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.

I must say picture wise I cannot seem to see how 100Hz is better than a 50Hz set

Take my ex Tosh 28ZD26P I mean I thought the picture was fabulous

But since I have played around with Panny PL1 in JL the otherday, I was amazed by the quality of its picture...
sharp, colourful, lively and rich colours with no trace of any flickers (at least to me)

So is the Philips 6515 (though not as good as the Panny)

I am for one going back to 50 Hz

100Hz is supposed to be an improvement, but in reality is not

IMHO buy it or not
But don't blame me

I would say that when you make comparisons, you have to use equivalent models. Comparing a 50Hz Philips with a 100Hz Panny is not compare like for like because if I compared a 50Hz Philips with a 50Hz Panny, I would still prefer the Philips image! However, when I compare the Sony LS35 (50Hz) with the LS60 (pure 100Hz) I favour the LS60 image and this is a more comparable comparison because the sets are more similar. A good pure 100Hz set rocks if you ask me. But of course, if you don't want 100Hz, don't pay more for it - simple as that I honestly couldn't go back to 50Hz now though, not just because of my image preference, but because my eyes would water with the flickering pain

I guess at the end of the day it all depends on the person, I mean it is a very subjective decision
I think 50 Hz is very good (Panny PL1 and Philips 6515 are BOTH 50Hz)
But having said that, I will probably go for a 100Hz set coz I cannot find any 50Hz set with a digital tuner....
So I probably will fo for the Panny DT30
Any views on this TV...It is a 100Hzwith two tuners, 3 Scart (2 RGB)

Cheers

Hi Man,

Since you quoted me twice in your post I thought I'd point out that you didn't seem to quite apprehend my meaning... or if you did, you chose to ignore it and make another point altogether.

100Hz, Pixelplus etc may be a stop gap on the way to HD TV and HD TV may be a stop gap on the way to something else, but the reason these technologies exist in the first place is not because some kindly guy's working night and day to improve your TV viewing experience. That might be what he says he's doing, but the reality is he wants to drain your wallet, up your VISA bill... There's only so much you can charge for a vanilla 50Hz TV. TV's don't really come down in price right? As soon as they reach a certain level, they add something to take them back up in price? You with me?

Second point.
There is no such thing as 100Hz pictures WITHOUT digital processing. How do you think they double the refresh rate? It's stored in a DIGITAL MEMORY. An analogue image is stored as digital information. That is why it looks so cluggy.

I'll repeat myself: 100Hz pictures are beautifully stable and very easy on Nigel and everybody else's eyes but they are not as Clean as 50Hz ones, even from a cheapo set.

So Large Doner

you made an excellent point about the analogue image being stored digitally...

so...I am right in saying ideally

Analogue broadcasts is better on a 50Hz set

and Digital broadcast is better on a 100Hz set (because image is already digital from source)

Am I right or getting the whole thing wrong again

BTW what TV would you advise on ?

Regards

Originally posted by LargeDoner
the reality is he wants to drain your wallet, up your VISA bill... There's only so much you can charge for a vanilla 50Hz TV. TV's don't really come down in price right? As soon as they reach a certain level, they add something to take them back up in price? You with me?

Yes of course. Everything's about profit at the end of the day. It was just that your previous post sounded like it was people complaining about flickering on 50Hz TVs that led to 100Hz, whereas, as you clarify, it's more a case of them coming up with something to make TVs more "appealing" and more profitable, which I totally agree with. Ideally, they'd love to flog us HDTVs, but they can't, so they need something else... voila 100Hz.

Originally posted by LargeDoner
There is no such thing as 100Hz pictures WITHOUT digital processing. How do you think they double the refresh rate? It's stored in a DIGITAL MEMORY. An analogue image is stored as digital information. That is why it looks so cluggy.

Yes, but, as you know, there's a difference between the digital processing used to generate the additional frames and the digital processing used to enhance the images afterwards. Often, what people say they don't like about 100Hz is the latter. They then blame 100Hz technology per se, rather than focusing on the specifics. In your case, it's now clear that you're not doing this and you are specific about what you don't like so fair dues mate

Cheers Squirrel God.

rmsdev,

That's it: 50Hz for analogue and 100Hz for digital - like for like.

I've got a digibox and every now and then I get tired of looking at rich, ghost-free, anamorphic widescreen pictures and I switch back to the analogue tuner and... after I recover from the shock of seeing half the picture disappear, I sort of think, hey, analogue ain't so bad, it looks kind of clean and natural and sharper. Sure, there's two of everybody and the picture on five is a bitch but it's not bad. And then I switch back to digital and I think, hey...

They both have their strengths and weaknesses. Digital is ghost-free and it's anamorphic. I bought my widescreen TV to watch DVDs, but really what's the point of watching stretched 4/3 pictures when you can go to 16/9? Analogue is shaky but sharper and more contrasty. It's like the difference between a digital photograph and a conventional photograph, or a studio production like a soap and a movie. You might see every hair poking out of Trevor McDonald's nose on News at Ten but the picture doesn't have the shading and depth and character of something shot on film. Okay I'm getting boring now.

Digital is the future, but as in most things, when it replaces analogue technology completely, something will have been lost. Some people won't mourn it, but more people drink Fanta than vintage Muton Rothschild, right?

As regards TV brands, why not have the best of both worlds and get one of the new Prog Toshiba's? They're switchable between 50 & 100Hz. I'm not crazy about the stand and the box but the quality's there.

I like Philips' technology - the way you can zoom the picture in steps instead of having to pick 4/3 or 16/9 etc. I also like the way you can raise and lower the volume without a thick bar appearing on the screen for ten seconds, obscuring the picture. It's the small details that make owning and using a good TV enjoyable. That said, Philips haven't got anything enticing on the market at the moment. Pixelplus is the work of the Devil.

I've also got a soft spot for the Tosh Picture Frame ZP18. This is a top notch box, despite what you might have read elsewhere on this forum. if you get the 32inch instead of the 36, there are no black bars. Yeah I know, it's 100Hz. Behave.

Cheers man

As you know I just sent back a tosh prog TV (2 actually) as they suffered from loud buzzing)

I am still on the look out for that perfect TV

HaHa

Wish me luck

Panny/Philips ???