LG Display plans to melt eyes with Trumotion 480Hz LCD TV
By Darren Murph 
posted Dec 29th 2008 10:22PM
posted Dec 29th 2008 10:22PM
LG Display Unveils the World's First "Trumotion 480Hz" LCD TV Panel
TV Panel Featuring Impressive 4ms Motion Picture Response Time to be Demonstrated at CES 2009
SEOUL, Korea--(BUSINESS WIRE--LG Display (NYSE:LPL, KRX:034220), a leading innovator of TFT-LCD technology, announced today that it has developed the world's first "Trumotion 480Hz" LCD TV panel, which has an impressive 480 refresh rate per second, accelerating the advent of ultra high-speed images, without sacrificing picture quality.
LG Display's 'scanning backlight' is the technology that enables a backlight to be repeatedly turned on and off to reduce motion blur. When combined with the company's 240 Hz technology, the display can refresh 480 images per second.
In addition, LG Display's "Trumotion 480Hz" display boasts an lower motion picture response time (MPRT)of 4ms, eliminating motion blurring for fast moving images and enabling a realistic, crystal clear picture. The display also makes dark images even darker and bright images far brighter - providing unparalleled, vivid picture quality. Moreover, it can reduce energy consumption by adjusting the backlight brightness.
"The world's first Trumotion 480Hz LCD TV panel is planned to hit the market in the second half of 2009. LG Display will provide its customers with unique, high-end products while delivering crisp picture quality for fast moving images," noted Mr. Eddie Yeo, Executive Vice President and Head of LG Display TV Business Unit.
LG Display will showcase its newest cutting-edge display technologies featuring improved motion picture response time (MPRT), eco-friendly displays and more in a private room at the Bellagio Hotel during the upcoming Consumer Electronics Show (CES) 2009.
...and I thought 240Hz was overkill.
My Blu-ray busting Toshiba Super Upconverted DVDs are gonna look so good!
exactly my thought...
If what you have hooked up the the TV doesnt send more than 60hz you dont benni anything.. If the camera filming cause the blocking when fast motion you wont benni either..
Stupid.. Just something to get the TVs back up in price so they can take in more Loot.. Just like plasma.. Just Hype..
I thought it didn't matter whether the signal being sent from the source was 120hz or not? In fact I don't think there is a source out there that send a 120hz signal to the TV. The TV puts out the 120hz. There is a noticeable difference between the Samsung LNA550 and the Samsung LNA650. The picture is exceptionally more clear in the 650 than the 550. I've been selling TV's for almost two years now and believe me when I say it takes a while to notice the subtle differences, but they are there.
(These are rounded up for simplicity.)
24 * 5 = 120
30 * 4 = 120
60 * 2 = 120
Any questions?
We don't have to care about that PAL garbage. :P
Nice point Kev. I think 120hz is the sweet spot. That said, I totally agree that 240 is overkill, and any difference seen between that and the 480, or even a 120, is simply the result of other factors. How fast can the human eye see anyway. I know flicker becomes invisible somewhere between 72 and 86 Hz for most - read that in Windows XP help guide, I think. lol.
The only application i can see for this display would be in film - you caould film it and it wouldnt flicker, but know thats just kindof redundant isnt it - creating a viewing device simply to be filmed and then viewed on another device... just use greenscreen. its probably cheaper.
http://www.thg.ru/display/sony_xel-1_oled/sony_xel-1_oled-03.html
From the chart you'll see latency of the first retail OLED screen is close to zero. So even 10,000hz will be not enough for LCD to bead OLED. IMO.
You want a reason for OLED not being made and sold freely? Its too good to be real :)
Pretty sure my 60hz Bravia XBR3 looks just fine...I can't even tell the difference between it and the 120hz XBR's.
Not sure what this whole hz business is about. What matters is the resolution, viewing angles, and most importantly, how well it processes the content, color, etc.
It's like the megapixel race in cameras.
120hz is something of an important mark - it allows for both film and video to be played back without utilizing pulldown technologies. Film is shot at 24 (23.976, but why split hares) frames per second, but the United States (and other places using the NTSC standard) shoot video at 60 frames per second, and so technology accordingly went with the higher framerate. However, the issue then becomes how to play back 24 fps content on a 60hz screen.
For SECAM countries, this is not much of an issue as 2:2 pulldown is utilized, leading to ~5% speedup (24 fps content is sped up to be 25 fps, which does lead to an audio pitch shift, but that's another discussion), but as NTSC is 60hz vertical scanning, slowing it down to 20hz or up to 30hz is not an option, so 3:2 (or 2:3, the terms reference the same process) pulldown is used to utilize the interlaced nature of broadcast television - to not get bogged down with details, it involves mixing or repeating frames, with the end result being that there is "judder"; that is, the speed at which objects move changes slightly due to the nature of the frame repetition. This is particularly noticeable on slow panning sequences, especially if the viewer looks for it.
120hz televisions evade this by accepting 24hz input and using 5:5 pulldown, showing each frame 5 times for smoother playback. From that standpoint, no further hertz are needed as both 60 and 24 fps content will play back without any monkeying with frames, but additional technologies exist for interpolating frames to create yet "smoother" playback. There are benefits to these technologies - "ghosting" of fast moving objects is reduced, but things such as the "soap opera effect" come into effect, which you can read about on avsforum if you are so inclined. However, it's fairly save to say that a 480hz television is mere technological masturbation and not that important. In conclusion, 120hz useful, 480hz overkill.
Its a marketing thing, so new thing to hammer out as a niche and say you have that nobody else does right now. 4x the Hz for probably somewhere near 4x the price. Now the screen isn't the only thing that increased in 'hurts'.
Thank you John for sharing that! I'm educated in the T.V world now!
@John
I'm under the impression that (live) video is shot at 30 fps, rather than 60. The tv simply is refreshed at that rate because of technological ramifications. Am I correct? I'm guessing you were meaning to say that the final output of video is that in 60, rather than 30 fps.
Another, or rather, the most important note here, is that an HDMI cable can only carry a single 60fps signal (1080p) max. Therefore it's safe to say that to effectively (theoretically even) use this tv to it's full potential, one would have to supply 8 synced sources, each endowed with it's own HDMI output. Such a display would be most interesting to watch, more so enforced by the fact that such high refresh rates have never been used (240hz even). One must remember: video cards may be able to output such frames rates and well over. However, displays that are able to do so have only started appearing in the current times.
Agreed, its so overrated. I can barely notice the 120Hz on my Samsung unless I really try to notice the difference between it being on or off. Mine's a 52" screen, so I thought the pickup would be a bit more obvious. It's merely a selling point.
VegasFreak: NTSC analog video is 525i, 30 frames per second, with each frame having 2 fields (thus 60 fields per second). The 'i' stands for interlaced.
Common LCD TVs sold in North America and Japan thus have 60hz so that they can accurately replicate 1080i, which also has 60 interlaced fields per second.
Seems to me the race for Hz should eventually stop at 600 -- which would produce an LCD TV marketable worldwide (capable of PAL 25fps, Film 24fps, and NTSC 30fps)
Whoops, meant VeganFreak. Heh. Sorry. I have NAB2009 in my mind already.
For all practical purposes,
f*** PAL (Yes, I'm an American [though not always proud of it])
and John = genius (of the non-itunes variety)
Wow Im glad John actually broke it down....... I feel like Ive actually learned something.....
@John
Just FYI, few 120hz tvs can do 5:5 pulldown at this time. They do 120hz with a cheesy 3:2 pulldown and double that, IIRC.
A lot of newer LCD tvs are doing 96hz now with 1080p 24fps video. Check it out on UAV.
The googles....Zey do nothings!!
y
Uhm... 480hz equals 2.083 milliseconds per cycle.
And the pixels can only handle 4 milliseconds.
Methinks there be a technological mismatch here.
No the 4ms is latency.. Different than what the screen refreshes at.. 4ms just means it take 4ms for the TV to process.. Meaning it'll be bhind live by 4ms.. :)
Hz is how many times per sec it refreshes
ms is use for delay from device to set...
Isn't latency the time it takes a pixel (or a transistor element) to go from Off to On to Off again?
If that's the definition then maybe the latency is 2.083 ms from Off to On and then 2.083 to go back to Off again, or 2.083ms x 2 = 4.166 ms
Maybe the 480Hz is OK since the 2.083ms is within that range of turning a "pixel" On.
4ms is most likely the gray-to-gray response time (the time it takes for a pixel to go from one shade of gray to a different shade of gray). If a LCD has a response time of 4ms, it by definition CANNOT display more than 250 images per second, so either the given response time is wrong or the refresh rate is bogus.
I am conflicted - I want to vote you up for the use of methinks, but also vote you down for the incorrect post!
Funny this has a response time of 4ms, when my 2-year-old monitor gets 2ms. Hm.
...with 4ms response time does it really matter? shouldn't they focus on increasing the response time to like
They can't so they increase useless crap to add points in marketing material. Personally I think LCD sucks as a television. Plasma is better but ultimately both technologies suck complete ass. I can't wait for OLED/SED/anything else.
I know I'm not the only one with this question, but why do 120hz LCD's look more life-like than Plasma's when Plasma's are said to be in the 400's??? I don't get it. I was in Costco and did a side by side analysis with a Vizio 120hz and a Panasonic Plasma and the Vizio watching Chuck on NBCHD looked much better and more real than the Plasma...
120hz technology (like CineMotion and the various copyrighted things that TV manufacturers came up with) is used to interpolate frames and creates what's sometimes called the "soap opera effect", which can make things like 24hz film suddenly appear to look like 60hz video and make moving objects appear to move faster. Plasma panels do not add frames and simply repeat content. Having watched Full Metal Jacket off of blu-ray with 120hz at full blast on a Samsung, it's a bit of a mixed bag, to say the least.
Thanks John for breaking it down.
Dude you are crazy if you think a Vizio outperforms a Panasonic Plasma. Educate yourself, once both tv's are calibrated (which Cnet and many other professional reviews have confirmed) THAT particular plasma will win every contest hands down. Color Variation, Grey Scale, Smoothness and more. Any Questions feel free to ask.
Jordan,
I didn't say the Vizio "Outperform"ed the Panasonic, I said it looked more life-like. I later found out that that is the "Soap Opera affect". Take a chill pill!
wtf? engadget cut off part of my post..
as i was saying they should focus on increasing the response time to something less then a ms
Its sad that LG is succumbing to the numbers game. 480 is higher, so it must be better, right? Its all marketing hype trying to lure unknowledgeable consumers into paying hundreds more for technology that doesn't amount to squat.
Yep, just like Circuit City has 2 LCDs side by side w/ one having crappy content sent to it and telling customers that your HD will look that bad unless you spend $150 to "FineTune" the LCD..
What has this world come too.. Companies taking advantage of ppl that arent tech incline.. Im not sure, but MY HD looks great, and all I did was take it out of the F'in box..
at least best buy pipes the exact same junk to all their TVs... over coax cable split 60 some ways (oh, and 1080i) so that it looks like shit, but you can at least look for the worst looking one, because it's most accurately displaying the low quality content they send it.
but panasonic already has 480hz out,
No they don't - that was something along the lines of 480 lines of motion.
This could get interesting. 480hz? No, 480p... wait what?
120hz On some LCDs are not what creates the "soap opera effect." each LCD manufacturer has other technology that creates the interpolation of frames; for instance on Samsungs they call it their "motion flow" technology and it can be set to low, med, or high.
120hz is a measure of how fast it can efresh and "motion flow" type technology is what inserts the extra frames and makes the film or tv look "faster" or "smoother" some people like it and others don't.
i was explaining why the 120hz content on LCDs can look very different compared to plasmas which can be accorded virtually any refresh rate. As I said, CineMotion (motion flow, everyone has their own name for their particular interpolation tech) leads to this difference. I called it "technology", you call it "tech", obviously we are talking about the same thing and you could deign to not try and be a dick. You can also read my much more belabored explanation above.
I'd like to see the release of a high refresh rate LCD monitor which actually has as low of a response time as is claimed. It's unlikely that anybody will be utilizing 480hz video content, but this could at least be useful on a PC for gaming. Talk all you want about the elementary division behind figuring out the response times necessary to accurately display at a certain refresh rate, but none of it matters because manufacturers' claims of response time are nowhere near accurate. You might not notice it, hell, you might think that the human eye is limited to 24 frames per second, and the past few years of looking at standard ratio, 480i content stretched to fit your 1366x768 native resolution HDTV with those light blue black levels might have you marveling at how skinny people look in real life, and how black it really is in a dark room at night. I don't know what's going on with the public's perception of consumer technology anymore. Everyone's misinformed, everyone's willing to offer their superior insights, and nobody is willing to perceive accurately.
is that what its called when the 120hz sets make everything look cheaply produced?
that would be the soap opera effect: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/gtsearch.php?cx=001381781930431233427%3Apbbbasrrsh8&cof=FORID%3A11&q=soap+opera+effect&sa=Search#1062 - how people feel about it varies to some degree, but I would agree with the "cheaply produced" assessment.
isnt those movies at 23.97 fps? I never quite understand the math there, so those 480Hz are more like 479.4hz?
No. They make up the extra .03fps by simply speeding it up a bit. A two hour movie would be approximately 9 seconds shorter, not enough for any sane person to notice.
I imagine this would work well for soap operas, and maybe video games, but for most TV and movie viewing it would not look so good.
Am I being completely dumb - or is there a slight problem in the maths with this?
The pixel response time is 4ms... meaning each pixel can refresh 1000/4 times a second... or 250 times a second.
So a refresh rate of 480Hz will have absolutely 0 benefit over 250Hz???
I suppose different pixels change colour at different times, so there is scope for the overall refresh rate to go higher than 4ms... but wouldn't it be better to have a panel with 2ms response time?
you guys are all a bit off--cinemotion or whatever your brand calls it is NOT related to the refresh rate. These are two separate features. Cinemotion might benefit from 120hz+ refresh rates, but it is different. It's simply the tv trying to smooth out the juttering effect people notice when watching 24p content, especially during panning shots. Personally I think it's a joke as it destroys the cinematic look, but this can be done by any LCD, not just those with higher refresh rates. 120hz+ tvs main benefits are that help the tv maintain hd video resolution--by updating the screen twice as fast, it helps the pixels switch faster, reducing the motion blur/ghosting effect inherent in all lcd displays. Read about it on hdguru, you'll see that many lcd hdtvs don't maintain 1080p resolution on video unless they have 120hz technology. 120hz+ may also add interpolation to smooth motion, but again this is a feature distinct from the 120hz+ technology itself.
Also--4ms is most likely a BWB measurement: that is, it measures the time it takes for a pixel to change from black to white to black again. 5ms used to be the best, but I think 4ms is now. Sometimes you see monitors that offer "2ms" response times, but these are referring to BGB, black-gray-black, which obviously takes less time. Still these numbers depend on things like your contrast and brightness settings, so it's really best to just go and look at the screens yourself.
next one might be 720hz and 1080hz
actually, OLED melted my eyes already. this is just unsubstantiated tech that makes no sense.
My Panasonic Plasma refreshes at 480Hz already, and has better blacks than ANY LCD on the market.
I say 'meh'. Bring on OLED.
I've tried it, and sofar, none of these things takes IN more than a 60htz signal.
Now, i do realize that TECHNICALLY you can do 3DTV over 60hz (30 left eye, 30 right eye, and 24/24 for movies) i think we are missing the boat here with respect to utilizing the actual panel speeds.
I would LOVE to play my PC games in HD at 120htz RENDERED.
Motion Adaptive Image Blur Compensation techniques are nice, but, if i have a source that can DRIVE 120 or higher, let me input it.
The Best 120htz tvs are already pretty expensive, give me a faster input even if it were only 1 of the HDMI ports. Or, give me DisplayPort instead of VGA or with VGA as an option.
I am NOT a big fan of all of this 'computer rendered motion compensation' class of technology.
At 240htz, UP TO 3/4 and POSSIBLE 7/8ths of the rendered frames a rendered by a computer. NO WONDER IT LOOKS UNNATURAL. they will eventually CREATE motion blur of a 'more desireable nature' just to stop people from getting SICK of this picture. I don't want to think about 480htz. I imagine its 240htz with IB Scanning Backlight on alternate repeated frames. Heck, when does Panasonic start putting it in their Plasmas? The entire reason for 120 was to BEAT plasma, and they did it. QUIT IT ALREADY. Either improve the source input framerate or just stop the insanity altogether. All i want to look at when i see the OLED models are pristine origonal frames in all of their glory. You can't beat that.
Motion Blur is a fact of life. Wave your hand infront of your face a few times. It's just natural, which is what we should appreciate.
Disclaimer: Former worker in home home theater industry (but not for Sony or LG).
Apparently, 480 Hz actually isn't overkill for some -- although there IS a point of diminishing returns.
The Truth: The sad fact remains is that a 20-year old CRT has less motion blur than any of the 120 Hz LCD's or even Sony's 240 Hz LCD.
On many LCD's, even the Average Joe User often notices they cannot read the advertisement signs at the back of a hockey rink or football field when there is a fast horizontal panning motion -- when carefully pointed out the differences in motion blur of CRT versus LCD, most sports fan notice. It's not a minority, such as 2% .
Even at 60 Hz CRT's, there is a clear difference in hockey/racing/skiing especially in fast pan shots, in shutter speeds of 1/200sec versus shutter speeds of 1/1000sec. But try to show the same material on an LCD, and it is extremely difficult to tell apart these material taken at different shutter speeds faster than the sample rate (either the backlight strobe rate, or the motion interpolation rate).
So framerate interpolation or backlight strobing (dark frame, or flickering backlights, or scanning backlights, such as in high end Samsung displays). Backlight strobing or motion interpolation is necessary to gain the full benefits of fast shutter speeds used by sports cameras in sports shows.
As a rule of thumb, "1/x second" backlight strobing will yield similar motion blur as "x Hertz" frame interpolation.
To gain the FULL BENEFIT of fast-shutter video cameras (1/1000sec shutter), one needs a 1000 Hz display, or a backlight that strobes at 1/1000th of a second. (Or a scanning backlight, where individual 'lines' of lights show at 1/1000th second each)
Thusly, therefore, 480 Hz is not enough, for certain kinds of video material; although it now comes quite close to CRT.
IMPORTANT NOTE BEFORE YOU REPLY:
"How many frames per second can the human eye see?"
...NOT SAME AS
"How many frames per second do I have to have to make motions look fluid?"
...NOT SAME AS
"How many frames per second makes the movie stop flickering?"
...NOT SAME AS
"What is the shortest frame a human eye would notice?"
...To help attempt to explain things differently: Even among the same person, experiments have shown that the thresholds vary depending on context. For example, people can still see stroboscopig wagon wheel optical illusions that show differently under a 1000 Hz strobe light versus a 1005 Hz strobe light (wheel being stationary versus wheel rotating, as in 'wagon wheel effect', if it is in sync or out of sync). These artifacts show that, indirectly, the human eye can tell apart 1000 Hz and 1005 Hz. Just like for audio, hearing 1000 hz versus 1005 Hz sounds almost the same, but try to hear the two sounds together, there is a 5 Hz beat frequency as a 'side effect'. Although this is apples versus oranges, it proves that there are unexpected reasons why there is a benefit to higher interpolation rates. Unfortunately, there are many effects that force vendors to require 480 Hz (or even greater) interpolation in LCD displays, to compensate for the LCD motion blur effect that does not exist in CRT's due to CRT's flicker effect... Personally, I prefer backlight strobing -- because it is less artifical (no interpolated frames) and more CRT-like -- but people typically do not like the flicker of strobed backlights, and a touted advantage of LCD is the lack of flicker (but that very advantage creates a disadvantage: motion blur)
One minor correction:
"...either the backlight strobe rate..."
Should read as:
"...either the backlight strobe duration..."
(Very important correction to myself)