Related Sections: CES 2009 HDTV
Eyes-on: Quick — is a 240Hz HDTV better than a 120Hz HDTV?
Can 240Hz TVs give you a sharper picture than their predecessors, the 120Hz sets? We looked closely at four major purveyors of such tech, and discovered a noticeable difference between 120Hz and 240HZ refresh rates with the set-up demos provided — most of which used material specifically shot in 240Hz.
The clearer motion was most noticeable on the Samsung and Sony 240Hz HDTVs, less noticeable on the LG, and made little difference on the Toshiba. From 12 feet away, the difference between all the examples wasn't nearly as dramatic as from the uncommon viewing distance of 3 feet away, leaving us wondering how relevant this whole 240Hz exercise really is.
Of course, the still pics in the gallery below are not going to show much difference in motion between the TVs; we offer them as proof that we stared at these four groups of moving screens until we got carsick.
Our conclusion? Cutting through all the CES hype isn't easy, but seeing these screen demos with our own eyes was revealing. We think 240Hz is slightly better than 120Hz, which is better than 60Hz. Is it $500 better? No, but this tech is bound to trickle down to most LCD TVs soon, at little extra cost.
 |  |
|
By murc at 1:05 PM ON 01/11/09
this whole Hz argument is mute, because All my HDTV is 60Hz, I dont know of any cable companies that are broadcasting 120Hz.
By Plasma at 1:03 AM ON 01/12/09
240Hz? Big deal. I have a 480Hz Panasonic plasma even at 720p is much crisper than any 1080p LCD TV I have seen.
By Anonymous at 10:56 AM ON 01/12/09
Actually above 24Hz it makes little difference as long as the image is captured at the same frame rate then it is shown. So it's actually a waste of time in development, when they could be improving more important things such as contrast.
By nkarasch at 7:15 AM ON 01/21/09
The anonymous poster is dead wrong. Most film is 24 fps so yes, the framerates would line up; but you would have a terrible headache. A lot of people who switched from CRT to LCD in computer monitors back when they first came out went from a 75hz or higher refresh rate to the lcd's 60hz and said they had headaches and all sorts of stuff. A 24hz signal would not be smooth at all.
Gaming at 60 fps is a lot different than gaming at 30 fps also. The higher refresh rates do make things seem smoother just like higher frame rates do. The differences will be less and less apparent as we move to higher and higher refresh rates so they will not bother going much higher.
^ pure guesswork
By Givemeabreak at 6:04 AM ON 05/01/09
DEAD WRONG!!!!!! BASTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
By Mit at 11:27 PM ON 05/15/09
nkarasch What? who has headache???
By Jamack at 1:56 PM ON 05/27/09
Actually the 120 to 240 means the Monitor is processing the signal 3 to 6 times per pixel.
that is it adds a signal/pixel thus replacing the blur. You will only notice the difference in 3D blu-ray movies or sports moving very fast.
I also seen some at 600hz.
By jazzman at 11:47 AM ON 07/12/09
480Hz plasma is unrelated to refresh rate. How do I know? Because I actually spoke to Panasonic (hearing their BS answer I looked it up on tech forums).
480Hz is flicker rate for plasma. A plasma's individual pixel cells blink 480 times per second to make sure there is no black noticeable (like how a cinema has 24fps but is flickered 60Hz so you don't see black for the majority of each second).
The argument about "everything is filmed in 60Hz or lower" is also slightly moot, given the signal processors in the TVs do what's called motion-adaptive interpolation (meaning it checks how each pixel in a moving image changes over time and then splits the difference in the motion-change to make it appear smoother --think adding more stick figures to your post-it note flip book, making it look smoother).
At correct seating distance from a properly sized TV, 120Hz isn't hugely better than 60Hz for most people. In fact, errors in processing often lead to tearing in the picture and motion blur (exactly what the higher Hz processing was designed to eliminate....have you ever had frame drop playing a video game??). 240Hz will be useless at normal viewing distances as they said because the human eye physically cannot decipher that very small change in picture except in high-contrast images like black/white bars because the rods and cones in the eye "reset" from stimuli at different rates. Color vision is less sensitive than black and white vision because there is less contrast.
Hope this helps. Don't waste your money on 240Hz. It's pure marketing dribble.
By LLOYDON at 1:59 PM ON 09/11/09
DirecTV 1080P on-demand is 240Hz and my Sharp Aquos 120Hz finds that signal not compatible.
By TVproducer at 3:17 AM ON 11/08/09
a big lol to the guy by the name of plasma, that says 480hz, plasmas are rated completely different from lcds. a 480hz plasma isnt even the best, they are now 600hz and if you say 240hz isnt a big difference then your wrong it wouldnt be called 240hz for nothing... it takes every image and cuts to produce a 240hz image making a much smoother less blurred image compared to a 60hz tv
on your cellphone!
Text DVICE to 72434
editor@dvice.com
TVproducer:
a big lol to the guy by the name of plasma, that says 480hz, plasmas are rated completely different from lcds. a 48...More »