bbf wrote:You're assuming a lot with this post.
a) that people purchasing a "Silo" brand TV from woot for a dirt cheap price *care* about 3:2 pull down when viewing 24fps material (or even will notice the difference.)
True, I did clarify in my later post by basically saying 'if you care about those things look elsewhere'.
bbf wrote:
b) that a 120Hz TV actually properly maps 24fps material to 120Hz.
True again, and again we are dealing with a budget TV, and if it were a budget 120hz TV, I'd also be concerned that it probably wasn't done proper and other characteristics of the display would make it looks worse than many decent 60hz sets.
bbf wrote:
Actually you're incorrect about there being a debate about correct 24fps to 120Hz mapping versus 3:2 pulldown to 60Hz. If 24fps to 120Hz is correctly implemented, it will *always* look smoother than 3:2 pull down on a 60Hz screen with NO "fake" looking smoothness. There is *NO* debate.
This is why: Correct 24fps to 120Hz mapping just involves displaying the same frame 5 times in a row... no special processing is needed to interpolate frames. It looks EXACTLY the same as if the movie was projected using a 24fps film projector (in terms of smoothness, frame timing and content in the frames for each 1/24 of a second.) 3:2 pull down will display alternate frames for 3 times then 2 times in a row, resulting in juddery horizontal panning, but preserving the timing since 3 x 1/60 + 2 x 1/60 = 2/24 seconds which just so happens to be the time it takes to display two film frames.
You may be getting things mixed up with the feature in most 120Hz TV's that will take a 60 fps source and interpolate an extra frame to "smooth" things out... usually adding video artifacts as well. Some TV's will apply that type of processing to 24 fps material as well, resulting in video artifacts and "video" looking smoothness from "film".
Everything you said here is correct, but I can point you to many forums where there is still debate. IMO, properly processed 120hz with 'motionblur' type features off on a quality display look great. On a budget 120hz display, however...
EDIT: You added more to your post after I posted this. I just wanted to comment on your part about the DVD player doing the 3:2 for the display. Since we are being technical, here is where you have to figure out if your display, or the DVD player has the better 3:2 processor. My projector has a great video processor in it, I usually let it take care of the pulldown. The technical stuff can go on and on with these ;)
bbf wrote:
My take on it is that most 120Hz or even 240Hz TV's aren't better than 60Hz LCD's because of the fact they can *do* the extra refresh rates, but more-so because they're more expensive, they can have better processing and maybe a better LCD panel.
This is entirely true as well. I like to look at color accuracy and ability to hold black details on bright scenes first and foremost when looking at displays.
bbf wrote:
Honestly, I have a 120Hz TV and *turn off* all the interpolated features since I really don't care to add visual artifacts to add smoothness that I don't really complain about the source missing in the first place.
Back to the original premise.
Somebody purchasing a "Silo" 42" TV for $405 is not ever going to care if the TV does 3:2 pull down correctly or not.
I don't disagree with anything you said, and I pretty much made the same point in my later posts. This is a budget tv, and if they really care about things like 120hz, proper pulldown, color accuracy, they should look elsewhere.
