Sony delivers the first 240Hz LCDs November 10

Sure Samsung had 240Hz (and wavier hair) first, but with its TVs stuck in development until 2011, Sony's back with another first / best of the night in the W1 series display, packing four times the speed of previous LCD HDTVs, and double that of the new 120Hz your best friend just picked up. Allegedly smoother than Billy Dee Williams cracking open a Colt 45 in Cloud City, the KDL-46W1 and KDL-40W1 bring 1080p with a 3,000:1 contrast ratio, BRAVIA Engine 2 image processing, 24p support and an assortment of hookups from modem to HDMI. Stop by your nearest Japanese electronics shop November 10 to get a peep at these and their slim, sexy sister, but bring ¥400,000 ($3,652 U.S.) for the 46-inch or ¥290,0000 ($2,648 U.S.) for the 40-inch -- you could try showing up without it, but why take chances?

[calchatrent @ Aug 28th 2008 2:49AM]

Just when I thought I had enough loot for a 52" 120Hz Bravia... SMH

[ejdmoo @ Aug 28th 2008 2:53AM]

240Hz? Totally pointless. You can't create data (extra framerate) out of thin air!

[Jono @ Aug 28th 2008 2:56AM]

are there any health drawbacks, esp on your eyes, from watching LCD's that have such high refresh rates?

[Skyride @ Aug 28th 2008 3:13AM]

Only on CRT's its bad for you. It just makes for a more fluid frame rate on LCD's.

[Jon Speed @ Aug 28th 2008 3:02AM]

Nice Billy Dee Williams name drop. That motherfucker was smooth as hell...

Oh, and the TV is awesome. Makes me wonder though, how will it look in comparison to current 60 and 120 Hz displays, and will it also appear as if the image is "tearing"?

[Jin Saotome @ Aug 28th 2008 3:22AM]

Sony is obviously preparing for the next HD war vs... itself! BR vs BR2!

[absinthe party @ Aug 28th 2008 7:40AM]

It's like my _tv_ is "tearing" ass across the backyard, but it's standing still. Still waters run deep.

/sense

[reeper @ Aug 28th 2008 3:10AM]

if you read the source the 240hz tv's are supposed to come out in 2006

[MadMike @ Aug 28th 2008 3:10AM]

Those prices aren't bad. Of course by the time they do reach our tax-infested greedy evil-corporate slavelord shores they will carry with them a premium. Do they ship them in 24k gold boats that runs on baby seals? We will never know....

I'm sorry, its 3am. I'm slightly psychotic at 3am.

[Vagrant @ Aug 28th 2008 5:24AM]

I've typically found merchandise to be inexpensive here in the U.S. compared to buying it when I'm in Japan. Yes, even Sony products. Yes yes, even in Akihabara. Prices are typically the same everywhere over there. Akiba is good for finding odd stuff you wouldn't find at an Ito Yokado, Yodobashi, BICcamera, or a Sofmap store.

I've only purchased a PSP in Japan, along with the 1SEG TV tuner and some games. It was still more expensive than picking it up here in the U.S, but I needed one at the time. Actually, I've brought more electronic items with me from the U.S. to Japan that I left to use when I visit each time. (Oh wait, I also bought an AM/FM radio there because the FM frequency starts lower than in the U.S.)

I do agree that less taxes are a good thing and I'm not happy at all with paying taxes for items from another state, just because I used the Internet.

[yao @ Aug 28th 2008 3:48AM]

um... what's the point of 240Hz?

the point of 120Hz was so that 24fps, 30fps, and 60fps could be all be displayed natively...

can the eye perceive a difference between 120Hz vs. 240Hz? maybe... if a part of the screen went from dark to light to dark within 1/240th of a second. but then again, our fastest source is 60fps, which would render 120 and 240 identical, no?

[Brady @ Aug 28th 2008 7:14AM]

The only advantage that I could think of would be to their Motion Enhancer technology. However, most of the time, I turn off the motion enhancer, because it makes everything look like video.

[notYou @ Aug 28th 2008 8:40AM]

+1 to Brady, he's absolutely right.

The first time I saw Sony's motion-video stuff was when I was walking through CC a number of months ago and the latest Pirates of the Caribbean (ugh) had just come out on video. I literally stopped dead in my tracks because, out of the corner of my eye, from about 30ft away it looked like video. I thought to myself "wtf? are they coming out with a low grade TV show for it now?".

Not having seen the movie before I went over to the TV screen and stood looking at it for a number of minutes - the production values were great, it was obviously really Johnny Depp (sp), the score/props/effects were all there, so I was sure it had to be the real movie - but it looked like it was shot on someone's home video camera. I asked the rep if that was a "feature" of the player or the TV and he said it was the Sony unit and proceeded to go through the menus and turn it off. Suddenly it looked like film again. I was just flat out shocked.

I've been in a quandary since - I like the "film look" better. I'm repulsed by the smooth video look. But I'm wondering if kids today only see stuff like that if they prefer the "liquid motion" type tech and think film looks ugly. Is it the way of the future that everything's going to look like video?

I just couldn't believe how bad - subjectively, to me - it made a brand new, high values production look. In the future I'm going to need a feature that makes stuff look like film, I guess.

[w00t @ Aug 28th 2008 12:44PM]

I can't stand the juddery slide-show style 24fps film frame rate, it annoys me almost as much as the shaking of interlaced video (Why oh why is there 1080i? My TV looks way better in 720p than 1080i because at least all the fine edges of detail aren't shaking up and down!)

Whatever I'm watching sucks me in so much more when the motion is fluid and lifelike, I want to feel like I'm there watching the action not a series of photographs of it in quick succession.

If only everything was shot in 1080p 60fps or more! I've watched a few things in this format and it was so smooth, detailed, clear and realistic!

Have a read up on 100fps.com to see why interlacing and low frame rates are both horrible!

[JM @ Aug 28th 2008 4:23PM]

My guess is that they are hoping the 240 Hz will provide a picture that looks like 60 Hz without that film look too it. Ultimately 120 Hz created new issues and they believe the 240 Hz will take care of everything....

[bizz @ Aug 28th 2008 3:49AM]

would be cool if instead they found a way to match Plasma picture quality, even 50% would be nice

[JM @ Aug 28th 2008 4:21PM]

You'll have to wait till they add 240 Hz + LED back lighting. Probably will be for Dec 2009.

[andrew @ Aug 28th 2008 4:33AM]

Cheap 120 Hz, 5000:1 Contrast, LCD TVs coming to a Wal-Mart near you in 2010! YES!!

What will be the new "must buy" feature at that point? 120hz is pointless if my camcorder can't even do >30 Hz.

You think Madden will ever reach 120 Hz? I thought PS3 was now on a 15 year product life cycle, Cell can't do 1080P at 120 Hz, at least, that what I reckon future articles will say...

[John @ Aug 28th 2008 8:48AM]

Well, if it can hit 80hz, then the 240 hz sets have a leg up. The only refresh rate upgrade I can see being worthwhile would be 300 hz, for those people who love 50 and 60 hz content.

[propaganda @ Aug 30th 2008 1:56PM]

The eye cannot discern frequencies as high as 240hz, The critical flicker frequency is the frequency at which you can discern a light flickering on/off e.g. a fluorescent light is typically less than 50Hz. Most fluurescents flicker at 120Hz and appear continuous. So a TV refreshing at 240Hz is no better than 120 Hz, the visual system cannot discern the difference. I suspect this is just marketing puff....

[bootstrap @ Sep 5th 2008 9:25AM]

Yeah but does it come with free mustard?