After spending the weekend at a friends house I got to see his new 100 Hz Tv (Panasonic 32" PK20).
Initially I was very impressed with the clarity and stability of the picture. Reading on screen menus was very kind to the eyes, even close up. It looked more like a PC monitor than a TV.
But, after viewing for a while, I found the picture extremeley irritating to watch.
Although there were no artefacts as such, fast moving images looked VERY unatural, rather like video footage shot on a very high shutter speed. You could see every single frame, there was no natural motion blur and it looked more like animation than a real moving image.
I suppose this is all due to the 100Hz scanning and is common in all models (?).
Returning home to my more 'natural '50Hz TV was a welcome relief and I have since scrapped any plans of 'upgrading' to a 100Hz model.
Unless there's any 100Hz owners who can convince me otherwise.
Initially I was very impressed with the clarity and stability of the picture. Reading on screen menus was very kind to the eyes, even close up. It looked more like a PC monitor than a TV.
But, after viewing for a while, I found the picture extremeley irritating to watch.
Although there were no artefacts as such, fast moving images looked VERY unatural, rather like video footage shot on a very high shutter speed. You could see every single frame, there was no natural motion blur and it looked more like animation than a real moving image.
I suppose this is all due to the 100Hz scanning and is common in all models (?).
Returning home to my more 'natural '50Hz TV was a welcome relief and I have since scrapped any plans of 'upgrading' to a 100Hz model.
Unless there's any 100Hz owners who can convince me otherwise.
.... well what I mean is a mixture of 50Hz and 100Hz. qualities........