What to look for in a TV these days?

[Jack]

My thoughts on TVs:

• I believe LED-backlit LCDs have the best balance of picture quality, longevity and low power consumption
• With LED backlighting, there's "edge-lit" and then there's "actually backlit." The latter is better, and "actually backlit" with "local dimming" (to give darker blacks) is optimal.
• Go for 1080p and at least 120+ Hz, if your priority is quality rather than price.
• Do not buy a Sony; that company is evil (for a long list of reasons, including installing rootkits on their customers' computers and remotely disabling advertised features of the PS3) and deserves to be boycotted.
• The last time I went to Brandsmart I declined to allow the employee to check my purchase upon leaving, and they actually had a police officer pull up and threaten me in the parking lot. Since I don't enjoy being treated like a criminal, I will never shop there again and I advise everyone else not to either.

[SnuggleBunny]

Actually, nevermind.  I just noticed it was 60 hz.

That shouldn't be a detriment if you don't game or watch a lot of sports.  I don't own a console system and I rarely watch sports so if that fits you as well it shouldn't be a factor in determining your purchase.  In fact, 60hz is the natural state most media is created to be viewed in so you'd actually be paying more to make movies look more distracting to the eye.  It's mentioned even in this thread (through links) that refresh rates on LCDs above 60hz have an unnatural feel to them.  If you've never seen this it is really noticeable when watching a film and there is a slow pan as someone walks across a room.  It looks so strange it actually kills the immersion factor entirely.  In some of the articles they say it looks artificial like cardboard cutouts and kitschy and jarring.


From that Lifehacker article.

Refresh Rate

The refresh rate might be one of the most confusing stats you'll run into on a set. Typically, you'll find one of three different numbers: 60Hz, 120Hz, and 240Hz. These numbers refer to how often a TV changes the picture. The theory, according to manufacturers, is that the higher the refresh rate, the less motion blur.

When it matters: Here's the thing about the refresh rate, for most intents, it doesn't matter. Television, movies, and games are all produced with 60Hz in mind and adding more doesn't add anything to the quality of the image. It may make video appear smoother at the store, but it's often artificial and not reflective of the media's natural state. Basically, ignore this number on the box, if you're in the store and you see motion blur, don't buy the TV. Some people find the higher refresh rates make the video too smooth and uncanny because it's usually an artificial bump.

More in depth:

They have recently increased the refresh rate or response time to 120Hz and 240Hz as a premium feature on some of the newest high end LCD TVs. How much does it help?

It does a great deal to cut down on motion induced artifacts – especially with fast motion scenes. It decreases motion lag and judder. However, there are nasty side effects you should know about. When viewing film and broadcast programming in 120Hz/240Hz we see unwanted background noise introduced. Many of the tricks movie producers and programmers employ to create depth and give background information a background look are unraveled and what results is a distracting lack of depth. Cinematography is impaired. In some film reproduction, the background set becomes so clear that you can see the cheap tricks used in the studio to create an effect of say stones in the background. With 120Hz/240Hz you can see that they are plastic. It causes unnatural appearance of the image popping out of the background especially in when foreground characters are moving slowly.

You might think this increase in detail of background information is a good thing, but it gives the content a kitschy, plastic, cardboard cutout look that is very unappealing. This is why we only recommend using the 120Hz/240Hz feature for sports programming and gaming where the increased information works to the viewers advantage. Thankfully, thus far manufacturers have introduced the 120Hz/240Hz feature as an option that can be turned off and on (though not with a discrete button on the remote control). In our recent reviews of the Samsung LN-52A850, the LG 47LH55, and the Samsung UN55B8000 we note instructions on how to turn the 120Hz/240Hz features off.

So if you do watch a lot of sports or do a lot of gaming you'd want the higher refresh rate otherwise the look you get really draws you out of the movie experience.  You can save a lot of money this way buying a 60hz tv if you fit this category or you can get the tv that changes refresh rates.

[Jack]

Regarding 60 Hz (or higher), I was under the impression that 120 Hz was a good thing for movies because it eliminated the need for frame duplication/interpolation. To briefly explain, movies are shot at 24 frames per second and TV is shot at 30 frames per second, so in order to display both kinds of sources smoothly the TV has to operate at the least common multiple of 24 and 30, which is 120 Hz. (See Wikipedia for more info.)

Snugglebunny, are you claiming that eliminating telecine judder is a bad thing?

[SnuggleBunny]

Regarding 60 Hz (or higher), I was under the impression that 120 Hz was a good thing for movies because it eliminated the need for frame duplication/interpolation. To briefly explain, movies are shot at 24 frames per second and TV is shot at 30 frames per second, so in order to display both kinds of sources smoothly the TV has to operate at the least common multiple of 24 and 30, which is 120 Hz. (See Wikipedia for more info.)

Snugglebunny, are you claiming that eliminating telecine judder is a bad thing?

It's pretty clear that I'm saying high refresh rates on LCD tvs give an unnatural look to films.  The smoothness gained is so jarring to the eye you lose yourself in that instead of losing yourself in the movie.  It's well documented the downsides and I provided a few examples from the very first few pages of this thread that highlight the problem with artificially raised refresh rates.  What those examples say explicitly is that a film being filmed at 24 frames per second is meant to be viewed in its natural state and with a higher refresh rate it sharpens things purposefully meant to be blurry or dull making it stand out in an aggravating manner.  A background that's meant to retreat into the distance and give depth to a scene now pops with brilliance killing the contrast that was designed by the filmmakers.

[angryuser]

Regarding 60 Hz (or higher), I was under the impression that 120 Hz was a good thing for movies because it eliminated the need for frame duplication/interpolation. To briefly explain, movies are shot at 24 frames per second and TV is shot at 30 frames per second, so in order to display both kinds of sources smoothly the TV has to operate at the least common multiple of 24 and 30, which is 120 Hz. (See Wikipedia for more info.)

Snugglebunny, are you claiming that eliminating telecine judder is a bad thing?

It's pretty clear that I'm saying high refresh rates on LCD tvs give an unnatural look to films.  The smoothness gained is so jarring to the eye you lose yourself in that instead of losing yourself in the movie.  It's well documented the downsides and I provided a few examples from the very first few pages of this thread that highlight the problem with artificially raised refresh rates.  What those examples say explicitly is that a film being filmed at 24 frames per second is meant to be viewed in its natural state and with a higher refresh rate it sharpens things purposefully meant to be blurry or dull making it stand out in an aggravating manner.  A background that's meant to retreat into the distance and give depth to a scene now pops with brilliance killing the contrast that was designed by the filmmakers.

Except it's fairly trivial to make a few adjustments and be able to lose any downside you personally notice, while keeping the bonus of lack of motion blur.

[SnuggleBunny]

Regarding 60 Hz (or higher), I was under the impression that 120 Hz was a good thing for movies because it eliminated the need for frame duplication/interpolation. To briefly explain, movies are shot at 24 frames per second and TV is shot at 30 frames per second, so in order to display both kinds of sources smoothly the TV has to operate at the least common multiple of 24 and 30, which is 120 Hz. (See Wikipedia for more info.)

Snugglebunny, are you claiming that eliminating telecine judder is a bad thing?

It's pretty clear that I'm saying high refresh rates on LCD tvs give an unnatural look to films.  The smoothness gained is so jarring to the eye you lose yourself in that instead of losing yourself in the movie.  It's well documented the downsides and I provided a few examples from the very first few pages of this thread that highlight the problem with artificially raised refresh rates.  What those examples say explicitly is that a film being filmed at 24 frames per second is meant to be viewed in its natural state and with a higher refresh rate it sharpens things purposefully meant to be blurry or dull making it stand out in an aggravating manner.  A background that's meant to retreat into the distance and give depth to a scene now pops with brilliance killing the contrast that was designed by the filmmakers.

Except it's fairly trivial to make a few adjustments and be able to lose any downside you personally notice, while keeping the bonus of lack of motion blur.

Not on every TV but yes as I said in the first response most TVs now have a way to change that rate but it's not a known workaround you have to dig to figure that out.  The point though was that if you have similar tastes in what you watch to me (no gaming not a lot of sports) then you can save a lot of money buying a TV capped at 60hz.  See for yourself the motion blur by visiting BestBuy and see if that particular TV has it or not.