278
Vizio settles for $3M after saying 60 Hz TVs had 120 Hz “effective refresh rate” | Vizio claimed backlight scanning made refresh rates seem twice as high. (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 years ago by [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Vizio settles for $3M after saying 60 Hz TVs had 120 Hz “effective refresh rate” | Vizio claimed backlight scanning made refresh rates seem twice as high.::Vizio claimed backlight scanning made refresh rates seem twice as high.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I remember when TVs advertised bs like "600 Hz clear motion rate".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    God I hated those smooth motion systems. Makes everything look like crap.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Wow I really thought I was the only one (okay not literally).

    Any show would look like reality TV and the added interpolation just made movement a blurry mess. I steered clear of 60+Hz TVs until this very day because I hate them so much

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    You know you can just turn the feature off if you don't like it, right? The refresh rate of the TV has nothing to do with it.

    TVs have been operating at 50/60 Hz since they were invented. If you're in an NTSC region (like North America), every TV you've ever owned refreshes the screen at 60Hz+, no matter how old you are.

    Refresh rate ≠ framerate

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Sorry I wrote that in a bit of a hurry so I took some shortcuts in my words. Yes, refresh rate isn't the same as framerate.

    You know you can just turn the feature off if you don't like it, right?

    Not if it's the TV of a random person I am visiting. First time I noticed it.

    The thing is, why buy a 600Hz TV if you're going to turn it off immediately? That's why I (as a rule of thumb) didn't bother with TVs that advertised with 200/400/600Hz modes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    As someone who loves motion smoothing; I'll never understand this opinion. It doesn't make everything look like "crap", it makes it look more realistic. Motion looks closer to real life. Hell, I like it for the fact that it removes motion blur alone. Can't stand motion blur.

    Trying to go back to watching films at 24Hz is nauseating for me (especially action movies with a lot of rapid camera momements). I can't stand it. It's like trying to go back to console gaming after getting used to 4K 144Hz PC gaming with a 4090.

    Try leaving motion smoothing on for a week and then go back to having it off, and you'll see what I mean. You get used to it, and then suddenly you don't want to turn it off anymore.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago

    I have had it on for a few hours at times and by looking like crap I would say it ruins the experience for me because it makes every scene and action look like a soap opera or a YouTube video and doesn't feel like a film anymore and doesn't carry the same weight. That's just my opinion obviously. Could see certain scenes and movies working well with that but most I don't want to feel like I'm on the set of a soap opera.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent