Is 600hz Pointless?
- Thread starter admin_exported
- Start date
Not sure if it's true or not. I don't enough about the technical side of what 600hz IFC does. I noticed on the panasonic advert, which I watched through a cheap 2 year old samsung lcd tv, that when the comparison is made between normal tvs and IFC that my tv showed no blur. So why do I need IFC if I don't get blur? Sounds a little bit like marketing to me. I have the v10 which features ifc though. At some point i will disengage it and see what happens. I would be very surprised if I saw any blur as a result.
The panel runs at 600Hz, but it's not the whole picture that gets refreshed at that rate. Each screen is broken down into 12 sub-frames.
IFC is in addition to this and IFC can be switched off (600Hz cant). IFC introduces extra frames to make motion even smoother. However, most film buffs dont like it as it makes the film appear like it was shot on video. Sports fans dont like it as it doesnt always cope with very fast movement. So, it's good marketing ploy, and a few people actually like it.
IFC is in addition to this and IFC can be switched off (600Hz cant). IFC introduces extra frames to make motion even smoother. However, most film buffs dont like it as it makes the film appear like it was shot on video. Sports fans dont like it as it doesnt always cope with very fast movement. So, it's good marketing ploy, and a few people actually like it.
I took my nephew last Saturday to get a Panasonic TX42s11b which says '400hz' technology. The picture is very good but there again Panasonic don't really make bad TV's. The amazing thing was that he paid £799 for it and it is 1080p with bags of style to boot. This was his first major 'non house' purchase and it did not go down well with his mother in law - ah well probably the first of many I told him !
I agree, I don't really like the smooth motion business, I like how it should be shown, not what the TV wants to show.
ElectroMan
Well-known member
Isn't a lot of this technology included to correct the default picture, which a lot of manufacturers seem to think isn't quite good enough?
Which means it's there effectively to cover their own mistakes!
Which means it's there effectively to cover their own mistakes!
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
I agree with rewerb - I don't like 100Hz, let alone 400 or 600! We used to have B&O TV's here, which were 100Hz. One day I noticed an old black and white film on one of the sets. It looked hideous as it just looked like it was shot on video in a studio, it was that clean and smooth - it just looked wrong. All this new 400/600Hz rubbish is going to start a new war - not that of resolution, but of refresh rates, which the public will be sucked into without even realising that it doesn't matter how high the refresh rate is if the TV looks naff in the first place.
It's all SO pointless. 100Hz I can see the point of because it interweaves perfectly with 50fps broadcast frame rates (standard broadcasts). Obviously some broadcasters are now transmitting super frame rates for live events, but even so, 400Hz and 600 Hz is pointless marketing 'technobabble' - it sounds like it's 'ooh wow!' so people will stump up and buy it.. Saddo's.
And another thing. Almost ALL film, and I mean ALLLLLLLL film (ie. what they shoot movies on - like 15mm, etc) is shot at a very low frame rate, from 30fps upwards. So the picture, in effect is already being refreshed at 30Hz.
Do you see a flicker at the cinema? ..No. Well, then. What's the point of trying to interlace your TV's refresh at 400 or 600Hz?
Sure, when cathodes ruled the waves, and it physically hurt to sit for 3 hours and watch a gun fire a host of bright electrons across the screen in tune with the mains voltage supplying it - then yeah, the better 100Hz telly's were nicer to watch. My old trusty Trinitron Sony 100Hz was fabulous compared with the previous 'slow' rate model.
But since I have had my Sony LCD panel, I can honestly say, truthfully, in all honesty, without fear of lying, without a shadow of doubt, really.. - I can see, have never seen, no matter how hard I look, a single flickery pic.
But that's just MO. Others may see things different...
And another thing. Almost ALL film, and I mean ALLLLLLLL film (ie. what they shoot movies on - like 15mm, etc) is shot at a very low frame rate, from 30fps upwards. So the picture, in effect is already being refreshed at 30Hz.
Do you see a flicker at the cinema? ..No. Well, then. What's the point of trying to interlace your TV's refresh at 400 or 600Hz?
Sure, when cathodes ruled the waves, and it physically hurt to sit for 3 hours and watch a gun fire a host of bright electrons across the screen in tune with the mains voltage supplying it - then yeah, the better 100Hz telly's were nicer to watch. My old trusty Trinitron Sony 100Hz was fabulous compared with the previous 'slow' rate model.
But since I have had my Sony LCD panel, I can honestly say, truthfully, in all honesty, without fear of lying, without a shadow of doubt, really.. - I can see, have never seen, no matter how hard I look, a single flickery pic.
But that's just MO. Others may see things different...
To run properly the film would have to be processed in such a way as to fill in all the gaps (So 50 Hz into 600 Hz would mean another 11 screen refreshes). The sheer processing power of such a task would be hugh and im pretty sure none of the tvs come close to this yet and so my personal opinion is its total BS
Once they have the processing power to do it correctly then yeah ~ it should be fine
I read somewhere about fresh rates and its believed we may 'notice' refresh rates well into the thousands so theres a long way to go yet. But these refresh rates would have to be absolutely perfectly done to look 'right' and so were a LONG way off this yet as clearly even 600Hz isnt right yet
Personally id steer clear of anything over 200Hz with the current technology
Once they have the processing power to do it correctly then yeah ~ it should be fine
I read somewhere about fresh rates and its believed we may 'notice' refresh rates well into the thousands so theres a long way to go yet. But these refresh rates would have to be absolutely perfectly done to look 'right' and so were a LONG way off this yet as clearly even 600Hz isnt right yet
Personally id steer clear of anything over 200Hz with the current technology
visionary
Well-known member
IMHO just marketing spin to get you to spend more money
absolutely no point in paying for something your eyes cannot cope with anyway.
See this article where it talks about the refresh rate of the neurons that carry the picture to your brain here 120 Hz is as much as your nervous system can process
Far more useful to have your eyesight checked and make sure you have the image you see as sharply focsussed as possible
absolutely no point in paying for something your eyes cannot cope with anyway.
See this article where it talks about the refresh rate of the neurons that carry the picture to your brain here 120 Hz is as much as your nervous system can process
Far more useful to have your eyesight checked and make sure you have the image you see as sharply focsussed as possible
visionary:
IMHO just marketing spin to get you to spend more money
absolutely no point in paying for something your eyes cannot cope with anyway.
See this article where it talks about the refresh rate of the neurons that carry the picture to your brain here 120 Hz is as much as your nervous system can process
Far more useful to have your eyesight checked and make sure you have the image you see as sharply focsussed as possible
I read we see in around 80 frames per second (80 Hz)
As I understand it we could perceive changes into the thousands due to the overlap (ie ~ we could see 2 frames merged one over the other)
So to completely eliminate this ~ we would need tvs into the thousands of Hz (possibly) before we truly cant perceive anymore change
IMHO just marketing spin to get you to spend more money
absolutely no point in paying for something your eyes cannot cope with anyway.
See this article where it talks about the refresh rate of the neurons that carry the picture to your brain here 120 Hz is as much as your nervous system can process
Far more useful to have your eyesight checked and make sure you have the image you see as sharply focsussed as possible
I read we see in around 80 frames per second (80 Hz)
As I understand it we could perceive changes into the thousands due to the overlap (ie ~ we could see 2 frames merged one over the other)
So to completely eliminate this ~ we would need tvs into the thousands of Hz (possibly) before we truly cant perceive anymore change
visionary
Well-known member
sorry, it's a bit early in the morning for me....I don't understand how you draw that conclusion?
TheEarthAngel:
And another thing. Almost ALL film, and I mean ALLLLLLLL film (ie. what they shoot movies on - like 15mm, etc) is shot at a very low frame rate, from 30fps upwards. So the picture, in effect is already being refreshed at 30Hz.
Do you see a flicker at the cinema? ..No. Well, then. What's the point of trying to interlace your TV's refresh at 400 or 600Hz?
I think you will find that all cinema releases, that are shot on good old 35/70mm etc. film, are at 24 fps. So only 24 different pictures are seen per second, though in the projector they do interrupt the light beam 2 or 3 times per picture, giving a flicker rate of 48 or 72 Hz.
And another thing. Almost ALL film, and I mean ALLLLLLLL film (ie. what they shoot movies on - like 15mm, etc) is shot at a very low frame rate, from 30fps upwards. So the picture, in effect is already being refreshed at 30Hz.
Do you see a flicker at the cinema? ..No. Well, then. What's the point of trying to interlace your TV's refresh at 400 or 600Hz?
I think you will find that all cinema releases, that are shot on good old 35/70mm etc. film, are at 24 fps. So only 24 different pictures are seen per second, though in the projector they do interrupt the light beam 2 or 3 times per picture, giving a flicker rate of 48 or 72 Hz.
From a mathematical point of view, 600 hz is a sensible figure.
If you take the most common refresh rates and frame rates of film, video, broadcasting formats i.e 24, 25, 30, 50 60 and 75 all of which occur per second (i.e. expressed as either frames per second or hertz), then 600 is the lowest common multiple.
The TV at this rate would not have to 'find' extra frames so the fps would then match the refresh rate of the TV.
For example, if a 24 fps film source were shown, the 600/24 = 25 , so the TV could in theory show one of these frames for exactly 25 parts of its 600 hz refresh rate, before it moves onto to the next frame.
I am not suggesting that the 600hz TV's are better as I have not seen one in the flesh, but this figure is not plucked out of nowhere simply because it is considerably more than previous TV's.
If you take the most common refresh rates and frame rates of film, video, broadcasting formats i.e 24, 25, 30, 50 60 and 75 all of which occur per second (i.e. expressed as either frames per second or hertz), then 600 is the lowest common multiple.
The TV at this rate would not have to 'find' extra frames so the fps would then match the refresh rate of the TV.
For example, if a 24 fps film source were shown, the 600/24 = 25 , so the TV could in theory show one of these frames for exactly 25 parts of its 600 hz refresh rate, before it moves onto to the next frame.
I am not suggesting that the 600hz TV's are better as I have not seen one in the flesh, but this figure is not plucked out of nowhere simply because it is considerably more than previous TV's.
matthewpiano
Well-known member
The 600hz is sub field driving. It is not an even more advanced version of 100hz/200hz because it works in a completely different way. It actually has nothing to do with motion handling.
It isn't pointless though because it works to maintain more consistent brightness on a plasma screen.
A proper 600hz refresh would look ridiculous. You would be seeing so many created frames that nothing would ever look natural.
Panasonic's marketing has been fantastic, if slightly misleading.
I agree with David from Frank Harvey Hi-Fi. Its starting to be the new numbers game and confusion is being created. We need to be focusing customers on to the overall quality of a set rather than individual aspects of specification. It used to be contrast ratio, and now its Hz.
It isn't pointless though because it works to maintain more consistent brightness on a plasma screen.
A proper 600hz refresh would look ridiculous. You would be seeing so many created frames that nothing would ever look natural.
Panasonic's marketing has been fantastic, if slightly misleading.
I agree with David from Frank Harvey Hi-Fi. Its starting to be the new numbers game and confusion is being created. We need to be focusing customers on to the overall quality of a set rather than individual aspects of specification. It used to be contrast ratio, and now its Hz.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram