Television images are created with a stream of still images. In the US, the stream is 60 fields each second. As two fields are needed to make a complete frame or image, the frame rate is 30 per second. In Europe, the rate is slightly slower, at 50 fields and 25 frames per second. As 30 or 25 frames per second is fairly slow, there can be a noticeable flicker and movement can look jerky as well. This is more of a problem in Europe than the US because of the slower frame rate in Europe. The frame rates were chosen years back according the mains supply frequency in the US and UK. Although this is no longer of any concern, with advances in elecctronics, the frame rates have stuck. Even with the move to high definition, the frame rates remain the same - 60Hz in the US and 50Hz in Europe. All other countries, by the way, follow one of the two frame rates.
The 120Hz or 100Hz displays aim to overcome the flickering and jerky movement by inserting a new field between each of the fields received by the television. The theory is that with 100 or 120 fields being displayed each second, the human eye cannot discern the discrete images and see only a smooth picture. For static and slow moving images, the theory works well but as with all engineering solutions, this isn't a perfect one in all cases...
Each field that is inserted needs to be made up. It cannot be a copy of the previous field because it would result in two identical fields, returning the output to 60 or 50 Hz. So, the new, intermediate field has to be calculated by taking the previous and the following field and working out what the image would be, if there was an original field at that time. It's a process called temporal interpolation and needs a huge amount of processing power. Sometimes, the calculations to generate the new field can get confused and the result is a disturbing judder in some parts of the image. Broadcasters who have to use similar techniques will spend a great deal of money to get the best conversions and domestic televisions will never have the same level of hardware installed.
These errors are rarely visible, but before spending a lot of extra cash on a 120Hz television, spend some time looking at the image. Look for fast pans across football supporters as the camera follows the ball, for example. Also look at fast scrolling text. These are the images that may cause problems. If you are happy with the image you see and it looks smoother than the 60Hz equivalent model, then it's a good buy. If it doesn't look smoother, you should ask yourself if the extra cost of a 120Hz television is worthwhile.
That said, there are many 100 and 120Hz televisions that do a good job. Just make sure you can see the improvement before you splash the cash.
I would say yes mainly because of the higher frame rate. I have never seen a 600 Hz TV so I could not say for sure.
Not true. the 600Hz has nothing to do with the actual refresh rate it has to do with what they call sub field motion.
A standard video signal is actually a series of still images, flashed on screen so quickly that we believe we are watching a moving image. The typical frame rate used in North America is 60 frames per second (60Hz) meaning that a TV would display 60 individual still images every second. Sub-field drive is the method used to flash the individual image elements (dots) on a plasma panel. For each frame displayed on the TV the Sub-field drive flashes the dots 10 times or more, meaning that the dots are flashing 600 times per second (600Hz) or more. (Example: 60 frames per second x 10 sub-fields = 600 flashes per second).
The refresh rates on an HDTV can make a film appear fake, artificial, and unrealistic when higher than 60hz. Most films are created with 24 to 60 frames per second, and when you up the playback to 120hz it can take away a lot of the realistic details. However, that is not saying that 120hz is necessarily worse that 60hz. There are some people who prefer 120hz, because it has a smoothing effect on the playback. More likely, though, people will stick with 60hz.
The 120 hz tv's paint the screen with information at twice the speed of a 60 hz. The result would mean less blur during fast action scenes and sports.
The 120 will produce clearer horiz. movement on the screen, good for sports viewing.
The 120hz will make horizontal movement on the screen look smoother, not so jerky.
Not if they are made from the same stuff, denier is a measure of fiber toughness so 300 is not better than 600
600 x 300 denier is slightly less quality than 600 x 600. The weave is also different
The SB 800 is more powerful and has more features than the SB 600
Less than 600 Newtons.Less than 600 Newtons.Less than 600 Newtons.Less than 600 Newtons.
600
Print quality is better in higher dots per inch (dpi) numbers due to the amount of smaller dots used when a page is printed. Therefore the print quality would be better in a 600 x 600 dpi 2 than a 1200 x 1200 single bit.
600. Absolutely.
There are 1000 grams in one kilogram. Therefore, 600 grams is less than 600 kilograms.
1000 mb = 1 gb so 300 gb is 600 times better than 500 mb
yes, because 800x600 has more pixels per inch than 800x480
600 x 300 denier is slightly less quality than 600 x 600. The weave is also different
There is no number that is both smaller than 400 and larger than 600 - if it is smaller than 400 then it must be smaller than 600 since 400 is smaller than 600, similarly if it is larger than 600 then it must be larger than 400 since 600 is larger than 400. Assuming you mean larger than 400 and smaller than 600, then there are 199 such whole numbers than you can cube: 401, 402, 403, ..., 599 can all be cubed, giving 64481201, 64964808, 65450827, ..., 214921799. I guess that the question you are really asking is: What number between 400 and 600 is a perfect cube? The answer is 8³ = 512.