Input Lag Free HDTV?

[Guspaz]

I don't think anybody ever made an actual 1280x720 television. If they did, they were extremely rare. All TVs that were sold as 720p that I ever saw were all 1366x768.

[Fudoh]

They're rare indeed. There was a 37" Panasonic plasma model that had an actual 720p resolution, but I don't think that I've ever heard of a LCD with the resolution.

EDIT: Indeed. the TH-37PX8 for example has 720 lines of resolution, but at a reduced horizontal resolution of only 1024 insted of 1280.

[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

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.

Of course, it's not 720 on the vertical axis, it is 1024x768 (HD-ready sets were either that or 1366x768). I didn't think I'd need to clarify since for all intents and purposes 720p sets never existed in the consumer market

[FinalBaton]

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.

actually, thinking about it... there are second hand 42" Sony w700b sets (1080p, low lag)that pop up every now and then, and I'm almost tempted to go that route >_<

There's also a 51" Samsung F8500 plasma for sale near me :0
aka one of the best plasma sets ever, if not THE best, but the input lag is not the best at 37ms
I'm a big plasma fan so I'm actually tempted by this...

[evil_ash_xero]

deleted

[FinalBaton]

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

Not at the moment! but if I get The TCL, I'll make the line for an OSSC for sure!

[evil_ash_xero]

When do the HDTVs tend to drop?
At the beginning of the year? Throughout the year? I'd like to keep checking for something that is more in my size range.

[Guspaz]

Right after LG introduced the C7, the C6 was selling for $1000-1500 less to clear out inventory. The C7 dropped in price by $1000 between February and June, and apparently the lowest price point is around Black Friday.

[Endymion]

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)

This resolution was used because it is the closest resolution you can get to one megapixel in size, while maintaining 16:9 ratio (when rounded up a hair).

(16/9)x*x = 10242 = 1,048,576.

(16/9)*x2 = 1048576

(4/3)*x = 1024

x = 768

For y, multiply by 16/9 and you get 1365.333, when you round up you get a full megapixel.

This is also the rationale behind 1920x1080, in order to reach 2 megapixels (slightly rounded, again to try to stick with 16:9 ratio).

1024x768 is exactly 3/4 of one megapixel. 1280x1024 is exactly 1.25 megapixels. 1280x800 is 1024x1000, which nobody would want to use.

[Xyga]

It's nice and all but in the first case no video format on the market matched that resolution 1:1, everything had to be upscaled (and not nicely), so manufacturing 1366x768 panels for the 'sake' of reaching a certain pixel count seems rather silly...I still don't get the logic today, nor why most computer screens still use it seeing how unfit it is to lots of modern software (web in particular)
I'd guess; because everyone in China can make those for next to nothing, irrational, but cheap. ^^

[Endymion]

But it wasn't only for that pixel count, it was also for that 16:9 ratio. And see above for why they didn't start from the other resolutions.

[Lawfer]

I don't think that I've ever heard of a LCD with the resolution.

Wasn't there ever even 1?

What about this one:

https://www.cnet.com/uk/products/viewso ... 0w/review/

Or this one:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000G ... g-books-20

[Xyga]

But it wasn't only for that pixel count, it was also for that 16:9 ratio. And see above for why they didn't start from the other resolutions.

I see that as well but it still doesn't make sense to aim also only for the ratio. Not even broadcast used the resolution they ended up with.

You can check the math and ratio as long as you want 1366x768 really smells like something that wasn't carefully though about at the time, some non-video-savvy engineer took the most common vertical pc resolution and used it as base for a 16:9 version, then after the production lines were rolling and the products selling they just went on with it.
Probably someone mentioned "guys you realize no video format out there uses that resolution?" but heh...
Later the resolution probably only survived the market switch to 1920x1080 because it fell down to the 'entry level' category, when it should have been discontinued completely.
With Full-HD the stupid thing was that BR came a bit late after it, but at least the industry produced a fitting format.
Today 4K doesn't make tons of sense, but it is definitely not as stupid as 1366x768 being hilariously labelled 'HD-Ready' when really, it never was ready for anything lol (even pc gpus use 1360)

edit: oops we're ot

[Guspaz]

Those seem to be more PC-monitor-with-TV-functionality than dedicated televisions, but even then it wouldn't be guaranteed to actually be a 1280x720 panel. I remember my old LG television, 1366x768 panel, but you'd never find any mention of that on any marketing, everything said 720p.

[Lawfer]

Those seem to be more PC-monitor-with-TV-functionality than dedicated televisions, but even then it wouldn't be guaranteed to actually be a 1280x720 panel. I remember my old LG television, 1366x768 panel, but you'd never find any mention of that on any marketing, everything said 720p.

Yeah but those mention an aspect ratio of I quote "1280 x 720" rather than just 720p.

[Unseen]

This is also the rationale behind 1920x1080, in order to reach 2 megapixels (slightly rounded, again to try to stick with 16:9 ratio).

There is another explanation, which seems more likely to me:

[quote="see PDF link below]When the ITU defined HDTV, they stipulated: “the horizontal resolution for HDTV as being twice that of conventional television systems” described in Rec. 601 and a picture aspect ratio of 16:9. A 16:9 picture ratio requires one-third more pixels than a 4:3 picture ratio. Starting with 720, doubling the resolution to 1440 and adjusting the count for a 16:9 aspect ratio leads to the 1920 sample per active line defined as the basis for HDTV [9]. Accommodating the Hollywood and computer communities’ request for “square-pixels”, meant that the number of lines should be 1920 x (9/16) = 1080[/quote]

Source: https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/tre ... 1_wood.pdf, whose footnote 9 refers to ITU BT.801
.

[Endymion]

You can check the math and ratio as long as you want 1366x768 really smells like something that wasn't carefully though about at the time

Going to 16:9 was not the only reason it was used. The reasons are numerous and the payoffs to the choices that led them there were huge. I think that you might be treating it as a stupid decision because you are juxtaposing events on the timeline and missing others.

Engineers started with 768 is because we are dealing with a point in time when the standard "high" resolution display at a 4:3 ratio was 1024x768. You might laugh to call that a high resolution today, but it's a great deal more than the 320-480 that was encircling the globe at the time. 1024x768 was already the XGA standard at a time that widescreen was being engineered, the logical engineering step was to widen that number. They wanted 16:9 so it just made tonnes of sense to go straight to 1366x768. It was the simplest, most effective way to widescreen and still maintain compatibility with XGA, i.e. XGA content could go straight to WXGA with no compromise. Extending width with the same height was also easy to accomplish because they only had to change the horizontal rate. And they didn't have to create different hardware just for a wider screen. That means the resolution they chose made for cheaper tech, but cheap in the sense that it just cost less money to do, not that it was necessarily shoddy.

You mentioned 1360x768, a resolution that seems to confound a lot of XBox 360 owners using the VGA cable, but its purpose in life is to work as a cheaper alternative to 1366x768. A 1366x768 image w/8-bit pixels would need just over 1 megabyte to store, bumping that number down by just 6 rows less at 1360x768 allows the entire framebuffer to fit in a single 1MB chip. This is why both 1360 and 1366 are WXGA resolutions. It's 1999 and memory is expensive as hell. Nobody is going to make a 1.1MB chip (or 1.05MB) just for you at anything like a reasonable price, so you're not going to blow your budget to store just a few extra lines when you've got something close enough, still divisible by 8 (or 16) for use with fast scaling algorithms, and fits in the space you already have, with a clock that you can tweak from a production that you already make. Yes, it is less correct as an ideal 16:9 ratio, but you're talking about a margin so small (a fraction of a percent) that nobody has the supereyes to notice. It also stands to operate faster than if you were to say f-it and use a 2x the memory instead. I mean, the production lines rolling that you refer to really were the screens they were already making before anybody ever even wanted a wide screen.

And last but not least and this is easily as important as anything about the entire origami puzzle of this situation, 720p didn't exist when 1366x768 was standardized, having been recommended by committee in April 2002. By the time it was put in place, 1366x768, or 1360x768, could easily adapt. If anything, you are squeezing more use out of a single framebuffer by using 1366x768/full megapixel than the non-existent at the time 1280x720, and the 1080i format that was already there used... barely under one megapixel, also, fitting the same memory border. True story.

I get what you are saying, it's another resolution, it's the odd-man out, web and computer content have grown so much since then, all other content has to be scaled to it, why the hell is it still around, etc. But perhaps a better question is, why was it not adopted entirely instead of 1280x720 aka 720p? Well there's a good reason for that, too, just in an entirely different area. (Broadcasting.) Given context, 1366x768 is pretty understandable though.

And yeah, that is getting ot for this thread. But I'm surprised there is no interest in the 30 microsecond display mod I posted about a couple of weeks ago here. I don't know a lot about his methodology or measurement but he has been sharing his information every step of the way with his development, Linus Tech Tips and a couple other folks have evaluation boards already so it certainly seems he's confident in his work.

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=60577

[Guspaz]

Irony: many (most?) televisions back then did not support 1:1 pixel modes, and always had overscan. They typically did not accept 1366x768 input over any input (only accepting 1280x720 and upscaling it), and even if you fed it 1026x768 over VGA, they would often still scale it up to have overscan, still resulting in a non-native image.

Cirthix's homebrew display controller project is very promising, but is not currently suited for the retro gaming market because it seems to require exactly 2160p, 1080p, 720p, or 540p input. That's because it only supports integer scaling, hence the lack of 480p support. No 480p support and extremely restrictive input resolutions doesn't bode well for OSSC compatibility, which would seem to be the only way to get input to the thing low latency enough for the display's low latency to matter. Also it only supports DisplayPort.

[Xyga]

I get what you are saying, it's another resolution, it's the odd-man out, web and computer content have grown so much since then, all other content has to be scaled to it, why the hell is it still around, etc. But perhaps a better question is, why was it not adopted entirely instead of 1280x720 aka 720p? Well there's a good reason for that, too, just in an entirely different area. (Broadcasting.) Given context, 1366x768 is pretty understandable though.

I fail to see where it made sense in regards to broadcasting or why it's still around indeed, it really never was good for anyone anyway so another good question is why are you so eagerly defending it? we never had relief engineers walking around in stores and homes explaining people that yes it's shit but please understand why we did it and keep struggling with your hardware and software pointlessly.

And yeah, that is getting ot for this thread. But I'm surprised there is no interest in the 30 microsecond display mod I posted about a couple of weeks ago here. I don't know a lot about his methodology or measurement but he has been sharing his information every step of the way with his development, Linus Tech Tips and a couple other folks have evaluation boards already so it certainly seems he's confident in his work.
http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=60577

That's exciting but the listed compatible panels not so much, hopefully there'll find many more and better in the future.
Also how well it works with non-computer sources will mostly determine the interest of the community here.

Top priority for shmupsfarm non-crt displays: big gorgeous displays that work marvelously with our retro consoles, arcade boards and external scalers.
Modern consoles come second, and pc / games or emulators third.
At the moment I bet our #1 fantasy is a 40~50 OLED with manually adjustable blur reduction to the oddest of refreshes and perfect scaling + no lag, of course.

[Nordicus0114]

If you are looking for a LCD or LED display that has less input lag, I recommend getting a decent 24 inch PC monitor, or even a monitor that has G sync. I have never used a G-Sync Monitor, but I hooked my J-NTSC 360 to my Eizo EV2455. I am not aware of any HDTV that has zero input lag, but if you are willing to spend a lot of money on a oled display that has close to no input lag, then you may want to go with the Sony BVM OLED monitors.

[FinalBaton]

Sony BVM OLED monitors.

Unless I'm mistaken, those should go for several tens of thousands of dollars

I think I'd rather spend that money on a car!

[Xer Xian]

Sony BVM OLED monitors.

Unless I'm mistaken, those should go for several tens of thousands of dollars

They do, and while no one has tested them for lag I'd bet they wouldn't score nicely.

[evil_ash_xero]

Do LG models come out at different times of the year?
I'm hoping their next 43 is better made.

I'm a little surprised that big monitor I posted doesn't have any reviews on RTings. You'd think it would, being an LG.
Hmm...

[Nordicus0114]

Sony BVM OLED monitors.

Unless I'm mistaken, those should go for several tens of thousands of dollars

I think I'd rather spend that money on a car!

Indeed they are priced more than 10k but I saw one that was priced $9000 on ebay.

[FinalBaton]

They do, and while no one has tested them for lag I'd bet they wouldn't score nicely.

This is my guess also

[Xyga]

A number of larger monitor announced at IFA, apparently manuffacturers aren't completely ignorant of demand;

Philips 436M6VBPAB - 4K allrounder (VA?)
LG 32GK850G - 1440p 144~165Hz G-Sync (most certainly IPS)
AOC AG322QCX - 1440p 144Hz slightly curved VA FreeSync
There's also a 31.5 Viewsonic dunno much about it yet

Plus a number pro-oriented 32" models coming from the usual brands, some might be good for gaming too (remember the BenQ BL3201PT), and the 'generic' LG 32UD89, 32UD99, and 43UD79 are out but have yet to receive proper reviews.

EDIT: also the Viewsonic VX4380-4K, probably with the same IPS panel as the LG 43UD79, but it deosn't tell if FreeSync or not.

All those are expected to beat TVs in response and lag, with adaptive sync tech bonus for many. Not your bigger living room/mancave HDR spectacle though.

[H6rdc0re]

Sony BVM OLED monitors.

Unless I'm mistaken, those should go for several tens of thousands of dollars

They do, and while no one has tested them for lag I'd bet they wouldn't score nicely.

Big mistake!!! Professional monitors (digital) always have a lot of lag, more so than their consumer counterparts.

[Lawfer]

Big mistake!!! Professional monitors (digital) always have a lot of lag, more so than their consumer counterparts.

Indeed, these are made for things like photo editing, they are just not made for gaming in the first place anyways.

[Guspaz]

BVMs are broadcast monitors, which use SDI for input. Nobody is using them for photo editing, there are professional monitors from traditional monitor vendors for that.

[Xer Xian]

They do, and while no one has tested them for lag I'd bet they wouldn't score nicely.

Big mistake!!! Professional monitors (digital) always have a lot of lag, more so than their consumer counterparts.

Yeah, but you didn't read my post closely - I actually implied the same

A number of larger monitor announced at IFA, apparently manuffacturers aren't completely ignorant of demand

That's cool, but I wonder when they will give us OLED monitors. Now it's been what, three years that this display technology was marketed to consumers, it's about time they allow it to trickle down from the super-high end market segment. Probably. Hopefully.