Questions that do not deserve a thread

[accaris]

Is there a noticeable difference in image quality between the official PS2 component cable and the official PS3/PS2 component cable when hooked up to a PS2? I believe both can be hooked up to a PS2 but am curious if one or the other has a better build quality and superior image.

They are the exact same cable. The only difference would be if you were trying to use the PS3 cable with the optical audio out, which I don't think the PS2 can take advantage of.
You want the official brand or the Monster cable for sure, because those are copper braided, unlike the cheap Chinese cables which are aluminum braided.
EDIT: assuming you're talking about this one. There was an earlier official brand PS2 cable without the silver ends, and I can't vouch for its quality.

[zimes]

Is there a noticeable difference in image quality between the official PS2 component cable and the official PS3/PS2 component cable when hooked up to a PS2? I believe both can be hooked up to a PS2 but am curious if one or the other has a better build quality and superior image.

They are the exact same cable. The only difference would be if you were trying to use the PS3 cable with the optical audio out, which I don't think the PS2 can take advantage of.
You want the official brand or the Monster cable for sure, because those are copper braided, unlike the cheap Chinese cables which are aluminum braided.
EDIT: assuming you're talking about this one. There was an earlier official brand PS2 cable without the silver ends, and I can't vouch for its quality.

Yeah, I was wondering if there is a difference between the one you linked and this earlier official brand.

[atheistgod1999]

All I know is that I'm taking any advice about optimal gaming from someone who uses a display with 4 whole frames of lag with a grain of salt. I'd rather use the cheap mono-only 13" Magnavox TV with composite and RF than a Lagmeister, let alone on his setup. I can tell if there's a single frame of lag (I notice the lag when I forget to disable V-Sync on PC games). I wonder how many frames of lag that thing has without Game Mode *shudder*.

[bobrocks95]

My plasma has 5 frames of lag and I can't feel it at all. Looks wonderful too

[atheistgod1999]

My plasma has 5 frames of lag and I can't feel it at all. Looks wonderful too

Just don't complain about a game being "broken" or unfairly difficult or something if you're playing on that.

[atheistgod1999]

Also: why is deinterlacing video game 480i considered a good thing? Nearly every game that runs in 480i updates 60 times per second, so all it would do is blend 2 separate frames like "deinterlacing" 240p does. Proper handling would just be outputting a field every frame and blanking (or simply not updating) the unused one.

[Unseen]

Also: why is deinterlacing video game 480i considered a good thing?

Because modern displays use LCD panels or similar optoelectronic devices which require a progressive signal, so 480i must be deinterlaced to be displayed at all.

Nearly every game that runs in 480i updates 60 times per second, so all it would do is blend 2 separate frames like "deinterlacing" 240p does.

It sounds like your deinterlacer uses a very bad deinterlacing method.

Proper handling would just be outputting a field every frame and blanking (or simply not updating) the unused one.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean there because for the progressive output of a deinterlacer, a field and a frame are the same thing and since the frame rate of a deinterlacer output is the same as the field rate of its input, there are no "unused ones" there. If you mean that every output line that has no corresponding input line in the current field should be set to black: That also describes a deinterlacing process (which creates a lot of flickering), so what is your point?

[BuckoA51]

All I know is that I'm taking any advice about optimal gaming from someone who uses a display with 4 whole frames of lag with a grain of salt.

That's not his only TV he has a full CRT setup too.

[atheistgod1999]

That's not his only TV he has a full CRT setup too.

Yeah, but he said he mainly uses his HDTV. And he obviously only uses his HD consoles on the HDTV (yes, I know PS3, 360, and Wii U can output 480i).

[atheistgod1999]

Are quantum dots actually as good as OLEDs?

[Ikaruga11]

All I know is that I'm taking any advice about optimal gaming from someone who uses a display with 4 whole frames of lag with a grain of salt.

That LCD TV only accounts for a small fraction of Try's displays. He also has a PVM and an SD CRT, both of which have zero input lag. Coury mostly plays on CRTs too. My Life in Gaming puts tremendous effort and time into their research. Hell, their last RGB Best Picture Episode was back in March. So to disregard their information merely because of a 2012 LCD TV Try bought before MLiG began is non-sensible at best and ignorant at worst.

And he obviously only uses his HD consoles on the HDTV

HD consoles are better on digital displays.

[orange808]

HD consoles are better on digital displays.

No. HD consoles look best on a Sony GDM FW900. Bar none End of discussion.

Digital displays are bigger, cheaper, more dependable, and readily available. That isn't better.

There are no digital displays that render (videophile quality) proper motion with low lag. It doesn't exist.

[Guspaz]

No. HD consoles look best on a Sony GDM FW900. Bar none End of discussion.

You're wrong. If that's the end of the discussion, we'll have to leave it with you being wrong. If that isn't the end of the discussion, we could talk about how the GDM FW900 is tiny and flickery, and can't hold a candle to the experience of playing my HD consoles on an 80" screen that doesn't flicker. Size and lack of flicker are both aspects in image quality, therefore HD consoles don't look best on a Sony GDM FW900. It also compromises many other aspects of the gaming experience, requiring you to sit in front of it rather than on a couch, potentially with your friends.

All in all, the GDM FW900 does a poor job at the overall experience of modern console gaming.

In terms of My Life in Gaming, Try has at least three PVMs that I know of: A 14" model that I can't remember, a 20" medical monitor (M2MD, IIRC?) and a PVM-20L5. As he's not lag sensitive, he tends to prefer playing on his HDTV. Coury, for his part, typically plays on his 20L5. So they're covering both preferences, and that's what you want from people producing those kinds of videos, you want them to cover all the bases, not focus all their effort on one way of doing things that isn't for everybody.

They've also done multiple RGB100 and RGB300 videos since March. They simply haven't done an RGB200 (console-specific) RGB video since then.

[Lord of Pirates]

Last gen and current consoles are only going to look worse on bigger displays.

[kamiboy]

As much of a CRT connoisseur that I am I could never dream of playing HD consoles on one. Size certainly does matter.

[atheistgod1999]

CRTs are flawless and better than LCDs at everything, because I'm a total noob to this stuff!!1

And what's a gaming LCD monitor?

[kamiboy]

Also, I will entertain the notion that a lag of a frame or two might be detrimental to games of a certain vintage, but most modern games, especially anything outside of competitive action, like fighters, the notion is laughable.

Then again, maybe, just maybe, all those deaths in Dark Souls were really not my fault. Maybe it was laaaaaaaaaaaaag!

[orange808]

No. HD consoles look best on a Sony GDM FW900. Bar none End of discussion.

You're wrong. If that's the end of the discussion, we'll have to leave it with you being wrong. If that isn't the end of the discussion, we could talk about how the GDM FW900 is tiny and flickery, and can't hold a candle to the experience of playing my HD consoles on an 80" screen that doesn't flicker. Size and lack of flicker are both aspects in image quality, therefore HD consoles don't look best on a Sony GDM FW900. It also compromises many other aspects of the gaming experience, requiring you to sit in front of it rather than on a couch, potentially with your friends.

All in all, the GDM FW900 does a poor job at the overall experience of modern console gaming.

In terms of My Life in Gaming, Try has at least three PVMs that I know of: A 14" model that I can't remember, a 20" medical monitor (M2MD, IIRC?) and a PVM-20L5. As he's not lag sensitive, he tends to prefer playing on his HDTV. Coury, for his part, typically plays on his 20L5. So they're covering both preferences, and that's what you want from people producing those kinds of videos, you want them to cover all the bases, not focus all their effort on one way of doing things that isn't for everybody.

They've also done multiple RGB100 and RGB300 videos since March. They simply haven't done an RGB200 (console-specific) RGB video since then.

Ghosting, blur, and lag suck. There is no digital display that doesn't have one of those.

PVM's don't play 1080p. We were talking HD.

[Guspaz]

Ghosting/blur are not major issues with video-style content, which modern games tend to be. We're not talking about pixel-perfect sprites moving around the screen.

Lag is less important for modern gaming because the games themselves already have huge amounts of added lag (100ms is typical). You're not talking about the difference between 2 frames of lag on my projector and 0 frames of lag on a CRT, you're talking about the difference between 8 frames of lag on my projector and 6 frames of lag on a CRT. It's laggy no matter what you do, so you might as well enjoy the enormously improved image quality of a modern HD display like a good low-latency projector.

Besides that, CRTs suffer from ghosting too, much worse than LCDs in my experience.

[orange808]

Ghosting/blur are not major issues with video-style content, which modern games tend to be. We're not talking about pixel-perfect sprites moving around the screen.

Lag is less important for modern gaming because the games themselves already have huge amounts of added lag (100ms is typical). You're not talking about the difference between 2 frames of lag on my projector and 0 frames of lag on a CRT, you're talking about the difference between 8 frames of lag on my projector and 6 frames of lag on a CRT. It's laggy no matter what you do, so you might as well enjoy the enormously improved image quality of a modern HD display like a good low-latency projector.

Besides that, CRTs suffer from ghosting too, much worse than LCDs in my experience.

Let's not dig up the lag discussions from Steam. I will say that the devs have been rather icy about getting called out.

Depends what you care about and what you're accustomed to. Motion has always looked natural to me on a CRT.

All console gaming is flickery these days. 60Hz sucks. And, it gets even worse when you start using lightframe to add more flicker. (Proper ULMB doesn't even work at 60Hz.) You're stuck using a hack utility to make things tolerable.

There some new larger 144Hz monitors out. The viewing angles are terrible, but they do look nice. With that said, I hear they perform poorly at 60Hz with consoles. I will get a chance to check out a few next week.

[orange808]

CRTs are flawless and better than LCDs at everything, because I'm a total noob to this stuff!!1

And what's a gaming LCD monitor?

That bridge won't guard itself.

[Ikaruga11]

If you want the best experience out of HD consoles, use an AH-IPS LED monitor with less than 1ms of input lag and under 5ms response time. Consoles that run at 60Hz will not benefit from a 120Hz or 144Hz display. Those are used for PC games that take advantage of 120FPS and 144FPS.

[Guspaz]

All console gaming is flickery these days. 60Hz sucks.

60Hz is not flickery on an LCD. Heck, my light source is a 300W incandescent bulb, but LCDs don't fade in brightness between frames like a CRT. Any flicker they have is coming from the backlight, and good monitors don't flicker their backlight (unless you're doing it intentionally for low persistence).

There some new larger 144Hz monitors out. The viewing angles are terrible, but they do look nice. With that said, I hear they perform poorly at 60Hz with consoles. I will get a chance to check out a few next week.

120-165Hz TN panels have been out for years. Their viewing angles are poor. There are now 165Hz IPS panels available at larger sizes (from a computer monitor standpoint) which should have decent viewing angles. But that's not really the point, because sitting down in front of one of those for playing console games is putting many of the same restrictions that the Sony CRT has: severely restricted use from the requirement of sitting right in front of it. Sitting in front of a good quality large television with low lag is always going to be a better experience than sitting in front of an old computer monitor. Newer OLED televisions have better contrast ratios than CRTs ever did.

[orange808]

All console gaming is flickery these days. 60Hz sucks.

60Hz is not flickery on an LCD. Heck, my light source is a 300W incandescent bulb, but LCDs don't fade in brightness between frames like a CRT. Any flicker they have is coming from the backlight, and good monitors don't flicker their backlight (unless you're doing it intentionally for low persistence).

There some new larger 144Hz monitors out. The viewing angles are terrible, but they do look nice. With that said, I hear they perform poorly at 60Hz with consoles. I will get a chance to check out a few next week.

120-165Hz TN panels have been out for years. Their viewing angles are poor. There are now 165Hz IPS panels available at larger sizes (from a computer monitor standpoint) which should have decent viewing angles. But that's not really the point, because sitting down in front of one of those for playing console games is putting many of the same restrictions that the Sony CRT has: severely restricted use from the requirement of sitting right in front of it.

Yes. Bigger displays have appeal. That is the reason I am willing to tolerate my new Vizio. Good point.


On the subject of motion:
If you are playing 60Hz without using some kind of backlight flicker, it's going to look like a huge smearing Game Boy. Without "lightframe", the blur is unacceptable--and I haven't seen any LCD panels with a fast enough response to remedy the issue. New monitors seem to be abandoning 60Hz entirely; do you know of any new monitors that can perform "lightframe/ULMB" (blur reduction) at 60Hz?

[bobrocks95]

Sounds like all this depends on what you want out of a display. There's no perfect display tech out yet, and there may never be as manufacturers continue to careen towards shoving more pixels in rather than improving the tech behind them (why on earth is LG still the only OLED TV company).

Is ULMB just black frame insertion, or something different? What method does it use to lower persistence?

[atheistgod1999]

there may never be [a perfect display] as manufacturers continue to careen towards shoving more pixels in rather than improving the tech behind them (why on earth is LG still the only OLED TV company).

^+9001

[Lord of Pirates]

All console gaming is flickery these days. 60Hz sucks.

60Hz is not flickery on an LCD. Heck, my light source is a 300W incandescent bulb, but LCDs don't fade in brightness between frames like a CRT. Any flicker they have is coming from the backlight, and good monitors don't flicker their backlight (unless you're doing it intentionally for low persistence).

There some new larger 144Hz monitors out. The viewing angles are terrible, but they do look nice. With that said, I hear they perform poorly at 60Hz with consoles. I will get a chance to check out a few next week.

120-165Hz TN panels have been out for years. Their viewing angles are poor. There are now 165Hz IPS panels available at larger sizes (from a computer monitor standpoint) which should have decent viewing angles. But that's not really the point, because sitting down in front of one of those for playing console games is putting many of the same restrictions that the Sony CRT has: severely restricted use from the requirement of sitting right in front of it. Sitting in front of a good quality large television with low lag is always going to be a better experience than sitting in front of an old computer monitor. Newer OLED televisions have better contrast ratios than CRTs ever did.

This is purely preferential. Not all of us find larger screens to automatically be more enjoyable. I don't think more easily noticeable aliasing, tearing, or other artifacts are a better experience.

At Bob: http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/motion_blur.htm

[bobrocks95]

So it's pulsing the backlight? What's the distinction between that and PWM then? The pulse rate?

[Xyga]

PWM is not an intentional feature, it's just the cheapest/shittiest method for dimming.

Then there's specific backlight strobing features in a variety of implementations available on mid-to-high-end sets from various name brands.

I've told people many times it's a mistake to refer to the latter as 'flickering backlight' because to begin those terms were used to describe the bad-and-banned PWM backlight-equipped displays (to be fair very high Hz PWM isn't too bad, but TVs are stuck with very low frequency).

Today you have tons of people who confuse the two and believe TVs with PWM are better ! *super-powered facepalm*

So if you have a simple 60Hz TV or monitor you definitely want it flicker-free, which means no PWM dimming, and that takes care of of one type of ghosting and is better for viewing comfort.
Then if it's got optional features to improve motion perception like some sort of strobing/scanning backlight, then yes it's up to you to use it or not, though apparently there's no real simple and fast-enough strobing on TVs yet, instead things like BFI and frame interpolation are used, which skyrockets the lag.

[atheistgod1999]

Related to the posts above: I just found out what "Lightboost" setting on my monitor was a few hours ago. Now I'm using it, and it's fucking unreal. Would it be possible for a display to have it built-in, without requiring a graphics card to tell it to do it?