4:4:4 Chroma needed for HDTV as a computer monitor? - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 63 Old 11-29-2010, 05:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lyris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,441
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Quote:
Is there any camcorder available which can output 4:4:4 uncompressed video over its HDMI output?
No.

David Mackenzie
DVD/BD Compressionist/Author
Reviewer & Tech Consultant, HDTVtest
lyris is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 63 Old 11-30-2010, 08:41 PM
Advanced Member
 
Michael2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by thepoohcontinuum View Post

This is only my conjecture, but I have a feeling the input lag on those displays might be horrendous. I briefly looked at the overview pages of some of the sets you mentioned, and it looks like these displays are designed to be running 24x7x365. Plus some are a bit more ruggedized to handle the punishment of bad environmental conditions (i.e., large temperature variations, shock proofing, etc). Generally high-speed electronics don't fare too well in conditions like this, so things have to be sacrificed a bit. Its analogous to the Panasonic Toughbook laptops -- built like a tank to withstand anything, but the performance is lackluster.

On a different note, since these displays are geared towards the business market, the support/sales staff will probably have more detailed specs available like input lag. Wouldn't hurt to shoot them an email or phone call to see if they have the info available.

Here is PC World's take on input lag with the Pro Large Format Displays.

"Another source of low-lag displays is "digital signage"--displays marketed to hospitals, airports, and other entities. These screens often use the same panels as HDTVs but with the postprocessing stripped out. (You can search for digital signage models on Web sites such as PriceGrabber.)"

Michael
Michael2000 is offline  
post #33 of 63 Old 11-30-2010, 08:52 PM
Senior Member
 
mike_j_johnson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Spokane, WA
Posts: 385
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael2000 View Post

Here is PC World's take on input lag with the Pro Large Format Displays.

"Another source of low-lag displays is "digital signage"--displays marketed to hospitals, airports, and other entities. These screens often use the same panels as HDTVs but with the postprocessing stripped out. (You can search for digital signage models on Web sites such as PriceGrabber.)"

Michael

I emailed Sony to confirm and they stated their pro displays do not accept a 1080p/24 signal, so that kills the idea of using this in a home theater (Blu-Ray 24p material).

The NEC and LG have similar specs. The Samsung looks to be with winner with 120Hz capabilities.

Oh well, I just ordered a Sony 55" 810 series. Hopefully it does 4:4:4.

How do we test for this again?
mike_j_johnson is offline  
post #34 of 63 Old 11-30-2010, 08:59 PM
Senior Member
 
thepoohcontinuum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael2000 View Post

Here is PC World's take on input lag with the Pro Large Format Displays.

"Another source of low-lag displays is "digital signage"--displays marketed to hospitals, airports, and other entities. These screens often use the same panels as HDTVs but with the postprocessing stripped out. (You can search for digital signage models on Web sites such as PriceGrabber.)"

Michael

Hmm, that's an interesting bit of info. If you ever decide to get one of these pro displays, please run a 4:4:4 test and input lag test

Quote:
Originally Posted by mike_j_johnson View Post

Oh well, I just ordered a Sony 55" 810 series. Hopefully it does 4:4:4.

How do we test for this again?

Refer to this post for running a 4:4:4 test - link. Here are two 4:4:4 results: this one passes 4:4:4, and this one fails 4:4:4 (it does 4:2:2 instead).
thepoohcontinuum is offline  
post #35 of 63 Old 11-30-2010, 10:31 PM
Advanced Member
 
Colmino's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 734
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by thepoohcontinuum View Post

Refer to this post for running a 4:4:4 test - link. Here are two 4:4:4 results: this one passes 4:4:4, and this one fails 4:4:4 (it does 4:2:2 instead).

Upon further consideration... I've had to conclude that it is doing 4:2:0. Take a closer look at the macro shot and look for alternating pixels vertically. It's subtle. What really clued me in was the horizontal red/cyan bars in the upper left have transformed into the all too familiar subsampled result: a sort of dull maroon/dull pink. I'd like to think I'd have noticed 4:2:0 subsampling on other TVs I personally tested (you can see the pattern of anomalous vertical smearing all over the red/black bars area). This is a first.

The TV is double fail.
Colmino is offline  
post #36 of 63 Old 12-01-2010, 07:59 AM
Senior Member
 
thepoohcontinuum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colmino View Post

Upon further consideration... I've had to conclude that it is doing 4:2:0. Take a closer look at the macro shot and look for alternating pixels vertically. It's subtle. What really clued me in was the horizontal red/cyan bars in the upper left have transformed into the all too familiar subsampled result: a sort of dull maroon/dull pink. I'd like to think I'd have noticed 4:2:0 subsampling on other TVs I personally tested (you can see the pattern of anomalous vertical smearing all over the red/black bars area). This is a first.

The TV is double fail.

Colmino, is it fair to say that 4:2:2 or 4:2:0 gives a sort of anti-aliasing effect?

I looped the opening menu intro of Avatar on a 4:4:4 TV and on a 4:2:0 TV, and asked my sister which one she liked better (she knows nothing about electronics, but has 20/10 vision). She preferred the 4:2:0 TV because the image was "softer". Then I opened up an Excel spreadsheet and web browser (to cnn.com), and she liked the 4:4:4 TV since it was "clearer".
thepoohcontinuum is offline  
post #37 of 63 Old 12-01-2010, 08:21 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lyris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,441
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 63
The opening menu intro of Avatar - is that from a BD source?

In that case, the source is 4:2:0. The player may be doing good upsampling to 4:4:4, but it shouldn't produce radically different results.

David Mackenzie
DVD/BD Compressionist/Author
Reviewer & Tech Consultant, HDTVtest
lyris is offline  
post #38 of 63 Old 12-01-2010, 08:28 AM
Senior Member
 
thepoohcontinuum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyris View Post

The opening menu intro of Avatar - is that from a BD source?

In that case, the source is 4:2:0. The player may be doing good upsampling to 4:4:4, but it shouldn't produce radically different results.

Yeah its from BD. Are you saying the raw bits on the Avatar BD disc is 4:2:0? I always thought all digital content was at its full image fidelity (barring artifacts from the film->digital encoding process). Do you know of any BD's out there that has true 4:4:4 content?
thepoohcontinuum is offline  
post #39 of 63 Old 12-01-2010, 08:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lyris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,441
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 63
No, none of the codecs on BD support anything higher than 4:2:0.

Film -> digital encoding process (telecine, or more modernly, "datacine" or "scanning") is typically 4:4:4. Nowadays this is a very high quality process where you shouldn't expect artefacts.

That will usually stay 4:4:4 or sometimes go down to 4:2:2 when recorded to studio videotape. And this will drop down a notch to 4:2:0 for consumer formats like BD and DVD.

David Mackenzie
DVD/BD Compressionist/Author
Reviewer & Tech Consultant, HDTVtest
lyris is offline  
post #40 of 63 Old 12-01-2010, 08:59 AM
Senior Member
 
thepoohcontinuum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyris View Post

No, none of the codecs on BD support anything higher than 4:2:0.

Film -> digital encoding process (telecine, or more modernly, "datacine" or "scanning") is typically 4:4:4. Nowadays this is a very high quality process where you shouldn't expect artefacts.

That will usually stay 4:4:4 or sometimes go down to 4:2:2 when recorded to studio videotape. And this will drop down a notch to 4:2:0 for consumer formats like BD and DVD.

Hmm, that's definitely good to know, thanks for that tidbit. So I guess the only true way of testing 4:4:4 is through a PC source then.
thepoohcontinuum is offline  
post #41 of 63 Old 12-01-2010, 04:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
Michael2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by thepoohcontinuum View Post

Refer to this post for running a 4:4:4 test - link. Here are two 4:4:4 results: this one passes 4:4:4, and this one fails 4:4:4 (it does 4:2:2 instead).

Is a test of this caliber even necessary to determine if the TV has 4:4:4? I just take Windows paint, fill the image with black for the background, and then draw a one pixel wide circle in full 255 red. If I see the color fade out in the vertical sections of the circle relative to the horizontal sections (blending with black background), I know it doesn't support 4:4:4.

Michael
Michael2000 is offline  
post #42 of 63 Old 12-01-2010, 04:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lyris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,441
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 63
There is no need for specialised test patterns. My method is to open MS Paint, paint a blue background, then use the pencil tool to draw a 1-pixel-thin red scribble. You can tell instantly what the chroma bandwidth situation is.

David Mackenzie
DVD/BD Compressionist/Author
Reviewer & Tech Consultant, HDTVtest
lyris is offline  
post #43 of 63 Old 12-01-2010, 06:38 PM
Senior Member
 
thepoohcontinuum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael2000 View Post

Is a test of this caliber even necessary to determine if the TV has 4:4:4? I just take Windows paint, fill the image with black for the background, and then draw a one pixel wide circle in full 255 red. If I see the color fade out in the vertical sections of the circle relative to the horizontal sections (blending with black background), I know it doesn't support 4:4:4.

Michael

Quote:
Originally Posted by lyris View Post

There is no need for specialised test patterns. My method is to open MS Paint, paint a blue background, then use the pencil tool to draw a 1-pixel-thin red scribble. You can tell instantly what the chroma bandwidth situation is.

I dunno, Colmino seems to be the ultra expert in regards to 4:4:4, so I just use his method. Seems pretty "scientific" and its an easy way to get pics for proof. Pictures are worth a million times more than words.
thepoohcontinuum is offline  
post #44 of 63 Old 12-01-2010, 06:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lyris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,441
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Well, I suppose it prevents forum debates like this one, even if it's not necessary.

David Mackenzie
DVD/BD Compressionist/Author
Reviewer & Tech Consultant, HDTVtest
lyris is offline  
post #45 of 63 Old 12-01-2010, 06:56 PM
Senior Member
 
thepoohcontinuum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by lyris View Post

Well, I suppose it prevents forum debates like this one, even if it's not necessary.

I wasn't implying yours or Michael2000's method was bad. But sometimes having proof to back up assertions brings a quick end to meaningless back and forth squabble; which happens quite often on this forum.
thepoohcontinuum is offline  
post #46 of 63 Old 12-01-2010, 07:10 PM
AVS Special Member
 
lyris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,441
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Agreed ^

David Mackenzie
DVD/BD Compressionist/Author
Reviewer & Tech Consultant, HDTVtest
lyris is offline  
post #47 of 63 Old 12-01-2010, 09:47 PM
Advanced Member
 
Michael2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 27
I think the problem with the test chart is people don't know what they are looking for. I've seen at least one case, where someone had to post it for "the expert" to review it.

I do agree it is nice to have a standardized test, though, and a big thanks goes to Colmino for bringing up this issue and creating the test. He explained why I wasn't satisfied with the picture I was getting from most HDTVs used with computers.

Michael
Michael2000 is offline  
post #48 of 63 Old 12-02-2010, 08:02 AM
Senior Member
 
thepoohcontinuum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael2000 View Post

I think the problem with the test chart is people don't know what they are looking for. I've seen at least one case, where someone had to post it for "the expert" to review it.

That was most likely me . I pretty much understood the results and had a theoretical understanding of 4:4:4, but needed a seasoned expert like Colmino to verify my results. Its the nature of peer review.

But even to the average Joe, I think the results should be pretty intuitive -- you have a picture of vertical lines of red/black/red/black, but then it shows up as red/semi-black/semi-red/black; most people should know that's obviously not right.
thepoohcontinuum is offline  
post #49 of 63 Old 12-02-2010, 10:22 AM
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,502
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 35 Post(s)
Liked: 63
I wonder then how an uncompressed 4:4:4 video looks on decent and big size panel. Too much detail strike the eyes?

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #50 of 63 Old 12-02-2010, 10:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
lyris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,441
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 63
Hell no, it looks gorgeous. There's no way a fairly low resolution like 1920x1080 would be overwhelming to the human eye.

Unless the monitor was in torch mode, that is...

David Mackenzie
DVD/BD Compressionist/Author
Reviewer & Tech Consultant, HDTVtest
lyris is offline  
post #51 of 63 Old 12-02-2010, 01:47 PM - Thread Starter
Member
 
DarkNovaNick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
First of all, thanks to all of you that have helped me...I posted this original thread and learned a lot in the meantime, and ended up buying the LG 42LD450. I was excited to get it yesterday and see that it was labeled 42LD450-UA.CUSWLH, so I knew it had the IPS panel. I took it out and configured the HDMI1 input using thepoohcontinuum's settings and connected it to my laptop. I pulled up colmino's 4:4:4 color chart post and expected to see results like thepoohcontinuum got. Instead, I saw:



And as I scrolled the image by one pixel, the filled in part between where there are supposed to be 5 vertical lines shifted like:



so based on what I read, this isn't doing 4:4:4 chroma correctly. I thought, am I doing this correct? Is it possible that they updated the firmware on the LD450 and now it isn't working? (mine was manufactured Oct 2010). I clicked the info button on the TV and it showed 1080p, and I'm running Windows Vista on the laptop.

So next I tried booting up the same laptop, connected in the same way to the same cable, with an Ubuntu 10.04 Boot CD. I didn't expect anything to be different, but I was pleased and surprised to see:



Looks perfect as far as I can tell, I zoomed in a lot and it is very crisp!

So it looks like the HDTV does 4:4:4 properly, but either my computer is not sending it properly or it is not negotiating into the correct mode?

The laptop's video is just the built in Intel 965 series chipset, HDMI port out. I also tried a similar test on my desktop computer which has a NVIDIA 210 card: HDMI output, if I used the Ubuntu boot CD which just has some generic NVIDIA-compatible driver, it works great, but if I booted up the computer to my normal Ubuntu install, which uses the actual NVIDIA 260.19.06 driver, it fails 4:4:4.

I realize that not everyone uses Linux, but does anyone at least know what could be going on and how to fix it in Windows (then I can figure out how to do the same thing in Linux)? Its weird that I have two different video cards (one Intel and one NVIDIA) on two different machines, and they both fail when handled by one set of drivers and succeed when handled by another set. What is the one drivers doing differently that is causing 4:4:4 to work? Thanks for any assistance.
DarkNovaNick is offline  
post #52 of 63 Old 12-02-2010, 02:46 PM
Senior Member
 
thepoohcontinuum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkNovaNick View Post

I realize that not everyone uses Linux, but does anyone at least know what could be going on and how to fix it in Windows (then I can figure out how to do the same thing in Linux)? Its weird that I have two different video cards (one Intel and one NVIDIA) on two different machines, and they both fail when handled by one set of drivers and succeed when handled by another set. What is the one drivers doing differently that is causing 4:4:4 to work? Thanks for any assistance.

nuker43 experienced some very poor picture quality with a nvidia and LD450 (w/ S-IPS) combination. He even went as far as to buy an ATI card for testing and he said it solved his PQ problems. So there's definitely something fishy with the nvidia drivers. (note: my 4:4:4 test result is from an ATI card). Fortunately he came up with an "EDID fix" that seemed to solve his nvidia problems. So give it a try and see if it helps you out. link
thepoohcontinuum is offline  
post #53 of 63 Old 12-03-2010, 09:57 AM - Thread Starter
Member
 
DarkNovaNick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 31
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by thepoohcontinuum View Post

nuker43 experienced some very poor picture quality with a nvidia and LD450 (w/ S-IPS) combination. He even went as far as to buy an ATI card for testing and he said it solved his PQ problems. So there's definitely something fishy with the nvidia drivers. (note: my 4:4:4 test result is from an ATI card). Fortunately he came up with an "EDID fix" that seemed to solve his nvidia problems. So give it a try and see if it helps you out. link

Thanks for the link. I was able to follow what people were doing under Windows and find someone who did the same thing in Linux. If anyone else finds this post and has the same problem, visit http://analogbit.com/node/23. It was quite easy: I just used the NVIDIA driver utility to grab the EDID data from the TV and then used this guy's edid_disable_exts program to strip out the attributes, and added
Code:
Option "CustomEDID" "DFP-1:/etc/X11/LG-42LD450-fixed.edid"
to /etc/X11/xorg.conf under the "Device" section. Rebooted, then the display was great!

After going through all this, and seeing it happen with both NVIDIA and Intel drivers (not sure if there is even a fix for the Intel drivers), I'm wondering if there might be more 4:4:4 capable HDTVs out that people have dismissed because of driver problems? I know that if I had just bought this TV without knowing that others were successful with 4:4:4 and had done the test myself and seen it fail, I probably would have just taken it back and assumed it wouldn't work. I definitely wouldn't have thought to hack the driver to replace the EDID info.
DarkNovaNick is offline  
post #54 of 63 Old 12-05-2010, 08:09 PM
Advanced Member
 
Michael2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 894
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkNovaNick View Post

Thanks for the link. I was able to follow what people were doing under Windows and find someone who did the same thing in Linux. If anyone else finds this post and has the same problem, visit http://analogbit.com/node/23. It was quite easy: I just used the NVIDIA driver utility to grab the EDID data from the TV and then used this guy's edid_disable_exts program to strip out the attributes, and added
Code:
Option "CustomEDID" "DFP-1:/etc/X11/LG-42LD450-fixed.edid"
to /etc/X11/xorg.conf under the "Device" section. Rebooted, then the display was great!

After going through all this, and seeing it happen with both NVIDIA and Intel drivers (not sure if there is even a fix for the Intel drivers), I'm wondering if there might be more 4:4:4 capable HDTVs out that people have dismissed because of driver problems? I know that if I had just bought this TV without knowing that others were successful with 4:4:4 and had done the test myself and seen it fail, I probably would have just taken it back and assumed it wouldn't work. I definitely wouldn't have thought to hack the driver to replace the EDID info.

Great stuff! Thanks for posting.

I had to modify the monitor.inf file one time to edit the EDID.

Michael
Michael2000 is offline  
post #55 of 63 Old 01-07-2011, 10:46 PM
Member
 
Dp1983's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 24
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
If I'm watching a movie through my pc like a video file or a bluray disk does 4:4:4 matter? Does the computer upconvert all of the color so everything will look bad even movies that aren't 4:4:4? Or does the chroma mainly affect the text and other normal computer work?

I guess what I'm saying is, is everything going to look worse through a PC on a 4:4:2 hdmi tv then it would normally or is it just the computer tasks that will look worse? Is Toy Story 3, for example, going to look just as good from my PC on hdmi input 1 as it would from my Bluray player on Hdmi 2?
Dp1983 is offline  
post #56 of 63 Old 01-08-2011, 05:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Servicetech571's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,691
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
LG 60pk550 supports RGB/4:4:4
Works on Nvidia and ATI drivers, haven't tried Linux
In ubuntu to test using the Nvidia driver make sure DFP-0 (or whatever your screen is) is set for RGB in color space controls
Servicetech571 is offline  
post #57 of 63 Old 03-25-2011, 06:02 AM
OGG
Newbie
 
OGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 8
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
For all those wanting to use an LCD TV as a PC monitor I recommend the Philips xxPFL5405.

- Uses an AS-IPS panel from LG (check my pic posted in Page 8 of the "Lcd Matrices" thread on the UK equivalent of this forum)
- It has 4:4:4 full chroma support (using the Bell-Nuit Test chart I confirmed this)
- Very low input lag (17ms on average) in PC Mode, can display pics if anyone wants.

I have read on several forums, notably this one, people saying that the LG xxLD450 is the best tv for PC use.
I disagree, that model uses an S-IPS panel which produces a much weaker contrast ratio and weaker blacks than the AS-IPS panel.
The input lag on the LD450 is the same as on the PFL5405 and the Philips has 100 Hz!
The xxLD450 can also reproduce full 4:4:4 chroma but only after installing the EDID override fix.
The Philips reproduces full 4:4:4 right out of the box!
All the advantages of the xxLD450 + a better panel + more uniform CCFL backlighting (in my case anyway, Philips have always been great with their backlighting) + 100 Hz!

PFL5405 = Superior for PC use IMO.
OGG is offline  
post #58 of 63 Old 03-31-2011, 12:26 AM
Newbie
 
curselayne's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Unfortunately, I don't think that beast is available in North America. We have the PFL5505 instead, which is an unknown quantity.
curselayne is offline  
post #59 of 63 Old 10-22-2011, 11:00 AM
Member
 
dlipter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 192
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 10
It appears to my novice eyes that I have found a sub $300. TV that both accepts 1920x1080 over VGA, and does 4:4:4 chroma over DVI-HDMI. The TV is a Westinghouse VR-3225 and I am quite pleased with it. Until I came across this thread, I was puzzled as to why VGA text looked so sharp and straight HDMI driven text appeared blurry.

Viola.....in short, when driven with a DVI-HDMI cable, text became sharp & clear.
dlipter is offline  
post #60 of 63 Old 10-22-2011, 05:16 PM
Advanced Member
 
sjetski71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: N. NJ
Posts: 622
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by dlipter View Post

It appears to my novice eyes that I have found a sub $300. TV that both accepts 1920x1080 over VGA, and does 4:4:4 chroma over DVI-HDMI. The TV is a Westinghouse VR-3225 and I am quite pleased with it. Until I came across this thread, I was puzzled as to why VGA text looked so sharp and straight HDMI driven text appeared blurry.

Viola.....in short, when driven with a DVI-HDMI cable, text became sharp & clear.

Interesting find dlipter, any updates?

TIA
sjetski71 is offline  
Reply LCD Flat Panel Displays

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off