Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???
-
@Dashrender said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@scottalanmiller said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@NashBrydges said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
60Hz refresh rate. That you will notice if you're a sports fan. There will be a blur that follows any fast moving object. Gets
No shows broadcast even at 60, let alone above it. THe human eye can't see 60Hz. No issues there.
@scottalanmiller said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@NashBrydges said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
60Hz refresh rate. That you will notice if you're a sports fan. There will be a blur that follows any fast moving object. Gets
No shows broadcast even at 60, let alone above it. THe human eye can't see 60Hz. No issues there.
I don't buy this.
Back on the day I would get headaches on a 60hz monitor, bump it to 70, headaches gone.
I agree. I know I can see a 60Hz cycle.
-
@art_of_shred said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@Dashrender said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@scottalanmiller said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@NashBrydges said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
60Hz refresh rate. That you will notice if you're a sports fan. There will be a blur that follows any fast moving object. Gets
No shows broadcast even at 60, let alone above it. THe human eye can't see 60Hz. No issues there.
@scottalanmiller said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@NashBrydges said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
60Hz refresh rate. That you will notice if you're a sports fan. There will be a blur that follows any fast moving object. Gets
No shows broadcast even at 60, let alone above it. THe human eye can't see 60Hz. No issues there.
I don't buy this.
Back on the day I would get headaches on a 60hz monitor, bump it to 70, headaches gone.
I agree. I know I can see a 60Hz cycle.
But not 60 frames/sec.
-
@NashBrydges said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
Do yourself a favour and google "motion blur on led tv" and decide for yourself whether you believe it will be an issue for you or not. Don't just rely on what I or others say and make your mind up about what the truth is.
I'm just relying on physics. It's physically impossible for the Hz to determine blur. If it's documented, it's just people who are confused. If you know what the frame is, you'd understand why no frame rate can create blur, it's just impossible. Anyone who things it does, is confused. It's that simple. Just think about what the frame rate is, how do you think blur is possible from that?
-
@Jason said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
Sure LEDs are known to do it but it's based on pixel response. most likely you get a higher refresh rate tv that cost more and it will have better response times but it's not related to the refresh rate directly.
Right, exactly. Just because the 60Hz TVs you are talking about have a bad pixel response doesn't imply that it is the 60Hz that is causing the blur. The two are unrelated. No one is saying that you aren't seeing blur, or that it is happening on some 60Hz TVs....only that there is no direct correlation between the two and cannot be.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@Jason said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
Sure LEDs are known to do it but it's based on pixel response. most likely you get a higher refresh rate tv that cost more and it will have better response times but it's not related to the refresh rate directly.
Right, exactly. Just because the 60Hz TVs you are talking about have a bad pixel response doesn't imply that it is the 60Hz that is causing the blur. The two are unrelated. No one is saying that you aren't seeing blur, or that it is happening on some 60Hz TVs....only that there is no direct correlation between the two and cannot be.
To be fair though, if pixel response can keep up with 50Hz frame-rates but not 60Hz, and the human eye can't detect the difference, you'd actually be functionally better off with a 50Hz frame-rate television. So, there IS a correlation between the two, but it's not a function of the frame-rate; it's more of an "if-then" relationship.
-
@art_of_shred said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@scottalanmiller said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@Jason said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
Sure LEDs are known to do it but it's based on pixel response. most likely you get a higher refresh rate tv that cost more and it will have better response times but it's not related to the refresh rate directly.
Right, exactly. Just because the 60Hz TVs you are talking about have a bad pixel response doesn't imply that it is the 60Hz that is causing the blur. The two are unrelated. No one is saying that you aren't seeing blur, or that it is happening on some 60Hz TVs....only that there is no direct correlation between the two and cannot be.
To be fair though, if pixel response can keep up with 50Hz frame-rates but not 60Hz, and the human eye can't detect the difference, you'd actually be functionally better off with a 50Hz frame-rate television. So, there IS a correlation between the two, but it's not a function of the frame-rate; it's more of an "if-then" relationship.
A 60Hz TV can do 50Hz, though. So that would not be an issue. The 60Hz is just the top speed. In reality, anything over 30Hz isn't really useful for broadcast stuff.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@art_of_shred said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@scottalanmiller said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@Jason said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
Sure LEDs are known to do it but it's based on pixel response. most likely you get a higher refresh rate tv that cost more and it will have better response times but it's not related to the refresh rate directly.
Right, exactly. Just because the 60Hz TVs you are talking about have a bad pixel response doesn't imply that it is the 60Hz that is causing the blur. The two are unrelated. No one is saying that you aren't seeing blur, or that it is happening on some 60Hz TVs....only that there is no direct correlation between the two and cannot be.
To be fair though, if pixel response can keep up with 50Hz frame-rates but not 60Hz, and the human eye can't detect the difference, you'd actually be functionally better off with a 50Hz frame-rate television. So, there IS a correlation between the two, but it's not a function of the frame-rate; it's more of an "if-then" relationship.
A 60Hz TV can do 50Hz, though. So that would not be an issue. The 60Hz is just the top speed. In reality, anything over 30Hz isn't really useful for broadcast stuff.
That's not true at all. This is PAL vs NTSC.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
If you know what the frame is, you'd understand why no frame rate can create blur, it's just impossible.
That's not true. Frequencies of the TVs to not create blur but frame rates indeed can. The standard cinematic cadence is using 24p and indeed 24p has motion blur compared to the 60i of broadcast which is smooth motion.
-
@Jason said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@scottalanmiller said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
If you know what the frame is, you'd understand why no frame rate can create blur, it's just impossible.
That's not true. Frequencies of the TVs to not create blur but frame rates indeed can. The standard cinematic cadence is using 24p and indeed 24p has motion blur compared to the 60i of broadcast which is smooth motion.
No, even that does not. The blur you are seeing there is in the image, not from the TV. If each frame of 24p was crisp, it would look crisp to the eye. It is not the framerate creating the blur but the standard long exposure of the camera. If you moved the aperture time on the camera to reduce the blur, it would go away.
Here is the proof: still images are the lowest possible frame rate... 1/infinity. And you can make a still image that is crisp or blurry. So with a still image we can easily demonstrate that the blur from low framerate always comes from the image, not the framerate.
What people see is that things shot at 24p commonly have blur added for cinematic effect and things shot at 30p tend to have less and things shot at 60p tend to have far less. But it's "how people commonly use the framerate" not caused by the framerate.
-
@Jason said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@scottalanmiller said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@art_of_shred said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@scottalanmiller said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@Jason said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
Sure LEDs are known to do it but it's based on pixel response. most likely you get a higher refresh rate tv that cost more and it will have better response times but it's not related to the refresh rate directly.
Right, exactly. Just because the 60Hz TVs you are talking about have a bad pixel response doesn't imply that it is the 60Hz that is causing the blur. The two are unrelated. No one is saying that you aren't seeing blur, or that it is happening on some 60Hz TVs....only that there is no direct correlation between the two and cannot be.
To be fair though, if pixel response can keep up with 50Hz frame-rates but not 60Hz, and the human eye can't detect the difference, you'd actually be functionally better off with a 50Hz frame-rate television. So, there IS a correlation between the two, but it's not a function of the frame-rate; it's more of an "if-then" relationship.
A 60Hz TV can do 50Hz, though. So that would not be an issue. The 60Hz is just the top speed. In reality, anything over 30Hz isn't really useful for broadcast stuff.
That's not true at all. This is PAL vs NTSC.
I can change my 60Hz TVs to 50Hz.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
What people see is that things shot at 24p commonly have blur added for cinematic effect and things shot at 30p tend to have less and things shot at 60p tend to have far less. But it's "how people commonly use the framerate" not caused by the framerate.
That's not true. I've worked in the film industry and have credits in several films. Sure some people add blur but shotting in 24p and with fast motion alone will cause blur. The fact that you can take a still image and have it not be blurry is in no way related.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
Here is the proof: still images are the lowest possible frame rate... 1/infinity. And you can make a still image that is crisp or blurry. So with a still image we can easily demonstrate that the blur from low framerate always comes from the image, not the framerate.
Images with motion can be capture without blur because they do not have to stay within a specific shutter angle for the framerate. They can set it however they wish to get a very short or long exposure. This is not the case with film, frame rate dictates shutter angle.
-
@Jason said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@scottalanmiller said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
What people see is that things shot at 24p commonly have blur added for cinematic effect and things shot at 30p tend to have less and things shot at 60p tend to have far less. But it's "how people commonly use the framerate" not caused by the framerate.
That's not true. I've worked in the film industry and have credits in several films. Sure some people add blur but shotting in 24p and with fast motion alone will cause blur. The fact that you can take a still image and have it not be blurry is in no way related.
It's absolutely related. Still footage is just a really slow framerate and there can be zero blur. Take still images and move them to 1fps, still no blur. 2fps, still no blur. Blur only comes from other things, never framerate.
-
@Jason said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@scottalanmiller said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
Here is the proof: still images are the lowest possible frame rate... 1/infinity. And you can make a still image that is crisp or blurry. So with a still image we can easily demonstrate that the blur from low framerate always comes from the image, not the framerate.
Images with motion can be capture without blur because they do not have to stay within a specific shutter angle for the framerate. They can set it however they wish to get a very short or long exposure. This is not the case with film, frame rate dictates shutter angle.
If you have a specific mechanical scenario where one is determined by another, that's fine, but it is the machine, not the framerate, causing the blur. Use a different camera with the same framerate and you can get whatever you want as far as blur.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@Jason said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@scottalanmiller said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
What people see is that things shot at 24p commonly have blur added for cinematic effect and things shot at 30p tend to have less and things shot at 60p tend to have far less. But it's "how people commonly use the framerate" not caused by the framerate.
That's not true. I've worked in the film industry and have credits in several films. Sure some people add blur but shotting in 24p and with fast motion alone will cause blur. The fact that you can take a still image and have it not be blurry is in no way related.
It's absolutely related. Still footage is just a really slow framerate and there can be zero blur. Take still images and move them to 1fps, still no blur. 2fps, still no blur. Blur only comes from other things, never framerate.
Dude just shut up. This whole thread is obvious you have no clue what the hell you are talking about but contuie to make up stuff, like always.
-
I thought we were discussing the mechanics of the TV, not how films are shot? Those aren't really related. You're comparing the refresh rate of a digital component with an analog recording media. Apples to oranges. And, does any of this have anything to do with whether this is a good TV for the price?
-
@Jason said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@scottalanmiller said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@Jason said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
@scottalanmiller said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
What people see is that things shot at 24p commonly have blur added for cinematic effect and things shot at 30p tend to have less and things shot at 60p tend to have far less. But it's "how people commonly use the framerate" not caused by the framerate.
That's not true. I've worked in the film industry and have credits in several films. Sure some people add blur but shotting in 24p and with fast motion alone will cause blur. The fact that you can take a still image and have it not be blurry is in no way related.
It's absolutely related. Still footage is just a really slow framerate and there can be zero blur. Take still images and move them to 1fps, still no blur. 2fps, still no blur. Blur only comes from other things, never framerate.
Dude just shut up. This whole thread is obvious you have no clue what the hell you are talking about but contuie to make up stuff, like always.
It's basic physics. I'm not making this up and I proved the case. If you can come up with why insanely slow framerates have zero blur but you magically get blur at 24p then provide it, because no law of physics says that that should happen. And since 24p can be blurry or crisp, we also know that that is not true.
If "shut up" is your argument, you've totally proven my point. If you have a reason why it happens, provide technical reasons not "shut up".
Your poor understanding of image basics is so much that I'm afraid it falls below the level of plausible knowledge. You don't seem to be aware when you've said something so obviously untrue to everyone else, that you can't tell that we all know you are making it up. You've resorted to an emotional fight or flight response to a simple discussion about how images are made.
-
@art_of_shred said in Cheap TV or A Pretty Good Price For $399???:
I thought we were discussing the mechanics of the TV, not how films are shot? Those aren't really related. You're comparing the refresh rate of a digital component with an analog recording media. Apples to oranges. And, does any of this have anything to do with whether this is a good TV for the price?
Exactly. he's confused even about what frame rate is. He claims to be some film god, but doesn't even know the fundamentals that even casual people using a still camera would know. This is SO basic to photography in general or image display in general. Knowing either would make it obvious that frame rate and blur cannot be related.
-
I can shoot 24p with a shutter time of 1/24th of a second or 1/10,000th of a second. One will be blurry, one will not be. The frame rate determines the maximum blur that I can produce without needed two lenses, but that's about it. I can still have more than one lens and do 1/12th of a second with a 24p frame rate.
-
Fight or flight? haha no we are all just tired of your shit here and spiceworks. You do realize there are chat rooms just talking about how insane you are being. You bring this site down by your need to be right at all costs even when you are wrong..
YOU ARE THE ONE WHO CONFUSED FRAME RATE AND REFRESH RATE - I Corrected you multiple times.
But whatever the all knowledgable Scott knows everything in the world.
