Comments on: Samsung first 240Hz LCD panel for 3D TV is now ready to rock your world

By: Sharpedon

Sharpedon — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 00:26:45 +0000

Nice calculations tenshi but I don’t think that refresh rates translate directly to response times.Response times have to do with the speed of the LCD/TFT crystals while refresh times involve the whole set,primarily its lighting source.
For example plasma sets are much faster,sporting up to 0,1ms response times while only being a 100/120Hz set.The PDP sets lack crystals so their response times is calculated differently.
But in either case we are talking about pure marchitecture here,since the manufacturers invariably declare the black & white(=luminance) response times,which is quite faster than the luminance *and* chroma response times our eyes eventually view-just as with the static vs dynamic contrast ratio marketing hoax.

By: tenshi

tenshi — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 23:38:44 +0000

I disagree.
Would you ever switch to monophonic audio? No. Why insist on monoscopic video then?

3D is the natural way of seeing things and a nice medium for storytelling/filming/presentations. Unnecessary gimmicks around it is where the problem lies.

^tenshi-

P.S. Go see Avatar3D, preferably on a huge IMAX3D screen cinema (digital IMAX ones are no comparison). If this doesn’t make you reconsider 3D, nothing will

By: PDP maniac

PDP maniac — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:33:57 +0000

“3D” sucks by miles!

By: tenshi

tenshi — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 19:16:14 +0000

Unless I’m missing something, 240Hz refresh rate translates to a bit over than 4msec between right and left, not less than 4ms. Lets see.. in 1Hz we got all 1000msec of a second to complete, in 240Hz we have 240 refreshes during 1000msec so 1000/24 0= 4.16666667ms . Again, unless there’s some factor there that I am possibly missing…

^tenshi-