Why is 240 important? Becuase it is bigger than 120 and gets newbs who don't know dick about video to buy it. 120 is the sweet spot, being an even multiple of 24, 30 and 60. So all film and NTSC/ATSC sourced content will look good given a decent video processor.
However, making the extra frames via interpolation is fucking retarded and results in weird looking video. The people who like it are the same 'tards who complain about the film grain in "300" and black bars on letter boxed movies.
Until I can feed 120Hz or 240Hz content to a display from an ourbaod video processor that doesn't suck I'm not interested.
Though NTSC is 29.97fps, and from what I assume from reading a very convoluted in-depth article on PAL, I think it's about 14.8fps, neither of which cleanly divide into even 240 Hz...
...for my money, after doing side by side comparisons, I'll stick with a 60 Hz TV for now since I have no video sources that output more than that in the first place. I have seen some benefit in high-hertz TVs for interlaced video, but a 60Hz with good interpolation can achieve the same effect, unless they've made some kind of amazing leap lately...
I use my TV mainly for either a computer monitor, or to play video games that often have fixed HUD elements, so I cringe at the thought of using a plasma TV... but it's nice that you can refresh your screen an order of magnitude more times than you receive frames to display on it.
@vinnyr: Most people who tested 240hz firsthand state that the improvement is perceivable but not worth the cash. Why does it work? Take a 1000 frame flip book template and repeat each page 5 times into a 5000 page flip book. Then switch a blank page every other page and compare that to a blank swapped every fourth; the latter is clearer. Thus, 240hz would have a more rapid 'blanking' or where the screen actually flickers off by four times. The short, youre confusing frame rate w/ refresh. Much like the lamp in your house, the light's actually blinking on /off.
@Lite: is on a boat.: Go Daddy is just another example of how you really don't need to know shit about your business so long as you put lots of tits in your ads...
@Ike_Skelton: Later on, it will go up to 480Hz then one of the companies will say that the numbers doesn't mean anything, yet creating their own monicker like 720+ when it's really only 240Hz.
07/14/09
However, making the extra frames via interpolation is fucking retarded and results in weird looking video. The people who like it are the same 'tards who complain about the film grain in "300" and black bars on letter boxed movies.
Until I can feed 120Hz or 240Hz content to a display from an ourbaod video processor that doesn't suck I'm not interested.
07/14/09
Though NTSC is 29.97fps, and from what I assume from reading a very convoluted in-depth article on PAL, I think it's about 14.8fps, neither of which cleanly divide into even 240 Hz...
...for my money, after doing side by side comparisons, I'll stick with a 60 Hz TV for now since I have no video sources that output more than that in the first place. I have seen some benefit in high-hertz TVs for interlaced video, but a 60Hz with good interpolation can achieve the same effect, unless they've made some kind of amazing leap lately...
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
I use my TV mainly for either a computer monitor, or to play video games that often have fixed HUD elements, so I cringe at the thought of using a plasma TV... but it's nice that you can refresh your screen an order of magnitude more times than you receive frames to display on it.
07/14/09
Question: Why would 240hz make 24fps look smoother?
Answer: It wont.
07/14/09
It prevents sets from having to do pulldowns because the refresh rate of the screen doesn't match the fps of the video feed.
Along with a few other things.
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
07/14/09
01/07/09
01/07/09
01/07/09