Home audio & video forum: 60 Vs 120 Vs 240 HZ TVs

If you'll be installing cables and leaving them alone for up to a year, the cheapest cable will last just as long as the ten times more expensive ones. Now if you'll be connecting and disconnecting the cables more than once a week, get the expensive ones and they'll last a year. When installing cables, ties and hold down loops will relieve the stress on connectors and further extend life. When TV content is 60 cycle based, movie FILMS are 24 frames a second. A 240 cycle display unit can show that many frames, or four times the standard rate. Manufacturers boast brandname processes that replicate the information on those frames that don't exist. A complicated process to insert that made up frame from a frame before and a frame after. All in an effort to smooth out sport or fast action events. Poor connections on HDMI can lead to frame degradation and jerky content.

The push to buy a TV with a higher Hz rating is a result of LCD and LED TVs having inherent trouble properly displaying fast motion. With 60Hz, a TV may show stuttering during scenes with fast motion. A TV with 120 or 240Hz artificially creates extra video frames that "fill in" the blank spaces a 60Hz TV may give. The problem is that many TVs don't do the higher image processing very good. Also, many viewers see a worse artifact than stuttering on 240Hz TVs in that they add so many artificial fill-in frames that they make everything, especially film content, look like video from a cheap camcorder. I own two 120Hz LCD TVs that do a terrific job of processing the refresh, so I don't see the video effect. I also two Panny Plasmas which don't have any refresh issues, and like Pepe said, they look terrific. My father-in-law has a 240Hz LED and to me and my kids, it's unwatchable because everything has that cheap camcorder look. I also own a 60Hz Panny LCD, but it's only a 32" so I don't see any bad motion blur.