Does 100mhz really cure motion blur?

[Spafon]

I know it's supposed to help, but does a 100mhz LCD mean no more motion blur at all, or is it just a bit better than your average LCD?
Because of motion blur I'm probably headed towards buying plasma, but on the other hand my wife would be happier were I to buy a smaller (32-37") screen. But if I do go the LCD route, I want motion handling to be at least the equal of a plasma. Will 100mhz do it?

[KevRuss]

Originally Posted by Spafon

I know it's supposed to help, but does a 100mhz LCD mean no more motion blur at all, or is it just a bit better than your average LCD?
Because of motion blur I'm probably headed towards buying plasma, but on the other hand my wife would be happier were I to buy a smaller (32-37") screen. But if I do go the LCD route, I want motion handling to be at least the equal of a plasma. Will 100mhz do it?

ditto, pointless spending all this money for inferior equipment.

my mates just bought a new 42" lcd bravia and on SD its absolutely bloody awfull. Over £1500. I just dont know how they can get away with selling them like that.

[pandamonia]

Originally Posted by KevRuss

ditto, pointless spending all this money for inferior equipment.

my mates just bought a new 42" lcd bravia and on SD its absolutely bloody awfull. Over £1500. I just dont know how they can get away with selling them like that.

there is no 42" bravia and if he paid over £1500 then hes a fool.


i have a W2000 and i played "lord of war" and "V for Vendetta" and it looked great on SD DVD.

Its the signal not the TV that affects SD, this is why people claim plasma owns??!?!?

its cus they are 720p at most and its bound to look better, SD looks great on 420p CRT.

Try playing 1080p Blu ray movie and then you will see why £1500 is a good investment.

[neilmcl]

Originally Posted by Spafon

I know it's supposed to help, but does a 100mhz LCD mean no more motion blur at all, or is it just a bit better than your average LCD?
Because of motion blur I'm probably headed towards buying plasma, but on the other hand my wife would be happier were I to buy a smaller (32-37") screen. But if I do go the LCD route, I want motion handling to be at least the equal of a plasma. Will 100mhz do it?

You started a thread about this before - 100Hz LCD TVs, theres no such thing as a 100Mhz TV, IT'S 100Hz.

[KevRuss]

Originally Posted by pandamonia

there is no 42" bravia and if he paid over £1500 then hes a fool.


i have a W2000 and i played "lord of war" and "V for Vendetta" and it looked great on SD DVD.

Its the signal not the TV that affects SD, this is why people claim plasma owns??!?!?

its cus they are 720p at most and its bound to look better, SD looks great on 420p CRT.

Try playing 1080p Blu ray movie and then you will see why £1500 is a good investment.

well, it was around the 40" mark, I couldnt remember.

Thats the point though mate. Most people who have these tv`s are just using it for normal standard/digital reception...and they are rubbish. Ive seen 3 or 4 sd pictures on 37" sets and my 12 year old portable looks better

[pandamonia]

Originally Posted by KevRuss

well, it was around the 40" mark, I couldnt remember.

Thats the point though mate. Most people who have these tv`s are just using it for normal standard/digital reception...and they are rubbish. Ive seen 3 or 4 sd pictures on 37" sets and my 12 year old portable looks better

the poor picture comes from the TV enhancing the poor signal from SD, every clitch of poor transmition is made even more obvious.


SD Dvd's look fine. and HD looks amazing

[Yannis]

I don't understand why so many people claim that plasmas show SD better. After a lot of visits to stores , houses of friends ect. my conclusion is that good LCDs handle SD equally good with plasma plus they don't have annoying screen reflections. Furthermore 9/10 plasmas cannot even show 720p (=1280x720) since most of them have only 1024x768 resolution.

Last but not least plasma screens produce electromagnetic fields which can be dangerous for the health while LCDs don't.

http://www.electrosensitivity.org.uk/powerwatch.htm

[David Mackenzie]

Originally Posted by KevRuss

ditto, pointless spending all this money for inferior equipment.

my mates just bought a new 42" lcd bravia and on SD its absolutely bloody awfull. Over £1500. I just dont know how they can get away with selling them like that.

Did he set it up properly or was this simply using the out-of-the-box settings?

[Spafon]

Originally Posted by neilmcl

You started a thread about this before - 100Hz LCD TVs, theres no such thing as a 100Mhz TV, IT'S 100Hz.

I'm sure people on here are bright enough to know what I mean

Anyway, I never got an answer last time or this time so far, so, does 100Hz - better now? - get rid of motion blur (or to plasma standards) or just make it not as jarring as other LCDs?

[B-real]

The 100 hz thing is merely a gimmick UNLESS the video prosessor is capable of doing a good job with it. It's just like 1080P, you need a lot of power just to handle it.
So your question your difficult to answer, because there's many factors involved in the process. Take the Sammy M71 as an example, most people turn of the 100 hz feature...

So yes, it will reduce motion blur in theory, but in the real world.. Depends

[Mars2003]

I had the 100Hz 40" Samsung M73 for a week. I ended up sending it back for the broken speakers it had. I've now got the F71. I think the samsung tech is based on image interpolation not black frame insertion like some.

Anyways, it was the 100hz option that turned me off the M73, I was testing the option with HD StarWars TFM and it had this strange unnerving effect of lifting the chacacters out of the action and undoing the sterling work that ILM had done in integrating their characters into their CGI. I also noticed that an ariel on a fast moving ship as it flew past was replicated 3 times as the image processor failed to resolve its true location. I also saw plenty of what looked like macro blocking on fast panning scenes that just wasn't there when the option was turned off. Switching the 100Hz option off made everything look fine again. Football also had a strange effect as the ball was passed upfield, the ball appeared to elongate along it's direction of travel by about double.

These effect was in most TV progs, just easier to spot in HD

Now here's the real acid test, My girlfriend came through at one point and asked me *** was wrong with the movie

All in all I think that the 100Hz tech is a great concept, but that at the moment the hardware and subsequent software is not up to the task at the moment. Something to think about again in 3-4 years, for the time being I'm happier with the 1080p resolution of my replacement set.

[David Mackenzie]

These frame interpolation things that try and smooth the motion out, I've never understood the point in them? I remember nearer the start of the decade they were trendy in CRT TVs and I always used to laugh at them in stores because of how bad it looked.

TV show producers actually try to fake the slower "film look" through manipulation, ironic that TV manufacturers are trying to fake back the "video look"!

Anyway it was the 100hz option that turned me off the M73, I was testing the option with HD StarWars TFM and it had this strange unnerving effect of lifting the chacacters out of the action and undoing the sterling work that ILM had done in integrating their characters into their CGI

Exactly, it makes it look more like a home video doesn't it?

Mars2003, does this type of processing still have the problem where things like channel logos and scrolling text along the bottom of the screen confuses the system? It's hard to describe but the motion processing nonsense will shift the logo or said text around the screen at times.

[Spafon]

Originally Posted by pandamonia

Its the signal not the TV that affects SD, this is why people claim plasma owns??!?!?

its cus they are 720p at most and its bound to look better, SD looks great on 420p CRT.

Try playing 1080p Blu ray movie and then you will see why £1500 is a good investment.

I should have made it clear when I asked the question: my only interest is watching broadcast TV and not games or Blu-Ray.

It therefore really doesn't matter if I'm only watching 720p if it gives me what I perceive to be a better picture on SD and HD than an LCD on 1080i. Whether it's the TV or the signal that causes this doesn't really matter to me.

My experence is that of the big screens I've seen at friends I've preferred plasma over LCD, and certainly I prefer plasma for sport. But on a smaller screen I find LCDs look great for most things, but I've been unimpressed by the blurring while watching football. With the wife not really wanting a 42" I need to look at LCDs that can do football without blurring. Unfortunately the consensus seems to be that at this point the technology isn't up to it.

Even so, the wife might yet win and my desire to watch football without blur may well be over-ruled by her desire to have a TV that "goes" with the room

Thanks all.

[Mars2003]

Scrolling movie credits seem marginally better in 100Hz mode than 50Hz mode, but the difference was only marginal and didn't make up for the systems inability to handle anything more complicated.

I've have however noticed that the scrolling tickers on sky news etc look better on my new 1080p F71 than they did on my slightly older 32" R41.

[Nimby]

I went for the more expensive JVC 37" LCD 100Hz model precisely because it had 100Hz. The difference in picture motion in the several shops which stocked them both was startling. Pictures and movement on DVD and satellite TV are excellent to superb in SD. Terrestrial broadcasts variable but we don't bother with an outdoor aerial because we watch so little of it. We have no HD sources but it was gobsmackingly superb on HD in the shops. The difference between it and the same model on HD without 100Hz was also clearly visible in the shops

[Loobster]

All I know is my 32WLT68 has zero motion blur.

The rest you can decide for yourself!

[David Mackenzie]

I didn't think any current panel had zero motion blur?

[Kelster]

Originally Posted by Yannis

I don't understand why so many people claim that plasmas show SD better. After a lot of visits to stores , houses of friends ect. my conclusion is that good LCDs handle SD equally good with plasma plus they don't have annoying screen reflections. Furthermore 9/10 plasmas cannot even show 720p (=1280x720) since most of them have only 1024x768 resolution.

Last but not least plasma screens produce electromagnetic fields which can be dangerous for the health while LCDs don't.

http://www.electrosensitivity.org.uk/powerwatch.htm

Yannis.......interesting reports. However, it does not refer to LCD Tvs only Plasma does it not. Does anyone out there know if LCDs emit lower EMFs than Plasma?

[FATFINGERS73]

Originally Posted by Loobster

All I know is my 32WLT68 has zero motion blur.

The rest you can decide for yourself!

I've never seen motion blur on my 32WLT58, I suppose I've never looked for it. Lets see how it handles the F1 this weekend.

[Bat-man]

Aren't we getting confused between motion blur and 50hz motion judder? Completely different things.

[Spafon]

Originally Posted by Kelster

Yannis.......interesting reports. However, it does not refer to LCD Tvs only Plasma does it not. Does anyone out there know if LCDs emit lower EMFs than Plasma?

It's not nonsense, but it's pointless panic-mongering. We've all been getting irradiated from our CRTs for decades yet we're not all losing our hair and throwing up our stomach lining, are we?
And besides, LCDs do emit EMF as well as plasmas, hence you can buy shielding for your computer monitor.

From http://emr.bc.ca/Articles/Monitors.html
"LCD and plasma display monitors emit little EMR"

We're probably in more danger from our computer screens than our TVs.

So should EMF output be a consideration when buying a TV? Well if you're the type of person who's built a nuclear fall out shelter in the back garden, then yes.
For the rest of us, I doubt it.

[ScottBT]

The 37LWT68 Tosh handles movement brilliantly right up there with my older CRT.

Football and Motorsport look sharp and focused. Just hope ITV increase the bitrate for F1 this season.

[oo.viper.oo]

Originally Posted by Bat-man

Aren't we getting confused between motion blur and 50hz motion judder? Completely different things.

Exactly! I recently got Samsung LE40M71B and my experience with 100Hz is quite good. It does help - but what does it help actually? Thing is that when I switch 100Hz off, the picture does not blur, it's still perfectly sharp, but it's almost like watching fast slide show, I can clearly perceive the moments when the frame is swapped for the next frame. However when I switch 100Hz on, it's suddenly like watching out of window (motion-wise), everything is so fluid.

It's that with CRT there was blanking interval in which the eyes-brain combo could calculate the smooth transition between the frames, however with LCD there's nothing like that and so transitions with fast panel and without 100Hz interpolation do look rather rough.

Once I tried to switch 100Hz on and off for couple of minutes, I just can't go without it. Even when it does tend to magnify mpeg artifacts from time to time with poor quality source.

Btw about the SD source quality, I'm absolutely happy with what this telly can do with good SD sources. It generates fantastic pictures, far far better then what my previous Benq and LG did.

[Kelster]

Originally Posted by Spafon

It's not nonsense, but it's pointless panic-mongering. We've all been getting irradiated from our CRTs for decades yet we're not all losing our hair and throwing up our stomach lining, are we?
And besides, LCDs do emit EMF as well as plasmas, hence you can buy shielding for your computer monitor.

From http://emr.bc.ca/Articles/Monitors.html
"LCD and plasma display monitors emit little EMR"

We're probably in more danger from our computer screens than our TVs.

So should EMF output be a consideration when buying a TV? Well if you're the type of person who's built a nuclear fall out shelter in the back garden, then yes.
For the rest of us, I doubt it.

...of course I haven't built a fall out shelter. I just rely upon the bacofoil lined to my underclothes to shield me from those ol' EMFs

[Stephen Neal]

50Hz to 100Hz processing is far from trivial, especially if you are also trying to interpolate missing fields/frames from 25Hz sources (or 50Hz sources in some cases). The 50->100Hz conversion on SD displays has never been of a particularly high quality - and I know of no broadcast professionals who take picture quality seriously who would consider viewing on a 100Hz display.

The amount of processing required to do it to a high quality - which is what you'd want on a high resolution LCD or Plasma - is not insignificant, and is more onerous than de-interlacing - especially if you are trying to interpolate motion to give a "smooth" look to sources.

Given that the de-interlacing in most panels - even high end models - is pretty basic, and doesn't maximised the picture detail present in an SD or HD interlaced source (when carrying interlaced source material rather than progressive) - I'd steer clear of any additional processing overhead.

(For reference - the highest quality de-interlacer and upconverter I currently know of is the S&W Quasar - which is a spin-off of their Phase Correlation 50<->60 standards converters. This is far from cheap - and makes consumer level scalers look like toys.)

[Stephen Neal]

Originally Posted by Lyris

I didn't think any current panel had zero motion blur?

For that matter - most sources have motion blur. If you don't have motion blur and run with very fast shutters, sources become very unpleasant to watch - as effectively you are throwing away motion information.

(Most film cameras capture for around half their frame period I believe - which is what properly set-up 25p video cameras also do AIUI. If you reduce the capture period the motion becomes even more jerky, if you lengthen it - you get what appears to be excessive motion blurring)

[eFGee]

Originally Posted by ScottBT

The 37LWT68 Tosh handles movement brilliantly right up there with my older CRT.

Football and Motorsport look sharp and focused. Just hope ITV increase the bitrate for F1 this season.

Big it up for the 37WLT68 posse.

100Hz and zero motion blur.

The blackest of blacks.

No backlight bleed.

And still no buzzing

[SquintingBadger]

Just to balance things out, the 37WLT68 DOES have blurring - and quite a bit of it. M100 on or off. Although it is quite a bit less than many other LCDs I have seen.

[eFGee]

Originally Posted by SquintingBadger

Just to balance things out, the 37WLT68 DOES have blurring - and quite a bit of it. M100 on or off. Although it is quite a bit less than many other LCDs I have seen.

Not on mine it don't.

Sure you're not squinting

This thread is an interesting read.

I have the 37WLT68, and will have a play with my settings when I get home, but with M100 active and settings using the new testcard in HD, I do still get motion bluring.

Will I ever get rid of this? Sounds like I wont. I am well pleased with the picture though it has to be said.

I also stuggle to see a big difference when turning M100 on or off. Strange......