Samsung's
harder better faster "blue phase" (not to copy Blu-ray, just named for the color observed during its development) LCD panel is the first to demonstrate image-driving speed of 240Hz, surpassing current twisted nematic,
in-plane switching or vertical alignment technology. In the quest for smooth
CRT-style motion Samsung follows DLP manufacturers that announced plans to
cross the 240Hz barrier at CES by manufacturing a display that aligns its own layers, simplifying manufacturing and ensuring uniform brightness without the need for an overdrive circuit found in today's merely
expletive-inducing 120Hz LCDs. Don't expect these to hit shelves before 2011, coming first in TVs "that require high-speed video reproduction" -- like the one you'll buy that has a much bigger number than your next door neighbor's latest HDTV. For now, the only place to see the future is this 15-inch model at the Society for Information Display 2008 show in LA May 18.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Musketeer @ May 14th 2008 8:22AM
Very nice. The TV looks ok as well ;)
Esat Dedezade @ May 14th 2008 8:22AM
She seems to have a thing for carnival wheels.
Will H. @ May 14th 2008 11:39AM
She's obviously impressed, she thinks it's huge, but she's obviously used to much smaller junk.
wasabi @ May 14th 2008 7:14PM
you should know
Alex @ May 14th 2008 8:37AM
It's gonna be a long long time before movies/shows are in 240hz.
w00t @ May 14th 2008 10:25AM
Hell they're having enough trouble getting rid of wobbly interlaced 30fps TV and juddering 24fps film formats!
I was hoping HD standards were going to be a nice smooth progressive 60fps but it seems low frame rates and horrible interlaced video is here to stay!
Tony Rayo @ May 14th 2008 11:10AM
24p is here to stay for a while, but at least with Blu-ray you get the same frames as the originally telecined movie.
Eric @ May 14th 2008 4:04PM
at least 240Hz is a multiple of 24 so it can use 10:10 pull down
CeeJay @ May 14th 2008 4:12PM
A 240Hz display would be able to show both 30fps and 24fps content without skipping frames or changing the speed of playback.
30 x 8 = 240
24 x 10 = 240
25 fps content (PAL) would still skip frames though.
150hz would be a good refresh rate for tv playback
30 x 5 = 150
25 x 6 = 150
It would not suit film perfectly though.
The lowest refresh rate that allows perfect sync for all types of content is 600hz.
Chuckles McGee @ May 14th 2008 7:11PM
@Alex
I know mannnn- it's so cutting edge right now, nothing will ever take advantage of its features until it's obsolete!
Hung @ May 14th 2008 7:43PM
@ Alex
TV isn't intented to play back 240 fps video. A 120 Hz TV plays back 24, 30, and 60 fps videos by repeating frames. This technique allows the TV to play fast movements without unintentional blur.
@ CeeJay
A 240 Hz TV will probably be able to vary its refresh rate in the same way that 120 Hz TVs do currently. You know, like EVERY LCD that's out right now?
Hung @ May 14th 2008 7:47PM
I'm not saying it couldn't playback video taken at 240 fps. But 240 fps is overkill when it comes to the human eye. They're aiming to increase refresh rates rather than play outrageously high frame rates.
Alex @ May 14th 2008 9:45PM
You see, the problem is this... The TVs will probably use some kind of between-frame estimation algorithm to calculate the frames in between. Because it is nothing but estimations, the motion looks very unnatural.
The movie/show really must be in 240hz in order for it to look good.
I've done a few FPS tests on my computer, I think 480hz should be the maximum.
Alex @ May 14th 2008 9:53PM
...however, if you guys want perfect motion, then you need to look at the resolution of the video.
Lets say for example theres a really fast car zooming from left to right in 1 second (or less), and the video resolution is 1920x1080.
To capture the absolute best frame rate of the car, the video would have to be in 1,920fps. This frame rate would allow you to see the car motion flow on every pixel from left to right.
But like I already said above, the FPS doesn't need to be that high. 480FPS with motion blur (equivalent to 1,920fps) would look just as good.
Alex @ May 14th 2008 10:01PM
For those that are curious, I've also conducted pixel resolution tests for what resolution would be acceptable for an average size LCD/Plasma perspective.
The results I got suggested that 4 times the pixel resolution (3840x2160) would make a noticeable difference. Anything higher would require a larger viewing perspective.
So don't be surprised if future movies are in 3840x2160 @ 480FPS in stereoscopic.
Oliver @ May 14th 2008 8:40AM
man, 240Hz? That's sexy!!
Denden @ May 14th 2008 9:10PM
Not sure about 240hz but she definetly is!
fish @ May 14th 2008 9:16AM
Will it sitll have poor black depth and input lag though? ;)
Bad Beaver @ May 14th 2008 10:09AM
Don't let Philips get their hands on it, or they will smear all that speedy motion with some filter in order to "improve" it or make it look more "natural". On the other hand, with everything going digital, all those DNR filters etc. will become superfluous in a while. We will be able to have a totally clear view of the digital compression artifacts, no more mushiness when it comes to pixelation. Oh joy!
s @ May 14th 2008 11:01AM
i think JVC showed a 180hz tv at the 2008 CES....thatll probably see the light of day before this
Tony Rayo @ May 14th 2008 11:16AM
I know the human eye can only process a certain amount of frames per second (I think it's agreed that anything over 60fps is overkill for regular motion video), but is there a point where hertz stop to matter as well? All I know is that my eyes feel less stressed when my monitor is set at 100 or 120hz rather than the much lesser default.
teej @ May 14th 2008 3:22PM
i'm one for the whole 60-fps-eye-limitation. i used to play CS all the time, and when i used Refresh Lock to get 100HZ in XP, CS at 100fps and 100hz looked a LOT more real than 60fps at 60hz, or 100fps at 60hz for that matter. however, over 120hz kinda seems like overkill...giving the lack of technology to produce such a source.
Klaus Burton @ May 14th 2008 6:14PM
This article I read a few days ago explores the question of how many fps humans can see. It concludes with an estimation that for truly lifelike movement it can't be below 500fps. http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
Iridium @ May 14th 2008 11:22AM
CRT smoothness. It doesn't matter if the refresh rate of the panel is 240hz if the pixel response time is 10ms in real world transitions.
Even the best CRT computer monitors for the longest time could only drive 1024x768 at 120hz max. Hell I was really pleased when I got a 17" montior that could do 1280x1024 at 100hz.
SO this tech does what? Place 10 fake frames in between every real one with 24fps video. At least it is an even number and there is no need for 3:2 pulldown. Still you will end up filling a scene with 10X the ammount of real info with fake frames. Fake frame interpolation already looks like ass.
Iridium @ May 14th 2008 11:25AM
CRT refresh means more than LCD. The scanning beam on a CRT monitor does not reach the same place at the same time so the faster it is the less your eyes will be able to see it. Anything below 72hz your eyes can start to pick it up.
LCD pixels all refresh at the same time so even at 60hz it is nearly impossible for your eyes to see the individual pixels change.
Musouka @ May 14th 2008 11:26AM
The Future is Blu(e) :)
lettcco @ May 14th 2008 11:34AM
@ ESAT:
more like that penis looking thing on the right
crsh @ May 14th 2008 11:47AM
So.. all this LCD panel does is burn out 10 times faster?
CeeJay @ May 14th 2008 4:07PM
It's normally the backlight the burns out first and it's unaffected by the speed at which the liquid crystals shift.
John @ May 14th 2008 11:58AM
I dig the Japanese chicks that are always demonstrating new tech..
Noir @ May 14th 2008 7:40PM
Isn't she Korean?
Not that it matters.
SHoe @ May 14th 2008 12:35PM
Not Japanese: Samsung is Korean so she almost certainly is as well.
Mehul @ May 14th 2008 12:36PM
You mean Korean chicks, coz Samsung is Korean.
TJ @ May 15th 2008 2:20PM
i REALLY hate it when people assume any sort of good technology is automatically japanese. "how could shabby koreans make such beautiful things? it HAS to be the japanese... right?" they should do a poll on how many americans think samsung or lg are japanese companies.
......
James Cameron @ May 14th 2008 1:22PM
I've seen movies playing on a 120Hz LCD TV and its just so weird. I thought I was watching a making of the movie but actually the 120Hz TV make it look like I'm watching the movie in real time.
catbertz @ May 14th 2008 4:49PM
The "real time" effect your recognized is not caused by 120hz panel. For Samsung LCD's, the tech you saw is called AMP. Sony has their version too. Both are user defeatable, with several degrees of effect.
Labrador @ May 14th 2008 1:28PM
Can anyone explain why we need more than 60Hz on an LCD? I thought the eye was limited to 50Hz or something.
James Cameron @ May 14th 2008 1:38PM
Are you kidding me? Have you try playing fast moving games on a 1920x1200 monitor on a 60Hz lcd or even setting your 1280x1024 at 60Hz? You have much better framerates on a higher refresh rate on a LCD. If you watching fast moving sports or a movies panning, it would be very smooth.
Musouka @ May 14th 2008 3:22PM
Well, Plasma kicked LCD's butt in speed (mainly noticeable in fast action scenes) so, as a solution, LCD makers increased the frequency to 100 & 120 Hz in order to match that speed and lessen motion blur (or create an illusion of doing that).
Here is a good read:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6449_7-6792632-1.html
CeeJay @ May 14th 2008 4:12PM
They are not .. My old CRT goes to 120 hz and I tell tell the difference between even 100 hz and 120 hz .. it's hard though and I would imagine that with higher refresh rates it would get progressively harder with each step.
25/30hz is just fast enough to be perceived as motion without being annoying and stressful to watch.
60hz is so much better than 30 but still not great and 120hz seems very smooth.
macserv @ May 14th 2008 2:14PM
Continue advanced R&D on LCD at your own peril, Samsung... Sony will eat you for lunch when they kick your ass in the OLED race.
James McGill @ May 15th 2008 6:16AM
Am I the only one who hates the look of a 120 hz image. It only looks good to me for sports, video games, and ...strangely... daytime dramas. Movies and shows shot to look like film just look wrong. I'm sure I'll hate this even more.