Samsung Rumored To Show 480Hz HDTV at IFA

[Attebery]

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/sh...TV_at_IFA/3316

[Lee Stewart]

What's next? 960 Hz?

OBTW . . .

The jury is still out on whether 200 / 240hz motion technology (last year's prototype pictured above) provided an appreciable difference but that won't stop Samsung from bringing 400 / 480hz (PAL / NTSC standards) LCD HDTVs to IFA 2009 next month.

LG has already demo'd its 480hz LCDs and the two will surely race to get a bigger number on store shelves, but we'll need an eye-on before determining if it's an upgrade worth waiting for.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/22/a...g-even-faster/

[cleeve]

Yeah, I don't understand the point of this.

[Lee Stewart]

480 Hz? That's all?

Panasonic 600Hz Plasma HDTVs

http://www.tvlampsnbulbs.com/600hz-p...-plasma-hdtvs/

[punisher]

still not as good as a panny or pioneer plasma

[godamongmen]

Not interested until they reach 6 000 000 dynamic hz

[Raptor007]

This is dumb. It's probably just going to increase the latency even more, so no benefit for gamers. And it just looks gross to watch movies or TV shows with extra fake frames.

I have a 120Hz LCD TV, but I never use the interpolation. It is nice that 120 is a multiple of 24 for judder-free film watching, but you don't need 240Hz or 480Hz for that.

[rise2it]

"Yeah, I don't understand the point of this."

Advertising. Now that (virtually) everything is 1080p/24, they have to do something to get a 'leg up' on the other companies.

[Lee Stewart]

Originally Posted by rise2it

"Yeah, I don't understand the point of this."

Advertising. Now that (virtually) everything is 1080p/24, they have to do something to get a 'leg up' on the other companies.

Everything? What other source besides BD is 1080/24P?

These ridiculous Hz numbers are just the same old numbers game that the Asian CEM's have been playing for over 25 years . . .

They think the consumer is ignorant (probably right ) and if he sees that one HDTV has 240 hz and the other has 480 Hz - well the 480 Hz HAS to be better - right?

Like the Contrast Ratio numbers. 3 million to one is better than 1 million to one.

[Bighairyman]

Everyday consumers are convinced the higher the hz, the better. I myself turn that crap off.

[taygan315]

When does it all end?? I mean...cant we just ''get by'' with what technology is in our tvs now for awhile!!!??!!

[guitardave]

I'm more interested in getting better black levels personally, but if there's some technology out there that can help eliminate the 24fps jerky effect, then I'm all for it, as long as it doesn't introduce wierd picture artifacts.
Wouldn't it be easier, though, to just film things at 50 or 60fps rather than 24? And then you wouldn't get the jerky effect? Why 24fps? Is it some kind of nostalgia because that's the way movies have always been shot?


Dave

[Josh Z]

Originally Posted by guitardave

Wouldn't it be easier, though, to just film things at 50 or 60fps rather than 24? And then you wouldn't get the jerky effect? Why 24fps? Is it some kind of nostalgia because that's the way movies have always been shot?

There are several reasons. For one, the worldwide theatrical projection standard is 24 fps. It would be a monumental undertaking to change that in every theater in the world. Just look how slowly the transition to digital projection has progressed.

Just as importantly, changing the frame rate changes the visual characteristics of the image. Shooting at a faster frame rate removes the look that we associate with film, and appears more like video. It's an aesthetic difference, and many artists prefer the 24 fps rate, despite its jerkiness.

[Lee Stewart]

Originally Posted by Josh Z

There are several reasons. For one, the worldwide theatrical projection standard is 24 fps. It would be a monumental undertaking to change that in every theater in the world. Just look how slowly the transition to digital projection has progressed.

Just as importantly, changing the frame rate changes the visual characteristics of the image. Shooting at a faster frame rate removes the look that we associate with film, and appears more like video. It's an aesthetic difference, and many artists prefer the 24 fps rate, despite its jerkiness.

Agree.

Or as Jeff Katzenbach said as he walked out of his first viewing of SHOWSCAN (70mm @ 60 FPS) . . .

"Too real."

Movies are an illusion and they need to be kept that way (IMO of course)

[guitardave]

Give me smoothness any day! Just my opinion :-)


Dave