A new study by Dr Raymond M Soneira, President of the DisplayMate Technologies Corporation, has rubbished claims that higher refresh rates combat motion blurring on LCD TVs.
In a report titled 'LCD Response Time and Motion Blur' Soneira believes that "LCD manufacturers have taken the idea of bigger refresh rates on TVs to combat a problem which doesn't actually exist."
In the paper he notes: "LCD manufacturers have turned [refresh rates] into a brilliant marketing strategy, offering ever more sophisticated and enhanced motion processing and ever higher 120 Hz and 240 Hz screen refresh rates to repeatedly over-sell a solution to a problem… that is no longer a problem."
No notable difference
While testing a number of LCD, Plasma and CRT TVs – 11 in total from the brands LG, Samsung, Sharp and Sony – Soneira reveals that "there was no notable difference in motion blur between the top-of-the-line models (which all had 120 Hz refresh or LED strobing) and the mid-line models (which all had standard 60 Hz refresh), and which cost less than half of the high-end models."
He also believes that by upping the refresh rate all manufacturers have done is "either introduce objectionable artifacts into the images" or that the boast of increased refresh rates "are just ineffective marketing gimmicks".
Focus on 3D
In the end he notes that "it's time for both consumers and manufacturers to forget about this tamed 800 pound Response Time gorilla and focus on much more productive and fascinating display technology and marketing issues, such as the upcoming generations of 3D displays."
The likes of Sony and Samsung have been heavily marketing their TVs around the concept of 200Hz and beyond for some time now. TechRadar has contacted both manufacturers for comment regarding Soneira's claims.
Via Gizmodo and Display Mate
Your comments (4) Click to add a new comment
caimbeul
November 6th
4. I would have to say that i too can notice a difference in the "smoothness/fluidity of motion" on the sets with a higher refresh rate. Just as i can can clearly tell betweena game running at 30fps vs 60fps.
However, everyone seems to be refering to motion blur. I think you will find that the main problem is not blur but resolution loss in a moving image. If an image was to blur, the whole thing (edges etc would also but if you take a look at most sets, LCD, Plasma or other it is the loss of detail that is the issue. I believe this is partly a tecnology issue and partly the human eye.
Admittadly, a 100hz+ set does increase clarity ever so slighty on moving images.
Alert a moderator
bradman
November 5th
3. That's an astonishing claim. I've seen a side-by-side demo of 50/100/200 Hz TVs from the same manufacturer, and the results are blatently clear. The higher the refresh rate, the better the smoothness of motion. I have a 100Hz TV myself, and I could never go back to watching "50"Hz (most of which is of course 25Hz frame-doubled at source anyway).
His article here http://www.displaymate.com/LCD_Response_Time_ShootOut.htm misses a statement about the settings on each TV for things like noise reduction, which could have an effect like he describes in reducing the effectiveness of the framerate increases.
Alert a moderator
pete_l
November 5th
2. Yup, as are contrast ratios.
No one (well, no *real* people) sit in a darkened room with blackout curtains on all the windows, gaps round the doors sealed up and a torch for when you need to find the remote control. We watch TV in a well-lit room, sometimes in daylight and with all sorts of reflections from the room lights. Given this amount of ambient lighting, there's little point in a contrast ratio better than (say) 100:1 as the room is never dark enough for the seepage past black pixels to be significant.
In any real-world situation the contrast doesn't make the blacks darker and we don't have the brightness turned up to eyeball-searing levels, either.
Most of the specs that TVs come with, from the Wattage of the speakers to the techno-babble video options are worthless and irrelevant. The only thing that matters is screen size and quality.
Alert a moderator
bunjiweb
November 5th
1. Have to say I totally disagree, I have seen the effects and improvements in the real world as I see tvs of 50-200hz on a day-to-day basis in my work environment side by side with a variety of videos on display. Sure, some programs or sources will see no noticeable difference, but on others I have seen quite a difference, not always with the crispness of the image, but certainly with the smoothness.
A typical demo we used to use was a the beginning of a Disney-Pixar Bluray where the Disney castle moves backwards. On a 50hz set the castle did blur and was very juddery, whilst on a 100hz set the castle's movement was smooth and sharp.
Does Displaymate Technologies have interests and money in 3D technology that they don't want to see overlooked so are unnecessarily rubbishing perfectly valid tech.
Alert a moderator
Tell us what you think
You need to Log in or register to post comments