For 32" HDTV, is there a big difference between 60Hz and 120Hz?

refresh rate should not be relevant for any flat screen monitor. Hz values are only relevant for the old cathode ray tubes.

@ragingloli

Doesn’t refresh rate limit FPS?

@Ivan
refresh rate refers to how often per time unit the image is updated, e.g. rewritten on the screen. on old CRTs the image was constantly refreshed regardless whether the actual image changed. on modern lcd screens, the screen is only updated if the incoming image changes. for lcds, refreshrates are irrelevant, instead what counts is called reaction time, e.g. the time that passes between the incoming changed image and the screen refresh.

@ragingloli That’s not true. The GPU in a television redraws the display a fixed number of times per second. I’ll elaborate in a moment.

@richardhenry
that explains it then.
how utterly inefficient.

If you’re looking for the brief answer, then:

120Hz is better than 60Hz. Enjoy your new TV.

If you’re looking for a bit more of an explanation, then:

The hertz is the refresh rate of the screen; as in, how quickly the display refreshes and shows a new image. This isn’t like a top speed or a cap; it’s a fixed cycle that runs constantly. A 60Hz display redraws the image 60 times every second, and a 120Hz display redraws the image 120 times every second.

That sounds simple, right? The 120Hz display can show new images more quickly, so it’s smoother? That’s the gist of it, but that’s not really the reason why 120Hz is better than 60Hz.

Film is shot in 24 frames per second, and video tends to be 30 or 60 fps.

Video can be displayed smoothly on a display that operates at 60Hz because the number of frames divides evenly into the refresh rate—when your media has 30 fps, each frame can be shown twice and that’s fine.

But when you have 24 fps, you can’t map the film frames evenly onto the display frames. To get around that, something called a 3:2 pulldown is used. This is an algorithm that displays some of the frames three times, and some of them twice. By doing this, the number of fps in the film maps exactly to the refresh rate and everything is good.

But not really. Doing this introduces artifacts, particularly when things you see things like quick pans and fast motion—we end up with choppy, blurry video. You’ll have seen this on some TVs.

This is where 120Hz comes in. You can divide 24fps, 30fps and 60fps into 120Hz, so we don’t need to use the messy 3:2 pulldown system and all input can be displayed cleanly.

In addition, a 120Hz TV tends to (but not always) have a higher quality display with a better response time. The response time of the display itself is essentially how quickly the pixel matrix can polarize and depolarize it’s pixels, and therefore change the image. The fact that this is faster means that there’s no blurring between frames.

These 60/120hz rates are relevant with LCD technology, not plasma technology.
120Hz TV’s are great for sports and high speed motion images where 60Hz screens tend to pixelate and blur.

You in The States? What kind of sources are you gonna connect to?

@The_Compassionate_Heretic A plasma display still has a refresh rate, however the effect of motion artifacts is reduced for a few reasons (plasma cells refresh more quickly than LCD pixels, the cells are allowed to decay to black between refresh cycles, etc.)

It’s mildly relevant. I’d still gun for a 120Hz plasma over a 60Hz plasma.

@richardhenry I stand humbly corrected.

If you’re using an Xbox or PS3 on this thing, then it doesn’t really matter. The console will match it’s refresh rate to the refresh rate of your TV. Some gamers claim to be able to see a difference between 60 and 120Hz televisions, but most people won’t be able to. The main argument for choosing 120Hz in that case is the higher build quality that’s often employed on such TVs.

I’m taking @richardhenry with me next time I go tv shopping.