Home audio & video forum: 60Hz vs 120Hz

Just got done with a chat with a Samsung support person.

They tell me that most, if not all, TV's, can only accept 60Hz input.

So I don't understand the 3:2 pulldown when using a 60Hz TV versus a 120Hz TV.

Where does the pull-down occur? There seems to be a "garbage in - garbage out" dynamic here.

If the TV can only accept a 60Hz input - isn't the 3:2 done BEFORE my TV gets the input? So if my TV "upconverts" to 120Hz, which it does, if its getting a 3:2 pulldown conversion input - won't that just result in a 6:4 pulldown per second?

the samsung hdtvs are terrible. just buy a Sony and you will not regret it. Samsung makes a worse TV than westinghouse or vizio they suck go for a Sony 120Hz you dont even need a 240Hz with Sony they are true. its like car amps a sony amp at 50W x 4 is way more powerful than a cheap namebrand 2000 watt amp. SONY is the best in TVs they always have been and dont buy a sony from wall-mart they are not the same models top lines like at best buy. 3D plasma tvs are the best but 3D is not going to last it will be gone in 2 years

My two sets of $30 "generic" HDMI cables (one Amazon, and another from Monoprice) do just fine passing along an HD signal for a run of approximately 8-9 feet. If you want to fool yourself in thinking the Monster brand is necessarily giving you something 'extra' by paying more, then go for it. The rest of the informed consumers will keep on using what we know works, and works well, thank you very much.

Let's just say 'been there, done that'. Many, many times, actually. I can't count how many times on my fingers and toes I've been in friend's homes and did the side by side tests with different HDMI cables. They usually call best buy (etc.) afterwards asking a manager for a refund for their monster equipment .

FWIW, your analogy is a poor one regarding relative price of a particular HDTV requiring a proportionally priced HDMI cable. For typical/short runs as I've described (and has been described by others ad nauseum in this forum), there are plenty of options to being suckered into overpaying for monster cable. Even the fabled Pioneer Kuro does not benefit by using an overpriced Monster vs the very adequate and better priced version from either Monoprice or Blue Jeans cable. Also, comparing RG6 to RU59 isn't the same as comparing various types of HDMI cable.
You need to do a little research before simply repeating on an internet forum what your installer told you.

I'll be honest, your overall post sounds and reads like a typical internet braggard. [Haven't you left your teenage years behind already?] Give me someone who's knowledgable and helpful any day over someone who brags about their money and toys. Someone posting such drivel could certainly benefit from a refresher on many real world specifics.

the samsung tvs look bad even if they are a 240Hz. However, Sony is the best by far in any tv

Is so, the 120Hz is the common number for viewing 60 and 24 Hz content.
Bob

The 24p refers to the frame rate of actual film. Video has a frame rate of 30 frames per second and film has a frame rate of 24 frames per second. It's easy to visualize the frame rate of film because if you hold up a strip of film you can see each frame with a still image, whereas videotape is just a solid piece of tape with no visual images. On film, each of the film frames passes the film gate 24 times in each second, thus causing motion created when all of those still film frames passes over the film gate and light. Videotape does not use a film gate. It uses an electonic scanning head that spins across the videotape. It just so happens that the spinning video head scans at a rate of 30 times per second. The problem is that the film rate of 24 frames per second never transferred perfectly to video equipment that was geared to play at 30 frames per second. If you watch a VHS tape one frame at a time, you will see the images advancing 1 frame at a time until the 3rd frame when one frame repeats twice. With the advent of BluRay discs and players and HDTVs that can display 24 frames per second (24p), we now have the technology to transer films at the original 24 frames per second onto video devices (BluRay discs) that save and can playback at this original film rate without the need to add any duplicate frames, which was done to allow old video equipment to play the films properly.

msu_1966 seemed to need an explanation of where 24 fps came from, so I was just trying to provide a little background that 24 fps came from film, and I didn't explain what Progressive was, which is what the "p" stands for. Yes, this is hardly or never explained.

Dan

I'd encourage you to also diffentiate between screen resolution and refresh rate. While it's true that past a certain distance the human eye & brain cannot benefit from the increased *resolution*, increasing the *refresh rate* to 120Hz might be something you can still benefit from at a distance if the process is implemented correctly and does not introduce other problems with the displayed images, moving or otherwise.

"I have learned one thing over the years, it is best to have last years top tech at todays half price, than to be top dog and chew on it".

Spoken like a true pragmatist. I have more time than money also and would much rather wait till the talking heads shake out the bugs, etc, and take the discount on last years tech. Honestly, the marketing guys are counting on the "lemming effect" for most of the new & improved aspects of todays televisions. When it comes down to it, it's the individual's ability to see/discern the improvements in the picture. This is directly related to the quality of the individual's vision, the distance the individual sits from the TV, and the lighting in the room. Depending upon your individual situation, you may be better off buying a Sony Trinitron or some other tube television, rather than the latest models with all the whistles and gizmos.

Perhaps in your experience it has performed better, but most folks don't have many issues with toslink/digital optical. You are seriously splitting hairs, amigo.