On 08/06/2011 13:59, Mark Lord wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">
> On 11-06-06 11:14 AM, Eric Sharkey wrote:<br>
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 10:27 AM, R. G. Newbury<<a href="mailto:newbury@mandamus.org">newbury@mandamus.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>> Regarding the TV itself. If you get good HD transmission and like<br>
>>> watching sports, then the 120/240 refresh rate feature will be<br>
>>> worthwhile.<br>
>><br>
>> Is anyone broadcasting sports at more than 60Hz? I doubt it. The<br>
>> reason to buy a 120Hz TV over a 60Hz model is that 120Hz is an integer<br>
>> multiple of 24, so movies shot at that frame rate can be shown more<br>
>> smoothly than on a 60Hz set. (Look up "Inverse telecine".) For<br>
>> sports broadcasts, you shouldn't see any difference at all.<br>
><br>
> But I do see a difference, real and very very visible,<br>
> on pretty much any/all programming and/or videos.<br>
><br>
> Watching TV native on the 120Hz Samsung shows a visibly smoother<br>
> playback of everything<br></div></blockquote></div><br>From what I understand, a TV capable of "120Hz" isn't capable of receiving a 120Hz signal. It will only receive a 24Hz, 30Hz and 60Hz signal then quintuple, quadruple, or double the frame rate to give you 120Hz. TVs that are capable of 240Hz AND are 3D are capable of receiving 120Hz material, as the 3D signal needs that frame rate to do it's "3D-ness". Again, I could be wrong, but this is how I always understood it.<br>
<br>Jim<br>