How to Comparison Shop

« How to Sway Someone to Your Political Opinion | How to Face Your Ancestor's Misdeeds »

Reader Comments (49)

People have always complained about improvements in A/V technology. When transistors were first introduced, lots of people said that the sound produced in systems that used them was inferior to that produced by systems using vacuum tubes. A little research showed that in actuality people just missed the low 60 Hz hum that the tubes added to the sound. When high-fidelity audio first came out, people complained that it didn't sound as good. As if we really prefer the upper frequencies in our music being cut off. When CDs first hit the market, people complained about the "harsh digital sound." There was even a wive's tale that if you took a green felt-tipped marker and ran it around the edge of the CD, it would "soften" the sound. The conclusion that I have come to is that people think they like change, but they really don't.

June 1, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterrickssg

Motion smoothing as the default mode out of the box almost caused me to unmount my 60" flatscreen from the wall and return it to the store. It definitely was not turned on on the floor model and I knew something was wrong instantly when "Dances With Wolves" looked like it was shot with a handicam. There was no indication in the manual that this was the default and the setting to turn it off was buried deep in the on-screen menus. I think the sheer hatred of the idea of taking that thing down and returning it to the store is the only thing that kept me going for the full hour it took me to figure it out. With it shut off, it's a gorgeous picture. Anyone who can't tell the difference must have a seriously low cerebral refresh rate.

June 1, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJohn

Like: Basic Instructions = awesome comic.

Dislike: ads that talk and tell everyone around that I am dicking around on the intertubes...

June 3, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterLurker

Is it bad that I notice the difference, but like it? Honestly, it seems counter intuitive that we've been conditioned to think a higher frame rate depicts a lower quality image...

June 4, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterkjrubberducky

I don't of any TV that does not allow you to turn off the 120/240/480/960hz frame doubling and flickering process that smooths motion. Having been in front of the earliest versions of these from Samsung, I've found that the latest models are excellent and I have long since gotten used to the supposed 'soap opera' mode.

How I see it is that, instead of you watching a film, you are looking through a window INTO the film. Couple a good 240Hz TV with 3D and you'll have true 1080p, 120Hz 3D. TVs with even faster Hz ratings usually turn the backlights off and on to minimize perceived blurring (still present, even on 960hz 2ms screens).

For those that have the mode (which is about 90% of all modern hi-definition TVs today), you can watch older movies shot at 24 fps by setting your TV to some kind of movie sync mode, which actually reduces the screen refresh rate to the same 24 fps and prevents image stutter and/or repeated frames – something I myself have never seen, but is apparently something that occurs with older movies like Casablanca.

And, for reference:
Sansung = Auto Motion Plus
Sony = Motionflow / Motionflow XR
LG = TruMotion
Toshiba = ClearFrame
Vizio simply call it 'Refresh Rate'.
Panasonic = Motion Picture Pro (4 for 120Hz, 5 for 240Hz)
Sanyo don't even call it anything. Just 1080p, 120Hz
RCA = Real Cool Auto Motion (Yes, it's Real Cool (sic))

Man is this true. I watched Enterprise on my in-laws' new TV and it looked horrible, just like daytime soap operas. It makes it very obvious that they're on a set and the lighting is all wrong.

June 11, 2011 | Unregistered Commentermordredlefay

Wow, I feel like I've already seen this one before. But it's got copyright 2011, so probably not, and I haven't yet read any comics but reruns twice. Strange...

November 10, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterDrake

No One Expects the Grammar Conquistadors!!

December 26, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterBasicLaugh

Eric Phillips, the problem here is that English is too poor in relation to Spanish and English speakers usually can't understand languages that have a bigger amount of articles (masculine/feminine/singular/plural/etc.)

Tierra del fuego -> "del" is a junction of "de" + "el" which means "of the", so translating, it means "Land of the Fire" or "Fire's Land"

Bola de Fuego -> without the article "el", it means "Ball made out of Fire" or "Fireball"

March 16, 2014 | Unregistered CommenterDarth GTB

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>