Cheap modern LCD for retro gamers (who can't also own a CRT)

[xeos]

I just tested a cheap TCL TV, and found it pretty compelling as a CRT alternative (though I'm keeping my sony CRT as it's still preferable). Input lag was great. And paired with an OSSC, 480p/i upscaling was quite good. Full review here:

https://alantechreview.blogspot.com/202 ... t-lag.html

It also offered an opportunity to validate my piLagTesterPRO input lag results to those made by RTINGS, which might be of interest if you hesitate to trust some random reviewer on the internet

[strayan]

I appreciate the effort you are going to with all these tests.

I’ve been (personally) searching for a low lag plasma TV for years now.

[KayBur]

You can look at inexpensive monitors here https://homemakerguide.com/best-gaming- ... under-150/. Very budget options, you can choose something. In addition, there are monitors here not of some nameless companies, but models of goods of worthy and proven brands.

[xeos]

I appreciate the effort you are going to with all these tests.

I’ve been (personally) searching for a low lag plasma TV for years now.

Thanks. I tested a few plasma TVs, the only one's I found worth having were the panasonic variety. You can find all the reviews on my blog.

[xeos]

You can look at inexpensive monitors here https://homemakerguide.com/best-gaming- ... under-150/. Very budget options, you can choose something. In addition, there are monitors here not of some nameless companies, but models of goods of worthy and proven brands.

honestly, the quality of those "reviews" is extremely low.

[KayBur]

You can look at inexpensive monitors here https://homemakerguide.com/best-gaming- ... under-150/. Very budget options, you can choose something. In addition, there are monitors here not of some nameless companies, but models of goods of worthy and proven brands.

honestly, the quality of those "reviews" is extremely low.

Nobody bothers to look at other reviews, study the characteristics of those models that are presented in these reviews. You can also find something suitable.

[xeos]

Nobody bothers to look at other reviews, study the characteristics of those models that are presented in these reviews. You can also find something suitable.

I think you are speaking for yourself here, and certainly not everybody. RTINGS is a pretty well known/popular website, for instance, that does real reviews.

They don't go into the details that retro gamers need, though, which is part of my why I've been doing the work I have.

[xeos]

I appreciate the effort you are going to with all these tests.

I’ve been (personally) searching for a low lag plasma TV for years now.

update: I just finished tested a sanyo plasma today and it has pretty bad lag:

https://alantechreview.blogspot.com/202 ... g-and.html

at this point I've seen plasma displays from most of the major manufacturers and the only one that's low lag is Panasonic. have you seen evidence that there's any others?

[Guspaz]

Are there really any advantages left for a plasma versus a modern OLED? I seem to recall there being some complaints about the way OLEDs handle refreshes, but I believe that was resolved when they got competent BFI.

[xeos]

Price is the obvious advantage I can think of, at least in a good sized city with lots of used TVs. But I've not played around with an OLED so I'm no expert on them. Seeing as how many Plasmas are crap, and Panasonic's are quite nice, I'm hesitant to make a blanket assumption that all OLEDs are good.

[Guspaz]

There aren't many OLED TVs out there at the moment, and the panels are all made by LG. LG's OLEDs start at around $1,300 USD for the 48" CX model.

As far as I can tell, the only way to buy a decent sized plasma TV is via local sales/pickup. There's only a single large Panasonic plasma on sale on eBay at the moment, a 60" model for $2,000 USD with $9,000 USD shipping. But the "local pickup only" section on eBay has a ton of them for a few hundred bucks.

[xeos]

In the last two years I've gotten 3 Panasonic plasmas priced 0, 0 , and $15, USD. I do live in a good sized city, however. It would be insane to ship a plasma, they start at about 70lbs.

[strayan]

Are there really any advantages left for a plasma versus a modern OLED? I seem to recall there being some complaints about the way OLEDs handle refreshes, but I believe that was resolved when they got competent BFI.

The major appeal of plasma to me is the lower resolution. 480p and 768p plasma work really well with native 480p and line doubled or tripled 240p signals.

[fernan1234]

Are there really any advantages left for a plasma versus a modern OLED? I seem to recall there being some complaints about the way OLEDs handle refreshes, but I believe that was resolved when they got competent BFI.

The major appeal of plasma to me is the lower resolution. 480p and 768p plasma work really well with native 480p and line doubled or tripled 240p signals.

The advantage there is not the low resolution itself, but 1 to 1 pixel matching. If you can find figure out how to do pixel matching on a good current LCD or OLED you'd have all the advantages plus more (except the picture filling most/all of the screen).

[xeos]

The advantage there is not the low resolution itself, but 1 to 1 pixel matching. If you can find figure out how to do pixel matching on a good current LCD or OLED you'd have all the advantages plus more (except the picture filling most/all of the screen).

very true. In fact the 4k displays have the best chance of matching 480p without aliasing artifacts. Does that mean they take advantage of that? Probably not, but it is the ideal hardware for it. In all the 25+ tvs I've tested only like 3 had zero aliasing at 480p. Any many 720p displays have aliasing at native resolution, too. So disappointing.

The tv I started this tread with has near zero aliasing at 480p, and it's a 1080p display. BUT they ruin it by over-sharpening the result.

[strayan]

many 720p displays have aliasing at native resolution, too. So disappointing.

I don’t understand how all these companies managed to bungle 720p implementation (I can speculate though). Back in the early 2000’s when I was looking at my buying my first plasma I simply couldn’t find one that had 1:1 pixel matching. It was and still is a nightmare.

[Einzelherz]

many 720p displays have aliasing at native resolution, too. So disappointing.

I don’t understand how all these companies managed to bungle 720p implementation (I can speculate though). Back in the early 2000’s when I was looking at my buying my first plasma I simply couldn’t find one that had 1:1 pixel matching. It was and still is a nightmare.

iirc it's cause they were developing for computer resolutions and 768 wide was a normal one. The real question to me is where they came up with 720 which existed exactly no where.

[KayBur]

Nobody bothers to look at other reviews, study the characteristics of those models that are presented in these reviews. You can also find something suitable.

I think you are speaking for yourself here, and certainly not everybody. RTINGS is a pretty well known/popular website, for instance, that does real reviews.

They don't go into the details that retro gamers need, though, which is part of my why I've been doing the work I have.

Naturally, I share my thoughts on this or that topic. But I am not suggesting that my conclusions are true for everyone.

[xeos]

Nobody bothers to look at other reviews, study the characteristics of those models that are presented in these reviews. You can also find something suitable.

Naturally, I share my thoughts on this or that topic. But I am not suggesting that my conclusions are true for everyone.

Naturally. In the future when you say "nobody" I'll mentally substitute "speaking for myself only"

[xeos]

iirc it's cause they were developing for computer resolutions and 768 wide was a normal one. The real question to me is where they came up with 720 which existed exactly no where.

I agree that it must be because of the pre-existing 768 resolution. But was there ever a plasma computer monitor? there are plenty of lcd tvs which do 720 pixel perfect so the 768 thing isn't universal. you'd think that a technology only used for tvs would be designed for those demands exclusively..

[Unseen]

The real question to me is where they came up with 720 which existed exactly no where.

From this document, page 10:

Progressive scan systems at 1280 pixels per line and 720 lines per frame are also a member of the“720-pixel” family. 720 pixels x 4/3 (resolution improvement) x 4/3 (16:9 aspect ratio adjustment) =1280. Accommodating the Hollywood and computer communities’ request for “square-pixels”,meant that the number of lines should be 1280 x (9/16) = 720.

[BrianC]

When I was staying at a hotel, I was surprised that the model of Toshiba LCD TV there is 720p, but couldn't handle 768p, unlike the HD TV I used to have.

[xeos]

From this document, page 10:

Wow that's a deep cut. The technical expertise of folks on this board always impresses.

Still doesn't explain why tv manufacturers continue to implement 720p with 768 panels though. obviously, it's momentum, but for how long??! And stupidity

At least 1080p tvs use 1080p panels (but often with over scan compensation, so often there's still aliasing).

[fernan1234]

At least 1080p tvs use 1080p panels (but often with over scan compensation, so often there's still aliasing).

This is somehow more confusing to me. Why is overscan still a thing in the fixed pixel display era, especially when most popular content is either 1080p or 4K which fits pixel perfect on virtually all, respectively, FHD and UHD TVs manufactured.

[Osirus]

At least 1080p tvs use 1080p panels (but often with over scan compensation, so often there's still aliasing).

This is somehow more confusing to me. Why is overscan still a thing in the fixed pixel display era, especially when most popular content is either 1080p or 4K which fits pixel perfect on virtually all, respectively, FHD and UHD TVs manufactured.

Not sure. Some kind of backwards compatibility I suppose. There's usually a "Screen Fit" or other such named option in the TV to disable it.

[xeos]

Not sure. Some kind of backwards compatibility I suppose. There's usually a "Screen Fit" or other such named option in the TV to disable it.

about half the TVs I've reviewed (http://alantechreview.blogspot.com/2020 ... esult.html) do not have a setting that makes 1080p pixel perfect. Many brand names ones, too.

[vol.2]

Still doesn't explain why tv manufacturers continue to implement 720p with 768 panels though. obviously, it's momentum, but for how long??! And stupidity

They don't. AFAIK, they stopped making TV sized 720/768 panels a long time ago. When they were being made, a PC resolution for laptops in a conference room would have been an important feature. There are (or were at this point) at least a half dozen 768 plasma screens in the outgoing e-waste room in the office building I work in (I snagged one of the AKAI panels), so I know it was clearly a thing.

[xeos]

Still doesn't explain why tv manufacturers continue to implement 720p with 768 panels though. obviously, it's momentum, but for how long??! And stupidity

They don't. AFAIK, they stopped making TV sized 720/768 panels a long time ago. When they were being made, a PC resolution for laptops in a conference room would have been an important feature. There are (or were at this point) at least a half dozen 768 plasma screens in the outgoing e-waste room in the office building I work in (I snagged one of the AKAI panels), so I know it was clearly a thing.

Depends on your definition of long time ago. I've seen a 2015 panel that seemed to be >720, and probably was 768. Honestly, they don't make many 720p displays any more, and what are, are terribly budget.

[Einzelherz]

The real question to me is where they came up with 720 which existed exactly no where.

From this document, page 10:

Progressive scan systems at 1280 pixels per line and 720 lines per frame are also a member of the“720-pixel” family. 720 pixels x 4/3 (resolution improvement) x 4/3 (16:9 aspect ratio adjustment) =1280. Accommodating the Hollywood and computer communities’ request for “square-pixels”,meant that the number of lines should be 1280 x (9/16) = 720.

So the answer is 1. it was a number we were using on a different axis before and 2. it's a good divisible number.

I guess that's a reason.

[xeos]

The real question to me is where they came up with 720 which existed exactly no where.

From this document, page 10:

Progressive scan systems at 1280 pixels per line and 720 lines per frame are also a member of the“720-pixel” family. 720 pixels x 4/3 (resolution improvement) x 4/3 (16:9 aspect ratio adjustment) =1280. Accommodating the Hollywood and computer communities’ request for “square-pixels”,meant that the number of lines should be 1280 x (9/16) = 720.

So the answer is 1. it was a number we were using on a different axis before and 2. it's a good divisible number.

I suspect this is the real reason, even if the document doesn't admit it:

720/480 = 1.5

which makes for a very good divisible number (though not as great as 960, which would have been the best by far).