RE: 50hz v 100hz CRT TVs

["Phil Harris" <phil@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> The salesmen are basically correct, though blurring isn't=20
> really accurate.

No he isn't...

> I think that the advantage is that where a fast moving ball=20
> would kind of 'strobe' across the 50Hz screen, on 100Hz sets=20
> the movement is smoother.

Well it would be if the source signal was at 100Hz field rate rather than
50Hz but it isn't - the source signal is 50Hz field rate (25 full frames a
second). The image processing required to scanconvert from 25 frames per
second (2 frames interlaced) to 50 frames per second (2 frames interlaced)
=
-
so called 100Hz - is quite scary. Standalone scalers and deinterlacers
star=
t
about the =A3800 mark with the "decent" stuff at around =A32k.
Most 100Hz
processing consists simply of grabbing each field as it comes in and
repeating it twice - unfortunately that also means that there is a 1/25th
sec delay introduced between the audio and picture which some people can
distinguish too.

> It's also more evident on a large set, so if you're Sony is a=20
> 24" screen, and your upgrading to a 32 or 36" widescreen,=20
> then the 50Hz defects/artefacts would be a lot more visible=20
> on the larger screen.

Please describe a 50Hz defect or artefact? Large screens show more easily
discernable flicker at low frequencies (50Hz) as they take up more of your
field of view - similar to the way PC monitors flicker at low refresh
rates=
.

Phil