Samsung F4500 plasma bargain for 480p sources

[bobrocks95]

Well like you said, things dive deep into theory at that point. Even just within LCD technology things are inconsistent, and we're trying to compare two different technologies...
I guess the real determining factor is use it or buy it, see if you can personally notice any lag, and call it a day if you can't.

[Josh128]

BuckoA51 runs a site called Video Game Perfection. We're on a gaming-centric forum. He's almost certainly talking about how well 1080p sets upscale 480p games.

Dont get me wrong, Im not discounting what he is saying at all-- Im saying that we he finds "good" or "acceptable" is in all likelihood not what I think is good or acceptable regarding the upscaling. He may see the Wii on the F5300 and think it looks quite nice-- and in many peoples eyes it may indeed look good-- but it doesnt look like it does on a 480p CRT, you see-- thats the gold standard Im measuring against-- the holy grail, if you will. If those sets he speaks of upscaling produces an image as close to the HD-Ready CRTs as the F4500, I'll be the first to admit it, once I see it.

Are you using a 15KHz CRT for that comparison, or one of the 480p/1080i sets you've been talking about a lot? I believe the HD consumer sets had a digital chassis, and thus had input lag (please someone correct me if I'm wrong on this one, it's confused me for a while).

Im using an old Symphonic 15khz NTSC 17" television with composite inputs, about as low tech analog as they come-- I split the Y (Green/Luma) from the component signal into 3 and fed one the splits to each set.

[bobrocks95]

Dont get me wrong, Im not discounting what he is saying at all-- Im saying that we he finds "good" or "acceptable" is in all likelihood not what I think is good or acceptable regarding the upscaling. He may see the Wii on the F5300 and think it looks quite nice-- and in many peoples eyes it may indeed look good-- but it doesnt look like it does on a 480p CRT, you see-- thats the gold standard Im measuring against-- the holy grail, if you will. If those sets upscaling produces an image as close to the HD-Ready CRTs as the F4500, I'll be the first to admit it, once I see it.

Gotcha, you're just going by a different metric. You're comparing to a 480p CRT, if I got one I'd be comparing it to a plasma EDTV, Fudoh's testing one out and likely focusing on comparing it to 1080p sets. Different strokes for different folks as it were!

[Ed Oscuro]

@Ed; Both websites use only the Leo Bodnar tester though (displaylag average of three bars, and rtings only middle bar), which gives significantly higher figures on plasmas.
Hdtvtest during the year or two they still did review plasmas and used both the camera/timer and LB tester, reported differences of over 16ms (18ms precisely) between the two methods, stating the camera/timer was more accurate.

The plasmas get significantly higher lag figures - because they're significantly laggier!

I've read that blurb on HDTVtest before and I never acquired the distinct impression they knew what they were talking about. The major problem is that they are trying to compare an uncontrolled impression of "good gaming" (what's the variable?) against the relatively straightforward variable of total response time (input lag). Certain phrases they use in the way of explaining that feeling - "smoother" - sound suspiciously like that old debate, frame rate vs. frame rate variance.

Having played on my share of blurry LCDs, I'll grant that there are some obvious benefits to the plasma they compared against the Panasonic ET60 (which even has something like lightboost, so blur should be reduced) but this is far away from a guarantee it's fast enough. The ET60 is a fairly slow LCD screen - and while the plasmas being discussed here are now quite cheap, I think the real comparison is with the best LCD TVs. It does depend on what the intended use is - also I think many offline console games are slow-paced enough that one can adjust to a couple frames lost over the fastest CRT or LCD. But not all will be.

[Josh128]

Gotcha, you're just going by a different metric. You're comparing to a 480p CRT, if I got one I'd be comparing it to a plasma EDTV, Fudoh's testing one out and likely focusing on comparing it to 1080p sets. Different strokes for different folks as it were!

Exactly-- to me, there is a gold standard for each generation and/or resolution, how it should look at its best, which really shouldnt change much from person to person. Basically:

240p/NES/SNES/Megadrive etc: Sony BVM or Trinitron (if you exclude the BVM)

480i PS2/DC/GC etc.: Sony Trinitron, etc. (15Khz)

480p PS2/DC/GC/Wii etc: Sony HD Trinitron Wegas, Pansonic Taus, Hitachi Ultravision Digitals etc. (31Khz)

Native is always best, and usually produces a unique look. I find the F4500 is very well rounded from 240 up to 720p, without use of external processors. I will say right now though, that I bet Fudoh will have problems getting scanlines to look right on 240p games on it. Scanlines from PC emulators look wonky, while they look great on the F5300. For me though, the look the 4500 produces on its own with 240p is pleasing and satisfying enough that it doesnt leave me wanting for it to look any different.

[Xyga]

@Ed: I don't know for sure but, I know a little bit more about some of the LB tester's quirks now, and I am under the impression what they say about how its target brightness thing / late to register issue compared to first really perceivable movement by a human may not be complete BS.

Also I wouldn't completely ignore 'suggestive reading' and live experience, as the way a display manages to display the actual picture counts for a portion of the 'total display lag', but machines aren't so perfect that the figures they report can tell the whole live experience (that's the opinion of Adam over at pcmonitors, which I share somehow even keeping in mind few people can tell about small differences in may situtuations).
It's not all science when it's a just feeling, but it's a hint. They've never been (those guys over at hdtvtest and cnet) the only ones to say plasmas feels smoother and not always as laggy as other reviews say.

Of course I know the probability it's just people who aren't sensitive enough to feel the lag, is very high... but even so I think it's still a hint since we know even inexperienced people can feel the 'floating' and delay when it's around 3-4 frames.
I assume people who play on various displays over the year - while paying attention to these things - saying they barely feel any (or no) delay while testing a model, must be a bit true to themselves at least, and believe what their body/brain reports to their consciousness.
In that regard maybe the theory of an about 1 frame gap between one testing method and another isn't - maybe - isn't wrong.

Hell, again this all could very well be people telling how they enjoyed the placebo trip, I don't know lol.

[Xan]

I ordered one of these 43" H4500s. My first ever PDP, so I'm fairly excited. First thing I'm going to test this with is something that hasn't been mentioned at all: a PSP. Hopefully this is going to benefit from a display like this considering the low 480x272 res. I'll also compare how the PS3 looks vs. the 23" 1080p IPS monitor that I'm usually using for that. Wii would be great too, but I can't find original Nintendo component cables at all right now.

[Josh128]

Since everyone seems so conerned about lag, I forgot I have this video I uploaded on youtube a while back. Its 30 fps, but I still have the actual 60 fps video, I just have not yet figured how to get 60 fps to youtube, though its now supposed to be possible.

A little disclosure here-- Ive been an avid gamer since 1984, when I got my first Atari 2600. I lived on NES and SNES and Genesis. Mega Man 2 and Ninja Gaiden and Zelda 2 some some of my all time faves, and they are all fairly twitch action games. I have to say I dont really notice any lag in the response of this set-- those games feel completely natural. I know its there, as seen in the Fzero shots and the DKC video, but its really not very much.

I'm very picky when it comes to lag as Im sure most of you here are. If you study the DKC video closely, you will see it-- in fact, when I made the video, the lag was most easy to see when scenes would go from dark to bright and you had the sets side by side. Without the sets side by side, you will be hard pressed to notice any lag. Perhaps if you game only on CRT and switch to this with only a few seconds break in between, you could sense it.

If anyone has a quick method to get 60fps up and running on youtube, I could re-up this at 60 perhaps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOoi8jw01oU

[Xan]

60 FPS is supported since June or so. That video should already be playable in 60 FPS with a supported browser and enabled HTML5 option.

[Ed Oscuro]

@Ed: I don't know for sure but, I know a little bit more about some of the LB tester's quirks now, and I am under the impression what they say about how its target brightness thing / late to register issue compared to first really perceivable movement by a human may not be complete BS.

I don't think the Bodnar is slow to pick up on plasma screen refreshes. I think what's going on is something we all know about - the plasma does better in high motion scenes which are challenging for many TVs, and the particular TV they compare the plasma to is an IPS and a bit slow on response time. That model also has some cloudy white / black transitions due to having a LED backlight at only one edge of the panel.

The point of all this is - if I'm playing a game where tracking the position of elements onscreen precisely is important, blur makes that task more difficult because there's a bit of uncertainty about the actual location of those objects (visually, ignoring the input lag for a bit). With the plasma, apparently this isn't as much of an issue. What's more, the plasma could be significantly slower than the entirety of the LCD's combined input lag and response time, but it would still have extra motion clarity.

As far as the NES games go, I'm guessing that they're all familiar enough that lag is less of a factor. I'd like to see how a more chaotic-seeming game holds up in this comparison.

[Josh128]

My video is 60fps 480i-- it seems Youtube automatically converts it to 480p 30. Not sure how to stop that.

[Xan]

Deinterlacing it yourself? Also videos should always be uploaded in 1080p w/ pillarboxing for best YT encoding quality.

[Josh128]

Deinterlacing it yourself? Also videos should always be uploaded in 1080p w/ pillarboxing for best YT encoding quality.

Every program Ive tried thus far outputs a 30 fps video when you deinterlace a 60i video.

[Xan]

Tried yadif?

[BuckoA51]

Dont get me wrong, Im not discounting what he is saying at all-- Im saying that we he finds "good" or "acceptable" is in all likelihood not what I think is good or acceptable regarding the upscaling.

480p scaling has come leaps and bounds I think, I'm sure I said elsewhere the old ABT/DVDO scalers used to be considered good for 480p->1080p, now they're just mediocre. I was really surprised at how good the Wii looked on my friends Panasonic when I first took it around for a gaming night.

There's an element of taste too, people rave about the Optoma's 480p upscaling, I bought one and honestly didn't think it was worth the hassle for what to me seemed to be only a small improvement.

I certainly don't claim to know everything though, I had no idea 720p sets were any good at all and finding a set that properly handles 240p is an achievement in itself.

[cools]

FWIW any time I run any upscaled/native 15k/31k on my Panasonic plasma I disable scanline emulation. I only find it necessary on LCD displays.

[Xyga]

What are you guys doing ? 55" OLED cost only $2999 now.

[Endymion]

Your TV looks great, congratulations on finding a good model to use with these older games.

BTW, not looking to start any crap here, but I have both the GC with the original Nintendo component cables and a Wii with some Rocketfish cables and have compared their outputs on the same set and there is absolutely no difference in quality between the two. The common notion that there is a difference is a complete myth. The reason the Wiis output gets such a bad rap is that everyone always tests it on 1080p tvs, ALL OF WHICH HAVE HORRENDOUS 480p UPSCALING.

It isn't a complete myth. If the same display shows properly with a GameCube and shows blurry with the Wii then there is a difference in the output--and there is. It isn't a huge difference, but it is one that can be seen.

[Josh128]

Your TV looks great, congratulations on finding a good model to use with these older games.

BTW, not looking to start any crap here, but I have both the GC with the original Nintendo component cables and a Wii with some Rocketfish cables and have compared their outputs on the same set and there is absolutely no difference in quality between the two. The common notion that there is a difference is a complete myth. The reason the Wiis output gets such a bad rap is that everyone always tests it on 1080p tvs, ALL OF WHICH HAVE HORRENDOUS 480p UPSCALING.

It isn't a complete myth. If the same display shows properly with a GameCube and shows blurry with the Wii then there is a difference in the output--and there is. It isn't a huge difference, but it is one that can be seen.

There is zero visible difference on my Wii and GC. None. Both are crystal clear when running the same game. Check your Wii component cables.

[ryu]

There is zero visible difference on my Wii and GC. None. Both are crystal clear when running the same game. Check your Wii compnent cables.

I haven't gotten to play on a GCN with component yet, but on my Wii there's a clear drop in picture clarity when switched from 480i to 480p output (both using component).

[Josh128]

There is zero visible difference on my Wii and GC. None. Both are crystal clear when running the same game. Check your Wii compnent cables.

I haven't gotten to play on a GCN with component yet, but on my Wii there's a clear drop in picture clarity when switched from 480i to 480p output (both using component).

A DROP in quality when switching from 480i to 480p?!? That doesnt make any sense. Something is very wrong there-- it should be the other way around-- clarity increases quite dramatically when going from 480i to 480p-- 480p signal carries twice the visual data as 480i. 480i from either one looks terrible on 1080p TVs.

480i from Wii or GC looks much less sharp than 480p from them. You sure you are not thinking about that backwards?

[Fudoh]

no, he's right. Of course you increase the visible resolution by going from 15 to 31khz, but the quality of the video output decreases (rise/fall times, blurry edges) .

[Josh128]

no, he's right. Of course you increase the visible resolution by going from 15 to 31khz, but the quality of the video output decreases (rise/fall times, blurry edges) .

Fudoh, not sure what you are getting at here-- increased resolution== increased clarity and sharpness. How in the world do you figure it doesnt? I can CLEARLY see that 480p is much sharper and better looking than 480i on each and every one of my sets. Thats why its desirable in the first place! Why would you say that? Is 1080p also less crisp than 1080i??

Are you going to sit there with a straight face and tell me that Wii or GC have sharper output on an HDTV in 480i than 480p? Thats simply not true on any of the sets Ive used it on, not in the least bit.

I guess I'll have to post more pictures. In the meanwhile, lets see who can pick out which photos are Wii and which are Gamecube.

[bobrocks95]

It's the same principle as increasing the resolution on a CRT monitor. The recommended resolutions are always lower than the maximum resolution of the tube because higher horizontal scan rates appear blurrier. This may not apply to digital signals, but I'm not sure on that. It's definitely an already proven fact though, and not something worth arguing over in this thread.

[Josh128]

Some 480i vs 480p pics of Sonic AV2Battle. I dont know whats up with you guys thinking 480i is sharper than 480p, this is not even close. 480p shots first, followed by replica shot in 480i. Used GC for this one, and a camera mounted on a tripod to make sure it wouldnt move.

[Josh128]

It's the same principle as increasing the resolution on a CRT monitor. The recommended resolutions are always lower than the maximum resolution of the tube because higher horizontal scan rates appear blurrier. This may not apply to digital signals, but I'm not sure on that. It's definitely an already proven fact though, and not something worth arguing over in this thread.

Your right, theres no need to argue, I just proved that is not true at all. Look at the pics above. Bob, your statement above ignores the fact that a full 480i/60 frame consists of two 240p images that must be either flashed at the screen, 1 at a time, at a rate of 60Hz to create 60Hz animation on an SD CRT, or deinterlaced, that is -each "missing" line in each 240p frame must filled in by interpolation (blurring) of its nearest neigbor lines to re-create 60hz animation on all HD sets. How can this possibly create a sharper, more detailed image when half of the data in each de-interlaced frame is simply "made up" by blending its closest neighbors?l

Please explain to me why 480p is MUCH sharper than 480i in the above and below photos. Is this supposed to just be a fluke? Why is it the same for both the Wii and GC, on every 480p capable set Ive ever tried it on?

This is not a fluke. I could also post comparisons on a 1080p set, but if you guys dont see this I have nothing more to say.

If what you guys are saying would be true, what is the advantage of using 480p? Why is it even an option? So you can have a worse picture?! On the contrary, EDTV and 480p standard was pushed because it created a better, clearer picture than 480i. You guys know this! Same with 1080p-- are you guys going to try to tell me next that a 1080i signal on a 1080i monitor will be sharper and look better than 1080p on a 1080p monitor? What that amounts to is saying a signal with double the bandwidth is carrying less picture information. That makes no sense at all.

Below is a clear example of why 480p will always be a more clear, superior image to 480i, I mean this is basic stuff guys, I cant believe we're even discussing this!



Below is a pic from google images showing sharper 480p on left, blurrier 480i on right on Wii Sports:



Below are several posts and quotes from sites and forums clearly demonstrating that the rest of the world seems to believe that 480p yields a clearer, sharper image for game output than 480i.

http://community.us.playstation.com/t5/ ... -p/6500860
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/nintendo ... -25796250/
http://retrorgb.com/wiirgbvscomponent.html
http://www.gamespot.com/forums/nintendo ... -27121786/

[Xan]

Think of the signal issue as being more console specific. The Wii in particular is known for having a blurry 480p output.

Anyway, no one here with a PSP and component cables? I'll probably get my Samsung in today so I'll see for myself how this looks.

[Josh128]

Think of the signal issue as being more console specific. The Wii in particular is known for having a blurry 480p output.

Anyway, no one here with a PSP and component cables? I'll probably get my Samsung in today so I'll see for myself how this looks.

Not quite sure what you mean-- look at the pics where I compared the Wii output to the GC in 480p-- look at the fighters and the text. Can you tell me which are GC and which are Wii? Those are close up, focused shots-- the Wii and GC outputs are for all real-world intents and purposes, identical-- provided you use quality cables on the Wii. I guarantee that you will see the same thing if you compare 480i and 480p on Xbox. Hell, doesnt God of War on PS2 allow progressive scan? I'll see if I can post some shots of that as well. 480p > 480i everytime, not just on Wii and Gamecube, come on now.

Did you look at my SA2B 480i vs. 480p shots? That is running on a Gamecube, not a Wii. Forget about the Wii. The 480p shots are much sharper and clearer than the 480i shots. Check out these from Zelda:TP I just took. The 480p res is razor sharp, while the 480i has a softer look. Nobody can deny this.

[Xan]

If I recall correctly, Artemio already did compare the GC and Wii signals with a scope and found the Wii signal to be weaker. If you have any means of running homebrew on the GC you could verify this with the checkerboard pattern on the 240p suite. Whether this would be noticeable in real use could always depend on the display or game in use, though. In your comparison shots with Link, the upper shot appears visibly blurrier, so the common guess would be that this is the Wii one... if the blur isn't induced by the camera or anything.

Regarding 480i vs. 480p, the latter sure appears crisper in your shots, I don't think anyone disputes this. Again, this might differ on other setups which maybe have better deinterlacing than this set does, and where the inferior 31 kHz signal quality would come more into play. I'm not stating this as a hard fact, but more as a possible explanation why other people see different results compared to you.

[ryu]

Hey Josh, nobody's attacking you here. We're just posting our experiences with this stuff, so there's no need to get so super defensive.

You're right, 480p looks good on your pictures. But then they're pictures taken with a camera, so that blurs the line between both. It is however entirely possible that you're right anyways, depending on your Wii. Maybe you got some kind of model with better 480p out than most others. Are you using homebrew on your Wii? To my knowledge there should be programs that fix the otherwise mushy 480p output.

Personally I'm sure the Wii's 480p looks the way it does because there's a filter running on it to make the system's visuals appear less blocky on LCD screens.

Regarding 480i vs. 480p, the latter sure appears crisper in your shots, I don't think anyone disputes this. Again, this might differ on other setups which maybe have better deinterlacing than this set does, and where the inferior 31 kHz signal quality would come more into play. I'm not stating this as a hard fact, but more as a possible explanation why other people see different results compared to you.

Also, 480i is only sharper on still images. On visuals in motion 480p will look much better because the deinterlacing kills motion detail much worse than the effects of an LCD do.

edit: I was just trying to make some proper close-up pictures to show what I mean when I say 480i is better than 480p on Wii, but I couldn't hook the console up to my VP30 so the Lumagen had to do. Adimittedly, with hat setup and just a quick look there was barely any difference even for me. Both looked shit.