Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

The place for all discussion on gaming hardware
nmalinoski
Posts: 1974
Joined: Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:52 pm

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by nmalinoski »

Xyga wrote:This is why OLEDs are frustrating, the only reason to avoid them vs. a VA telly is fear of burn-in, but in terms of price/performance they're unquestionably superior.
I think it's that burn-in aspect (aside from price) that's what turns me off of OLEDs.

Considering all of the LEDs on the display have a limited lifespan, what's the fix when sections of LEDs have burned long enough to become noticeably dim? Buy another expensive OLED? It's not like these things are intended to be serviceable. Even if there was a program on the unit that could track the total lifespans of every LED on the panel and then run a routine overnight to artificially age the other LEDs to even everything out, that would just dim the entire display, wouldn't it? (Although I think that would still be preferable to spending thousands on a new unit.)

Hopefully OLED manufacturing can gain enough efficiency soon so that prices can come down even further, or a new, better technology comes along.
User avatar
Ed Oscuro
Posts: 18654
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 4:13 pm
Location: uoıʇɐɹnƃıɟuoɔ ɯǝʇsʎs

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by Ed Oscuro »

Yes, there's wear leveling. Not a huge amount of info about how LG OLEDs do it is out there, but it seems that the screen has some record of what was bright and for how long. Not sure if the "pixel refresher" works like you suggest here, but there is some function that runs for about 10 minutes while the set is off after 4 hours of operation are logged.
User avatar
Xyga
Posts: 7181
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Location: block

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by Xyga »

I guess by the time OLEDs become as common as LCDs were, MicroLEDs will have invaded the high-end market.

So...another 10~15 years until anyone can afford a MicroLED ? :mrgreen:
Strikers1945guy wrote:"Do we....eat chicken balls?!"
User avatar
bobrocks95
Posts: 3460
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:27 am
Location: Kentucky

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by bobrocks95 »

nmalinoski wrote:Considering all of the LEDs on the display have a limited lifespan, what's the fix when sections of LEDs have burned long enough to become noticeably dim? Buy another expensive OLED? It's not like these things are intended to be serviceable. Even if there was a program on the unit that could track the total lifespans of every LED on the panel and then run a routine overnight to artificially age the other LEDs to even everything out, that would just dim the entire display, wouldn't it? (Although I think that would still be preferable to spending thousands on a new unit.)
Rtings test with their CNN TV set to maximum brightness shows no discernable peak brightness loss at 7500 hours so far. That's 5 years with 4 hours of use every day, again at max brightness. By the time you noticed brightness loss you'd be looking for a new TV anyway.

Anybody (not necessarily you nmalinoski) saying "don't get an OLED, they have burn-in problems. Get an 8 year old plasma instead!" is really confusing to me.
PS1 Disc-Based Game ID BIOS patch for MemCard Pro and SD2PSX automatic VMC switching.
User avatar
maxtherabbit
Posts: 1763
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:03 pm

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by maxtherabbit »

bobrocks95 wrote: Anybody (not necessarily you nmalinoski) saying "don't get an OLED, they have burn-in problems. Get an 8 year old plasma instead!" is really confusing to me.
I've never managed to produce any permanent burn-in on any plasma I've owned

contrast that with mobiusstriptech's OLED that shit the bed after watching 5 minutes of fake christmas fire
User avatar
Ed Oscuro
Posts: 18654
Joined: Thu Dec 08, 2005 4:13 pm
Location: uoıʇɐɹnƃıɟuoɔ ɯǝʇsʎs

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by Ed Oscuro »

maxtherabbit wrote:contrast that with mobiusstriptech's OLED that shit the bed after watching 5 minutes of fake christmas fire
You'll note that LG's Twitter account asked them to get in touch, probably to fix things up. I didn't see if there was any updates from mobiusstriptech.
Classicgamer
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 3:37 pm

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by Classicgamer »

maxtherabbit wrote:
bobrocks95 wrote: Anybody (not necessarily you nmalinoski) saying "don't get an OLED, they have burn-in problems. Get an 8 year old plasma instead!" is really confusing to me.
I've never managed to produce any permanent burn-in on any plasma I've owned

contrast that with mobiusstriptech's OLED that shit the bed after watching 5 minutes of fake christmas fire
I agree. The only burn-in I have ever seen on any monitor is in 24/7 professional environments like arcades where the same game was left playing every day for years. Or old broadcast monitors that, for reasons I'll never fully understand, were left with a static display pattern all day, every day for years.

There is no reason why any typical home user should worry about burn-in unless they are addicted to early one screen games like pong and Pac Man.

It should be noted that the reason why burn in is a possibility on some display tech is because they light pixels individually. This creates the possibility of wearing out some faster than others but the benefits far outway the theoretical risks. CRT, Plasma and OLED are all capable of significantly higher native contrast than LCD. Contrast is easily the most important aspect in image quality (followed by frame rate).

Also, just because LCD does not have a burn-in risk, doesn't mean it will last forever. With any device with a light source, that light source will one-day fail. I have seen plenty of LCD displays with broken back-lights.

My experience has been that a quality monitor can last for multiple decades without issue but that cheap crap (of any tech) fails early. It would be nice to believe that the best tech becomes cheaper over time but it isn't true. The best displays of 5 or 10 years ago still outperform cheaper new ones. Quality is never cheap unless it is used.
User avatar
Xyga
Posts: 7181
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Location: block

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by Xyga »

While I think pretty much everything in your post is wrong I will refrain from writing a detailed reply because I can't find the motivation. :mrgreen:

In other news, have you guys seen that thing ? http://pcmonitors.info/asus/asus-pq22uc ... ed-screen/ :shock:
Strikers1945guy wrote:"Do we....eat chicken balls?!"
User avatar
FinalBaton
Posts: 4461
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:38 pm
Location: Québec City

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by FinalBaton »

Xyga wrote:For nearly the same price you get an LG B8, which outperforms it in pretty much every area
True but if motion resolution and peak brightness are priordial to you, well... Motion resolution is around 600 lines on LG OLEDs. For sports this is far from optimal and other panels can fare better. Also peak brightness(800 nits), if you're into watching/playing HDR stuff, can get lots higher on other panels than LG OLEDs. At least 1000 nits(and ideally a bit more) held for a decent duration is what's recommended for best experience so again, not optimal.
Xyga wrote:@FinalBaton: I see nothing different from other TVs in that aspect
It does, like the XF90, keep full brightness when using BFI, which no other LCD really does :P


I'll concede that it is too expensive, though.

Also I won't argue OLEDs aren't all around excellent. They are. But they are not the best in every category yet. But they do check a vast majority of the boxes. And as you mentionned, they have danger of burn in. so using them as PC monitor, one needs to be realllllly careful about what's left displayed on there (might even be just straight up too risky)



Having said that, my next TV will probably be an OLED. But I'll have a bit of a pinch in the heart when watching hockey, knowing that I could be watching it on a better display. Maybe I could hunt down one of the later Samsung higher end plasmas, for watching hockey...
-FM Synth & Black Metal-
strayan
Posts: 671
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 8:33 pm

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by strayan »

I purchased a 42inch Hitachi plasma TV yesterday. It has a native resolution of 864x480 and a DVI input. At the time of release I imagine there was virtually no 720p content (majority of ppl would have connected it to DVD players via composite like the guy I bought it off had), but 720p RGB signals/video content looks fantastic! The colours on this thing blow LCDs away and it’s from 2004, 2004!

http://www.hitachi.com.au/documents/pro ... manual.pdf

Very happy with my AUD$25 purchase.
User avatar
Xyga
Posts: 7181
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Location: block

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by Xyga »

FinalBaton wrote:* Sony 90/900 series *
Of course the Sony are quality TVs, always the best blur reduction and scaling, and they don't seem to joke with HDR.

Though even if I'm curious about X-Motion, I'm not a FALD fan and I'd like to see how its use for blur reduction works in practice with 60Hz sources.
They say using that particular component of X-Motion alone doesn't add lag, but I don't know if you noticed: once again 1080p is at 40ms anyway.
Meaning the TV's great for 4K game sources and watching sports + films (assuming you don't mind FALD for the latter), not so sure or the rest.

What I like about OLED is what it does by its own natural abilities, unartificially, does it need FALD with its halos to support its contrast, HDR, and motion reduction ?
I'm not sure I'd appreciate the tradeoffs of the Sony for achieving higher peak performance in tests for motion and HDR, for me the fundamental properties of a panel (inculding lag here) are still more important.

But I don't watch much sports on TV...so I'm not in the same situation.

Regarding oled burn-in, I have no answer only speculation, some say there's a panel lottery but I don't believe that much, rather I'm thinking of specific stress conditions and practices that'll trigger burn sooner/harder and are not really known yet (kinda reminds of how today's IPS can mark almost immediately with some sources while others don't seem to affect the panel much if at all)
Strikers1945guy wrote:"Do we....eat chicken balls?!"
User avatar
FinalBaton
Posts: 4461
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:38 pm
Location: Québec City

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by FinalBaton »

Xyga wrote:They say using that particular component of X-Motion alone doesn't add lag, but I don't know if you noticed: once again 1080p is at 40ms anyway.
Agreed with everything you said here, but just wanted to correct : the new XG95 has low lag (between 18.5 and 21ms at center) in BOTH 1080p and 4k

And has the same ability to keep brightness with BFI engaged (and scoring the full 1080 lines of motion resolution) that the XF90 has.
-FM Synth & Black Metal-
User avatar
orange808
Posts: 3196
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 5:43 am

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by orange808 »

The Sony BFI on that one is applied to 60Hz content using 120Hz flicker.

Yeah... It looks brighter, but the crosstalk is awful.

Everyone has their own tastes and priorities. For me, that nasty crosstalk is a dealbreaker.
We apologise for the inconvenience
User avatar
Xyga
Posts: 7181
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Location: block

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by Xyga »

FinalBaton wrote:but just wanted to correct : the new XG95 has low lag (between 18.5 and 21ms at center) in BOTH 1080p and 4k.
Duh I got so used to focus on the '900' model since it's the focus almost every year, that I forget it's a variant we're talking about.
(why each series needs 2~3 slightly different almost evenly priced models is hard to understand, some features differences in sizes too)
orange808 wrote:The Sony BFI on that one is applied to 60Hz content using 120Hz flicker.

Yeah... It looks brighter, but the crosstalk is awful.

Everyone has their own tastes and priorities. For me, that nasty crosstalk is a dealbreaker.
I usually have llow hope for pure BFI no matter what, it's the newer implementation in x-motion that I'm curious about, you know, it makes use of FALD and is adjustable.
Couldn't grasp the actual mechanism, I always expect disappointment in particular when it comes to games, that's why for this I have more trust in the OLED in vs. match with a LCD.
Strikers1945guy wrote:"Do we....eat chicken balls?!"
Classicgamer
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 3:37 pm

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by Classicgamer »

Xyga wrote:
FinalBaton wrote:* Sony 90/900 series *
Of course the Sony are quality TVs, always the best blur reduction and scaling, and they don't seem to joke with HDR.

Though even if I'm curious about X-Motion, I'm not a FALD fan and I'd like to see how its use for blur reduction works in practice with 60Hz sources.
They say using that particular component of X-Motion alone doesn't add lag, but I don't know if you noticed: once again 1080p is at 40ms anyway.
Meaning the TV's great for 4K game sources and watching sports + films (assuming you don't mind FALD for the latter), not so sure or the rest.

What I like about OLED is what it does by its own natural abilities, unartificially, does it need FALD with its halos to support its contrast, HDR, and motion reduction ?
I'm not sure I'd appreciate the tradeoffs of the Sony for achieving higher peak performance in tests for motion and HDR, for me the fundamental properties of a panel (inculding lag here) are still more important.

But I don't watch much sports on TV...so I'm not in the same situation.

Regarding oled burn-in, I have no answer only speculation, some say there's a panel lottery but I don't believe that much, rather I'm thinking of specific stress conditions and practices that'll trigger burn sooner/harder and are not really known yet (kinda reminds of how today's IPS can mark almost immediately with some sources while others don't seem to affect the panel much if at all)

Sony did make great tv's. It's a shame they don't make them anymore. They buy in all their panels.
User avatar
Steamflogger Boss
Posts: 3075
Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2017 3:29 pm
Location: Eating the Rich

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by Steamflogger Boss »

The newer Bravias are good.
Classicgamer
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 3:37 pm

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by Classicgamer »

strayan wrote:I purchased a 42inch Hitachi plasma TV yesterday. It has a native resolution of 864x480 and a DVI input. At the time of release I imagine there was virtually no 720p content (majority of ppl would have connected it to DVD players via composite like the guy I bought it off had), but 720p RGB signals/video content looks fantastic! The colours on this thing blow LCDs away and it’s from 2004, 2004!

http://www.hitachi.com.au/documents/pro ... manual.pdf

Very happy with my AUD$25 purchase.
I find that easy to believe based on my personal experience with them. As with any other display tech, there is huge variation between the various grades and price points. If you get the opportunity, I highly recommend checking out the latest Pioneer Kuro plasma displays and one or two of the top panasonic plasma tv's. They are a huge performance leap.

btw, I find the same with my 480p crt monitors. Most PS3 games look better than on my HD flatscreens. Better color, clarity and detail.
Classicgamer
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2014 3:37 pm

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by Classicgamer »

Steamflogger Boss wrote:The newer Bravias are good.
They are. Just not made by Sony.
User avatar
FinalBaton
Posts: 4461
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:38 pm
Location: Québec City

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by FinalBaton »

What's the input lag on the Pioneer Kuros? from my memories of researching them, their lag was a bit too much for demanding games(Something like 35ms or higher). I could be wrong though

I remember zoning in on some Panasonic sets (ST50, UT50 and a couple more) which had up to 28ms or so at center, or less. That's about max I'd use for retro games. My current main set, a plasma, has 37ms at center and I find it renders 2D platformers, fighting games and shmups completely unplayable. For most 3D games that aren't FPS it's fine though

The Kuro must be awesome for everything else though. I happen to really like plasma sets' picture (speaking of that, I need to remember the name of that late Samsung plasma that's the brightest ever made and which's black were almost as good as the Kuro. From all ac ounts it's a spectacular set(but not available in small sizes). Wonder what the input lag is on that one)
-FM Synth & Black Metal-
User avatar
maxtherabbit
Posts: 1763
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:03 pm

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by maxtherabbit »

FinalBaton wrote:What's the input lag on the Pioneer Kuros? from my memories of researching them, their lag was a bit too much for demanding games(Something like 35ms or higher). I could be wrong though

I remember zoning in on some Panasonic sets (ST50, UT50 and a couple more) which had up to 28ms or so at center, or less. That's about max I'd use for retro games. My current main set, a plasma, has 37ms at center and I find it renders 2D platformers, fighting games and shmups completely unplayable. For most 3D games that aren't FPS it's fine though

The Kuro must be awesome for everything else though. I happen to really like plasma sets' picture (speaking of that, I need to remember the name of that late Samsung plasma that's the brightest ever made and which's black were almost as good as the Kuro. From all ac ounts it's a spectacular set(but not available in small sizes). Wonder what the input lag is on that one)
IMO the "accurate" measure on a plasma, due to how they draw the image, is bottom which gives the correct "lag vs. CRT"

my 50" panasonic was clocking in at 28ms, but it had a glitch where it would only go that low when you toggled game mode on. i.e. if you left game mode on and power cycled the TV the lag would stay elevated until you went into the menu and turned game mode off then back on. I even discovered that the reverse also worked. If you keep the TV in movie mode, toggle game mode on, then turn it back off, the lag would stay down until a power cycle or input change.

my 59" samsung plasma has "rolling lag" between 25ms and 43ms. I find it to be playable on all but the most difficult shmups and platformers
User avatar
FinalBaton
Posts: 4461
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:38 pm
Location: Québec City

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by FinalBaton »

maxtherabbit wrote:IMO the "accurate" measure on a plasma, due to how they draw the image, is bottom which gives the correct "lag vs. CRT"

my 50" panasonic was clocking in at 28ms, but it had a glitch where it would only go that low when you toggled game mode on. i.e. if you left game mode on and power cycled the TV the lag would stay elevated until you went into the menu and turned game mode off then back on. I even discovered that the reverse also worked. If you keep the TV in movie mode, toggle game mode on, then turn it back off, the lag would stay down until a power cycle or input change.

my 59" samsung plasma has "rolling lag" between 25ms and 43ms. I find it to be playable on all but the most difficult shmups and platformers
Good info. What model is your Panasonic´

I swear I can't play Super Mario 1/2/3/World on my Samsung PN43F4500. I either overshoot run-jumps or end up beingg late/compensating too much and running straight into pits, it's maddening. On a crt I run all over those games. I said 37ms earlier but maybe it's low '40s
-FM Synth & Black Metal-
strayan
Posts: 671
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2017 8:33 pm

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by strayan »

Classicgamer wrote:
strayan wrote:I purchased a 42inch Hitachi plasma TV yesterday. It has a native resolution of 864x480 and a DVI input. At the time of release I imagine there was virtually no 720p content (majority of ppl would have connected it to DVD players via composite like the guy I bought it off had), but 720p RGB signals/video content looks fantastic! The colours on this thing blow LCDs away and it’s from 2004, 2004!

http://www.hitachi.com.au/documents/pro ... manual.pdf

Very happy with my AUD$25 purchase.
I find that easy to believe based on my personal experience with them. As with any other display tech, there is huge variation between the various grades and price points. If you get the opportunity, I highly recommend checking out the latest Pioneer Kuro plasma displays and one or two of the top panasonic plasma tv's. They are a huge performance leap.
Do you know the model numbers of those?

Perfomance leap in what way? They may have superior resolution but for retro gaming a 480p panel is pretty much all you need. Does anyone know what the last 480p plasma panel ever made was?

Screenshots from my setup. N64 and GCN respectively:

https://i.imgur.com/zpN6TPv.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/VEr6ofd.jpg
Last edited by strayan on Wed Apr 03, 2019 1:28 am, edited 4 times in total.
User avatar
maxtherabbit
Posts: 1763
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:03 pm

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by maxtherabbit »

FinalBaton wrote:
maxtherabbit wrote:IMO the "accurate" measure on a plasma, due to how they draw the image, is bottom which gives the correct "lag vs. CRT"

my 50" panasonic was clocking in at 28ms, but it had a glitch where it would only go that low when you toggled game mode on. i.e. if you left game mode on and power cycled the TV the lag would stay elevated until you went into the menu and turned game mode off then back on. I even discovered that the reverse also worked. If you keep the TV in movie mode, toggle game mode on, then turn it back off, the lag would stay down until a power cycle or input change.

my 59" samsung plasma has "rolling lag" between 25ms and 43ms. I find it to be playable on all but the most difficult shmups and platformers
Good info. What model is your Panasonic´

I swear I can't play Super Mario 1/2/3/World on my Samsung PN43F4500. I either overshoot run-jumps or end up beingg late/compensating too much and running straight into pits, it's maddening. On a crt I run all over those games. I said 37ms earlier but maybe it's low '40s
panasonic is TC-P50S2

is the tv the only thing in your chain with any lag? no framemeister etc?
User avatar
FinalBaton
Posts: 4461
Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2015 10:38 pm
Location: Québec City

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by FinalBaton »

maxtherabbit wrote:panasonic is TC-P50S2

is the tv the only thing in your chain with any lag? no framemeister etc?
for the brief time I retrogamed on it, I was using an XRGB-3 in line-doubling mode. so no additional lag
-FM Synth & Black Metal-
User avatar
orange808
Posts: 3196
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 5:43 am

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by orange808 »

All three lag numbers are accurate.

You can choose the one you like, but they are all accurate. :)

One of my projectors measures 16.6ms at all three testing points. I guess I could just say the bottom number is "accurate". Zero lag, right? ;)
We apologise for the inconvenience
User avatar
maxtherabbit
Posts: 1763
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:03 pm

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by maxtherabbit »

orange808 wrote:All three lag numbers are accurate.

You can choose the one you like, but they are all accurate. :)

One of my projectors measures 16.6ms at all three testing points. I guess I could just say the bottom number is "accurate". Zero lag, right? ;)
seems I need to clarify, I was testing using the OSSC not the time sleuth

the OSSC gives numbers based on where exactly in the scan out it is at the time of the test, so the way it handles "top, center, bottom" is different

i.e. using the OSSC set to "bottom" on a CRT would result in a ~0 lag measurement, not 16ms
User avatar
Xyga
Posts: 7181
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:22 pm
Location: block

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by Xyga »

The OSSC's lag tester shows results exactly in opposite of what people understand so it's likely to remain confusing for the general.
Strikers1945guy wrote:"Do we....eat chicken balls?!"
User avatar
orange808
Posts: 3196
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 5:43 am

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by orange808 »

I built an OSSC tester and marqs kindly explained it in the OSSC thread. :) It's not rocket science.

I wasn't talking about any specific method of calculating and returning results, I was referencing cherry picking a favorite latency measurement based on the strengths of a given display. Many modern display devices will score better at the bottom of the screen. Most LCDs refresh the screen quickly and they "make up" (recover) some of the initial processing/buffering time in the process.

It's best to know all three numbers. If I can't have all three numbers, I prefer the center number. I don't want the center number because that's where I'm going to be looking; I like the center because it delivers a balance of buffering/processing time and total refresh/scanout time--and that is good estimate of how responsive a display will feel.
We apologise for the inconvenience
gray117
Posts: 1233
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 10:19 pm
Location: Leeds

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by gray117 »

If anything you need to pay even closer attention to specs and, yes, if possible try before you buy.

Plasma is not the best for colour accuracy. Never was, never will be. High contrast is fine, but can highlight short comings of the display format and those sensitive to it will notice flashing/flicker. They're also generally only suited to use in a darkened room. And all issues tend to be exasperated the closer you are to it. That being said they provided an good solution at the time for an impressive looking display, with very good viewing angles, and economically viable ... upshot: still a useful/interesting avenue for gaming, if you can find a good model at a nice price... and if you're not prone to shortcomings of plasma...

How plasma updates (especially on high contrast images can cause flickering/flashing for those sensitive to it):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMlpl7AmvNo

...on the other hand a complete waste of time if it's trashed/worn or a not so great model - there's plenty of crap plasma screens/internals as well as the good ones...


...crts are fun, but the ageing, flickering, size, weight, geometry, convergence and general rarity, are all traits have that have their limitations too.


As for newer stuff...

Higher colour bit depths, honestly at either 10bit or 12bit per channel, is an absolute godsend as soon as we can afford the bandwidth properly and/or have more content.

Basically the same with 4k, but I'd take better performance, textures/shaders + colour depth before a resolution bump myself in games ... ofc if you watch 4k sports, or films, you've already got a 4k screen... and for productivity/applications; it's great.


...


Take your pick, whatever generation/hd-i-ness or not - pay attention to the specs in respect of what you want to get out of it :)
User avatar
maxtherabbit
Posts: 1763
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:03 pm

Re: Why HD monitor specs should be ignored and 4K is a waste

Post by maxtherabbit »

orange808 wrote:I built an OSSC tester and marqs kindly explained it in the OSSC thread. :) It's not rocket science.

I wasn't talking about any specific method of calculating and returning results, I was referencing cherry picking a favorite latency measurement based on the strengths of a given display. Many modern display devices will score better at the bottom of the screen. Most LCDs refresh the screen quickly and they "make up" (recover) some of the initial processing/buffering time in the process.

It's best to know all three numbers. If I can't have all three numbers, I prefer the center number. I don't want the center number because that's where I'm going to be looking; I like the center because it delivers a balance of buffering/processing time and total refresh/scanout time--and that is good estimate of how responsive a display will feel.
that's reasonable, although I disagree

my opinion is only the amount of discrepancy between the time it takes the various displays to draw an entire frame is relevant
Post Reply