Sony takes the wraps off 240Hz, RFID enabled BRAVIA LCDs in Japan
By Richard Lawler 
posted Mar 2nd 2009 11:03AM
posted Mar 2nd 2009 11:03AM
[Via Akihabara News & AV Watch]
posted Mar 2nd 2009 11:03AM
The number of televisions estimated that sit unused in closets.
The EPA estimates that nearly 100 million unused televisions are currently taking up precious, beautiful space. (source: EPA, July 2008)
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Now you can make your friends pay when they aren't looking :|
XD I didnt pay for that!!! Honest!
as opposed to totally free 1080p bluray mkvs from the internets. aww. hard to decide.
I don't think they are true 1080p that you would find on a BD-ROM.
That take days to download
yeaaaa those aren't 1080p those are compressed
I so want to watch Fireman 3.
10, 11, and 12 buttons... but no Zero button.
What kind of crazy number entering system are they using in Japan, anyway?
'10' acts as the zero in Japan. It goes from 1-12 because there are 12 major channels in Japan going back to the analog days (now its digital).
I saw the new 240Hz LCDs from Sony at CES - compare to the older 9G pioneers, the Sony's don't look very good and to top it off they are pretty small.
Curious if you guys can find out the lag statistic on new tvs like this. I always want to know whether a new set like this would he suitable for gaming.
I'm curious about something: what is the benefit of 240Hz?
Back in the day, my rule of thumb for CRT monitors was to make sure they ran no slower than 75Hz, to eliminate flicker. As such, I understand the jump from 60Hz to 120Hz - it's easier on the eyes, and a logical multiple of 60Hz.
But does 240Hz lead to any such benefit, when it's going so much faster than the eye can perceive? What about power consumption? Essentially, would I be buying something that goes twice as fast, and likely consumes more power, with no perceivable benefit to me?
Of course, if there is a benefit, I'd be interested to know what it is. Thanks!
It's just a bigger number so it has to be better.
It will make movies look terrible (whose framerate is supposed to be 24fps roughly).
It's for NVIDIA's new 3D display technology - they have glasses that switch between left and right, and the screen also switches between two images meant for your left and right eye. So now your left eye sees a set of images and the right eye sees a different set, resulting in a 3D visual. But even with a 100Hz display the flicker will be horrid because 100/2 = 50Hz. A 160Hz display (80Hz for each eye) would probably do but the higher the less flicker you'll get.
I don't understand that... you'd be refreshing the LCD 10 time per frame... it's not a refresh that fights with the 24 FPS video like 30/60/90Hz.
I don't know if this TV supports nvidia's new 3D thing, but that's one of the advantages. 120hz computer LCDs are just coming out and you wear glasses that flicker at 60hz for each eye. This allows the monitor to display the same image in 2 different perspectives (1 for each eye), giving the illusion of a 3D image. For this display specifically, one notable advantage is that if you hook up a computer with a really beefy graphics card and enable vsync, you can play games at a buttery smooth 240fps and see every frame your card renders. This makes for super smooth movement, especially when turning quick in a first person shooter.
Also it is a myth that the eye can only "see" at about 60fps, 30fps, 24fps, 18fps, or whatever number they're spouting these days. Truth be told, it is estimated that to make things look completely real and eliminate "motion blur" you'll need around 500 fps. Here's an interesting read: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
CRTs, LCDs and Plasmas all display pictures differently and the response/refresh rate are different numbers. If you are looking for the fastest display - CRT still holds the crown. For action movies and gaming CRT is the best. Second place goes to plasma. Plasma was a tad behind CRT but Pioneers 10G was going to supposedly close the gap but now we'll never know since they are no longer in the business. That leaves LCD far behind CRT and even plasma for motion picture smooth transitions. 240Hz helps and does seem smoother than the standard 120Hz LCD but still unpleasant if you are used to CRT and actually can tell the difference between an apple and an orange, standard def or high def or a skateboard and a car. Many people can't seem to tell the difference between beers, LCDs and CRT etc so those people won't care.
SED was going to be a revolution because it gave you the benefit of the thin display like LCD and Plasma but with the significant advantages of CRT such as true blacks and fluid motion. Again - chances are SED won't ever be seen so for now we'll have to hope LCD improves, Panasonic uses the technology from Pioneer in their plasmas or OLED is all that and a bag o'chips but for this year we've set the bar lower because of the economy and Pioneer pulling out of the race.
@ Mr. Epic Hero
Thanks for the info. I should have been more careful with my phrasing. "Faster than the eye can perceive" is obviously wrong on my part. I should have said "faster than the flicker perception threshold".
Also, this is faster (by 3-4X) than the speed at which content can actually be delivered. HDMI 1.3 can support a max of 75p, there doesn't appear to be any benefit to this particular box except as proof-of-concept. The standards need to catch up before this is useful, right?
That's a novel name for response time... I like it
You mean I can buy a ShamWOW without picking up a phone! COUNT ME IN!
"No longer tied to an ugly outboard box"
True, but that remote is almost as bad! Surely it would have been better to turn the card reader 90 degrees which would stop the thing from looking so square.
Yes, I can order 2x as much porn now >:)
Why do the number buttons go up to 12?
Wow, Japan is always ahead of us; their channel numbering system is Base12, and they have the remote to prove it!
Hey guys, this 240hz, 120hz LCD technology looks really weird to me. Here's why (you may already know some of this):
When you watch a movie, or most narrative TV (like CSI or X-files, not the news or reality shows) it is often shot on film at 24p (or close enough to it for the purpose of this explanation). A lot of stuff is shooting on HD now, and that is often shot at 24p as well, part of why HD cameras are becoming popular in Hollywood.
Baseline TV's are at 60hz, which seems to mean it refreshes around 60fps. A "pulldown" is put on the 24p footage so that it shows properly on a 60hz TV. It looks fine.
When you up the hz to 120, I guess it might look a little better? I don't know. You're seeing 5 frames created for every frame aren't you? It looks ok, a little different, like it's smoothed out. At 240hz you're getting 10 frames for every frame of a 24p movie. It seems to be interpolating frames between the 2 24p frames.
If interpolation is what's going on, it exaggerates the smoothing effect that all these extra frames give to the footage. It looks weird. I saw the Dark Knight demo'd on one of these at CES, it was weird. 24p is standard. It provides a look that low budget filmmakers strive for. It's got a judder. Film is not supposed to be completely smoothe like video, arguably, that's one reason why it looks better. In short, these high hz LCD's alter the image in a way it wasn't intended to be. Older technology LCD TV's and plasmas don't do it, I don't fully understand it, but I don't care for the look.
A long time ago, someone decided film wasn't smooth enough - even at 24fps. So they introduced a 2 bladed shutter on the projectors, so when you see a 'frame' at the cinema you're actually seeing it twice.
Then they introduced 3 bladed shutters, so you see the same film 3 times.
If there's interpolation going on, you're looking at 1080i. A horrible format that should never have existed. Technically there's nothing wrong with repeating progressive frames. It's not good when you try to fit say, 18fps into 25i as then you get video fields overlapping other fields which don't 'belong' to the same frame. A nightmare for later compression or anyone with a progressive set.
In response to Katarn (mileeees above 'yeeeeea those aren't 1080 those are compressed') - What the hell do you think BD is? The master copy?! The one's you get off the net can be as good as the BD, some aren't. BD is Mpeg 4 - that's compressd doofus.
You can switch it off on Bravia TV.
My X3500 series as a switch between Movie mode (True 24p) and Game mode (Motion flow 100Hz).
I can't think of the model or brand, but at best buy they had a lcd on display where half the screen showed a 120hz video, and the other half showed a 240hz video. The difference was noticeable, the 240hz looked a little less choppy, but without the images side by side, it'd be REALLY hard to tell the difference otherwise
and i'm just waiting for some hacker to tap into someone's cable line and steal their credit card info when they fall asleep with the remote next to their wallet