Glasses-less 3D TV for $20K

http://www.explore3dtv.com/imagelib/...4-w580h580.jpg

Nissho Electronics in Japan announced the BDL5231-3D2R today, a 52-inch 3D TV that can do 3D without the glasses. The BDL5231-3D2R is scheduled went on sale in Japan today, carrying a hefty price tag of $20,850.

The TV has the following main features:

■LCD panel with full HD resolution
■60Hz refresh rate
■2,000:1 contrast ratio
■700cd/m2 brightness
■8ms response time

No word on whether Nissho plans to sell the BDL5231-3D2R in the U.S.

http://www.explore3dtv.com/blog/entr...es-Free-3D-TV/

Great thing it does not require the stupid glasses but the price tag is a tad over my spending limit for a tv. But good engineering though, they are going in the right direction.

The specs and price suck but, yes, they are headed in right direction.

It will be the standard and sub $1000 1080p sets will be available. Count me in when it is about $500 for a cheap brand like Insiginia in the 40" range whether it be LCD or Plasma.

I'll take two. Do they come in a high gloss?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMichael

I'll take two. Do they come in a high gloss?

---

I'll take my Viewsonic XGA DLP 3D projector WITHOUT THE GLASSES for now......

It probably is awful.

I guess now that you own a HDTV, we'll be seeing mostly 3D and Blu-ray threads from you? :cool:

This set looks like nothing more than early adopter fodder. It will be toast once the market leaders start introducing their glasses-free 3D sets.

The main issue with glasses-free 3D sets will be with how they handle 2D sources. With the current crop of 3D TVs, they function just like any other HDTV when viewing 2D material. But, depending on how the optics are done with glasses-free 3D sets, I can easily see those approaches creating problems with non-3D sources.

As I've been saying for months now, the 3D feature will be standard issue on most HDTVs very soon (and Blu-ray players and set-top boxes). 3D TVs are rapidly approaching price parity with equivalent 2D models, and the glasses-free feature will be the only way to prop up the price points on 3D TVs.

As I've been saying for months now, the 3D feature will be standard issue on most HDTVs very soon (and Blu-ray players and set-top boxes). 3D TVs are rapidly approaching price parity with equivalent 2D models, and the glasses-free feature will be the only way to prop up the price points on 3D TVs.[/QUOTE]

NOT really, the price is still way too high, too high for most to opt into this gimmick(well north of two grand).
What is a guy with six kids going to say? Take turns?:1:

With a 60hz refresh rate, and 8 millisecond panel response time, ghosting will be an issue on this set. I noticed they have not mention viewing cone dimensions - a HUGE problem with glasses free sets.

I remember seeing a Pioneer flat panel when they first came out for around $22,000. Wait a few years. Like Sir T and Woof said, how will it handle 2D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bfalls

I remember seeing a Pioneer flat panel when they first came out for around $22,000. Wait a few years. Like Sir T and Woof said, how will it handle 2D.

---

LIKE any 60hz set. DUH.
a 3D set has to be 120hz at least to be viable (60hz for each side).
Most video on the planet is 60hz.:1:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pixelthis

LIKE any 60hz set. DUH.
a 3D set has to be 120hz at least to be viable (60hz for each side).
Most video on the planet is 60hz.:1:

---

Most video on this planet has no native refresh rate, that is a display perimeter. Video in and of itself is based on frame rates, not refresh rates.

I'll take two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Most video on this planet has no native refresh rate, that is a display perimeter. Video in and of itself is based on frame rates, not refresh rates.

---

GUESS you didn't have GOOGLE IN FRONT OF YOU.
The "refresh" rate is the same as the "frame" rate. If a
picture is 60 fps(frames per second) it "refreshes" at a rate of
once every 60th of a second.
ONE IS THE SAME AS THE OTHER, and you need to figure this out.:1:

ANYWAY, any 3D set with glasses has to have at least 120hz
frame rate. For 2d it makes up every other line of a 60hz picture.
FOR "3D" you need 60hz for each side.
THERE have been 240hz 2d sets out there, and most reviewers
claim that they look like video , even with film content, which
is reasonable since they "make up" 75% of their picture!
WHICH IS GETTING TO THE POINT OF REDICULOUS.
But I DIGRESS...:1:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pixelthis

GUESS you didn't have GOOGLE IN FRONT OF YOU.
The "refresh" rate is the same as the "frame" rate. If a
picture is 60 fps(frames per second) it "refreshes" at a rate of
once every 60th of a second.
ONE IS THE SAME AS THE OTHER, and you need to figure this out.:1:

---

When it comes to all things audio or video, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. First, there is no such thing as 60fps ANYWHERE in film or video. Film is based on 24fps, and video 30fps. Refresh rates refer to how many times the display draws the data on the screen. Frame rates refer to how fast the entire frame is shown on the screen. These two processes are quite different.

Now just to show you how stupid you are, this is from wikipedia:

This is distinct from the measure of frame rate in that the refresh rate includes the repeated drawing of identical frames, while frame rate measures how often a video source can feed an entire frame of new data to a display.

As you can see idiot, the two are quite different processes, and perhaps somebody needs to introduce you to google. This way we do not have to read your oversimplified, inaccurate responses and explanations of things you know nothing about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

When it comes to all things audio or video, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. First, there is no such thing as 60fps ANYWHERE in film or video. Film is based on 24fps, and video 30fps. Refresh rates refer to how many times the display draws the data on the screen. Frame rates refer to how fast the entire frame is shown on the screen. These two processes are quite different.

Now just to show you how stupid you are, this is from wikipedia:

This is distinct from the measure of frame rate in that the refresh rate includes the repeated drawing of identical frames, while frame rate measures how often a video source can feed an entire frame of new data to a display.

As you can see idiot, the two are quite different processes, and perhaps somebody needs to introduce you to google. This way we do not have to read your oversimplified, inaccurate responses and explanations of things you know nothing about.

---

Hey Pix - why ever even post here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hairsonfire

Hey Pix - why ever even post here?

---

You got me.
I WONDER how long the silly little man is going to sit there smugly until he figures out that what HE said is the exact thing I
said!
FOR ALL practical purposes, really.
LOOK at the "frame" rate and you can be pretty confident that the picture refreshes at that rate, the frame rate which is usually 60
frames , if it wasnt 60 frames, then the video would not be 60hz.
IF IT WASNT 60 frames, then why does a 120hz (fps) set have
120fps? I THOUGHT sure it was by doubling the frame rate of 60fps (by interpolating a made up line between the real lines).
GEE, I READ ALL OF THIS STUFF, come here, and this
clueless "genius " contradicts everything I HAVE READ, EVERYWHERE.
What fun.:1:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pixelthis

You got me.
I WONDER how long the silly little man is going to sit there smugly until he figures out that what HE said is the exact thing I
said!
FOR ALL practical purposes, really.
LOOK at the "frame" rate and you can be pretty confident that the picture refreshes at that rate, the frame rate which is usually 60
frames , if it wasnt 60 frames, then the video would not be 60hz.
IF IT WASNT 60 frames, then why does a 120hz (fps) set have
120fps? I THOUGHT sure it was by doubling the frame rate of 60fps (by interpolating a made up line between the real lines).
GEE, I READ ALL OF THIS STUFF, come here, and this
clueless "genius " contradicts everything I HAVE READ, EVERYWHERE.
What fun.:1:

---

Wrong again stupid. Pix, you are a tragedy. Are you so ignorant that when your information is pointed out as wrong, you still stick with your wrong information? The only thing your comments prove is that you cannot read, or you don't understand what you are reading.

ALL film has a frame rate of 24fps...ALL FILM. Programs shot with video cameras shoot at 30fps..ALL VIDEO. There is nothing out there..NOTHING out there that has a 60fps rate...NOTHING! The frame rates have nothing to do with refresh rates.

With a film projector the frames move through the projector at 24fps. The projector displays or flashes one frame twice or three times which means it has a refresh rate of 48hz(24x2) or 72hz(24x3).

ALL Bluray disc are master at 24fps. Since there are no multiples of that for a television with a 60hz refresh rate, 3:2 pull down must be used. For a television with a 120hz refresh, one frame is flashed(or repeated) 5 times which equals to 120hz(24x5=120).

Once again(so that it penetrates your profoundly thick skull), the refresh rate, and the frame rate are two different things. Once again, this from Wikipedia:

The refresh rate (most commonly the "vertical refresh rate", "vertical scan rate" for CRTs) is the number of times in a second that a display hardware draws the data. This is distinct from the measure of frame rate in that the refresh rate includes the repeated drawing of identical frames, while frame rate measures how often a video source can feed an entire frame of new data to a display.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refresh_rate

Not only do I contradict your inaccurate information, so does Wikipedia. Are you going to say it is wrong too?

Do you realize that if we used 60fps, the cost of film(or digital storage) would be so high you could not make a movie at a reasonable cost? No, you don't realize this, it would require that you actually think for a change.

The 30fps is true, for interlaced video.
THERE are 60 fields, each one comprising half a frame,
one is displayed, than the other, giving a frame rate
of 30fps, but this is for interlaced video.
PROGRESSIVE video, which the entire world is using now,
paints one line after another. If a set is 60hz than it paints a
picture 60 times a sec, refreshes 60 times a sec.
If a 1080p 60hz set only showed 30fps video, it would be a 1080p 30hz set.:1:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pixelthis

The 30fps is true, for interlaced video.

---

You still can't get it right. 30fps goes for both interlaced and deinterlaced video. Now you are mixing up frames with fields.

Quote:

---

THERE are 60 fields, each one comprising half a frame,
one is displayed, than the other, giving a frame rate
of 30fps, but this is for interlaced video.

---

You still have not gotten this right. There are two fields for each frame with interlaced video, not 60. Each field within the frame is sequentially displayed on the screen.

Quote:

---

PROGRESSIVE video, which the entire world is using now,
paints one line after another. If a set is 60hz than it paints a
picture 60 times a sec, refreshes 60 times a sec.
If a 1080p 60hz set only showed 30fps video, it would be a 1080p 30hz set.:1:

---

Painting a picture, and refresh rate is the same thing knucklehead. Secondly, a set does not change spec just because the frame rates change. If a 1080p 60hz set only showed a 30fps video, it is still a 1080p 60hz set.

The only thing you know more than the rest of us is how to get the wrong answer 100% of the time.

Now you guys starting to confuse me :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

You still can't get it right. 30fps goes for both interlaced and deinterlaced video.

---

I thought deinterlaced video (progressive) have 60 frame per second.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

Now you guys starting to confuse me :D



I thought deinterlaced video (progressive) have 60 frame per second.

---

Nope, 30fps is just that. The refresh rate is 60hz for most televisions.

Hi T,

I think I get what you are saying. Films are recorded at 30 frames per second, which is not the same thing as saying that a display has a refresh rate of 30 (or 60, 120, 240...)Hz.

My question is, how do these correlate to each other?

Part 1) How does fps compare to Hz? Does 30 fps work out to 60, 120, 240 Hz, or is there no relationship?

Part 2) Does buying a TV with 240 or 480 Hz make a difference in motion blur if the 30fps is less than those?

Part 3) Does the recording rate affect motion blur at all, or would it just make the film look more choppy if the rate was lower?
Thanks for the info.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMichael

Hi T,

I think I get what you are saying. Films are recorded at 30 frames per second, which is not the same thing as saying that a display has a refresh rate of 30 (or 60, 120, 240...)Hz.

---

Actually Gman, film uses 24fps, and video sources use 30fps.

Quote:

---

My question is, how do these correlate to each other?

Part 1) How does fps compare to Hz? Does 30 fps work out to 60, 120, 240 Hz, or is there no relationship?

---

There really is no relationship. Frame rates are produced by camera's, and refresh rates are used by display devices.

Quote:

---

Part 2) Does buying a TV with 240 or 480 Hz make a difference in motion blur if the 30fps is less than those?

---

To be honest, 240hz and 480hz are just marketing on steroids. 120hz is really all you need in the end. Motion blur is caused by the pixels themselves, and no refresh rate will change that much. You can use video processing to mitigate motion blur and it can be quite effective if properly implemented.

Quote:

---

Part 3) Does the recording rate affect motion blur at all, or would it just make the film look more choppy if the rate was lower?
Thanks for the info.

---

Yes the frame rates do effect motion blur, which is why Peter Jackson is using 48fps for the Hobbit, and James Cameron is looking to shoot Avatar 2 at 60fps. 48fps will "perceptively" eliminate blurring, but 60fps eliminates it altogether.

[QUOTE=GMichael;363429]Hi T,

I think I get what you are saying. Films are recorded at 30 frames per second, which is not the same thing as saying that a display has a refresh rate of 30 (or 60, 120, 240...)Hz.

My question is, how do these correlate to each other?

THEY are the same, and are interchangable. THE panel, or whatever, "refreeshes" when a new frame is painted.
THE frequency is the refresh rate.
Refresh rate is actually an obsolete term

Quote:

---

Part 1) How does fps compare to Hz? Does 30 fps work out to 60, 120, 240 Hz, or is there no relationship?

---

THEY are the same, if a set is 60hz, then you see sixty frames
a sec. UNLESS you have one of the last interlaced sets on the planet, in which case you get 60 fields, each field being
interlaced with another to create one frame.
THIS IS where reading instead of experiencing mess you up.
IN AN INTERLACED SET, one "field" is displayed, and already fading when the second is interlaced with it. THIS IS why you
lose up to half your res whenever theres movement, the pic just falls apart, which is what I HAVE BEEN SAYING.
In a sixty hz progressive scan set you get a full 60 frames, either
the pic comes that way or two "fields from a 1080i pic are
deinterlaced .
A HUNDRED and twenty hz set produces a higher freq picture by
interpolating fake frames between real ones, on the fly.
THIS IS TO GIVE SMOOTHER MOTION, and works pretty well.
BUT when you do the same with 240hz, THE PIC COMES ACROSS looking like cheap video, we just don't have the tech
to create 75% of the picture on the fly, which makes 240hz a gimmick

Quote:

---

Part 2) Does buying a TV with 240 or 480 Hz make a difference in motion blur if the 30fps is less than those?

---

BUYING a set with 240hz will eliminate "motion" blur, just like
nuking a city kills the lawyers. YOU WANT your beautiful film
to look like cheap computer video, go with 240hz, where 75% of the pic is interpolated(60hzx4= 240hz)

[QUOTE]

Quote:

---

Part 3) Does the recording rate affect motion blur at all, or would it just make the film look more choppy if the rate was lower?

---

.
THE LOWER the frame rate the
"chopier" the video, but sometimes neither has anything to do with the other.
YOU WILL never get rid of "motion" blur, its mostly used by
plasma fanboys to slam LCD, but "motion" blur occurs even in
real life when your eyes can't catch up to motion sometimes.
ITS A FACT OF LIFE.:1:

[QUOTE=pixelthis;363444][QUOTE=GMichael;363429]Hi T,

I think I get what you are saying. Films are recorded at 30 frames per second, which is not the same thing as saying that a display has a refresh rate of 30 (or 60, 120, 240...)Hz.

My question is, how do these correlate to each other?

Quote:

---

THEY are the same, and are interchangable. THE panel, or whatever, "refreeshes" when a new frame is painted.
THE frequency is the refresh rate.
Refresh rate is actually an obsolete term


THEY are the same, if a set is 60hz, then you see sixty frames
a sec. UNLESS you have one of the last interlaced sets on the planet, in which case you get 60 fields, each field being
interlaced with another to create one frame.
THIS IS where reading instead of experiencing mess you up.
IN AN INTERLACED SET, one "field" is displayed, and already fading when the second is interlaced with it. THIS IS why you
lose up to half your res whenever theres movement, the pic just falls apart, which is what I HAVE BEEN SAYING.
In a sixty hz progressive scan set you get a full 60 frames, either
the pic comes that way or two "fields from a 1080i pic are
deinterlaced .
A HUNDRED and twenty hz set produces a higher freq picture by
interpolating fake frames between real ones, on the fly.
THIS IS TO GIVE SMOOTHER MOTION, and works pretty well.
BUT when you do the same with 240hz, THE PIC COMES ACROSS looking like cheap video, we just don't have the tech
to create 75% of the picture on the fly, which makes 240hz a gimmick


BUYING a set with 240hz will eliminate "motion" blur, just like
nuking a city kills the lawyers. YOU WANT your beautiful film
to look like cheap computer video, go with 240hz, where 75% of the pic is interpolated(60hzx4= 240hz)


THE LOWER the frame rate the
"chopier" the video, but sometimes neither has anything to do with the other.
YOU WILL never get rid of "motion" blur, its mostly used by
plasma fanboys to slam LCD, but "motion" blur occurs even in
real life when your eyes can't catch up to motion sometimes.
ITS A FACT OF LIFE.:1:

---

The amount of misinformation in this post is staggering. As I have said before, the only thing you know how to do better than anyone else, is to be wrong 100% of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Actually Gman, film uses 24fps, and video sources use 30fps.



There really is no relationship. Frame rates are produced by camera's, and refresh rates are used by display devices.



To be honest, 240hz and 480hz are just marketing on steroids. 120hz is really all you need in the end. Motion blur is caused by the pixels themselves, and no refresh rate will change that much. You can use video processing to mitigate motion blur and it can be quite effective if properly implemented.



Yes the frame rates do effect motion blur, which is why Peter Jackson is using 48fps for the Hobbit, and James Cameron is looking to shoot Avatar 2 at 60fps. 48fps will "perceptively" eliminate blurring, but 60fps eliminates it altogether.

---

Thanks T.

Can you 'spain to me the difference between film and video source? Is that analog vs digital?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pixelthis

THEY are the same, if a set is 60hz, then you see sixty frames
a sec. UNLESS you have one of the last interlaced sets on the planet, in which case you get 60 fields, each field being
interlaced with another to create one frame.
THIS IS where reading instead of experiencing mess you up.
IN AN INTERLACED SET, one "field" is displayed, and already fading when the second is interlaced with it. THIS IS why you
lose up to half your res whenever theres movement, the pic just falls apart, which is what I HAVE BEEN SAYING.
In a sixty hz progressive scan set you get a full 60 frames, either
the pic comes that way or two "fields from a 1080i pic are
deinterlaced .
A HUNDRED and twenty hz set produces a higher freq picture by
interpolating fake frames between real ones, on the fly.
THIS IS TO GIVE SMOOTHER MOTION, and works pretty well.
BUT when you do the same with 240hz, THE PIC COMES ACROSS looking like cheap video, we just don't have the tech
to create 75% of the picture on the fly, which makes 240hz a gimmick


BUYING a set with 240hz will eliminate "motion" blur, just like
nuking a city kills the lawyers. YOU WANT your beautiful film
to look like cheap computer video, go with 240hz, where 75% of the pic is interpolated(60hzx4= 240hz)


THE LOWER the frame rate the
"chopier" the video, but sometimes neither has anything to do with the other.
YOU WILL never get rid of "motion" blur, its mostly used by
plasma fanboys to slam LCD, but "motion" blur occurs even in
real life when your eyes can't catch up to motion sometimes.
ITS A FACT OF LIFE.:1:

---

Your post is sprinkled with a few correct facts but somehow manages to be completely wrong at the same time. You must work very hard at that to be so good at it.

Quit expensive for going without glasses. I think I'll still opt for the glasses at that price.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMichael

Thanks T.

Can you 'spain to me the difference between film and video source? Is that analog vs digital?

---

Easy..Film camera's use film, and video camera's use video tape. Film has very difference visual characteristic than video tape. Color saturation is more distinct and profound with film.

Today film camara's can be digital or film based. One shoots the source and it is recorded as a series of 0 and 1 and stored on a hard drive or server. The other stores the visual source on film that a lab develops into prints.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMichael

Thanks T.

Can you 'spain to me the difference between film and video source? Is that analog vs digital?

---

HE CAN'T "spain" what he doesnt understand.:1:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Easy..Film camera's use film, and video camera's use video tape. Film has very difference visual characteristic than video tape. Color saturation is more distinct and profound with film.

Today film camara's can be digital or film based. One shoots the source and it is recorded as a series of 0 and 1 and stored on a hard drive or server. The other stores the visual source on film that a lab develops into prints.

---

GOD, what an ignoramus.
"FILM" cameras use just that ...film. This is some kind of emulsion, and is basically what EDISON invented.
Digital is VIDEO, there is NO such thing as "digital" film, all digital
is recorded on either a hard drive, tape, or some kind of memory.
THERE is NO such thing as "digital" film, there is however digital VIDEO.
and color saturation, etc, while good with film, is also good with video of decent quality. Sometimes you can't tell the difference between HD VIDEO and film, even experts are fooled
sometimes. NON EXPERTS like TALKY are fooled all of the time.:1:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smokey

Now you guys starting to confuse me :D



I thought deinterlaced video (progressive) have 60 frame per second.

---

If you watch on a 60hz set, you are seeing 60fps. EVERY TIME A
picture "refreshes" it paints a new frame. SOMETIMES
frames are repeated to make 30fps 60 fps.
HERE IS THE MAGNITUDE OF Talkys dumbassry, if when a
picture "refreshes" then what is it refreshing the screen WITH
if not "fresh" frames?
a VIDEO image is composed of fields, two of which make up a "frame", which is "interlaced" if interlaced video(one field, than
another painted "between" the first).
If "deinterlaced" both fields are shown at once.
IF A natively progressive image is shown you see one frame after another, each one painted onscreen, and this is 30fps, OR
60fps.
BUT there are no 30fps displays on the planet, so enough
frames are shown to create a 60hz refresh rate.
IF THIS WERE not true then your 60hz panel would be showing
30HZ, or frames a second.
MODERN TV sets are basically computers, and like with computers have variable refresh rates. WHEN WE WERE
all lookin at analog video did youi ever notice just how good
computers looked compared to TV sets? THIS IS because
they run at 60 to 72hz refresh rate, while TV show'ed 30fps,
hence the lines crawling down computer monitors on TV shows,
they were running at 60hz, the tv was running at 30fps.
SINCE software was a bit more primitive, when you would display
analog video on a computer it would sometimes have to change the monitors refresh rate to 30hz(or fps) to match the video.
TODAY it just up converts to a progressive 60hz rate, usually on the fly.
BUT THE long and short is, if you are watching a 60hz set, you
are watching SIXTY FRAMES A SECOND, because when the set
REFRESHES it CREATES A NEW FRAME, that is
WHAT "REFRESH" means. doesn't matter if the video starts out 30fps, or whatever, you watch on a 60hz set, you are seeing
SIXTY FRAMES A SECOND, maybe some repeating, but theres
sixty of em, if there were thirty you would be watching a
30HZ SET. Would like to know where you can get one of those.
BTW on BLU discs the rate is 72hz, each frame is shown three
times (24x3) so it comes out to 24fps , or the film rate.
THIS ELIMINATES 3:2 PULLDOWN.
TALKY doesnt know what hes talkin bout, in other words,
needs to go back to GOOGLE.:1:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

When it comes to all things audio or video, you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground. First, there is no such thing as 60fps ANYWHERE in film or video. Film is based on 24fps, and video 30fps. Refresh rates refer to how many times the display draws the data on the screen. Frame rates refer to how fast the entire frame is shown on the screen. These two processes are quite different.

Now just to show you how stupid you are, this is from wikipedia:

This is distinct from the measure of frame rate in that the refresh rate includes the repeated drawing of identical frames, while frame rate measures how often a video source can feed an entire frame of new data to a display.

As you can see idiot, the two are quite different processes, and perhaps somebody needs to introduce you to google. This way we do not have to read your oversimplified, inaccurate responses and explanations of things you know nothing about.

---

every "frame" shown is "new" data, it might be a copy of
a pre-existing "frame" but its still new as far as the display
is concerned.
BASICALLY the "refresh" rate is the FRAME rate, which is what I WAS SAYING.
A "frame" might be a "repeat" of another to make refresh rates
match, but its STILL A FRAME.
REFRESH RATES and FRAME RATES are , for all pratical purposes...THE SAME.
A 60hz "refresh rate"... SIXTY FRAMES.
Some are copies? DOESNT MATTER, Talkys a copy of a human.:1:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMichael

Your post is sprinkled with a few correct facts but somehow manages to be completely wrong at the same time. You must work very hard at that to be so good at it.

---

SO GEE, everything I HAVE READ, and was taught in school,
was "wrong" and you are "right".
Well, guess again, and tell me what you are watching between
"frames" when you watch 30hz video on a SIXTY HZ SET.
A 486 computer is 486mhz because it "flips" or runs at 486
million times a sec. A THREEG fone receives a three gig signal,
which flips at three billion times a sec.
AND YOUR 60HZ TV refreshes or creates a frame every sixtieth
of a second, doesnt matter real or fake, the "refresh" rate
is the same as the FRAME rate, otherwise what is your set "refreshing " itself with, a nice beverage?:1:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMichael

Thanks T.

Can you 'spain to me the difference between film and video source? Is that analog vs digital?

---

ONE MORE THING, all film is analog, but not all video is digital.
Video used to be analog exclusively, and lagged a great deal
behind film. YOU COULD TELL THE DIFF between tv shot on film
and tv shot on video.
TODAY some HD is shot on tape, but mostly hard drives and
other media are used because they are instant access, and easier to work with.
FILM , on the other hand, has always been "HD".
Even today HD VIDEO HAS A HARD TIME KEEPING UP.:1:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Terrence the Terrible

Easy..Film camera's use film, and video camera's use video tape. Film has very difference visual characteristic than video tape. Color saturation is more distinct and profound with film.

Today film camara's can be digital or film based. One shoots the source and it is recorded as a series of 0 and 1 and stored on a hard drive or server. The other stores the visual source on film that a lab develops into prints.

---

OK, so film camera's are for pro use, while video is for commercial or personal use?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pixelthis

SO GEE, everything I HAVE READ, and was taught in school,
was "wrong" and you are "right".
Well, guess again, and tell me what you are watching between
"frames" when you watch 30hz video on a SIXTY HZ SET.
A 486 computer is 486mhz because it "flips" or runs at 486
million times a sec. A THREEG fone receives a three gig signal,
which flips at three billion times a sec.
AND YOUR 60HZ TV refreshes or creates a frame every sixtieth
of a second, doesnt matter real or fake, the "refresh" rate
is the same as the FRAME rate, otherwise what is your set "refreshing " itself with, a nice beverage?:1:

---

You see Pixy, the thing is this. You rant on and often quote correct facts. But those facts have nothing to do with the subject being talked about. Or, they seem to matter, but really are slightly off topic. Then other times you do go on about things you only think are correct. You'll seem all sure of yourself, but you'll be dead wrong, and never give in. (remember how you trashed Emo for example)

The difference between refresh rate and frame rate have been spelled out for you, but you once read something that makes you believe that you are more of an expert than someone who actually works with this stuff for a living. It's pretty simple to understand that frame rate has to do with how something was recorded while refresh rate has to do with how it is displayed. Granted, both are very similar, but not the same.

I'm not saying that everything you read or was taught was wrong. Only that you are applying the information incorrectly. You jump to conclusions instead of taking in all the information and analyzing it (like I was taught in Systems Analysis and Design in college) Then you refuse to listen to reason and stick to the conclusion you started with no matter what facts are submitted.

It's all OK though. It does lead to some pretty interesting threads. Rant on my friend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GMichael

OK, so film camera's are for pro use, while video is for commercial or personal use?

---

No, you can use a film camera if you like, anyone can if you can afford them. The professionals are switching from film camera's to digital camera's these days. Cheaper to buy, easier to use, and you don't have to pay for film processing.