = 120
30 x 4 = 120
60 x 2 = 120

Perfect integer multipliers. 24 fps on a 60 Hz display shudders. Motion is not smooth. It CANNOT be with some images lasting 2 frames and some images lasting 3 frames. Don't argue this, 24 FPS cannot be evenly distributed into 60 Hz. I don't want 120 Hz for 3D, I don't want motion interpolation, I just want integer multiplication so a variety of sources can be perfectly represented. HDMI 1.4 technically has the bandwidth to do it. Dual-link DVI, as well.

Any other solutions? I'm always on the lookout for this. I don't own any kind of decent-sized display because I'm purposely holding out for something that will suit my tastes.

[Didée]

I have a 60Hz TFT, and ....

- 30Hz and 60 Hz content is fine, obviously

- 24Hz content: when played fullscreen, then the display is switched to 48Hz. This is fine.

- 25 / 50Hz content: when played fullscreen, the display is switched to 50hz. This is fine.

You don't necessarily need a 120Hz monitor (aren't all those TN panels, anyway?:rolleyes:). A reasonable TFT that can be switched to refresh rates other than 60Hz deals just was well.

[TheSkiller]

Hah, any CRT monitor will go up to 160Hz. And very good ones will display 120Hz fine at high resolutions.

[ramicio]

I don't want to spend money on something just because other people say something may work only to find out it doesn't. Switching display modes constantly may be fine for some people, but it's not what I want. When I ask for solutions I am asking for products of this nature, not opinions on if it's worth it or not. I don't set budgets and constrain my goals around a budget, I set a goal and then find the most affordable solution. CRT is not what I want. It is going to be 4:3 if it accepts any kind of computer input, and if they are the HD ones that aren't around anymore they certainly won't allow any input past 60 Hz. I'm about to just find a replacement 120 Hz panel and build the other electronics myself around that.

[TheSkiller]

It is going to be 4:3 if it accepts any kind of computer input, and if they are the HD ones that aren't around anymore they certainly won't allow any input past 60 Hz.
Are you talking about CRT monitors? :eek: Well, you are misinformed then. Any - and I mean any CRT monitor designed for PC use - will allow refresh rates way higher than 60Hz (like I've said most go up to 160Hz but not at their highest possible resolution). And there are 16:10 widescreen ones (no new ones anymore though). Please, type in the following into Google picture search and trust your eyes: Sony GDM FW900. :)

[ramicio]

They weigh over 100 lbs. for a small screen. These 120 Hz LCD monitors are 22". I'm looking for something to be a TV, not be for desktop use. CRTs are killer on the eyes. The only plus is their color reproduction. 16:10 is also out of the question :) 16:9 is what I'm after.

[AnonCrow]

Is using a plasma screen something that you wouldn't even consider - as it seems that cheap and large OLED screens are forever 2 years away ?

[ramicio]

I was actually interested in plasma more than anything else due to their awesome contrast and response. Finding true 1920x1080 ones seems difficult. Do you perhaps know of one that offers a 120 Hz input, as the reason you asked if I was open to plasma or not? I'm looking for a display about 37-42 inches. I don't understand whatever happened to trying to develop semiconductor LED displays. They are all working on OLED and improving them, just to show they can make something paper thin and flexible. People won't care about that. They keep coming up with developments to that pushes the time even further. They could make a semiconductor LED display NOW, but they keep wasting their time with crappy OLEDs!

[Manao]

I have a 60Hz TFT, and ....

- 30Hz and 60 Hz content is fine, obviously

- 24Hz content: when played fullscreen, then the display is switched to 48Hz. This is fine.

- 25 / 50Hz content: when played fullscreen, the display is switched to 50hz. This is fine.

You don't necessarily need a 120Hz monitor (aren't all those TN panels, anyway?). A reasonable TFT that can be switched to refresh rates other than 60Hz deals just was well. But if you watch a movie broadcasted on a television channel (thus 30i telecined, or 60p telecined), your TFT won't switch to 48 KHz, even though it can perform inverse telecine. So Bluray may not stutter (IF the video format negociated across the HDMI link is 24p) but everything broadcasted as telecine will.

[Ghitulescu]

I was actually interested in plasma more than anything else due to their awesome contrast and response. Finding true 1920x1080 ones seems difficult. Do you perhaps know of one that offers a 120 Hz input, as the reason you asked if I was open to plasma or not? I'm looking for a display about 37-42 inches. I don't understand whatever happened to trying to develop semiconductor LED displays. They are all working on OLED and improving them, just to show they can make something paper thin and flexible. People won't care about that. They keep coming up with developments to that pushes the time even further. They could make a semiconductor LED display NOW, but they keep wasting their time with crappy OLEDs!

Plasma FullHD displays are not technologically feasible to be manufactured under 50" (even 50" was a challenge).
LED LCDs are way worse than OLEDs. The only advantage of LCD over plasma is the immunity to burn-ins (for LED the consumption too). That's why the demos for plasma show racing cars while those for LCDs flowers and trees.
Increasing the reaction response of the LCD cells also meant that higher refresh rates should be used, so true 24fps LCDs were just marketing balooney not too long ago.
Even if 24fps is a technology downstep, it can only be achieved if all the elements in the A/V chain master 24p.

The only screens that could fill in for the requirements you have are the pro FullHD CRT monitors.

[ramicio]

Introducing an LED to backlight multiple LCD pixels you are definitely introducing burn-in to LCD technology. Your post was not helpful whatsoever. The actual panels that are around are capable of what I need, and so are the interfaces and the source. It's just the decoding circuits inside of the displays which are severely limited. They DO make 42" 1080p plasmas, so I don't get what you're driving at with that 50" nonsense. OLED is pointless to even discuss because only Sony made displays with them and they were as expensive as a car and smaller than a normal monitor...AND OLED are STUPID technology compared to their semiconductor counterparts. I could give two craps if my technology is made of organic compounds instead of elemental semiconductors (I'm not a tree-hugging idiot, yet I don't just throw away hazardous material.) I've looking for a TV, not a desktop monitor.

[Didée]

It seems to me there is some misunderstanding going on. TV sets do not need to accept an input rate higher than 60Hz, because such does not exist. 720p60 is the highest framerate these devices need to cope with. But, of course a TV set will accept refresh rates *lower* than 60Hz. They will accept e.g. 24Hz input, and scale it to their 120Hz output rate, with fine & even frame distribution.

[ramicio]

There is no misunderstanding. Computers can certainly generate more frames per second than 60, yet everyone doesn't want to be bound to a 23" $350 monitor. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009222) If I hooked a 120 Hz TV up to my computer, the refresh rate would be 60 Hz. There is no 48, there is no 24, there is no 50. Here in NTSC land we are locked to 60. They might accept a 24 Hz input, but that would be from a Blu-ray player, NOT a PC. Without processing and altering frames, it would NOT scale that evenly to 24 EVEN frames per second. Motion interpolation messes up frames quite nastily. The TV makers are cutting themselves off from a huge market because there are plenty of idiots who want to play 60 FPS/eye 3D games on TVs.

[Blue_MiSfit]

MadVR on a good 60hz screen looks bloody fantastic. I've got a 50" LG PK550 Plasma, and motion is completely flawless for 24p content.

24p content on crappy players like Flash (Netflix, Hulu, etc) is very jerky though.

[ramicio]

Then you have no idea what you are looking for. It has nothing to do with any video renderer or player used. It's simple mathematics with the way the frames are served to the screen. You CANNOT display 24 frames on a 60 Hz screen and have each frame be on the screen for an equal length of time. This is most noticeable in slow camera pans and scrolling credits. AGAIN, I want this to be about 120 Hz displays, not peoples opinions on if it's worth the effort or their own blindness to the problem.

[Didée]

No, there is definetly some misunderstanding going on. And if nothing else, then it's me not quite understanding what exactly you're talking about.

There's no arguing against the the fact that 24 fps can not be perfectly smooth presented at 60Hz. But I don't see the limitation that you are implying. You talk about "120Hz TVs" that don't accept more than 60Hz on the input side. That's correct, but it is irrelevant. When the TV is fed with a 24fps source, then the TV will do a perfectly-even 5:5 pulldown (each frame repeated 5 times in a row), and the 24 fps therefore will be shown free of any stutter at 120Hz. (That's with "smoothmotion" et.al. turned off, of course.)

Where does the 60Hz limitation come into the game?

- - - - -

Edit: BTW: I'm not a gambler, but I would bet good money that Blue_Misfit does very well know what he's looking for. :)

[ramicio]

I agree a 120 Hz TV will do perfect 24 FPS, but NOT when fed with a 60 Hz signal. Those methods are for 24 Hz HDMI signals (set-top players), not a 60 Hz computer signal, that's where the misunderstanding comes into play. As said before, I don't want to be switching display modes depending on what I'm watching. I'm not even sure a video card can do 24 Hz. I want a display that accepts a 120 Hz feed, is NOT a monitor, is a flat panel, is in the range of 37"-42", and is 1920x1080 pixels.

[Didée]

Ah. After plenty posts, the first time it's explicitely mentioned that the TV is to be fed from a PC. Perhaps it was clear to you, but you just forgot to mention it. You talked solely about the TV set, nothing else.

With 60Hz input that already contains 3:2 pulldown, it indeed might become problematic, depending on how clever the TV set actually is. But then, it's not such a big problem to feed the TV with the basic refresh rate.

If I actually had a HD-TV set (Im still running a 100Hz PAL-SD CRT, which I currently can't even connect to the PC:D), I would set it up as follows:

- 2nd graphics output -->(HDMI)--> TV set, i.e. the TV is set up as the PC's secondary display
- using a player that features switching refresh rate according to source frame rate (e.g. MPC-HC)

Et voila. Start movie in fullscreen playback on the secondary display. Player switches to 24Hz. TV set gets 24Hz input via HDMI. All is good.

[ramicio]

OMG, I've said multiple times that I do not want to be switching display modes based on what I am playing. That's a pain in the ass. I know MPC-HC does it automatically, but still, I'm not going to get 24 Hz as a display mode from a PC. AGAIN I will repeat my requirements for a display:

1. 120 Hz able to be input
2. NOT a monitor
3. Flat panel
4. 37"-42"
5. 1920x1080

It's not that 3:2 pulldown may be problematic. It IS problematic for me. I may not have stated that I was using a computer for the source by saying that literally, but it's been quite clear so far.

[Didée]

OMG
Exactly my thoughts. :)

I've said multiple times that I do not want to be switching display modes based on what I am playing. That's a pain in the ass.
I know MPC-HC does it automatically
Putting an argument and immediately refute it by yourself? Interesting strategy.

but still, I'm not going to get 24 Hz as a display mode from a PC.
Why not?

For me this works. I checked by connecting my TFT via HDMI, and I can set it to a 24Hz refresh rate. (Not a commonly-possible mode for a TFT PC display, but perfectly common for a TV set)

If you're limited by your graphics card and/or display driver, then that's another problem.


If nothing works out for whatever reason - go ahead and craft up your own display device. Oh, and while you're at it, better make it 600Hz. Just in case you ever run across some PAL sources you want to play back. :)
(600 = least-common multiple of 24 & 25)

[ramicio]

Haha, I need not worry about PAL. I either convert it to NTSC and slow it back down or just not watch it. The world would be better off if everything was based off PAL numbers. 25 and 50 divide evenly into 1 second (40 ms, 20 ms) and there wouldn't need to be 2 modes of editing (drop-frame and non-drop-frame). Plus PAL DVDs offer more resolution. Maybe a few centuries from now the world may finally be in a state where everyone uses the same units and drives on the same side of the road.

[Motenai Yoda]

Haha, I need not worry about PAL. I either convert it to NTSC and slow it back down or just not watch it. The world would be better off if everything was based off PAL numbers. 25 and 50 divide evenly into 1 second (40 ms, 20 ms) and there wouldn't need to be 2 modes of editing (drop-frame and non-drop-frame). Plus PAL DVDs offer more resolution. Maybe a few centuries from now the world may finally be in a state where everyone uses the same units and drives on the same side of the road.
If u can say this, u don't know the field-blended conversion from ntsc to pal, that was applied to a lot of stuff for decades...
Also most of pal sources are 50i, bob or blend or some kind of deinterlacer must be used to play them on an lcd.

[ramicio]

I've never seen anything in the modern age like that. Everything I've ever seen has just had sped-up audio.

[CWR03]

Then you have no idea what you are looking for.
I think it may me more that you don't know what you're looking AT. 24 FPS in slow pans isn't smooth to my eyes either, but it's simply that I can perceive the framerate in the pan. There's no jerkyness as in occasional hiccups within the framerate, it's just not enough frames per second for my eyes to perceive as a continuual smooth movement.

[ramicio]

I know 24 FPS sucks, but having a 3:2 or 2:3 scheme of frame playback, it doesn't help to have frames that are 1. really long, 2. varying length.

[ramicio]

I still haven't found something that allows literal 24 Hz as a refresh rate for input and is 120 Hz. They all do some sort of motion interpolation or detection to make 3:2 24->60 stuff into even 120. SO STUPID.