Input Lag Free HDTV?

[Arino]

I'm sorry if I've overseen any existing thread like this.

I hate this topic but I'm thinking about buying a new TV for movies and HD games so I was wondering if there are any new TVs which have no noticeable input lag! Like at least 40".

I'd appreciate any recommendations and experiences but also, as far as I know, you shouldn't rely on any model numbers tested as being lag free because the same TV model can have a different panel built in which may have more lag than another TV with the very same model number?!

Thanks.

[BONKERS]

You won't find many good tvs with less than 20ms (You will have to sacrifice something else). There are some 4k TVs with great latency.

http://www.rtings.com/tv/tests/inputs/input-lag

[Xyga]

Iyou shouldn't rely on any model numbers tested as being lag free because the same TV model can have a different panel built in which may have more lag than another TV with the very same model number?!

No, the panel type doesn't affect the amount of lag in a significant way, it'll only be about 2~3ms difference if the panels average response times are very much apart, but there aren't any much opportunities for obvious cases like these today. More likely for instance between a same display model number featuring either an IPS or a VA panel we're talking about lag differences under 1ms.

Remember; panel response time(s) and input delay are different things with little relationship in practice and any configuration is possible: fast response and low lag, slow response and low lag, slow response and high lag, fast response and low lag (the best case) etc

Of course you want a fast responsive panel, and as little lag as possible (ideally under 16ms which is 1 frame) ...

... so, TVs that got both are already rare indeed, but more annoyingly even in the occurence where they do feature both, it doesn't mean other things won't be a problem.
For instance (and careful Rtings reviews aren't always super clear about it and what it does) most Samsung and LG lcd sets use PWM for dimming, long story short it affects the quality of response and motion in a negative way. Ideally you'll want a set that does NOT use PWM at all, most Sony are like that, but at the moment their models don't have the best lag, unfortunately.

There's plenty of things to watch for, for instance I'll add about Rtings that they only review products that are available on the American market and mainly the US of course. Which means a brand like Vizio will only be available there, and that for other -global- brands the model numbers will be slightly different and availability will vary per-model.

Also their input lag test like everywhere where the Leo Bodnar tester is used, is only showing the measurement results by the center of the display, where the frame is already half-drawn, which means you're seeing the displays's internal lag figure (processing lag or 'input' lag) + about 8ms of drawing time (16ms/2) = the total delay at the center of the screen.
Their logic is that the center is where we look at most of the time, which isn't wrong but it'd be nice if they made that clear to the reader *cough*
Most PC monitors reviews whatever method they use will look rather at the top of the screen where the drawing of the frame begins, and tell you the measurement of that only, it's better since a lot of monitors can run at refresh rates higher than 60Hz, which is one thing that actually affects lag.
It'd just be nice if TV reviewers would do the same to avoid confusing people.

I've mentioned the refresh rate; don't ever pay attention to that when you're buying a TV, for your purpose (gaming) displaying your external source (console) at 50Hz or 60Hz is the only thing they're competent at. Everything else in the specs and features labelled with higher figures means it's by using a frame interpolation setting or something similar, which typically considerably increases lag, or looks like crap because it is not synced perfectly with the console's and game's own rate.
So don't let that impress you, it's essentially meant for movies and broadcast.
Pay attention to judder though, if you care about the latter.

EDIT: tbh a select few 4K sets from Sony and Vizio can display 1080p at a real 120Hz rate from a PC, but in the end I haven't heard of any enthusiast feedback about it.

Also HDR; I'm not a fan yet since the manufacturer's claims are mostly snake oil and promises of working sorcery, when in reality TVs that can do real proper HDR don't even exist on the consumer market yet.
Still, people who have current gen gaming hardware like the exaggerated/artificial looks of it a lot, so it's something to consider of course. I just wanted to say; don't put HDR at the very top of your 'important specs and features' list.

[TooBeaucoup]

Input lag on most modern sets is pretty much a nonissue these days. If you're buying a decent set with a game mode, there shouldn't be any amount of input lag that is noticeable. Unless you're a speed runner that needs complete frame accuracy. This is assuming you're not buying a bottom of the barrel brand from Walmart or something.

[Xyga]

Sorry but that's very, very wrong.

Game modes don't guarantee decently low lag, and by low lag I mean no more than 2 frames (33ms, center), any more delay begins to feel awkward for pretty any game genre that requires even just a bit of timed action.

And price is never an indication of the lag performance. Bottom end models can destroy flagships in that area and vice-versa.

As a general rule with displays and TVs even more than monitors: never assume anything whether it's in regards of performance or brand reputation before you have read a competent review. because manufacturers change stuff every damn year, often heavily altering the performances of entires series of displays if not all of them.
One display or entire series can ace reviews one year, but a slightly different one (same but bigger/smaller) or slightly revised the following year, can be completely ruined.

[Ikaruga11]

Get a monitor.

[orange808]

Get a monitor.

That would require some trade offs.

Given that most monitors are designed for high refresh rates and OP wants to use the display for both gaming and watching video: that might not be a good solution. No HDR, noise reduction, or frame insertion.

Xyga disagrees with me, but I can't handle 60Hz without strobing. Particularly on a large display, that's blur smear city.

[SNK-NEO-GEO]

What do the subject matter experts think about this monitor?
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u3014.htm

[bobrocks95]

What do the subject matter experts think about this monitor?
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u3014.htm

It uses PWM, so I'd say no. My last monitor used PWM and caused me a lot of eye strain.

[SNK-NEO-GEO]

What do the subject matter experts think about this monitor?
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/dell_u3014.htm

It uses PWM, so I'd say no. My last monitor used PWM and caused me a lot of eye strain.

Thank You! For the feedback.

[Xyga]

Xyga disagrees with me, but I can't handle 60Hz without strobing. Particularly on a large display, that's blur smear city.

It's not that I 'disagree', if the blur reduction featured on TVs worked better for games I'd totally be over those, but they're far from ideal, with drawbacks bigger than the benefits.
60Hz is enough if the display is performing well enough and if we're talking retrogaming and films that are not all furious scrolling action, and viewed from a reasonable distance. A 60Hz OLED is significantly more bearable to watch than a poorly backlit, overall poorly perfoming LCD.
And since LCDs are far from being all equal in that area, good response and no PWM are musts, but that's not everything, most of the basic performance and quality factors do matter.
The problem with the now affordable large displays is that most people sit at half the recommended distance and even closer, it's for the wow factor. In those cases the bare 60Hz refresh is hard to live with indeed.
There's a similar issue with large monitors of course now that cheap 27" and 32" that don't go past 60 or 75Hz are around, personally when I buy one of those I know I won't be able to sit closer than 3' to 4' away, otherwise I would either buy smaller or a model that can handle higher refreshes and use only a PC.
And no I don't feel limited, when I select a display it's for a specific use in a particular setup, even the size and arrangment of the room will matter, then a number of specs and performance results I consider absolutely crucial will weigh a lot in my decision. Honestly I think the main reason why people are frustrated with displays and come to spend large sums quite regularily, is that they somewhat expect to finally fall on one that will be the complete do-it-all that'll perform brilliantly with any contents in any situation. Instead I keep buying cheap but good displays that match my top requirements because I know the legendary display isn't quite there yet.

@Arino; if you could live with 2 frames of lag I would suggest you look into the Sony X800D (XD80 in Europe) it's not the top perfomer at everything, but overall well balanced without any crippling flaws (like you would usually expect from Sony)
Then X9** series if you have more to spend and wish to experience stuff like the motion reduction features orange808 mentioned or even real 120Hz from a PC, knowing both options aren't working as well as one would dream of for gaming.

[Ikaruga11]

Get a monitor.

That would require some trade offs.

Given that most monitors are designed for high refresh rates and OP wants to use the display for both gaming and watching video: that might not be a good solution. No HDR, noise reduction, or frame insertion.

Xyga disagrees with me, but I can't handle 60Hz without strobing. Particularly on a large display, that's blur smear city.

Are you retarded. Monitors can have low refresh rates too.

TVs are overpriced junk for plebs.

[neorichieb1971]

This subject is a nightmare. Whatever you suggest someone hates it. You might get some answers like "Buy a 25 year old PVM" as well.

[orange808]

Get a monitor.

That would require some trade offs.

Given that most monitors are designed for high refresh rates and OP wants to use the display for both gaming and watching video: that might not be a good solution. No HDR, noise reduction, or frame insertion.

Xyga disagrees with me, but I can't handle 60Hz without strobing. Particularly on a large display, that's blur smear city.

Are you retarded. Monitors can have low refresh rates too.

TVs are overpriced junk for plebs.

Quote where I said a monitor wouldn't display 60Hz at all.

[Xyga]

This subject is a nightmare. Whatever you suggest someone hates it. You might get some answers like "Buy a 25 year old PVM" as well.

Yes, but it's the market's fault, not people's. It's still plagued by that stupid segmentation (TVs <> monitors), so whenever theres a 'what TV' thread it necessarily comes down to either;
- ignore evidence and logic and just buy whatever X dude or amazon review tells you is awesome
- step into fear and loathing in TVland and cry because the glorious past is long gone and your current options are mostly shit
- fuck everything and indeed spend your time and money on CRTs.

extra option:
- if you're rich just buy one of the latest OLEDs minding that they're fucking awesome but still not made for sitting so close that you can have sex with them, use like crazy, enjoy until it's burnt to death because you can afford to buy another one anyway you rich pig.

[H6rdc0re]

Get a monitor.

That would require some trade offs.

Given that most monitors are designed for high refresh rates and OP wants to use the display for both gaming and watching video: that might not be a good solution. No HDR, noise reduction, or frame insertion.

Xyga disagrees with me, but I can't handle 60Hz without strobing. Particularly on a large display, that's blur smear city.

Are you retarded. Monitors can have low refresh rates too.

TVs are overpriced junk for plebs.

Good monitors have terrible picture quality compared to good TVs. Bad MLL (black levels), bad dynamic range (contrast), no HDR and on top of that input lag isn't even that much lower on gaming monitors compared to consumer TVs.

[Ikaruga11]

Good monitors have terrible picture quality compared to good TVs. Bad MLL (black levels), bad dynamic range (contrast), no HDR and on top of that input lag isn't even that much lower on gaming monitors compared to consumer TVs.

Except that's completely wrong. The highest quality LCDs and OLEDs are all monitors, used for broadcasting, color mastering, film, etc.

Quote where I said a monitor wouldn't display 60Hz at all.

Given that most monitors are designed for high refresh rates

[TooBeaucoup]

Sorry but that's very, very wrong.

Game modes don't guarantee decently low lag, and by low lag I mean no more than 2 frames (33ms, center), any more delay begins to feel awkward for pretty any game genre that requires even just a bit of timed action.

And price is never an indication of the lag performance. Bottom end models can destroy flagships in that area and vice-versa.

As a general rule with displays and TVs even more than monitors: never assume anything whether it's in regards of performance or brand reputation before you have read a competent review. because manufacturers change stuff every damn year, often heavily altering the performances of entires series of displays if not all of them.
One display or entire series can ace reviews one year, but a slightly different one (same but bigger/smaller) or slightly revised the following year, can be completely ruined.

You're right, game modes don't guarantee lag free. Any HDTV will have some inherent lag, no matter what you do. Note, I did say, buy a decent TV with a game mode. Any decent brand, that isn't bottom of the barrel will, likely, have no perceivable lag, unless you're a speed runner and need frame by frame accuracy. I'm a person who notices lag and I've had about a dozen HDTVs in the last 6-7 years and while some felt better than others, none of them hurt my gaming experiences due to input lag. They were also all middle of the road to high-end models.

[Xyga]

What they can do though considering they're all primarily designed to refresh at 60Hz for 60Hz sources, is having nearly zero additional lag before the start of the frame drawing, just like many monitors. So depending where you look they're either lagless (very top of the screen) or just-1-frame displays (bottom end of the screen).
There's a handful of TVs that have been measured at roughly 10ms (center) which means the top times somewhere in the 2~5ms or a quarter of a frame.
For standard displays in the realm of 60Hz sample-and-hold, this is what is considered to be ideal.

The 2013~2015 original Sony W series FHD sets were like that, plus a handful from other brands (Samsung, Vizio and maybe others I forgot)
At the moment there's the LG UJ6300 and UJ7700 standing there, too bad they're overall bad quality sets though...

[orange808]

Good monitors have terrible picture quality compared to good TVs. Bad MLL (black levels), bad dynamic range (contrast), no HDR and on top of that input lag isn't even that much lower on gaming monitors compared to consumer TVs.

Except that's completely wrong. The highest quality LCDs and OLEDs are all monitors, used for broadcasting, color mastering, film, etc.

Quote where I said a monitor wouldn't display 60Hz at all.

Given that most monitors are designed for high refresh rates

Quoting me out of context again? Not surprising.

How many people on the forum have the money to buy a brand new PVM/BVM? Are you shitting me? The OP asks for a recommendation for a general purpose digital display and you recommend a professional grade monitor? How is that helpful? You're trolling.

OP wants 40". That would cost $25,000 usd.

That's not even worth mentioning. That's "retarded".

[mikejmoffitt]

Good monitors have terrible picture quality compared to good TVs. Bad MLL (black levels), bad dynamic range (contrast), no HDR and on top of that input lag isn't even that much lower on gaming monitors compared to consumer TVs.

That's not a good monitor you're describing, that's a piece of shit gamer bullshit monitor that's good at one thing: response time.

[Ji-L87]

The biggest difference between TVs and PC displays that I've seen is that PC displays usually have much more straight forward GUIs/menus.

I would recommend an actual TV for OP since 40" and above is still expensive for a PC display and despite my initial scepticism, for watching blu-rays I've come to love the motion interpolation settings on my Sony when set just right. If off, it goes all choppy during panning left or right, while the cinema 24p setting feels smooth in a way that I would describe as "natural" to my eyes. Any higher than that though and it looks awful in motion instead. Lots of people leave these on the highest settings which baffles me

Of course, whether you like the effect or not is up to personal preferences, but having it to try out would be good in this case I think.

Also, do you know how sensitive you are to lag or have any prior experience with extensive gaming on a TV? I consider myself somewhat sensitive (but not super duper) while I have a friend who can't tell when game mode is off. It also depends on the game, a 30fps console title will feel sluggish anyhow while other games will suffer more. Few TVs will beat a monitor, but many will also be "fine". It's kind of a problem, once you start worrying over lag-performance, it becomes really hard to find something one dares to buy, it nothing else than there's too many models to review and models will have different names in different regions.

It does suck that it's so hard to find good numbers for input lag and such when shopping for a TV, sometimes even PC monitors.
I'd love to see companies actually print some numbers on the box or start focusing on this aspect when putting together their products. I always thought it was weird to see someone like Sony not pushing for low-lag displays to go with their consoles. It's a no brainer!

Edit: spelling.

[neorichieb1971]

I have 2 Dell monitors and I don't think the PQ is that great for video. If I play a video on it, compared to my TV it looks grainy and pixelated.

I'm quite convinced that some 480p material on my TV looks better than 1080p material on my monitor.

When it comes to desktop graphics though, the monitor is by far the best. So not sure why that is.

[Xyga]

There's a ton of specs and features determining the PQ of a display, that's why most tests in any even half-serious review are precisely dedicated to determining how's the PQ.
In any case it would be a mistake to generalize to higher or lower quality either the TVs or monitors.
Actually looking back at the history of displays it's always been TVs borrowing monitor tech over time, and it's still happening (for the better)

[H6rdc0re]

Good monitors have terrible picture quality compared to good TVs. Bad MLL (black levels), bad dynamic range (contrast), no HDR and on top of that input lag isn't even that much lower on gaming monitors compared to consumer TVs.

That's not a good monitor you're describing, that's a piece of shit gamer bullshit monitor that's good at one thing: response time.

The best PC monitors in terms of picture quality are VA based and do about 3.000:1 contrast ratio. Most PC monitors are IPS based and only do about 1.000:1 contrast with bad black levels. The best TVs are OLED based which have infinite contrast with perfect black levels and the best LCD TVs are also VA based and with about 5.000:1 contrast with better black levels than PC monitors. HDR increases dynamic range about two fold on LCD TVs in some cases maybe even three fold.

[Xyga]

You seem to be the right target customer for today's TVs as they are marketed, but I think you are mistaking raw 'power figures' performance and 'wow' for quality, IPS for instance are still better for accurate colors perception and viewing angles, they've also got faster more consitent response.
Those are factors that count a lot too for PQ, don't forget VA-type panels still have issues limiting black crush and are still lagging behind in motion because of a number of much slower bright<>dark colors transitions.
HDR might be nice but it's still mostly done at the expense of accuracy and realism, most people will like it anyway because it's so impressive but I count it as optional processing not part of the real physical properties/abilities of the panel.

I can already hear the 'bias' criticism coming but that would be a misunderstanding of what I'm saying, because there's one thing that is valid for all displays wheter they're TVs or monitors: the fundamentals are what matter the most. For instance even for someone who's focused on HDR, the better designed and controlled the panel is to begin, the more enjoyable its every use will be and that's true for HDR performance too.
And hell that's only the tip of the iceberg, there's so many boxes to tick for a display to even qualify as decent that it's discouraging. I'm thankful to OLED for having almost completely eliminated a large chunk of problematic performance fields only LCDs have, gone the need to make a choice between VA and IPS.

Anyway for the latter and until OLED become more affordable, you definitely can't bury IPS yet on a technical level, VAs definitely don't beat those at everything when it comes to picture quality, they sure are an easier pick for contents watching comfort thanks to the higher contrast, and they don't let a bleeding backlight ruin everything, but there's still people who will have other demands in quality that will be better fulfilled by IPS.
Manufacturers other than LG seem to have mostly abandoned IPS for TVs because of the BLB problem, but had they not and in parallel worked to improve the backlight sealing/uniformity thing, I'm sure those would still be equally popular to VAs. Guess they've all studied the issue and found the cost of a safer manufcturing process was not worth it.

PS: you know I haven't cheched in a long time but I believe TNs are still the most built and sold, because they're the cheap stuff for work/businesses/education etc, but that's not really important for the topic.

[Guspaz]

Unless things have changed recently, all the high-end and professional monitors are still IPS, not VA. It's also important to remeber that AHVA is actually IPS, and the "VA" letters don't mean the same thing (
("AHVA" is Advanced Hyper Viewing Angle, while "VA" is Vertical Alignment). Of course, professionals value the viewing angles and colour accuracy of IPS over the higher contrast of VA.

TN are probably the most popular because they're cheaper, but they do have one other big advantage: they're much faster (in pixel response time, not latency) than IPS. That's why high refresh rate gaming monitors (120Hz, 144Hz, 165Hz, etc) were all TN until recently. It's only the past few years that IPS got fast enough for 120Hz+ IPS panels.

[Ikaruga11]

Aperture Grille CRT > Slot Mask CRT > Shadow Mask CRT > OLED > Plasma > IPS LCD > VA LCD > TN LCD

[Extrems]

It's okay, we can fix the static contrast ratio of IPS.

http://news.panasonic.com/global/press/ ... 128-4.html
http://www.eizoglobal.com/press/release ... g3145.html

Price: You can't afford it.

[FinalBaton]

I really wish I had bought one of those nice Sony W6XXb/W7XXb/W8XXb TVs from 2013/2014/2015 that have like 7ms(camera method) of input lag and very good 480p upscaling and a decent picture...

There's still a W605b model I see in stores from time to time (must be a 2016 model). I think that one has very low input lag too, but sadly doesn't have native 120Hz refresh rate like some of those other models do.

Oh well. I see the 42W700B in the local listings from time to time. Looks like a used set will be the way to go for me.