Seriously, if it's 30ms NATIVELY, it's not the best choice for gaming. It may well be great for many other things though.
And actually it may be more - these folks measured it at 41ms (!!) in HDMI...and called that "an acceptable amount for gamers." Well, maybe console gamers who play RPGs and Fallout 3 exclusively.
It seems the 5500 is downgraded from the 4500, so the 4500 might be the better one overall. Although when I mentioned my TV had a 10bit video processor a few people on here said it was no big deal. The main difference between 8 and 10 bit is the amount of shades available in the TV's pallette.
This industry has become 2 dimensional as it transcended into a 3D world.
I have a Bravia W5500, and playing with "game mode" is not too bad. Playing on "general" mode is awful (prettier, but laggy). "Game mode" definitely make upscaled games playable (480i and 576i from Gamecube games on the Wii are fine, as is 480p from the Wii, and 720p/1080p from the PS3).
I was playing Sega Megadrive Ultimate Collecion on PS3 with some horrible lag the other day, but it looks like it's the title itself, and not the TV.
If you can find an LCD-TV or LCD-based PC monitor with a 2ms lag time or less
he can not, because you're refering to the response time of the panel and not to the input lag. There are "fabulous" LCDs out there which are listed with 1ms (response time), but have an input lag of 3-frames (45+ms).
Is it safe to assume that everybody of us here on board does have Futari by now ?
It's very nice to actually "feel" different input delays. Just have the game display two game screens next to each other with zero lag on the first display and a given - user-adjustable - lag on the 2nd screen, e.g. 3-frames.
