Why get 100 Hz TV ... with all its problems???

Hello

It seems 100Hz TVs are full of faults of one kind or another ...

... geometry
... black bars
... smearing
... etc

So I ask, why should we get 100 Hz TV?

Regards

[pointon]

My new'un don't have none of that.

[gringottsdirect]

Originally posted by rmsdev
So I ask, why should we get 100 Hz TV?
Regards

The 50hz flicker is annoying to some more than others.
Smearing same situation.
The other things apply equally to both types of CRT.

[Kevo]

Aint had no problems with mine either.

Going back to 50Hz would be like going back to black & white, albeit with a headache !

Originally posted by rmsdev
It seems 100Hz TVs are full of faults of one kind or another ...

... geometry
... black bars
... smearing
... etc

So I ask, why should we get 100 Hz TV?

Geometry is a common problem with all widescreen CRTs and not 100Hz in particular.

The black bars are a problem with Panasonic Tau tubes and some other makes, again nothing to do with 100Hz but with some manufacturers' flatscreen technology.

Smearing is a side-effect of extraneous digital processing, such as Sony's DRC, coupled with poor input signals (e.g. overly compressed digital broadcasts) and is yet again nothing to do with 100Hz technology per se. However, this technology does tend to feature on 100Hz TVs, not 50Hz TVs.

So, the question is why SHOULDN'T you get a 100Hz TV?

Well it seems 50 Hz TV (eg Panasonic PL1 and JVC T25)

seems to be very good picture wise and they are cheaper and suffer from less problems

I have had 2 tosh 28ZD26P and both buzzed vey loudly and the 2nd one (which is going back and I am getting a refund) had a lot of smearing and a 'halo' effect

So now I am thinking of getting a plain 50Hz TV
Anyone can convince me to get a 100Hz set?

Regards

[pointon]

Originally posted by rmsdev
Anyone can convince me to get a 100Hz set?

What's the point?

Either you want one or you don't.

My Toshiba has been fantastic, never missed a beat.

[ScottyToo]

Can you turn these extra processing circuits (e.g. DRC) off?

e.g. If reception is not 100% and you are getting some problems, is it possible to select the TV to act as a pure 100Hz set?

[pointon]

Not being able to speak for sets of other manufacturers, I would assume the answer would be yes in all cases, as Toshibas have the to turn off both DRC and/or 100hz scanning in-menu.

[LV426]

Originally posted by rmsdev
Anyone can convince me to get a 100Hz set?

It depends entirely on YOU. I am blessed (plagued?) with 'fast eyes' and am therefore very sensitive to refresh rate flicker. On a large CRT based TV, I would NEED 100hz to avoid being dazzled by flicker. On a PC monitor, I have to run it at more than 75 hz in order to avoid seeing flicker.

You, on the other hand, may not be affected. In which case, you have no need for one.

You are right

I do not see much difference between 50 Hz and 100 Hz sets

excepth so many problems associated with 100 Hz sets

I was gonna go back to 50 Hz, but now I have decided to get one with a digital tuner... so Panasonic DT30 may be it...

Any body has this tv?

[LV426]

The only problem that is unique to 100hz TVs is that of detail smearing (ie. artefacts of the 100hz process). Other problems - geometry, convergence, 'bounce' etc., are artefacts of CRTs which can only be addressed by careful engineering - something that is, unfortunately, pretty rare nowadays. These issues can apply equally to 50hz TVs.

Your only solution is to learn/know what to look for, and then buy from a retailer that will permit you to try YOUR set out in the shop before you buy.

100Hz processing is one of the ways in which telly manufacturers can 'add value' to their product and up the price. It didn't appear as a technology on TVs in the first place because people with 'fast eyes' like Nigel complained to Toshiba and Philips about flickering pictures. It was developed to add value (ie profit) to the product. As much as I'd like to believe that said companies only have our interests at heart, I know they'd sell us a TV with no works in it if we were mug enough to buy it.

So... A TV tube refreshing at 100Hz instead of 50Hz is OBVIOUSLY easier on the eyes. But that isn't the end of it, is it? 50Hz TVs tend to have pretty basic specifications, so they seem to be more inferior to competing 100Hz sets than they really are.

Earlier this year I stood in a showroom watching a DVD on a Philips PixelPlus, fiddling with every control I could lay my hands on and puzzling as to why the picture wasn't as CRISP or as EXCITING as an analogue picture being displayed on a row of 14 inch portables on a shelf above. I mentioned this to the assistant and he grinned nervously because he couldn't figure it out either. The truth is you can't improve an analogue signal by adding digital processing to it. It can look brighter or richer or more sharpened and it may be a joy to watch, but when you see the same picture naked on a 50Hz monitor, you'll realise what a cacky, cluggy mess your 100Hz picture is. Although of course it will appear beautifully stable and non-flickering.

Originally posted by LargeDoner
100Hz processing is one of the ways in which telly manufacturers can 'add value' to their product and up the price. It didn't appear as a technology on TVs in the first place because people with 'fast eyes' like Nigel complained to Toshiba and Philips about flickering pictures. It was developed to add value (ie profit) to the product. As much as I'd like to believe that said companies only have our interests at heart, I know they'd sell us a TV with no works in it if we were mug enough to buy it.

Actually more of an "interim" and "quick fix" product seeing as we don't have HDTV in this country.

Originally posted by LargeDoner
Earlier this year I stood in a showroom watching a DVD on a Philips PixelPlus, fiddling with every control I could lay my hands on and puzzling as to why the picture wasn't as CRISP or as EXCITING as an analogue picture being displayed on a row of 14 inch portables on a shelf above. I mentioned this to the assistant and he grinned nervously because he couldn't figure it out either. The truth is you can't improve an analogue signal by adding digital processing to it. It can look brighter or richer or more sharpened and it may be a joy to watch, but when you see the same picture naked on a 50Hz monitor, you'll realise what a cacky, cluggy mess your 100Hz picture is. Although of course it will appear beautifully stable and non-flickering.

Once again, digital processing is being lumped in with 100Hz merely because it's only 100Hz TVs that feature digital processing. The two are not the same thing and you cannot blame one on the other. My own preference is against digital processing, quite simply I just don't like the generated image - it appears too "hard". But a naked 100Hz image, untarnished by any PixelPlus and Digital Reality Creation, compared to a 50Hz image is a different matter entirely - that I do prefer (so much so that it is what I purchased) and I have yet to see a 50Hz TV convince me otherwise.