RE: 50hz v 100hz CRT TVs

["White, Peter" <peter.white@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The salesmen are basically correct, though blurring isn't really accurate.
I think that the advantage is that where a fast moving ball would kind of
'strobe' across the 50Hz screen, on 100Hz sets the movement is smoother.
It's also more evident on a large set, so if you're Sony is a 24"
screen,
and your upgrading to a 32 or 36" widescreen, then the 50Hz
defects/artefacts would be a lot more visible on the larger screen.
Personally when I had my 100Hz Philips it took some getting used to; I have
no idea why 100Hz would cause this effect, but it sort of gave an
impression
of naff 3D; the character in the foreground was very defined,to the point
where the background just looked like a painted set, no matter what it was.
Sound daft, and it probably is, but it took a lot of getting used to. That
said, having looked at various 100Hz sets, I'd still go for Philips every
time, they seem to have the edge on this technology (though the last time I
looked was a year ago).

Pete

_____

From: Malcolm Surgenor [mailto:malcolm@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 30 August 2004 13:09
To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subject: [ukha_d] 50hz v 100hz CRT TVs


spent some time at the weekend touring the electrical shops looking at new
TVs (CRT).  No reading the specs online I think I've picked up the
advantage
of a 100hz TV incorrectly from the salesmen.  I think he said that on fast
sports like football or grand prix there could be bluring on a convential
(i.e. 50hz?) TV whereas on a 100hz screen this would be eliminated. 
Trouble
is on my 20 year old Sony I don't think I've ever noriced any blurring! :-)
Was that just sales bull??

Malcolm