Input Lag Free HDTV?

[Lawfer]

Indeed, even back in the late 90's a 20"-21" TV was considered big size and it was luxury (at least in Europe)

You're exaggerating a bit, 21" were pretty common by the late 90's, it's the 27" and up, also 16:9 that were luxuries.

They existed in the stores, but they were very expensive and they were a luxury that most people didn't have in their houses, most people had a 14"-15" TVs at the time.

I bought one of those Made in Spain Sony Trinitron 21" and it was super expensive at the time, I needed it because I bought a japanese Dreamcast and almost all the TVs here at the time would only have Scart inputs and would display NTSC non-RGB inputs in black and white.

[Guspaz]

Considering that you can buy a 55" 4K TV for $380 at BestBuy, I really don't think that big 4K TVs are a luxury anymore. There is also a very smooth set of options that go up from there, there isn't really a big gap at any point.

[bobrocks95]

Considering that you can buy a 55" 4K TV for $380 at BestBuy, I really don't think that big 4K TVs are a luxury anymore. There is also a very smooth set of options that go up from there, there isn't really a big gap at any point.

A fair point. Guess it all comes down to "Bigger is better"?

[Xyga]

@lawfer: Sony sure were always more expensive than other brands, but at least in my country (France) and others I've visited in the mid and 90's like the UK and Germany I could see 21" quite often.
I think at home we had our first 21" some time during the first half of the 90's and we were just an average mid-class household. it was more or less the same around.
Maybe we've lived in alternate realities. ^^

[Lawfer]

Considering that you can buy a 55" 4K TV for $380 at BestBuy, I really don't think that big 4K TVs are a luxury anymore. There is also a very smooth set of options that go up from there, there isn't really a big gap at any point.

I mentioned a few pages back that 55" through 65" was the standard (now) on page 4, now on the other hand 70"+, now THAT's a luxury.

But who knows, with the american market being the one that pretty much dictates consumer trends worldwide and their concept of "Bigger is better" and "GO BIG OR GO HOME!", it wouldn't be surprising that 10 years from now 55" would too have become "small".

[bobrocks95]

But who knows, with the american market being the one that pretty much dictates consumer trends worldwide and their concept of "Bigger is better" and "GO BIG OR GO HOME!", it wouldn't be surprising that 10 years from now 55" would too have become "small".

For 4K vs 1080p it effectively is unless you sit really close to the display, but 1080p is dead so I guess the comparison aspect doesn't matter.

[Lawfer]

But who knows, with the american market being the one that pretty much dictates consumer trends worldwide and their concept of "Bigger is better" and "GO BIG OR GO HOME!", it wouldn't be surprising that 10 years from now 55" would too have become "small".

For 4K vs 1080p it effectively is unless you sit really close to the display, but 1080p is dead so I guess the comparison aspect doesn't matter.

What is? 55" being small?

And yeah 1080p is obselete now it seems, because as a matter of fact 1080p TVs have never been upgraded to HDMI 2.0 even when they were released in 2016 or 2017, they are still stuck on HDMI 1.4 connectors, not sure why since HDMI 2.0 allowed for 1080p 120Hz and some of these 1080p TVs have a native refresh rate of 120Hz, I am guessing it just comes down to manufacturer being all like "Pfff! 1080p? HAHA PLEBS!"

[orange808]

If you can, wait for OLED to mature.

HDR implementation seems scattershot right now and it's a band aid. It won't match OLED for brightness and vivid color.

Motion and response isn't even a competition. LCD loses the battle.

Moving to full 4:4:4 is nice, but higher resolutions partially negate the effect. Just adding 4k and full color sampling isn't worth upgrading from a nice 1080p display.

[bobrocks95]

But who knows, with the american market being the one that pretty much dictates consumer trends worldwide and their concept of "Bigger is better" and "GO BIG OR GO HOME!", it wouldn't be surprising that 10 years from now 55" would too have become "small".

For 4K vs 1080p it effectively is unless you sit really close to the display, but 1080p is dead so I guess the comparison aspect doesn't matter.

What is? 55" being small?

As in on a 55" you won't be able to discern the difference between 4K and 1080p sources unless you're closer to it than most people are in a typical living room setup. The resolution gain doesn't really get you anything, but since there basically aren't any 1080p options left, it becomes a moot point.

[Lawfer]

As in on a 55" you won't be able to discern the difference between 4K and 1080p sources unless you're closer to it than most people are in a typical living room setup. The resolution gain doesn't really get you anything, but since there basically aren't any 1080p options left, it becomes a moot point.

I see, is this like how people say that you need a TV bigger than 46" to see the difference between 720p and 1080p? If so, what would you say is a good sized screen to see 4K in full glory? 65'? 77"?

Just adding 4k and full color sampling isn't worth upgrading from a nice 1080p display.

Agreed, I just don't like the fact that modern displays cheapens out on the brightness level by using picture quality degrading methods such as ABL (Automatic Brightness Limiter) and PWM (Pulse Width Modulation), as far as I gather ALL Plasmas and OLEDS uses ABL I don't care if my TV consumes 350W or more as a result, I want an uncompromised image quality that unfortunally most TV models do not offer.

[andykara2003]

http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-siz ... lationship

[Ikaruga11]

If you can, wait for OLED to mature.

HDR implementation seems scattershot right now and it's a band aid. It won't match OLED for brightness and vivid color.

Motion and response isn't even a competition. LCD loses the battle.

Moving to full 4:4:4 is nice, but higher resolutions partially negate the effect. Just adding 4k and full color sampling isn't worth upgrading from a nice 1080p display.

Of course. Early adoption of new technology is always stupid. That's when it's the most expensive and least developed.

I see, is this like how people say that you need a TV bigger than 46" to see the difference between 720p and 1080p? If so, what would you say is a good sized screen to see 4K in full glory? 65'? 77"?

I can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 24" display. Sure, the bigger your display gets, the more easily discernible different resolutions are, but that's because the pixel density drops and affects lower resolutions more quickly.

[Xyga]

Yeah a good 1080p display can be great VS a shitty 4K or one that has a crippling flaw or two.

I love my already 5 years old Sony W6, it's not the best at everything and has its limits by today's standards, but it does pretty much everything right, balance is important.
I still regret not having bought a 50"/55" W8 (2014) or one of the final plasmas.

Really curious about the LG A7, it's supposed to be out but I haven't seen any reviews yet.

[FinalBaton]

I still think that 1080p source material on a 1080p set looks great

[Lawfer]

Of course. Early adoption of new technology is always stupid. That's when it's the most expensive and least developed.

AND with the least reliability and features (compared to later models).

I can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on a 24" display. Sure, the bigger your display gets, the more easily discernible different resolutions are, but that's because the pixel density drops and affects lower resolutions more quickly.

I can do too, this is why I don't like gaming on the PS3 so much since 95% of it's library is limited to 720p at most as unlike the Xbox 360 and Wii U it has no upscaling capabilities, however I saw this claim quite a few times in the past 10 years on forum boards that 46" in terms of size was just barely good enough for 1080p, so I was just curious.

I still think that 1080p source material on a 1080p set looks great

I do too and of course it does since you are getting perfect 1:1 pixel mapping. Consoles aren't even in 4K territory yet, since modern consoles games can't even handle 1080p/60fps (save for a few exceptions). At this point 4K is only good enough if you have a powerful PC for 4K/60fps gaming.

[Guspaz]

now on the other hand 70"+, now THAT's a luxury.

That is, to a certain extent, justified. As the display area increases, it becomes harder and harder to find a panel that big without defects (LCD and OLED panels are made in larger sheets and cut to size, as I understand it).

LG's OLED TVs come in 65" as the largest affordable size, and the next step up, 77", is a premium costs-way-more size. But that step up represents 40% larger surface area.

[Lawfer]

now on the other hand 70"+, now THAT's a luxury.

That is, to a certain extent, justified. As the display area increases, it becomes harder and harder to find a panel that big without defects (LCD and OLED panels are made in larger sheets and cut to size, as I understand it).

LG's OLED TVs come in 65" as the largest affordable size, and the next step up, 77", is a premium costs-way-more size. But that step up represents 40% larger surface area.

What about these 103" displays then?

[FinalBaton]

I guess that if I'm buying a TV in the next few months(which I need to do) and what I currently own is a 720p set, then I should skip 1080p altogether and go for 4k, no?

I guess it could make sense to go for a cheap 4k set like the TCL($450 CAD), to hold me over until OLED becomes more affordable in a bunch of years(hopefully 3-4 years) and then buy that,
versus throwing $1500 CAD at the Sony X900E right now. What do you guys think?

Not that I'm not gonna watch a ton of 4k content or anything. Just the occasional 4k sports broadcast, and probs some Netflix and Youtube in 4k.

[bobrocks95]

If you had a chance to check out the TCL in a store to see if the PWM bothers you, I'd go with that.

If you think HDR will matter to you in the near future I'd consider the next level up TCL set that Yuki Bahn also posted about a little while back http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=60488. Contrast is also better even if you aren't doing HDR.

[FinalBaton]

If you had a chance to check out the TCL in a store to see if the PWM bothers you, I'd go with that.

If you think HDR will matter to you in the near future I'd consider the next level up TCL set that Yuki Bahn also posted about a little while back http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=60488. Contrast is also better even if you aren't doing HDR.

Is that one also available in 43"?
(I have a hard time navigating through the model numbers in that thread to be honest. It's laid out in a very confusing manner, with discussions jumping from the P series to the S series...)

[bobrocks95]

Looks like it's 55" only unfortunately.

[FinalBaton]

No dice then.

Looks like the TCL 43S405 will be my ticket.

[bobrocks95]

No dice then.

Looks like the TCL 43S405 will be my ticket.

There's a lot of things to wait on before investing big in a set. OLED, different HDR formats, HDMI 2.1/Variable Refresh Rate, etc. Getting a cheaper but highly capable set now is a good option while things settle down.

Only thing I'd say is that if you're still looking for a ~42" set a few years from now, you're probably going to have a rough time.

[FinalBaton]

Thanks a lot for the advice bobrocks

Only thing I'd say is that if you're still looking for a ~42" set a few years from now, you're probably going to have a rough time.

Yeah I'm fully expecting that. But by then I should own a house and have a decent sizedn living room, so I'll actually be looking for aset bigger than that, so it's no big deal.

[Lawfer]

I guess that if I'm buying a TV in the next few months(which I need to do) and what I currently own is a 720p set

It's very unlikely that your set is actually 720p technically speaking, almost all 720p sets sold as such weren't actually 1280x720 but something else.

[Ikaruga11]

I guess that if I'm buying a TV in the next few months(which I need to do) and what I currently own is a 720p set

It's very unlikely that your set is actually 720p technically speaking, almost all 720p sets sold as such weren't actually 1280x720 but something else.

I find that hard to believe.

1280x720p is a 16:9 aspect ratio resolution. Pretty much all 720p displays are 16:9, and pixels are square so.

[Xyga]

Those were the so-called HD-Ready 1366x768 sets. Sad times.

[Ikaruga11]

Those were the so-called HD-Ready 1366x768 sets. Sad times.

Wow, that's strange. I can't think of anything that uses 1366x768. So all 720p content is slightly upscaled, resulting in input lag and a softer picture.

It's not even a perfect 16:9 aspect ratio.

3840/2160 = 1.77777777778
2560/1440 = 1.77777777778
1920/1080 = 1.77777777778
1280/0720 = 1.77777777778
16/9 = 1.77777777778

1366/768 = 1.77864583333

[Xyga]

Those were the so-called HD-Ready 1366x768 sets. Sad times.

Wow, that's strange. I can't think of anything that uses 1366x768.

In the video realm; me neither. Seems like a legacy from the 1024x768 pc times.
Sad to think that it's still the most common computer resolution today (I suppose because most computers in the world are cheap laptops)

[bobrocks95]

Thanks a lot for the advice bobrocks

Only thing I'd say is that if you're still looking for a ~42" set a few years from now, you're probably going to have a rough time.

Yeah I'm fully expecting that. But by then I should own a house and have a decent sizedn living room, so I'll actually be looking for aset bigger than that, so it's no big deal.

Do you have an OSSC? Should be nice to use with the TCL.