So I'm about to buy a HDTV

[Vexorg]

Could be some sort of reference model or something like that, although even that would be unlikely to ever reach the consumer in any form. I'm not aware of anywhere you could go to find a TI branded TV.

[system11]

Well, Sony is definitely one of the best across the board

Dude, it's not the 1980s anymore, and Trinitron is gone. Now - Sony make kit as expensive as Pioneers, but half as good.

[ckm]

i thought Hitachi because they were the first ones to start developing HDTV, at least that's what Empire magazine said way back in issue 2 when i first read about HDTV in about '89.


this might be useful, i read thru it recently and alls i can say is that there's a lot of sets being sold as HD TV sets and they don't come up to all the standards for broadcast mentioned in this


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDTV



does anyone else that looks at the specs for resolutions etc on new TVs ever also think like i do -

surely if you are selling a TV that's so many inches bigger in screen size - and costs more - that maybe the resolution and the brightness-index and the contrast ratios ought to be increased? esp. the resolution. but usually they are not! same res. for a 20" as a 32", just for example. how can it not show up all liney and blocky?


and i don't mean to go off-topic here, but remember those adverts on videotapes for DVD movies, just when DVDs were new? and it'd show you the fantastic sound and picture quality availible - and you'd see and hear it, on video..........

with the same equipment you had already. and you'd think, why don't they just make the whole videotape sound and look that good then, since it already can.

[Specineff]

Could be some sort of reference model or something like that, although even that would be unlikely to ever reach the consumer in any form. I'm not aware of anywhere you could go to find a TI branded TV.

I think it is. The guy is a contractor so it's quite possible he got it as a reference model allright.

[jp]

*sigh* Doesn't look like I'll be getting a TV after all. I don't think Circuit City is going to approve my card for financing (I have next to no credit) and my parents want me to file as a dependant so they don't have to pay the government... so that KILLS my tax return.


I guess I'll just buy the last few Saturn shmups or something... might as well.

[Gozer]

Bump

I'm looking to buy 2013 Panasonic plasma.

What range would be considered acceptable and unacceptable input lag?

[Ganelon]

It depends a lot on your tolerance threshold. If you're seriously competitive, you won't accept half a frame of post-processing lag (normally the primary source of input lag). In that case, for a 60fps game, you're looking for less than 8 milliseconds. Every 17ms, one more frame of lag will occur.

However much lag you're willing to tolerate depends on your personal tastes. Some may not notice 1 frame (17ms), some may make do with 2 frames (34ms), and most will feel but may not mind the lag at 3 frames (50ms). If you play RPGs, 3 frames may be acceptable. Of course, that's in addition to any added input lag from the console itself. If you're trying to play a PS1 game on a PS3, then you'll experience both the TV display and PS3 input lag, which can easily make everything feel sluggish.

Chances are low that you'll find this post-processing lag number listed on the TV itself or that you'll be able to test before buying. Most likely, you'll have to do some online research to see if someone else has determined the value. Note that response time relates to picture movement (e.g. ghosting) and has nothing to do with post-processing display lag at all.

[Gozer]

I've been keeping an eye out for peoples impressions on AVS forum.

So far I've seen around 60ms for a European model. Waiting to see some test from the US.

Lets assume that number is the same for the US models. Would that be a major hindrance for a game like Megaman 9?

[null1024]

More than 3 frames is pretty bad. Past 3 is where boring, ordinary, not gaming people may start to notice.
1-2 frames is acceptable, but not exactly good [it's still quite a bit].
Sub-frame is pretty much fine, and you aren't getting better with a digital device.

It's very subjective though.

I can't help you too much on getting a particular screen though, I keep a CRT around, and didn't even check lag when getting an HDTV [doh!].

[Ganelon]

60ms means that input lag will average around 3.5 frames. You should notice some sluggishness compared to the controls in FC Rockman games but will it be a major hindrance? I doubt it.

Input lag primarily affects situations where quick reactions are needed. Mega Man 9 isn't that reaction driven unless you're going the no-tank, no-powerup approach so I wouldn't say 60ms is a deal breaker. You'll get used to and adjust to the delay over time. I think you could live with up to 5 frames lag (83ms) before frustration kicks in.

If you own Marvel vs. Capcom 3 (or the Ultimate revision and possibly some other later Capcom fighters), you can turn on input delay in the training mode to simulate what additional frames of delay would feel like.

Anyway, I wouldn't buy a plasma (or LED) anyway due to the risk of screen burn-in when playing games. Yes, it's dramatically better now and some minor burn-in can actually disappear over time. No, this issue has not disappeared with the latest technology. If you leave a static image on-screen for most of a day (that life bar in Mega Man is pretty static), you'd be testing your luck.

[dave4shmups]

Does anyone own one of these Sony Bravia HDTVs with the PS2 built in?: http://www.engadget.com/2010/12/03/sony ... classic-g/

That looks cool! I'm not sure if it ever got a North American release, but it looks nice!

[Ed Oscuro]

Note that response time relates to picture movement (e.g. ghosting) and has nothing to do with post-processing display lag at all.

It has nothing to do with input processing (post-processing?) lag but it does have an effect on lag of the displayed image. It's just a small enough value that it's mostly unremarkable. Most decent LCDs have response time down to around 2ms which is quite acceptable to give sharp image transitions. It's worth noting that the typical response time figures are for "gray to gray" response, which is much less than black to black through white (although gray to gray is probably more reasonable for most pixel transitions, just not light-edge boundary transitions).

Different sets have different ways of dealing with response time-related issues, and sets with "overdrive" can correct some of this, but sometimes at the cost of what's called overshoot. You can see a (bad) example of that here.

The point of mentioning this is that while people often cite camera tests on display lag, these numbers alone don't tell the whole story. A panel which has a lot of ghosting or overshoot artifacts can be tiring to your eyes, almost like playing an action game on an interlaced screen, and at best can create some confusion about what screen position represents the latest position of an object. It's best to do a little test in person, or (if you're in good fortune) look at TFT Central to see if they have some pictures of the gray response.

Happily, many high-end monitors now have good characteristics for lag, and quite good characteristics for pixel response also.

The bottom line, at least for good PC monitors, is that you probably don't have to worry about "[pixel] response time" but it is good to be educated about, just in case.