[Skiddins]

OK, which is best, 50 or 100Hz.

I know that with 100Hz, the flicker should all but disappear. But I have now been told that in fast moving action scenes, such as a football match etc, the screen can blur slightly.

Anyone have any experience or advice.

Skiddins

[GaryB]

If you do a search, you'll find this is a common question. This thread is probably as good as any at providing the answer:

100hz advice please

[chedmaster]

i see terrible flicker in 100hz. cant stand it.

[MartinImber]

Well a good 50Hz TV is superb

[cosaw]

I agree with Martin - if you're not sensitive to 50hz flicker then I'd stick with a 50Hz set - thats my personal preference/oppinion. When we purchased our Sony KD32DX40 we stuck with 50hz which has none of the 100Hz interpolation artifact type problems. When people start broadcasting a proper 100Hz/100field signal then 100Hz would certainly be the way to go - thats a no brainer! Can't see this ever happening though but if it did this would solve all the 100Hz compromises that we currently have.

Simon

[Kevo]

I think you'll find it's a case of your eyes getting accustomed to a 100Hz TV rather than dismiss it straight away, as you've been used 50Hz for so long.

So don't judge it on a quick 30 second viewing in Comet!

I didn't think much of it when I first saw my mates, but when I got my own I soon 'adjusted' and would now never go back.

50Hz TVs give me a headache now that i'm used to 100Hz.

Forget the footy (which I have no prblem with on mine), reading teletex, menus etc is a lot easier on the eyes on a 100Hz TV.

[cosaw]

Its a fair point - I'm not into footy so this wouldn't be an issue for me. Yes I'm sure its better for reading teletext and the like. These things said then it depends what you want to get out of your telly. Do you watch a lot of fast moving material or read text on your telly? Are you sensitve to 50Hz flicker to start with? If flicker never bothers you and you don't concentrate on stuff like teletext for long periods then I can't see why you would need or want to move to 100Hz. So which compromise do you think would fit your viewing habits best - flicker or artifacts introduced into the material which were not present at broadcast? For my eyes and brain its flicker as I can barely see it. If however any 50hz tv has always given you a banging headache no matter how little you watch then 100Hz would be for you no doubt.

I've recently started running at 50hz on my crt pj to a 7ft screen for dvd. This is how little flicker affects me on a moving image. Switch to a computer desktop at 50Hz and most people will almost certainly see the flicker on this screen. The comparison is not totally fair as the dvd image projected is progressive as opposed to interlaced so presumably flicker may become less evident. I used to run at 75hz but being that I am not overly aware of flicker at 50Hz I figure I might as well give the pj an easier job. Thats the beauty of using progressive material and a progresive display it doesn't introduce the same artifacts when you up the refresh from 50Hz to anything else. Upping the refresh on an interlaced signal is what introduces further compromises in the picture quality through associated software interpolation.

The sooner High Def developers start employing widespread progressive technology instead of just upping the resolution and refresh every time they want an "improved" image the better. Lets get the basics right afterall interlacing was one of the compromises in technology that allowed tv broadcasting to get off the ground. Fair enough - but technology has moved on since then and essentially we don't need interlacing anymore so lets get rid of it and all its associated problems. Rant over!

Sorry if went a little off topic but I think it does bear relevance to the greater state of affairs.

Simon