WHo owns a 8ms tv?

Samsung's LCDs seem good for gaming. High contrast ratios, but most seem to be 8ms. Will this really affect my 360 gaming?

8ms is not good enough. I have a sharp lcd rated at 6ms and it blurs like crazy.

I also can't stand blur at all, and am very sensitive to it. I say test the tv out, and then decide if it works for you.

What model is it?

Should be fine. I game on my LCD from time to time (it's usually hooked up to a PJ, but I move it upstairs every now and then). I may not be that sensitive to it, but the tiny bit of blur that I notice doesn't detract from the experience at all.

If your retail source has a good return policy, just buy it and try it out for yourself.

What model is it?

http://www.sharpusa.com/products/ModelLanding/0,1058,1719,00.html

Is there a significant difference between 8ms and 6ms?

I have a Toshiba 32HL95 LCD TV. I run it in 1080i and the 8ms was only slightly noticeable to me in guitar hero 2. and even with the lag calibrator in the game it only required a change of 2 ms to get complete sync to me. In the end it only slightly improved my note accuracy anyways. 8ms is fine by me.

I think you're confusing input delay with pixel refresh time.

I think you're confusing input delay with pixel refresh time.


Im confused at all this. What would input delay look like??

input delay means you're seeing items on screen a few ms after you're supposed to, like you said with GH2, it's basically display lag.

8ms response time is different, response time is the amount of time a pixel in an LCD monitor takes to go from active (black) to inactive (white) and back to active (black) again. It is measured in milliseconds (ms). Lower numbers mean faster transitions and therefore fewer visible image artifacts.

and for thrillhouse, 6ms (even 8ms) is fine. do you have any processing modes on your set that are enabled?

I have a LCD with 8ms refresh and the HD pic is awesome. Olevia 32 inch you understand. No lag except on GH but like he said that is game and not the TV lagging.

from my research sharp isn't truthful about its response time. my friend has a 6 ms sharp that blurs when we play gears i have an 8ms and have looked hard for it and can't see it.

i heard that sharp measures grey to grey while others measure black to white and back? i think, or its just black to white. neways grey to grey will always measure faster.

I would avoid the lag risk altogether by getting a plasma. Superior picture and no ghosting or lag. Burn in risk is very very small.

Plasmas blur as well.

I would avoid the lag risk altogether by getting a plasma. Superior picture and no ghosting or lag. Burn in risk is very very small.

You need to qualify that by Brand and Model.

I have a Viera 8gen Hi Def PDP that has been 100% immune to any form of image retention/burn-in since day 1. I also have a Samsung PDP and I noticed it suffered image retention almost the first time I used it.

i also agree with the response time measurement deal.

my westy has an 8ms B/W/B, if the grey to grey was measured, it'd probably be marketed as a 2-4ms panel.

it's all about marketing, before you couldnt trust contrast ratios, now you cant trust response time measurements either, everyone wants to do their own thing, you'd think there would be some sort of commitee that oversaw the marketing of ALL high def sets, and made sure everything was measured and tested using the same method, so that all the figures could be compared before shopping.

but as it stands now, you pretty much have to go to the store and see it for yourself, or trust 2000 comments in the display forum for whichever set you want (which i did, and dont regret anything)

------------------------------------

keeping on topic. 8ms B/W/B is fine, 8ms G2G however, i wouldnt want to game on that panel. though i wouldnt say it would be horrible, especially if you dont nitpick stuff like that like some of us do.

If you are worried about any display you are buying, take your console with you when you shop. I've bought several different displays for my LAN setup and have never had anyone at BB, CC and Tweeter turn me down when I ask them to hook up my XBox, so I can check out a display before purchasing. I know it may seem like work but it's really the only way I know of making sure the TV will fit with your expectations.

from my research sharp isn't truthful about its response time. my friend has a 6 ms sharp that blurs when we play gears i have an 8ms and have looked hard for it and can't see it.

i heard that sharp measures grey to grey while others measure black to white and back? i think, or its just black to white. neways grey to grey will always measure faster.


Where would you be looking for this blur???

When i move around real fast or circle around in gears, if i look at my character no blur there, but I mean im spinning so fast I cant even see the background its just a swirl, and if it blurs I'd thnik thats normal in the background.

But where exactly is the blur you are talking about and where it's not good?

My Sony kdl46s2000 is 8ms and I've never had an issue at all.

I suggest you download the Tony Hawk Project 8 demo. When played on a CRT, moving the camera around produces no blur at all. When played on an LCD or Plasma, the background blurs. Logos on the wall become illegible, the background smears. Test it out.

what's the fastest LCD available?

you'd think there would be some sort of commitee that oversaw the marketing of ALL high def sets, and made sure everything was measured and tested using the same method, so that all the figures could be compared before shopping.
If there was such a thing wtihin the industry, it would be optional and just for having the specs any company wouldn't be obligated to use them. The closest thing to a governmentally enforced rule in this area is the requirement by the FTC that anyone quote amplifier power specs state the # of channels driven, impeadance and THD. That doesn't make anyone measure a certain way, it simply makes you tell HOW the measurements were made. CEA has amplifier specs, but they are optional and not everyone uses them. SO, we might se a requirement to show if the response is BTB or GTG, but that's about it.

8ms produces a disgusting amount of blur. If you want to game without blur, go with Plasma or DLP. SXRD blurs as well.

If you have sharp eyesight you will certainly see smearing and loss of detail at 8ms. No question.

I have an A10 and I don't have any problems with any games. At least that i notice

I have a Sony 50A10 LCD rear projection. I see no problems with my HDTV.

Playing coop campaign missions in GRAW 2, I often get twice as many kills as the next closest. People often ask me how I see the baddies so easily. It isn't because my screen is blurry.

8ms produces a disgusting amount of blur. If you want to game without blur, go with Plasma or DLP. SXRD blurs as well.

If you have sharp eyesight you will certainly see smearing and loss of detail at 8ms. No question.

i was a sniper in the military, and i have better than measurable vision, there is no ghosting at 8ms on my set.

i was a sniper in the military, and i have better than measurable vision, there is no ghosting at 8ms on my set.

Ghosting and blur are different. Blur is a loss of clarity on movement. Ghosting is shadow like after effects from movement. Almost no LCDs ghost anymore. I have a 32 inch XBR Bravia as my PC monitor and it has no ghost effect at all. It does blur though.

I also have perfect vision and while I'm not a real sniper, I play one on TV. As a real sniper I'm sure you understand that a loss of clarity in movement is a working factor against precision shooting.

LCDs blur due to persistence of the retina. Samsung's pulse LED matrix in the new 81 series might solve it. That would be the only thing that can. CRTs scan refresh the retina and Plasma's pulse lighting of phosphors does the same. DLP's refresh in microseconds as opposed to miliseconds.

If blur does not bother you then thank the heavens and don't over think it. I have extremely demanding eyes, and that's not a great thing in HD tech. I can see individual colors even when a color wheel is spinning at 14k rpm on DLP. I can see phosphor decay on plasma when the blue charge expends faster than the red and green. Lastly, I become annoyed when in motion, LCD loses it's clarity.

Perhaps scanning LED backlights or 120hz refresh rates will one day end motion trouble on LCD sets. Until then, they rank dead last for motion clarity in the HD tech race.

That's not to say it will bother the creator of this thread. It does not bother others of you, so he as well may not be as demanding of his tech.

I have been really wanting to get a 1080p fixed pixel LCD display. The newer sets are just stunning with an HD-DVD or BLU-Ray player hooked up to them. However, I am a big gamer, and I wanted to be sure that whatever I buy is able to keep up with what I throw at it.

My biggest concern was motion blur. And I recently hauled my PS2 into Best Buy and did some extensive testing on all the latest LCDs.

For a test subject, I used Timesplitters on the PS2 which is a very old first person shooter. The great thing about it is that it runs at 60 frames per second (a characteritic that is becoming more and more rare these days). The very first level is has a bunch of pyramid's with detailed textures on them which makes for a good motion test when rotating the camera around.

Now granted, this is pretty much the worst case scenario. The PS2 puts this game out at 480i, so during this testing, the TVs' upscalers and deinterlacers were put to use.

As a control, I am coming from gaming on a 36 inch HD Sony Tube XBR that I've been using for the past 6 years. When I play Timesplitters on it, I can rotate the camera around and the detail within the textures does not fade or blur at all. It looks beautiful at a perfect 60 frames per second.

So how did the LCDs do? Shockingly bad.

I tried the following TVs:

Sony KDL-V2500 (40")
Sharp D82 (46" with 120Hz refresh)
Samsung LN-T4665 (46")
and at a guy's request some 32" LG that had a 5ms response time

When I loaded up the pyramid level of timesplitters and moved around... ALL of the texture detail in the pyramids was completely lost. A blurry, disgusting mess. I was shocked at how bad it was. A couple of dudes started watching me, saying it wasn't that bad... and then I took them over to the tube TV section and hooked up to an SD sony and showed them what it was supposed to look like. They were shocked as well.

Although they all preformed fairly similar, out of them all, I would say that the Samsung handled it the best... and suprisingly, the Sharp was by far the worst... even with the touted 120Hz refresh rate (which I think I had turned on correctly with "Fine Motion Mode"). Even so, comparing it to the CRT I've been using for the past 6 years, even the Sammy was far from playable.

There is one ray of light though...

I was so discouraged, I decided to go against my bias and try a plasma. I have been against plasma because of the whole image retention thing, as well as the thought of plasma sets consuming so much more power. But on a whim, i hooked up the PS2 to the Panasonic 58" PZ700 (the 50" model wasn't on display, but it is in the same price bracket as the LCDs I tested). There was very little blur. It was perhaps a hair or two behind my CRT, but it was light years better than any of the LCDs I tried.

To summarize... I am now pretty much completely turned off of LCD displays. But I really want a fixed pixel display and will probably start reading up on Plasmas. I know a lot of games these days don't come close to 60 frames per second, which makes this blurring harder to detect, but that doesn't mean its not there.

I have been really wanting to get a 1080p fixed pixel LCD display. The newer sets are just stunning with an HD-DVD or BLU-Ray player hooked up to them. However, I am a big gamer, and I wanted to be sure that whatever I buy is able to keep up with what I throw at it.

My biggest concern was motion blur. And I recently hauled my PS2 into Best Buy and did some extensive testing on all the latest LCDs.

For a test subject, I used Timesplitters on the PS2 which is a very old first person shooter. The great thing about it is that it runs at 60 frames per second (a characteritic that is becoming more and more rare these days). The very first level is has a bunch of pyramid's with detailed textures on them which makes for a good motion test when rotating the camera around.

Now granted, this is pretty much the worst case scenario. The PS2 puts this game out at 480i, so during this testing, the TVs' upscalers and deinterlacers were put to use.

As a control, I am coming from gaming on a 36 inch HD Sony Tube XBR that I've been using for the past 6 years. When I play Timesplitters on it, I can rotate the camera around and the detail within the textures does not fade or blur at all. It looks beautiful at a perfect 60 frames per second.

So how did the LCDs do? Shockingly bad.

I tried the following TVs:

Sony KDL-V2500 (40")
Sharp D82 (46" with 120Hz refresh)
Samsung LN-T4665 (46")
and at a guy's request some 32" LG that had a 5ms response time

When I loaded up the pyramid level of timesplitters and moved around... ALL of the texture detail in the pyramids was completely lost. A blurry, disgusting mess. I was shocked at how bad it was. A couple of dudes started watching me, saying it wasn't that bad... and then I took them over to the tube TV section and hooked up to an SD sony and showed them what it was supposed to look like. They were shocked as well.

Although they all preformed fairly similar, out of them all, I would say that the Samsung handled it the best... and suprisingly, the Sharp was by far the worst... even with the touted 120Hz refresh rate (which I think I had turned on correctly with "Fine Motion Mode"). Even so, comparing it to the CRT I've been using for the past 6 years, even the Sammy was far from playable.

There is one ray of light though...

I was so discouraged, I decided to go against my bias and try a plasma. I have been against plasma because of the whole image retention thing, as well as the thought of plasma sets consuming so much more power. But on a whim, i hooked up the PS2 to the Panasonic 58" PZ700 (the 50" model wasn't on display, but it is in the same price bracket as the LCDs I tested). There was very little blur. It was perhaps a hair or two behind my CRT, but it was light years better than any of the LCDs I tried.

To summarize... I am now pretty much completely turned off of LCD displays. But I really want a fixed pixel display and will probably start reading up on Plasmas. I know a lot of games these days don't come close to 60 frames per second, which makes this blurring harder to detect, but that doesn't mean its not there.

Not doubting you or anything, but how come when I play the forza 2 demo on my set, I see no blur and forza2 runs at 60 fps. I'll try it again later but seems ok to me..

i was a sniper in the military, and i have better than measurable vision, there is no ghosting at 8ms on my set.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? certain people can see it, others cannot (or don't know what they are looking for) your vision has nothing to do with it.
So in your theory, the people that can see the blur would have better vision than you?

I have been really wanting to get a 1080p fixed pixel LCD display. The newer sets are just stunning with an HD-DVD or BLU-Ray player hooked up to them. However, I am a big gamer, and I wanted to be sure that whatever I buy is able to keep up with what I throw at it.

My biggest concern was motion blur. And I recently hauled my PS2 into Best Buy and did some extensive testing on all the latest LCDs.

For a test subject, I used Timesplitters on the PS2 which is a very old first person shooter. The great thing about it is that it runs at 60 frames per second (a characteritic that is becoming more and more rare these days). The very first level is has a bunch of pyramid's with detailed textures on them which makes for a good motion test when rotating the camera around.

Now granted, this is pretty much the worst case scenario. The PS2 puts this game out at 480i, so during this testing, the TVs' upscalers and deinterlacers were put to use.

As a control, I am coming from gaming on a 36 inch HD Sony Tube XBR that I've been using for the past 6 years. When I play Timesplitters on it, I can rotate the camera around and the detail within the textures does not fade or blur at all. It looks beautiful at a perfect 60 frames per second.

So how did the LCDs do? Shockingly bad.

I tried the following TVs:

Sony KDL-V2500 (40")
Sharp D82 (46" with 120Hz refresh)
Samsung LN-T4665 (46")
and at a guy's request some 32" LG that had a 5ms response time

When I loaded up the pyramid level of timesplitters and moved around... ALL of the texture detail in the pyramids was completely lost. A blurry, disgusting mess. I was shocked at how bad it was. A couple of dudes started watching me, saying it wasn't that bad... and then I took them over to the tube TV section and hooked up to an SD sony and showed them what it was supposed to look like. They were shocked as well.

Although they all preformed fairly similar, out of them all, I would say that the Samsung handled it the best... and suprisingly, the Sharp was by far the worst... even with the touted 120Hz refresh rate (which I think I had turned on correctly with "Fine Motion Mode"). Even so, comparing it to the CRT I've been using for the past 6 years, even the Sammy was far from playable.

There is one ray of light though...

I was so discouraged, I decided to go against my bias and try a plasma. I have been against plasma because of the whole image retention thing, as well as the thought of plasma sets consuming so much more power. But on a whim, i hooked up the PS2 to the Panasonic 58" PZ700 (the 50" model wasn't on display, but it is in the same price bracket as the LCDs I tested). There was very little blur. It was perhaps a hair or two behind my CRT, but it was light years better than any of the LCDs I tried.

To summarize... I am now pretty much completely turned off of LCD displays. But I really want a fixed pixel display and will probably start reading up on Plasmas. I know a lot of games these days don't come close to 60 frames per second, which makes this blurring harder to detect, but that doesn't mean its not there.

This is a common thing to happen to the harder core gamers. Plasma is much more game friendly these days. Don't rule out DLP as well. It has a very sharp image in motion.

If you guys really want to see BLUR.. Play NBA 2k7... Oh my god and cant stand it..

All LCD's have blur weather you want to believe it or not.. It just that certain games are waaaaay worse than other.. The only thing that will help is a 120hz lcd set... If your TV is not 120hz you will have blur.

What the hell does that have to do with anything?

well, he said "if you have sharp eyesight" i was just stating that i DO have sharp eyesight, as it was a requirement, and a big deal in my profession.

So, did you actually kill anyone? Did you see the pink mist? How many headshots did you get?

Is there a significant difference between 8ms and 6ms?
2ms :)

Where would you be looking for this blur???

When i move around real fast or circle around in gears, if i look at my character no blur there, but I mean im spinning so fast I cant even see the background its just a swirl, and if it blurs I'd thnik thats normal in the background.

But where exactly is the blur you are talking about and where it's not good?

when the characters are running, the elbow on the left arm moving i can see blur, i tried when i got back home on my tv and nothing.

I have been really wanting to get a 1080p fixed pixel LCD display. The newer sets are just stunning with an HD-DVD or BLU-Ray player hooked up to them. However, I am a big gamer, and I wanted to be sure that whatever I buy is able to keep up with what I throw at it.

My biggest concern was motion blur. And I recently hauled my PS2 into Best Buy and did some extensive testing on all the latest LCDs.

For a test subject, I used Timesplitters on the PS2 which is a very old first person shooter. The great thing about it is that it runs at 60 frames per second (a characteritic that is becoming more and more rare these days). The very first level is has a bunch of pyramid's with detailed textures on them which makes for a good motion test when rotating the camera around.

Now granted, this is pretty much the worst case scenario. The PS2 puts this game out at 480i, so during this testing, the TVs' upscalers and deinterlacers were put to use.

As a control, I am coming from gaming on a 36 inch HD Sony Tube XBR that I've been using for the past 6 years. When I play Timesplitters on it, I can rotate the camera around and the detail within the textures does not fade or blur at all. It looks beautiful at a perfect 60 frames per second.

So how did the LCDs do? Shockingly bad.

I tried the following TVs:

Sony KDL-V2500 (40")
Sharp D82 (46" with 120Hz refresh)
Samsung LN-T4665 (46")
and at a guy's request some 32" LG that had a 5ms response time

When I loaded up the pyramid level of timesplitters and moved around... ALL of the texture detail in the pyramids was completely lost. A blurry, disgusting mess. I was shocked at how bad it was. A couple of dudes started watching me, saying it wasn't that bad... and then I took them over to the tube TV section and hooked up to an SD sony and showed them what it was supposed to look like. They were shocked as well.

Although they all preformed fairly similar, out of them all, I would say that the Samsung handled it the best... and suprisingly, the Sharp was by far the worst... even with the touted 120Hz refresh rate (which I think I had turned on correctly with "Fine Motion Mode"). Even so, comparing it to the CRT I've been using for the past 6 years, even the Sammy was far from playable.

There is one ray of light though...

I was so discouraged, I decided to go against my bias and try a plasma. I have been against plasma because of the whole image retention thing, as well as the thought of plasma sets consuming so much more power. But on a whim, i hooked up the PS2 to the Panasonic 58" PZ700 (the 50" model wasn't on display, but it is in the same price bracket as the LCDs I tested). There was very little blur. It was perhaps a hair or two behind my CRT, but it was light years better than any of the LCDs I tried.

To summarize... I am now pretty much completely turned off of LCD displays. But I really want a fixed pixel display and will probably start reading up on Plasmas. I know a lot of games these days don't come close to 60 frames per second, which makes this blurring harder to detect, but that doesn't mean its not there.

I can understand why, lcd is designed for hd signals so when given an sd signal it would perform lower because its not designed for it.

if you're looking at those new high contrast samsungs, there's no motion issues for gaming, just check out the owner's threads.

the response time figures are very very misleading now. i have a 12 m/s sony lcd monitor for my pc, and i don't see any blur, but i've seen it on some 8 m/s sets for the livingroom.

basically, if you're looking at those samsung lnt----F series tv's, you're going to have no complaints with gaming.

Just to re-iterate two things which have already been said in this thread:

1) There is a difference between pixel response time, which is the amount of time between when a pixel is told to go to a certain state and when it arrives there, and frame response time, which is the amount of time between when a frame is sent to the TV and when the TV outputs it to the display module. Even if the first is measured at 6ms or 8ms, the second can be on the order of 30ms or more, depending on the input signal and how much processing is being done on it. This is what causes a perceived "lag", in that one is viewing several frames behind real-time.

2) Different manufacturers measure pixel response times in different ways. Some of them measure "gray to gray", others measure "black to black", and some seem to simply take some sort of "absolute best case" number. Thus, it's very hard to know from the number being provided how the display will actually hold up.

I have a Samsung LNT4065 that I game on every now and then and I've never seen any kind of blur that would make me not want to play on that beautiful tv.

Don't know what the response time on my sony LCD is but I guess that its quick enough that I never see any blur even on fast moving broadcast images so I would say that 8 ms should be adequate and shouldnt affect your enjoyment just my two cents worth. If LCD was so terrible then why does anyone buy them?

IMO, 8 ms is bad for gaming.

I have a Westinghouse 8ms LCD, and while it's beautiful for static or low-motion images, the blurring is really bad for anything with motion. I was blown away initially at first w/ HD gaming, but I quickly noticed the huge blurring issue is most every game. I wasn't looking for it either. I noticed it easily.

Like a previous poster said, it's especially awful for NBA or College hoop. Just make a pass where the screen scrolls and everything blurs out of focus for a split second. Sounds trivial but was really tough on the eyes. That's just one example. It was so bothersome to me that I replaced it w/ a DLP. I still see some blurring but it's nowhere near as bad.

Anyone who claims it doesn't exist has got to be forcing themselves to ignore it or accept it, because it's there. I just couldn't ignore it.

It is a problem with LCDs. People buy them because they want a "flat panel" TV, which I agree is attractive to have for reasons of space, perfect geometry and crispness of (static) images. I agree with all those, but I'd argue that a lot people buy them because they are not discerning enough about image quality in motion and just want a "flat panel HDTV" and that's sufficient for them and thus are able to ignore the motion blur problem.

I agree that 8ms is more relative than manufacturers would have you believe.

A blanket statement of "8ms is bad", is not good enough.

My Toshiba is advertised at 8ms and its very tough to see the blur, my buddy's Olevia is 8ms as well and it's noticeable within the first few seconds of viewing it.

I was never in the military, but I'm an avid sharpshooter myself. My eyes have gotten a little worse in the past 5 years but they're still a bit better than 20/20.
I would think good eyesight would have to play some role, if you're looking through coke bottles to even see, how could you care about any of this?

if you're looking at those new high contrast samsungs, there's no motion issues for gaming, just check out the owner's threads.


Well I'm gaming on the newest 4671 Samsung at home now and I would certainly disagree with this. There is most certainly motion blur. It's just a matter of whether it's bothersome enough to make you not want to game on it, which is what I'm trying to decide now.

There is far more to LCD blur than the mentioned 8ms figure.

There is far more to LCD blur than the mentioned 8ms figure.

Yes. I believe that plasma actually have higher response times than most LCDs (about 16ms), but they exhibit far less blurring. It's due to the way that they create an image.

Agreed. I went plasma despite being scared of burn-in, because playing on an 8ms lcd was just too annoying with the blur. But I was playing right next to people who said they didn't know what I was talking about.

Depends on the viewer I guess. All I know is GOW and COD4 are a sight to behold on a 720p 42" Panny through VGA.

Yes. I believe that plasma actually have higher response times than most LCDs (about 16ms), but they exhibit far less blurring. It's due to the way that they create an image.

Well yeah... I just meant that LCD blur was caused by far more issues than just the 8ms panel rating.

I have a 37 Sammy 720p, which specs say is 8ms, I'm an average Joe, not obsessed with quality, not oblivious to it either. Fight Night Round 3 doesn't blur at all, spinning fast in 3rd person in a shooter blurs the background, but when I spin that fast I can't do **** in the game anyway.

IMO a lot of specs (such as this one) don't mean $hit unless you were the engineer that designed the product and know exactly how they were determined. There are so many phony specs with no technically precise definiton on so many different consumer products. Ever seen a car audio deck you can lift with one arm easily that says 200 WATTS per Ch (they leave the "max" in 4 point cyrilic font)!! ONLY 50 BUCKS... I would have to permanently drive my car at 35 mph on a flat road to get the EPA rated gas mileage on my car, the worst may be vacuum cleaners, 20.0 amps/dirt???, so 8ms is really meaningless to me. I'm sure the refresh rate on my TV is 8ms, now if I had a classified testing procedure/spec. from Samsung I might be able to relate that 8ms result into what it will do for me at home.

Only way to figure out blur for a given set is to try it out.

Thats not true. I was fully aware of the motion blur on my Samsung before buying it. I still really liked the tv regardless. The tv has excellent pq. It has an 8ms response time. I can notice the blur sometimes. No doubt its there. Would I prefer a 5ms or 2ms response time? Of course. But it isnt there yet on bigger lcds. I really think it depends on the buyer whats acceptable to them and what isnt. Im guessing the next set of Sammys will have 6ms or 5ms response time. Just my 2cents.

IMO, 8 ms is bad for gaming.

I have a Westinghouse 8ms LCD, and while it's beautiful for static or low-motion images, the blurring is really bad for anything with motion. I was blown away initially at first w/ HD gaming, but I quickly noticed the huge blurring issue is most every game. I wasn't looking for it either. I noticed it easily.

Like a previous poster said, it's especially awful for NBA or College hoop. Just make a pass where the screen scrolls and everything blurs out of focus for a split second. Sounds trivial but was really tough on the eyes. That's just one example. It was so bothersome to me that I replaced it w/ a DLP. I still see some blurring but it's nowhere near as bad.

Anyone who claims it doesn't exist has got to be forcing themselves to ignore it or accept it, because it's there. I just couldn't ignore it.

It is a problem with LCDs. People buy them because they want a "flat panel" TV, which I agree is attractive to have for reasons of space, perfect geometry and crispness of (static) images. I agree with all those, but I'd argue that a lot people buy them because they are not discerning enough about image quality in motion and just want a "flat panel HDTV" and that's sufficient for them and thus are able to ignore the motion blur problem.

Does the game mode on the LN-T4665 help at all?

Sorry to revive an old thread, but I'm looking at purchasing the TV soon and plan to have it hooked up to a PC and 360 for gaming.

I have a Samsung LN-S4095D and I leave game mode off. I don't notice any lag or ghosting (8ms). Grims, you should be happy with that set.

I get motion blur really bad on my westy 42w2 (1080p). I've tried HDMI, HDMI to DVI, VGA and component (all of which accept a 1080p signal on this set) and they are all equally poor in regards to motion blur. Tried it at native res for the 360 input, 720p and 1080i for the 360 output as as expected the non-native resolutions were even worse due to the internal processing by the Westy scaler. At the 8ms resp rating for this set (BTB) I'd have to say that a set with a 120hz refresh rate might reduce the motion blur but I would think the LED backlighting would go further. I'd love to test it myself as the LED backlit sets become more available.

Strange thing is I also have a 720p native LCD projector in the basement (Sanyo Z-5 recently upgraded from a Sanyo Z2). Projected on a 100" diagonal screen neither projector showed any motion blur. No smearing of static ojects against moving backgrounds, moving objects against static backgrounds. Everything is pixel perfect in motion. I don't get it, I would have thought that a projected LCD image would have exagerrated the motion blur that seems inherent to current LCD tech, but it was the opposite. Anyone have any technical explanation for why a $1000 720p native LCD projector displays no motion blur when a $2500 (new) 1080p LCD panel handles motion with the same source (360) horrendously? The Sanyo PJ even accepts 1080p over HDMI (downscaled to 720p) and that has no blur either (I prefer the 720p look for gaming at the projectors native res).

I won't game on anything other than the projector now...since I have light control in the basement it's a perfect solution.

. If you want to game without blur, go with Plasma or DLP. SXRD blurs as well.



i had no blur on my former 60" SXRD XBR1 and i have no blur on my 70" XBR2.

i don't know what SXRD you saw, but @ 5ms response time, they don't blur at all.

i had no blur on my former 60" SXRD XBR1 and i have no blur on my 70" XBR2.

i don't know what SXRD you saw, but @ 5ms response time, they don't blur at all.

They blur like any other source at 5ms. Just because your eyes don't pick up on it does not mean others here can't see it clearly.

It's very easy to see the motion blur of an SXRD when compared to Plasma and DLP.

They are nice TV's though. I had one on test for three weeks and was impressed. Great features for the price and size.

They do blur though. You should be very thankful you are not sensitive to it. Those of us who are have hard times trying to find HDTVs to be happy with.

i heard that sharp measures grey to grey while others measure black to white and back? i think, or its just black to white. neways grey to grey will always measure faster.

Note what James says here.

Unfortunately, there no standard for measuring response time. Manufacturers can claim just about anything.

Grey-to-grey (GTG) is what they usually use because it looks impressive when comparing specs, but it's slower than a black-to-black (BTB) time. GTG is quicker because the pixel is already on and never turns off. BTB is the time it takes to turn the pixel completely off to on and off again.

Always assume an LCD is GTG. A quick way to get a more accurate measurement on a GTG response time spec is simply to double it. It's not scientific or anything, but it does put the LCD panel into perspective when trying to judge it's performance. For example: A panel claims 8ms, then assume it's 16ms BTB.

At this point it's not the response rate that's causing blur on LCD panels. I believe that 16ms is really as fast as you need (actually 16.6, at 60 fps). The blur on a panel that meets that standard is being generated by your brain -- see this article: http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/home-entertainment/the-trouble-with-lcd-tvs-motion-blur-and-the-120hz-solution-290237.php

120hz doesn't totally fix the problem, in my experience. My parents' Samsung 71 is superior in almost every way to my cheapo Vizio plasma, but it has way more motion blur. Hopefully LED backlighting will fix the problem for good.

If you're looking for a display right now that's reasonably priced and doesn't have any (major) blurring problems, go with a plasma or a CRT.

I never noticed any blurring on my Sony KDL-40V2500. However, I did notice tearing in some games.

What would motion blur look like? It sounds obvious, blurring when in motion, but again I have never noticed it....

My set has a 2.5 ms response time and I only see smears on regular definition material that moves fairly fast across the screen. I can't say that I have seen any blur while gaming though.

My set has a 2.5 ms response time and I only see smears on regular definition material that moves fairly fast across the screen. I can't say that I have seen any blur while gaming though.

That standard definition blur you see is probably macroblocking or possibly just the loss of resolution you get from a fast-moving interlaced image. Probably not LCD motion blur. Consider yourself lucky that you can't see it. My PC monitor supposedly has 2 ms response time, and I can absolutely see blurring. It's not terrible in most circumstances, but it's there.

I never noticed any blurring on my Sony KDL-40V2500. However, I did notice tearing in some games.

What would motion blur look like? It sounds obvious, blurring when in motion, but again I have never noticed it....

If you really want to see it, scroll a page up and down on an LCD monitor. Notice how it's very difficult to read the text while it's in motion? Try that on a CRT monitor -- perfectly clear in motion.

If you really want to see it, scroll a page up and down on an LCD monitor. Notice how it's very difficult to read the text while it's in motion? Try that on a CRT monitor -- perfectly clear in motion.

I have a cheap hyundai LCD 6ms monitor on one side, and a 19" CRT on the other. I noticed no blurring on either.

I'm stating the obvious here, but the amount of LCD motion blur someone is bothered by is highly subjective.

I have 6ms Sharp and it doesn't bother me one bit. Is it there? Yeah. Do I notice it? Not really. Same with 8ms panels.

The only to know for sure is to play a game on the panel you're looking at. If it doesn't bother you,don't worry about it. No kind of display tech is perfect and all of them have advantages and disadvantages. For example,I'm not bothered much by LCD motion blur, but I can see the rainbow effect even in high end DLP's,and that bothers me way more. CRT's might be virtually perfect in the motion blur area,but the clarity and resolution suck to me.

For the past 6 or 7 years I gamed on a viewsonic 19' CRT monitor. It finally took a crap on me. So I went ahead and bought a 24' LG LCD to use as my new computer monitor. This was a bad idea because my general viewing distance from the monitor is about 2" maximum. When I first hooked this thing up I did notice a bit of blur compared to the old CRT. My game of choice has always been Unreal Tournament 2004 which is probably the fastest moving game of any genre ever. This tiny bit of blur took maby a whole week to get used to and now I rape at least as good as I used to on the CRT. In slower paced shooters like HL2 engine games, Quake4, or Farcry, there is absolutely no difference between the CRT and my LCD. I have very keen eyesight, and I'm very sensitive to things like banding, noise and judder and the LCD's that I have gamed on so far are free of these things. Im currently enjoying an Xbox360 I have hooked to the monitor via VGA and I have no complaints. Forza 2, Gears, CoD4, and Halo3 all look flawless. I cant say that about my friend's Hitachi plasma which seems pixelated, and blurry during fast motion in Halo3.

Forza 2, Gears, CoD4, and Halo3 all look flawless. I cant say that about my friend's Hitachi plasma which seems pixelated, and blurry during fast motion in Halo3.

Halo 3 only runs at 30 fps and seems to have a blur filter (adds blur to hide the low framerate) and to top it off it is only 640p, not really a good test for blurring.

Try Call of Duty 2 on the 360 for a more accurate test ( 60fps, true 720p, lots of fast action) Call of duty 4 is only 600p on the 360 and isn't as good of a test. (plus CoD2 is only $20 now)

And Hitachi isn't a top quality brand in the plasma market, so it isn't a good example for how a plasma preforms with games.

I have heard it both ways, 8ms is bad, 8ms is ok

I have a sharp LCd, it has 4 ms and I get no blur or smearing, if you could get an lcd with quicker than 8 for the same money I would

I have a cheap hyundai LCD 6ms monitor on one side, and a 19" CRT on the other. I noticed no blurring on either.

Consider yourself blessed.

"For the past 6 or 7 years I gamed on a viewsonic 19' CRT monitor. It finally took a crap on me. So I went ahead and bought a 24' LG LCD to use as my new computer monitor. This was a bad idea because my general viewing distance from the monitor is about 2" maximum. When I first hooked this thing up I did notice a bit of blur compared to the old CRT. My game of choice has always been Unreal Tournament 2004 which is probably the fastest moving game of any genre ever. This tiny bit of blur took maby a whole week to get used to and now I rape at least as good as I used to on the CRT. In slower paced shooters like HL2 engine games, Quake4, or Farcry, there is absolutely no difference between the CRT and my LCD. I have very keen eyesight, and I'm very sensitive to things like banding, noise and judder and the LCD's that I have gamed on so far are free of these things. Im currently enjoying an Xbox360 I have hooked to the monitor via VGA and I have no complaints. Forza 2, Gears, CoD4, and Halo3 all look flawless. I cant say that about my friend's Hitachi plasma which seems pixelated, and blurry during fast motion in Halo3."

I find that computer LCD monitors are better at motion that LCD TV's. Not sure if the small size plays a part in this or the fact that the computer LCD does (to my knowledge) zero scalling. Where as an HDTV LCD is much larger and usually scales the video to it's native resolution.
One thing I read about computer LCD's on various computer sites are that if they are very good for one function ie gaming/speed they are not very good at another ie photo editing/colour accuracy or uniform contrast. I don`t think comparing a computer LCD to Plasma TV is apple to apples.

I have a plasma, Samsung 4264, very happy with it. No lag in Halo3, Team Fortress 2, COD3 & 4, Forza 2, Guitar Hero 2. Is it a perfect TV? No, it reflects glare coming into my unit off the opposite wall it faces. The white's aren't a pure white and image retention is on my mind.

I am not a fanboy of any particular technology, why should anyone be? Plasma is NOT perfect, but for console gaming and watching movies on a thin display I give it a slight edge over LCD. In no way does this mean I would always recommend Plasma to my friends. It depends on the user's habits and budget.

On a sidenote - I`ve looked at a few LG computer LCD`s and they look decent compared to their competitors but their plasma TV`s look 2nd rate against Pioneer, Panasonic and the recent Samsungs.

my 3 cents (inflation!)

Anything thats 8ms or lower is completely acceptable for gaming, I have a Gateway 19" Widescreen LCD monitor, I use it for my PC and Xbox 360.