Mitsubishi's LCD Does 120 Hz Interpolated Full HD

The article does not clarify the most important thing (not to me, but the buzz is going on): does it do 3D ?

i'm kinda surprised this hasn't been done yet.... like really kinda surprised

but can it play crysis?

finally

i hope monitors go more in this direction. I am happy to see some advancement and like to see benchmarks on how well this monitor actually does with pc games of today. Skype calls might look amazing with webcam usb 3.0

I really dont understand the hype around this... 120hz @ 1080i...

Who cares.
interpolated for the big L.

Acer's GD235HZbid does 120hz at 1080P and so does my 47" samsung tv

Can any tvs interpolate 24fps blu-ray?

This would have been cool maybe 2 years ago. With 3D becoming the next big thing and non-interpolated 120Hz monitors already on the market, I have to ask: What's the point?

Come on, Ive had a 1920 x 1200 24" gaming panel for over 3 years now long before it was the norm, why would I want to go backwards in size and resolution?? I dont understand the push for the lower 1080p monitors from 1200p. Wish they would do a 30 inch monitor at 2560 x 1600 in 120htz....anyone....Bueller...

Forgive my lack of knowledge but I must ask this question.

Are the terms interpolation and interlacing synonymous with each other?

If so I hope not. Because CRTs evolved from interlaced monitors to non-interlaced monitors.

So if they're trying to use "interpolation" as a "marketing ploy" then expect "non-interpolation" on their next batch of models. Thus = fail.

If the two terms are not synonymous ignore my post.

Defiantly not the same thing. "Interpolation is a method of constructing new data points within the range of a discrete set of known data points" In other words the screen can take 60 HZ images and add the extra frames to make it smoother at 120 fps. Since its done in the screen, it adds no load to your system. If done right, it can look extremely smooth.

yeah, replace 120 fps with 120 Hz, but in this case it should be the same. 120 image refresh/sec. Had fps on the brain there.

damn i want one.

Ah so it's the same as the "120hz" and "240hz" marketing terms they introduced in HDTVs to make video animations(transition between frames)have more fluidity. Motionflow is a good example.

If that's the case interpolation is nothing new; Mitsubishi is trying to sound fancy then.




well 1hz always equalled 1fps pretty much.

I'm surpised the majority of LCD computer monitors available today are still capped at 75hz. They should just release 240hz monitors already.

Please note: 1080i = 1,080 lines of resolution display in an "Interlaced" (Odd / Even Raster Lines) display. This is NOT the same as Interpolation, which is the method of using existing video feed to fill in blank lines.

I'll buy a 120HZ 3D ready monitor when it's 1920x1200 res.
16:9 ratio bothers the crap out of me, too flat.

Easiest way to explain interpolation is:

Regular mode 60 Hz -> Frame A, Frame B, Frame C
Interpolated 120 HZ -> Frame A, Frame A+B, Frame B, Frame B+C, Frame C.

It basically sticks an extra frame based on the previous and the upcoming frame, any major difference (fast moving objects) are calculated and interpolated into the newly created frame, creating a more fluid motion.

You're still getting the source 1080p resolution, but now with an intermediate frame added in-between each original frame.

My personal preference is to have interpolation off as I think it makes the scene look too fluid, almost unrealistic, but its really personal preference.

real 120hz monitors has already hit the market in lcd tvs? why begin to use this shitty technology in monitors? it just ads another frame lag or more, since it invents those extra 60hz from an only existing 60fps source, why would you do that? other than confuse the consumers even more, and tricking them to buy new tech that's in fact worse.

real 120hz in monitors, and "fake" 120hz in lcd tvs, was what i meant, sorry.

...

I am literally gob smacked... TVs have been doing this for 3 years now!! how has it taken so long for a monitor to do it!!?

this is good for gamers that have graphics cards only powerful enough to run their games at 60fps, but what about people with cards that can run at 120fps? will they allow native 120hz signal? I can't see any reason why they wouldn't.

What if you can run games on 30 fps? Will it double that too? Oraybe bring that up to 120 frames aswell? I'm confused.....

16:10 does not make THAT much of a difference you know! Besides, my monitor has HDMI inputs and it's natively 1920x1200. When I run my HD cable box to it, it runs at 1080p and looks fine. It does show some slight rippling but you wouldn't even know if I showed you.

No. That is completely dependent on the hardware in your machine/computer. What we are talking about here is the refresh rate of the monitor. If your monitor refresh rate is 60Hz and you lock the vertical sync on your video card and play a game, it'll only display up to 60FPS. If you unlock the vertical sync, it'll go higher, but it will "tear". Your screen STILL will only show you "visually" 60FPS worth of image data even though the FPS of your video game might be at 150. I honestly don't know why they even bother with this crap. And no, it won't make your 30FPS game run any faster. Does anyone have actual CONCLUSIVE data as to how this will help you see images more clearly??? The only thing I can think that is noticeable on LCD's is a blurring effect on 1st gen screens... like when text moves across (not the g2g response time, that would be ghosting).. with this 120Hz and 240Hz technology, it brings that to a minimum. Actual movement on screen is smooth and fluid. Right?

Come up with some new goddamn material...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN7Y6jTpf0Y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3HlbRc9SZw

For those that can't see a difference, i am sorry, the matter is very subjective, but don't try to convince other people that there is not. Also for those that can see a HUUUUUUGE difference, please don't try to convince other people as well. As i said the matter is subjective and it is up to anyone to make a decision on his own.
Obviously the best option would be to see it in real life, but since we are here...

Sooooooo..... what makes this better than any other 120Hz screen?

The vertical resolution will be 1 more pixel, 1920x1081!

How about the new DisplayPort standard, so we have the bandwidth to natively run 240Hz with a single cable?
I'm going to skip 120Hz monitors, and just wait for 240Hz (I already have three 23" 2048x1152 monitors, not like I could justify buying a new one anyways).

Yeah this is what I havent been able to understand from consumers for some time now. Everyone is like oh Motionflow blah blah blah 120hz this, 240hz that but its all fake. Watching movies on a tv with that crap turned on looks like the movie is going in slow motion to me. Playing competitive video games with that crap turned on is impossible. But everyone tries to sell you on that because they are like it looks better.

Well true the picture might look good, but its still fake. Trying playing Street Fighter on a tv with any motion enhancement stuff turned on and try to buffer some moves. Next to impossible the delay is horrible.

Where is the DisplayPort input? It seems that many hardware manufacturers are reluctant to embrace DP technology.

Yes, 30 inch @ 1600p and 3D is what I'm waiting for myself. Come on Dell, give me the goods