Is Sammy 43F4000 also worth buying? - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 31 Old 04-02-2015, 04:53 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Philippines
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Is Sammy 43F4000 also worth buying?

Hello avsforum family! Valiente here, a newbie. I've been eyeing on the last plasma TV on a store near our place. I need to buy a TV technology before it fades away. I have seen pretty discounted plasma TVs like Sammy 43F4000. Guys, have you experienced this TV? Seems no one is using this model. I think most members are on the top models. This TV is the lowest model in the sammy plasmas. The resolution of this TV is 852x480. Will this be ok? The numbers are very small. Can I buy the lowest model? Is this worth buying or not? I think I will be the only one who will buy this model. There's no thread even made for this TV. Please share insights.

Thanks a lot. It's nice to be here.
valiente is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 31 Old 04-02-2015, 12:51 PM
Advanced Member
 
Josh128's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by valiente View Post
Hello avsforum family! Valiente here, a newbie. I've been eyeing on the last plasma TV on a store near our place. I need to buy a TV technology before it fades away. I have seen pretty discounted plasma TVs like Sammy 43F4000. Guys, have you experienced this TV? Seems no one is using this model. I think most members are on the top models. This TV is the lowest model in the sammy plasmas. The resolution of this TV is 852x480. Will this be ok? The numbers are very small. Can I buy the lowest model? Is this worth buying or not? I think I will be the only one who will buy this model. There's no thread even made for this TV. Please share insights.

Thanks a lot. It's nice to be here.
Where are you located? The 852x480 is an EDTV resolution, but that would make for a fantastic retro-gaming TV. It could be worth some money to certain people. Is it PAL or NTSC and what are they asking for it?

Displays: Samsung PN51F5300BFXA, PN51F4500AFXA, PN51F4500BFXA

Josh128 is offline  
post #3 of 31 Old 04-02-2015, 02:27 PM
Senior Member
 
22point8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, UK
Posts: 243
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 132 Post(s)
Liked: 61
That model is sold in Eastern Europe/Africa/Asia (India etc)/Central and South America.
22point8 is offline  
post #4 of 31 Old 04-02-2015, 04:22 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Philippines
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Josh128, valiente is from Asia. I look for the meaning of EDTV. Enhanced-definition television, or extended-definition television (EDTV).

Wikipedia says: "EDTV is an American Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) marketing shorthand term for certain digital television (DTV) formats and devices. Specifically, this term defines formats that deliver a picture superior to that of standard-definition television (SDTV) but not as detailed as high-definition television (HDTV).The term refers to devices capable of displaying 480-line or 576-line signals in progressive scan, commonly referred to as 480p (NTSC-HQ) and 576p (PAL) respectively, as opposed to interlaced scanning, commonly referred to as 480i (NTSC) or 576i (PAL). High-motion is optional for EDTV."

What I understand here is simply Sammy 43F4000 will deliver a picture superior to that of standard-definition television (SDTV) but not as detailed as high-definition television (HDTV).

I think this TV will fit for Digital TV Channels Watching because most of the channels are still in SD. In our area, there are around 20 Digital HD Channels available as of this time.

I'm studying...
valiente is offline  
post #5 of 31 Old 04-03-2015, 05:33 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Philippines
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Source: Plasma TV Buying Guide.com

"There is approximately a 20% improvement in the picture quality when HD content is displayed on high resolution (HDTV) plasma televisions when compared with lower resolution (EDTV) plasma televisions- when viewing two plasmas by the same manufacturer."


"Case In Point: At past Consumer Electronics Shows (2001 and 2002), manufacturers would stage "plasma shoot outs", often pitting earlier-generation HD sets against ED ones. The outcome? A Panasonic 853X480 plasma beat several other manufacturers with higher resolutions (1024X768 or 1024X1024) even with an HD signal displayed. Contrast, video processing, and conversion have much to do with plasma technology."



What I learned? Contrast, video processing, and conversion has much to do with plasma technology than resolution. I think EDTV is still a relevant TV this 2015. I think it's still a worthy TV for money.
valiente is offline  
post #6 of 31 Old 04-04-2015, 06:34 AM
Advanced Member
 
Josh128's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 102
What is the price?

Displays: Samsung PN51F5300BFXA, PN51F4500AFXA, PN51F4500BFXA

Josh128 is offline  
post #7 of 31 Old 04-04-2015, 10:22 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Philippines
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh128 View Post
What is the price?
Josh, the 43F4000 is $400. By the way, sitting beside it is the 43F4900 which is $530. Plus the 51H4900 is $700.

Is the 43F4000 more bang for the money? Or knowing that the situation is no more plasma is being produced, should I opt for the 43F4900? Also, should I go for a bigger screen, the 51?

I think I will enjoy more the EDTV than the HDTV because most of the digital channels in our place are in SD. HD channels are still rare and few.

I'm still confused. I need help. Thanks.
valiente is offline  
post #8 of 31 Old 04-04-2015, 11:49 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Philippines
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Wikipedia says:
"480p was used for many early Plasma televisions. 480p does not qualify as high-definition television (HDTV); it is considered enhanced-definition television (EDTV). 480p standard, 640 x480, ratio 4:3. Wide 480p, 852x480, ratio is 16:9.

By this, the 43F4000 will be the best display for 480p contents which is still in available in most TV channels just in widescreen format.

I'm thinking again...

The best things in life are FREE!
valiente is offline  
post #9 of 31 Old 04-05-2015, 10:19 PM
KOF
Advanced Member
 
KOF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 911
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 138
If you get the F4000, you will be essensially getting the best SDTV produced to date, better than any Pioneer/Panasonic pro SD plasmas produced in early 2000s, any Sony Trinitron BVMs (I have one too) because of superior ANSI contrast ratio.

You're correct in assuming an SDTV will be the perfect match for SD broadcasts. (I will not confuse you any further and call it an EDTV because that's just a marketting term, no different from 'Full HD's, but usually 480P only displays were called EDTVs back in the day) It will also excel in DVDs and old console games such as Dreamcast.

You will still want to keep a couple of meters of viewing distance away though because such low DPI will not be pleasant close up. It's an issue I'm having with my 51 inches Samsung F4500 as well. Once that's settled, it will still accept resolutions higher than the panel's native (such as 720p/1080p) and downscale them just like the Samsung F4500/F4900.

As to whether you want to future-proof your final plasma, going with the F4900 will certainly give you that. While both can downscale HD(720p/1080p) resolutions, the F4900 will be far more effective in downscaling than the F4000 because of resolution difference. The F4900 will also give you 3D TV capability if you care about it. I have no idea how widespread HD/UHD will be in Philippines, but the F4900 can also handle SD broadcast pretty well as long as you feed a good external scaler such as DVDO. (I personally found my F4500's scaler's performance for SD upscaling mediocre, worse than the 720p LG plasma I used 5 years ago)

Plasma is your last ticket to high end performance without high end price. OLED will take much more time to be affordable like the F4000/F4900. That's why I also have three plasmas: Panasonic S64, Samsung F5300, Samsung F4500. Unfortunately, my F5300 got cracked so that's why I had to get the F4500 for interim solution. Assuming the F4000 has equal contrast ratio as my F4500a, it will have decent black level and good brightness. I've personally found my F4500 being the second brightest Samsung plasmas released in 2013. (My now broken F5300 was pretty close too.)
KOF is online now  
post #10 of 31 Old 04-06-2015, 01:41 PM
Advanced Member
 
Josh128's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by valiente View Post
Josh, the 43F4000 is $400. By the way, sitting beside it is the 43F4900 which is $530. Plus the 51H4900 is $700.

Is the 43F4000 more bang for the money? Or knowing that the situation is no more plasma is being produced, should I opt for the 43F4900? Also, should I go for a bigger screen, the 51?

I think I will enjoy more the EDTV than the HDTV because most of the digital channels in our place are in SD. HD channels are still rare and few.

I'm still confused. I need help. Thanks.
The F4900, if equal to the F4500 (US, NTSC) is a phenomenal set. I find SD content looks fine on it-- Im using a GefenTV S-Video to HDMI converter for my DirecTV box and it produces a very, very nice picture when dialed in. I find the set extremely versatile and think it looks great with 240p all the way up to 1080p sources. 480i broadcast upscaling may be one of its weaker points, but it looks just as good or better than 480i on its 1080p brother, the F5300.

That said-- the 480p TV may look even better for SD broadcasts, but to be honest Ive never heard of a 480p broadcast, only 480i. For PS2, GC, Xbox 480p and 240p gaming, the set should really shine, but for anything higher it wont match the F4500.

Unless you are buying it exclusively for native 480p content, I'd go with the F4900-- its more future proof and I know from personal experience (PN51F4500AF and BF models), how good it is. Its my personal favorite TV of all time for what I use it for (SD,ED,HD gaming and SD and HD broadcasts).

Displays: Samsung PN51F5300BFXA, PN51F4500AFXA, PN51F4500BFXA

Josh128 is offline  
post #11 of 31 Old 04-07-2015, 05:07 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Philippines
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Thanks KOF and Josh128 for your ideas.

These Samsung plasmas are either 2013 or 2014 made. Their the last breed of Samsung. As I'm thinking of either of these Samsung plasmas to buy before it fade away, I found 2012 made Panasonic plasma 720p plasma. The model is "42X50". It is marked $570. And I assume that this plasma is also the last breed plasma from Panasonic. The production of Panasonic plasmas ended 2012.

Now, I am including this Panasonic 2012 model in my choices because I have read that the last breed of Panasonic plasmas have superb picture quality according to some owners. The owners were disappointed a lot when Panasonic closed already leaving Samsung and LG. Another idea is, from these three manufactures of plasma, Panasonic is the leader in terms of quality and consistency.

Also, is there a big difference between a 2012 and 2013 Plasma TV or only subtle differences in qualities like brightness, image retention, reflection, and others? I assume that the difference are minimal.

Which plasma must I put on top of my list? Samsung 43" F4900, $530, 2013 manufactured or Panasonic 42" 42X50, $570, 2012 manufactured-last Panasonic plasma production.

I'm confused. Please help me decide. Thank you.

The best things in life are FREE!
valiente is offline  
post #12 of 31 Old 04-07-2015, 10:31 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tylerSC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Mauldin SC, 29607
Posts: 4,624
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 362 Post(s)
Liked: 119
I would choose the F4900. In the 720p category, Samsung was generally preferred over Panasonic. In the higher end 1080p models, critics often favored Panasonic. But for local cable and antenna viewing, the Samsungs have a nice menu interface, including providing full program info. And the Samsung models do a good job with both HD and SD sources.
tylerSC is offline  
post #13 of 31 Old 04-07-2015, 06:12 PM
Advanced Member
 
Josh128's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by valiente View Post
Thanks KOF and Josh128 for your ideas.

These Samsung plasmas are either 2013 or 2014 made. Their the last breed of Samsung. As I'm thinking of either of these Samsung plasmas to buy before it fade away, I found 2012 made Panasonic plasma 720p plasma. The model is "42X50". It is marked $570. And I assume that this plasma is also the last breed plasma from Panasonic. The production of Panasonic plasmas ended 2012.

Now, I am including this Panasonic 2012 model in my choices because I have read that the last breed of Panasonic plasmas have superb picture quality according to some owners. The owners were disappointed a lot when Panasonic closed already leaving Samsung and LG. Another idea is, from these three manufactures of plasma, Panasonic is the leader in terms of quality and consistency.

Also, is there a big difference between a 2012 and 2013 Plasma TV or only subtle differences in qualities like brightness, image retention, reflection, and others? I assume that the difference are minimal.

Which plasma must I put on top of my list? Samsung 43" F4900, $530, 2013 manufactured or Panasonic 42" 42X50, $570, 2012 manufactured-last Panasonic plasma production.

I'm confused. Please help me decide. Thank you.
Stay away from the X Series Panasonics. I had a 2013 TC-P50X60 and it didnt hold a candle to my 2013 Samsung PN51F4500, so I sold the Panasonic and bought a 2014 F4500 to replace it! The Samsung is WAY better in every possible way.

The F4900 is a FAR superior TV compared to any of the X Series Panny's.

Displays: Samsung PN51F5300BFXA, PN51F4500AFXA, PN51F4500BFXA

Josh128 is offline  
post #14 of 31 Old 04-08-2015, 01:53 AM
KOF
Advanced Member
 
KOF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 911
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 138
Agreed. From 2013 Panasonic lineup, it only starts to get great from the S60, the cheapest 1080p model. The 720p models like the X50/X60 were rather regurgitated models so they don't hold a candle to Samsung 720p plasmas which ARE properly updated in performance in line with more expensive models.

In that sense, try to get the 2014 F4900s. Even if you can't, even the 2013 F4900 should have better black level than the 2013 F4500A. I have one right now and its black level performance is closer to my modded LG plasma than the Samsung F5300B I also owned.

A few words of caution though. The Samsung F4500 is the WORST plasma among the plasmas I've owned with regards to IR,dithering, and motion performance. Motion performance still tolerable since it's only little worse than my F5300B, but dithering can be distracting at near viewing distance.

One minor quirk that only applies to me is that PC mode is engaged every time I'm trying to use its native panel resolution, 1024x768. For pristine unmolested detail, I prefer this resolution the most, but can't really use it because color options are limited and Black Optimizer is disabled. It seems critical I use a good external scaler and let it output in 720p. Either way, too bad. The King of Fighters 13 looked good in native panel resolution.
KOF is online now  
post #15 of 31 Old 04-08-2015, 06:04 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Philippines
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Thank you tylerSC, Josh128 and KOF for suggestions . It's a big help for me knowing that I have many options to consider.

Today I had an opportunity to demo a 43F4900 in a store. Best thing is, the plasma is facing the wall not windows. I asked the salesman to play the movie on my flash drive via USB. The first is my favorite TV show Amazing Race. Wow, I can see that the colors are close to the real thing and also close to the colors of my CRT. The blues are blues, the reds are reds, and that is simply out of the display unit, which I think the settings are never calibrated. My eyes were hooked on the TV. I was sitting around 4 to 5 feet from the TV. Then, after 10 minutes, I told the salesman to play a cartoon movie called "Up". Up is one my favorites. Wow again! The colors are simply colors. I'm amazed. Take note of my experience is, 20 years of 21" CRT Color TV, which we still use until now. Plus, my favorite IBM 17" CRT monitor which I connect with TV Tuner. This IBM 17" CRT has the most accurate colors of the TVs I've seen. The blues are blues, the greens are greens. I came into conclusion that the bigger screen of my 17" IBM CRT Monitor is the 43" Samsung F4900. It's as if my CRT monitor was made into giant screen. I was really hooked on the picture.

To make simply an analysis in a different level, for me a LED TV says "Hey, I'm here, watch me now!". Plasma TV says to me, "Hey, I'm here, I'll care for you, I'll make a lullaby to you". Plasma is very motherly and sweet while LED is a communist commander. LED has very imposing colors to my eyes while plasma has very gentle, fulfilling colors to my eyes. These statements are my only ideas. I'm sorry if I bit descriptive with my statements. Since I'm a headphile, may I compare the LED TV to a Grado SR60 Headphone, music is a bit shouting and forward on my ears and the Plasma TV is a Sennheiser HD600 which has a laidback sound, sweet and lullaby.


Let's go back.
Our TV consumers here in our place are not plasma buyers, most of them are LED buyers. Even the salesmen here, most of them suggests LED for the reason that it consumes lesser power and its the most hi-tech and latest. The salesman are not concerned about picture quality. However, there are few salesmen which said to me: "That plasma will give you a CRT picture quality", "That plasma sample movie that you have seen here in our store will be the same quality when you bring that TV in your home." I think what is needed by TV appliance stores is a dedicated TV room where lighting can be emulated from a home a lighting, and where lights can be controlled, bright to dark and vice-versa, more like to an audio room in when buying quality speakers for our home.

Guys, I will go for 43F4900. Thanks for your help.

One more please, should I also opt for 51"?

I will first use the TV in my bedroom. The maximum viewing feet is 10 to 12 feet. I think 43" will be more satisfying for me. I have read from CNET, "Get the biggest screen you can afford." Will this work also for my situation? One more help please. I owe a lot to you guys now. Anyways, I am enjoying a lot on this forum because I am learning, I am a student again. Soon, I'll become a videophile.

The best things in life are FREE!
valiente is offline  
post #16 of 31 Old 04-08-2015, 09:40 AM
Senior Member
 
22point8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, UK
Posts: 243
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 132 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by valiente View Post
Thank you tylerSC, Josh128 and KOF for suggestions . It's a big help for me knowing that I have many options to consider.

Today I had an opportunity to demo a 43F4900 in a store. Best thing is, the plasma is facing the wall not windows. I asked the salesman to play the movie on my flash drive via USB. The first is my favorite TV show Amazing Race. Wow, I can see that the colors are close to the real thing and also close to the colors of my CRT. The blues are blues, the reds are reds, and that is simply out of the display unit, which I think the settings are never calibrated. My eyes were hooked on the TV. I was sitting around 4 to 5 feet from the TV. Then, after 10 minutes, I told the salesman to play a cartoon movie called "Up". Up is one my favorites. Wow again! The colors are simply colors. I'm amazed. Take note of my experience is, 20 years of 21" CRT Color TV, which we still use until now. Plus, my favorite IBM 17" CRT monitor which I connect with TV Tuner. This IBM 17" CRT has the most accurate colors of the TVs I've seen. The blues are blues, the greens are greens. I came into conclusion that the bigger screen of my 17" IBM CRT Monitor is the 43" Samsung F4900. It's as if my CRT monitor was made into giant screen. I was really hooked on the picture.

To make simply an analysis in a different level, for me a LED TV says "Hey, I'm here, watch me now!". Plasma TV says to me, "Hey, I'm here, I'll care for you, I'll make a lullaby to you". Plasma is very motherly and sweet while LED is a communist commander. LED has very imposing colors to my eyes while plasma has very gentle, fulfilling colors to my eyes. These statements are my only ideas. I'm sorry if I bit descriptive with my statements. Since I'm a headphile, may I compare the LED TV to a Grado SR60 Headphone, music is a bit shouting and forward on my ears and the Plasma TV is a Sennheiser HD600 which has a laidback sound, sweet and lullaby.


Let's go back.
Our TV consumers here in our place are not plasma buyers, most of them are LED buyers. Even the salesmen here, most of them suggests LED for the reason that it consumes lesser power and its the most hi-tech and latest. The salesman are not concerned about picture quality. However, there are few salesmen which said to me: "That plasma will give you a CRT picture quality", "That plasma sample movie that you have seen here in our store will be the same quality when you bring that TV in your home." I think what is needed by TV appliance stores is a dedicated TV room where lighting can be emulated from a home a lighting, and where lights can be controlled, bright to dark and vice-versa, more like to an audio room in when buying quality speakers for our home.

Guys, I will go for 43F4900. Thanks for your help.

One more please, should I also opt for 51"?

I will first use the TV in my bedroom. The maximum viewing feet is 10 to 12 feet. I think 43" will be more satisfying for me. I have read from CNET, "Get the biggest screen you can afford." Will this work also for my situation? One more help please. I owe a lot to you guys now. Anyways, I am enjoying a lot on this forum because I am learning, I am a student again. Soon, I'll become a videophile.
I sit 10 feet away from my 43F4900 and its the perfect viewing distance. I also agree about its CRTish quality ( I have 2 Sony PVM CRTs with the improved EBU phosphors).

Here are some pictures of my F4900 (calibrated, and the camera doesn't do it justice).












22point8 is offline  
post #17 of 31 Old 04-08-2015, 01:48 PM
Advanced Member
 
Josh128's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Today I had an opportunity to demo a 43F4900 in a store. Best thing is, the plasma is facing the wall not windows. I asked the salesman to play the movie on my flash drive via USB. The first is my favorite TV show Amazing Race. Wow, I can see that the colors are close to the real thing and also close to the colors of my CRT. The blues are blues, the reds are reds, and that is simply out of the display unit, which I think the settings are never calibrated. My eyes were hooked on the TV. I was sitting around 4 to 5 feet from the TV. Then, after 10 minutes, I told the salesman to play a cartoon movie called "Up". Up is one my favorites. Wow again! The colors are simply colors. I'm amazed. Take note of my experience is, 20 years of 21" CRT Color TV, which we still use until now. Plus, my favorite IBM 17" CRT monitor which I connect with TV Tuner. This IBM 17" CRT has the most accurate colors of the TVs I've seen. The blues are blues, the greens are greens. I came into conclusion that the bigger screen of my 17" IBM CRT Monitor is the 43" Samsung F4900. It's as if my CRT monitor was made into giant screen. I was really hooked on the picture.


There are few salesmen which said to me: "That plasma will give you a CRT picture quality", "That plasma sample movie that you have seen here in our store will be the same quality when you bring that TV in your home." I think what is needed by TV appliance stores is a dedicated TV room where lighting can be emulated from a home a lighting, and where lights can be controlled, bright to dark and vice-versa, more like to an audio room in when buying quality speakers for our home. [/QUOTE]

Guys, I will go for 43F4900. Thanks for your help.

Awesome, right? I've said it time and again here that the F4500/4900 series have the most CRT-like picture Ive seen in an HD flat panel display. As good as it looked in the store, it will look even better in the home environment-- depending on the lighting in the store where you saw it, sometimes MUCH better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by valiente View Post
One more please, should I also opt for 51"?

I will first use the TV in my bedroom. The maximum viewing feet is 10 to 12 feet. I think 43" will be more satisfying for me. I have read from CNET, "Get the biggest screen you can afford." Will this work also for my situation? One more help please. I owe a lot to you guys now. Anyways, I am enjoying a lot on this forum because I am learning, I am a student again. Soon, I'll become a videophile.
I have two 51" units and they are spectacular. You do what feels right for you, but for me, I love the size and picture of the 51". It is a magnificent set, even from 5 feet away (my normal gaming distance). I feel its the perfect size for viewing from 10-11 feet away. If you are coming straight from CRTs, like I did-- the 51" will blow you away. Some people are afraid of SDE on the 51", I personally think its blown way out of proportion-- I love the way it looks. If you have the room, and the price is right-- I suggest the 51".

Here are some 3 megapixel photos of my 51F4500s, at the following links:

http://imgur.com/a/aT6lK - Xbox 360
http://imgur.com/a/LLcZ4 - Dreamcast
http://imgur.com/a/0fTWh - vs 51F5300 1080p plasma-- the F4500 is on top and looks smaller because it is about 1.5 feet further back than the F5300.

Displays: Samsung PN51F5300BFXA, PN51F4500AFXA, PN51F4500BFXA


Last edited by Josh128; 04-08-2015 at 01:55 PM.
Josh128 is offline  
post #18 of 31 Old 04-09-2015, 02:23 AM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Philippines
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 0
22point8 and Josh128, thank you for your help. I appreciate it a lot. The pictures tells the story.

I was reading about plasma articles in the web. May I quote two statements that catched my attention:

1. "There is something magical about that warm, emissive glow of a plasma TV that you can't quantify with words." -Gizmodo-

2. "Five years ago a stunning 47% of British men said they'd give up sex for six months in exchange for a 50-inch plasma." -Techradar-

I also want to experience that magic from plasma to the point that I may also give up sex for 6 months.

The best things in life are FREE!
valiente is offline  
post #19 of 31 Old 04-17-2015, 04:59 PM
KOF
Advanced Member
 
KOF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 911
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 138
Good luck with your purchase, you're going to like it.

Having used my F4500 for a while, I think this one really is a keeper. I think for 240p games, running in 640x480 (with either scanlines or not) in 1024x768 resolution seem to give me the best picture, while for 480p games like Guilty Gear, outputting in 640x640 (160 lines increase in vertical lines) window seem to give me the best compromise in scaling while keeping aspect ratio. While 640x720 is even better in keeping more accurate vertical scaling, characters seem a bit too tall for me.

I truly love the colors in this TV. Even Kega Fusion looks great on this set.

For 240p games, this is now my preferred look of my games

1st : Sony BVM
distant 2nd : Samsung F4500
3rd : Sony FS120
4th : Sony GDM-FW900

For 480p games, a big surprise here.

1st : Samsung F4500
2nd : Sony FW900
2nd (tied) : Sony BVM
4th : Sony FS120

I've long been wanting to get the Sony Wega XBR960 for 480p needs. (like Jet Set Radio Future) Guess I don't need to anymore. BTW, my ranking is assuming running in 640x480 for 240p games and 640x640 (slightly scaled vertically) for 480p games. I don't like the F4500's internal scaler, so I prefer not to use it if I can.
KOF is online now  
post #20 of 31 Old 04-18-2015, 09:00 AM
Senior Member
 
22point8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, UK
Posts: 243
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 132 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post
Good luck with your purchase, you're going to like it.

Having used my F4500 for a while, I think this one really is a keeper. I think for 240p games, running in 640x480 (with either scanlines or not) in 1024x768 resolution seem to give me the best picture, while for 480p games like Guilty Gear, outputting in 640x640 (160 lines increase in vertical lines) window seem to give me the best compromise in scaling while keeping aspect ratio. While 640x720 is even better in keeping more accurate vertical scaling, characters seem a bit too tall for me.

I truly love the colors in this TV. Even Kega Fusion looks great on this set.

For 240p games, this is now my preferred look of my games

1st : Sony BVM
distant 2nd : Samsung F4500
3rd : Sony FS120
4th : Sony GDM-FW900

For 480p games, a big surprise here.

1st : Samsung F4500
2nd : Sony FW900
2nd (tied) : Sony BVM
4th : Sony FS120

I've long been wanting to get the Sony Wega XBR960 for 480p needs. (like Jet Set Radio Future) Guess I don't need to anymore. BTW, my ranking is assuming running in 640x480 for 240p games and 640x640 (slightly scaled vertically) for 480p games. I don't like the F4500's internal scaler, so I prefer not to use it if I can.
The only thing I don't like is the overscan on SD broadcast, Component and SCART, it seems to be 5% evenly distributed vertical and horizontal.

I have my PVM set up so that i have 6% horizontal overscan (perfect for PS1, PS2, Megadrive, SNES) and 0% overscan vertically (full 240p/480i for PS1, Xbox, 8 lines underscan top and bottom for 224p/448i). I have underscan set up as per the service manual (1cm underscan left and right, 0.5cm top and bottom).
22point8 is offline  
post #21 of 31 Old 04-18-2015, 09:20 PM
KOF
Advanced Member
 
KOF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 911
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by 22point8 View Post
The only thing I don't like is the overscan on SD broadcast, Component and SCART, it seems to be 5% evenly distributed vertical and horizontal.

I have my PVM set up so that i have 6% horizontal overscan (perfect for PS1, PS2, Megadrive, SNES) and 0% overscan vertically (full 240p/480i for PS1, Xbox, 8 lines underscan top and bottom for 224p/448i). I have underscan set up as per the service manual (1cm underscan left and right, 0.5cm top and bottom).
Haha, never really had a thought about proper overscan compensation when playing with sizing on my BVM. (although I do know about 224 vertical line orientation for MD and NG) I just see whatever contents are displayed at the moment, and just blow up the picture to fit the entire area. My BVM is already small to begin with (20 inches), so I really felt like taking advantage of every screen estate. It's an old habit I picked up when I used to have a 14 inches Barco RGB monitor. Plus, even blown up pictures look great, unlike LCDs and plasmas lol!

Today, I've done an extensive scaling shootout between my Samsung F4500A and my Panasonic S64. Both have similiar screen size (the F4500 = 51 inches / the S60 = 50 inches) so comparison was pretty fair for both displays. I haven't ordered Black Magic Pro capture card yet so I haven't used real consoles yet, so this result is only for PC for now. I have used three games, Sonic2 for 240p classic, Final Fantasy 8 for testing 3D characters in 2D background game, and finally Guilty Gear X for 480p. I've tried to come with most satisfying resolution for playing those games on each display too.

I remember Josh128 having an argument against some people on shmups regards to F4500 and its limited scaling options compared with 1080p HDTVs. They argue accurate scaling (such as 1280x960) takes precedent over low DPI. Josh has argued otherwise. Me, while I've long since sided with Josh on that issue, still wanted to check out just how much of difference scaling accuracy makes on different DPIs, hence this little shootout. haha.

Sonic 2 (Kega Fusion) :

Samsung F4500 :

320x240 (unscaled. ok, not really unscaled as it's actually 320x224, but forgive me. Unlike CRTs, for digital flat panel, I can live with little aspect ratio inaccuracy) : Tiny, but still looks great as expected from unscaled. Looks just as right as my Sony Wega KS120 and BVM)

640x480 (4:3 on the F4500 menu, so it's more like 480x480) : Stairstepping begins to be seen as expected from line doubling, however, the picture still remains relatively pristine. Maybe because it's reduced horizontal resolution helping things. but I've checked out 640x480 on 16:9 and aspect ratio not withstanding, the picture still looked organic. Probably my most favorite resolution running Kega Fusion on the F4500.

960x720 (4:3) : Stairstepping has intensified quite a bit not only because of increase in resolution but also because of inaccurate scaling. (only half resolution increase) Still hella better than running at...say, 1024x768, although that resolution is still playable.


Panasonic S60 :

320x240 (unscaled) : Right out of the gate, I felt as I could easily pick out details than on the F4500 despite being in a smaller window. It was quite surprising I could even pick out jaggies on rings on such small window.

640x480 : Now I fully understand. Detail retrieval of this full RGB 1080p plasma is vastly superior to the F4500, and as we all know, that's not neccesarily a good thing for low resolution contents. It means line doubling anomalies could be picked very well. Every square pixels screamed "LOOK AT ME!" and I could pinpoint so many square pixels. (either in a group of 4 or 16) Again, despite being in a small window than on the F4500, I could distinguish square objects far easier than on the F4500. This was unfortunate as I felt pixels were bit too individual and isolated whereas on the F4500, the pixels together formed a cohesive picture. Still, overall, not too bad as at least accurate scaling has been applied.

1280x960 : 4 times the pixels, again, this is perhaps the most used resolution for upscaling 240p/480p contents, and it deserves so, because pixel intensity due to increase in resolution isn't too severe compared to the 640x480 because it still is an accurate scaling. Still, I couldn't still shake out the feeling pixels are too loud and indivisualistic. Overall, still not too bad, but I'll still settle with 640x480.

960x720 : Tried this resolution just for a kick, and it really was nasty looking. Because this TV's detail retrieval is so great due to dense pixels, every little scaling anomalities REALLY hurts picture compared to the F4500.

So, I've come to a conclusion that while it's true scaling options are limited with the F4500, it can also get away from scaling inaccuracies much better than 1080p TVs. Before beginning this shootout, I also asked myself if screen size/viewing distance would play in perception of scaling anomalies or DPI difference. Yes, there is a difference but is not significant compared to DPI perception and scaling accuracy as I could pinpoint details better with the S60 playing in even smaller screen than the F4500. (My viewing distance was equal for both and since sizes were almost the same for both, go figure...)


Final Fantasy 8 (...and some Resident Evil 2/3)

Samsung F4500 :

320x240 (unscaled) : Wrong aspect ratio, but I could still feel perfection within picture. I've long been wanting to try 2D background polygonal games because these are the games that emulators/PC ports have most trouble with due to difference in resolution between 2D background and 3D characters. And because these 2D background have poor compression PQ (like bandings) they usually felt soft when blown up in 640x480.

640x480 (4:3) : As I expected, these Playstation 2D backgrounds aren't kind to any kind of attepts in upscaling, and prove to be much more challenging than Sega Mega Drive. Still, the F4500 does a very good job making those messy pictures in cohesive objects. Overall picture looks just about my Sony Trinitron FW900 running at 640x480, so it really means something.

960x720 (4:3) : Not even the F4500 can save these Playstation trainwrecks if improper scaling value is applied. Trees don't look trees anymore. They look more like green blobs. Still, I did not feel any disconnect between 3D characters and 2D background, so that at least is an accomplishment.


Panasonic S60 :

320x240 (unscaled) : Like the F4500, unscaled also looks perfect on this TV, just on a postage size.

640x480 : PQ degradation was rampant. It looks as bad as the F4500 running at 960x720 already. Again, high resolution pixels allow me to see too much of what I don't want to see

1280x960 : Even perfect scaling isn't really saving things because in these heavily compressed low quality 2D pictures, intensifying line doubling really hurts overall picture. Jaggies are already everywhere.

1920x1080 : Just wanted to see how much damage can be done. Not really different, but it was funny seeing ultra high res 3D characters in 320x240 background.

I would never use my Panasonic for any 2D+3D PSX games. The F4500 on the other hand is quite playable as long as resolution is kept in 640x480.


Guilty Gear X

Panasonic S60 :

640x480 (unscaled) : Ah...my benchmark 480p game. It truly looks gorgeous, if not slightly small.

1280x960 : An accurate double scaling. And unlike 240p games, this 480p game looks quite good at this resolution. Unfortunately, I can also see rampant jaggies in characters' clothes and it's made even worse when characters are zoomed out (downscaling) But other than that, this time, the S60's ability to discern more detail is helping a lot in this case. I can even see background characters well.

960x720 : Just wanted to see how a 480p game suffers from an inaccurate scaling on this TV. Really nasty. It's either 480p or 1280x960 on this Panny.


Samsung F4500 :

640x480 (4:3 making effective resolution 480x480) : Just wanted to check out if cut out details would still makes for a good looking game. While aspect ratio is correct, it's not. Looks too low-res.

640x480 (16:9) : Wrong aspect ratio but wanted to check out unscaled PQ. Looks quite good. Although the S60 still could represent better detail even on smaller screeen, but the F4500 looks quite good too.

640x640 (16:9) : Wanted to see whether GGX is more sensitive to horizontal scaling or vertical scaling (I have to get aspect ratio correct if I want to play haha) , so I tried vertical scaling first. Scaling does not come out well (Ky's eyes look weird) but it still looks relatively good.

853x480 (4:3) : I've blown up original horizontal resolution to 853 then used 4:3 option to bring it back to 640. For some reason, it looked much more wrong than the vertical scaling, so 640x640 will be the resolution I'll use for the F4500.

960x720 : Again, just wanted to see if it looks as bad as the S60. Turned out to be quite ok. And although scaling inaccuracies begin to rear ugly heads, it still looked more organic and less jaggy than the S60.


So, basically, while scaling inaccuracies do hurt the F4500 quite a bit, it does a very good job in masking problems. Pixels flow quite well and cohesive. On the S60, detail retrieval is much easier so scaling inaccuracies hurt this TV much more than the F4500. Pixels stand out too much for my liking especially for 240p games.

So for 240p games, I'll continue using the F4500. For 480p games like GGX, the fight is a bit closer. The F4500 can't really give perfect unscaled picture if aspect ratio must be observed, so it has to scale either horizontally or vertically. (I prefer vertical) For 480p like GGX, the S60's sharper picture does bring some benefits like being able to distinguish far ahead objects, but cloth animation can be messy too. Both have good points (the F4500 being fuzzy yet organic/the S60 being sharp yet sterile), but overally winner still is the F4500 in scaling game. Overally PQ winner however goes to the S60 though. I didn't know my S60 really favored GGX. It completely destroys the F4500 in contrast ratio.

Now, I'm really savoring for this so called F4000 too. A proper 480p EDTV for running 240p/480p unscaled games? drool...
KOF is online now  
post #22 of 31 Old 04-19-2015, 01:59 PM
Advanced Member
 
Josh128's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post
Haha, never really had a thought about proper overscan compensation when playing with sizing on my BVM. (although I do know about 224 vertical line orientation for MD and NG) I just see whatever contents are displayed at the moment, and just blow up the picture to fit the entire area. My BVM is already small to begin with (20 inches), so I really felt like taking advantage of every screen estate. It's an old habit I picked up when I used to have a 14 inches Barco RGB monitor. Plus, even blown up pictures look great, unlike LCDs and plasmas lol!

Today, I've done an extensive scaling shootout between my Samsung F4500A and my Panasonic S64. Both have similiar screen size (the F4500 = 51 inches / the S60 = 50 inches) so comparison was pretty fair for both displays. I haven't ordered Black Magic Pro capture card yet so I haven't used real consoles yet, so this result is only for PC for now. I have used three games, Sonic2 for 240p classic, Final Fantasy 8 for testing 3D characters in 2D background game, and finally Guilty Gear X for 480p. I've tried to come with most satisfying resolution for playing those games on each display too.

I remember Josh128 having an argument against some people on shmups regards to F4500 and its limited scaling options compared with 1080p HDTVs. They argue accurate scaling (such as 1280x960) takes precedent over low DPI. Josh has argued otherwise. Me, while I've long since sided with Josh on that issue, still wanted to check out just how much of difference scaling accuracy makes on different DPIs, hence this little shootout. haha.

Sonic 2 (Kega Fusion) :

Samsung F4500 :

320x240 (unscaled. ok, not really unscaled as it's actually 320x224, but forgive me. Unlike CRTs, for digital flat panel, I can live with little aspect ratio inaccuracy) : Tiny, but still looks great as expected from unscaled. Looks just as right as my Sony Wega KS120 and BVM)

640x480 (4:3 on the F4500 menu, so it's more like 480x480) : Stairstepping begins to be seen as expected from line doubling, however, the picture still remains relatively pristine. Maybe because it's reduced horizontal resolution helping things. but I've checked out 640x480 on 16:9 and aspect ratio not withstanding, the picture still looked organic. Probably my most favorite resolution running Kega Fusion on the F4500.

960x720 (4:3) : Stairstepping has intensified quite a bit not only because of increase in resolution but also because of inaccurate scaling. (only half resolution increase) Still hella better than running at...say, 1024x768, although that resolution is still playable.


Panasonic S60 :

320x240 (unscaled) : Right out of the gate, I felt as I could easily pick out details than on the F4500 despite being in a smaller window. It was quite surprising I could even pick out jaggies on rings on such small window.

640x480 : Now I fully understand. Detail retrieval of this full RGB 1080p plasma is vastly superior to the F4500, and as we all know, that's not neccesarily a good thing for low resolution contents. It means line doubling anomalies could be picked very well. Every square pixels screamed "LOOK AT ME!" and I could pinpoint so many square pixels. (either in a group of 4 or 16) Again, despite being in a small window than on the F4500, I could distinguish square objects far easier than on the F4500. This was unfortunate as I felt pixels were bit too individual and isolated whereas on the F4500, the pixels together formed a cohesive picture. Still, overall, not too bad as at least accurate scaling has been applied.

1280x960 : 4 times the pixels, again, this is perhaps the most used resolution for upscaling 240p/480p contents, and it deserves so, because pixel intensity due to increase in resolution isn't too severe compared to the 640x480 because it still is an accurate scaling. Still, I couldn't still shake out the feeling pixels are too loud and indivisualistic. Overall, still not too bad, but I'll still settle with 640x480.

960x720 : Tried this resolution just for a kick, and it really was nasty looking. Because this TV's detail retrieval is so great due to dense pixels, every little scaling anomalities REALLY hurts picture compared to the F4500.

So, I've come to a conclusion that while it's true scaling options are limited with the F4500, it can also get away from scaling inaccuracies much better than 1080p TVs. Before beginning this shootout, I also asked myself if screen size/viewing distance would play in perception of scaling anomalies or DPI difference. Yes, there is a difference but is not significant compared to DPI perception and scaling accuracy as I could pinpoint details better with the S60 playing in even smaller screen than the F4500. (My viewing distance was equal for both and since sizes were almost the same for both, go figure...)


Final Fantasy 8 (...and some Resident Evil 2/3)

Samsung F4500 :

320x240 (unscaled) : Wrong aspect ratio, but I could still feel perfection within picture. I've long been wanting to try 2D background polygonal games because these are the games that emulators/PC ports have most trouble with due to difference in resolution between 2D background and 3D characters. And because these 2D background have poor compression PQ (like bandings) they usually felt soft when blown up in 640x480.

640x480 (4:3) : As I expected, these Playstation 2D backgrounds aren't kind to any kind of attepts in upscaling, and prove to be much more challenging than Sega Mega Drive. Still, the F4500 does a very good job making those messy pictures in cohesive objects. Overall picture looks just about my Sony Trinitron FW900 running at 640x480, so it really means something.

960x720 (4:3) : Not even the F4500 can save these Playstation trainwrecks if improper scaling value is applied. Trees don't look trees anymore. They look more like green blobs. Still, I did not feel any disconnect between 3D characters and 2D background, so that at least is an accomplishment.


Panasonic S60 :

320x240 (unscaled) : Like the F4500, unscaled also looks perfect on this TV, just on a postage size.

640x480 : PQ degradation was rampant. It looks as bad as the F4500 running at 960x720 already. Again, high resolution pixels allow me to see too much of what I don't want to see

1280x960 : Even perfect scaling isn't really saving things because in these heavily compressed low quality 2D pictures, intensifying line doubling really hurts overall picture. Jaggies are already everywhere.

1920x1080 : Just wanted to see how much damage can be done. Not really different, but it was funny seeing ultra high res 3D characters in 320x240 background.

I would never use my Panasonic for any 2D+3D PSX games. The F4500 on the other hand is quite playable as long as resolution is kept in 640x480.


Guilty Gear X

Panasonic S60 :

640x480 (unscaled) : Ah...my benchmark 480p game. It truly looks gorgeous, if not slightly small.

1280x960 : An accurate double scaling. And unlike 240p games, this 480p game looks quite good at this resolution. Unfortunately, I can also see rampant jaggies in characters' clothes and it's made even worse when characters are zoomed out (downscaling) But other than that, this time, the S60's ability to discern more detail is helping a lot in this case. I can even see background characters well.

960x720 : Just wanted to see how a 480p game suffers from an inaccurate scaling on this TV. Really nasty. It's either 480p or 1280x960 on this Panny.


Samsung F4500 :

640x480 (4:3 making effective resolution 480x480) : Just wanted to check out if cut out details would still makes for a good looking game. While aspect ratio is correct, it's not. Looks too low-res.

640x480 (16:9) : Wrong aspect ratio but wanted to check out unscaled PQ. Looks quite good. Although the S60 still could represent better detail even on smaller screeen, but the F4500 looks quite good too.

640x640 (16:9) : Wanted to see whether GGX is more sensitive to horizontal scaling or vertical scaling (I have to get aspect ratio correct if I want to play haha) , so I tried vertical scaling first. Scaling does not come out well (Ky's eyes look weird) but it still looks relatively good.

853x480 (4:3) : I've blown up original horizontal resolution to 853 then used 4:3 option to bring it back to 640. For some reason, it looked much more wrong than the vertical scaling, so 640x640 will be the resolution I'll use for the F4500.

960x720 : Again, just wanted to see if it looks as bad as the S60. Turned out to be quite ok. And although scaling inaccuracies begin to rear ugly heads, it still looked more organic and less jaggy than the S60.


So, basically, while scaling inaccuracies do hurt the F4500 quite a bit, it does a very good job in masking problems. Pixels flow quite well and cohesive. On the S60, detail retrieval is much easier so scaling inaccuracies hurt this TV much more than the F4500. Pixels stand out too much for my liking especially for 240p games.

So for 240p games, I'll continue using the F4500. For 480p games like GGX, the fight is a bit closer. The F4500 can't really give perfect unscaled picture if aspect ratio must be observed, so it has to scale either horizontally or vertically. (I prefer vertical) For 480p like GGX, the S60's sharper picture does bring some benefits like being able to distinguish far ahead objects, but cloth animation can be messy too. Both have good points (the F4500 being fuzzy yet organic/the S60 being sharp yet sterile), but overally winner still is the F4500 in scaling game. Overally PQ winner however goes to the S60 though. I didn't know my S60 really favored GGX. It completely destroys the F4500 in contrast ratio.

Now, I'm really savoring for this so called F4000 too. A proper 480p EDTV for running 240p/480p unscaled games? drool...
Interesting you mention Kega Fusion. Did you know its possible to achieve perfect vertical scaling with scanlines on the F4500? You get a little bit of vertical underscan but its pixel perfect 3x with scanlines. Check the images below with the settings I used. (Right click and View Image for full 3MP image)

Settings with full screen 1024x768 and F4500 in 4:3 mode:







As for as 480p, you are absolutely correct-- the F4500 simply cannot fully resolve it perfectly in full screen, it can only do it using 480 active vertical lines (which you can do with Dolphin and 16:9 games like FZero GX and looks phenomenal, but only uses about 1/2 the screen area)-- but despite that I still LOVE the authentic look of native 480p content on it and it is by far my favorite flat panel for straight 480p games (as you probably already know from shmups, Im sure ).

Like you, I actually very much like the handling of 240p on this set, natively-- I just got through a series of posts discussing 240p PS2 SOTN over component on this set and the intricacies of its internal 240p scaling vs. perfect 3x and bilinear scaling from the PSX emulator.

That thread can be found at: http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic...52063&start=30

Ive also posted comparison 240p shots of the Kega Fusion emulator on it with perfect 3x scaling and scanlines vs. native RGBs > Component on my 27" Trinitron Wega over on the F4500 thread at shmups.

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic...2511&start=510

Im a bit ashamed of some of my heated apologetics early on in that thread, but it seemed like I was being hit from every angle, even with folks arguing with me that 480i content is sharper than 480p . Even after I posted photos CLEARLY showing 480p was much sharper on the set I still nearly got stoned. It was fun though, and I have even more respect for the F4500's capabilities and value now than I did when I started the discussion there.

Displays: Samsung PN51F5300BFXA, PN51F4500AFXA, PN51F4500BFXA


Last edited by Josh128; 04-19-2015 at 02:15 PM.
Josh128 is offline  
post #23 of 31 Old 04-20-2015, 09:02 AM
KOF
Advanced Member
 
KOF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 911
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh128 View Post
Interesting you mention Kega Fusion. Did you know its possible to achieve perfect vertical scaling with scanlines on the F4500? You get a little bit of vertical underscan but its pixel perfect 3x with scanlines. Check the images below with the settings I used. (Right click and View Image for full 3MP image)

Settings with full screen 1024x768 and F4500 in 4:3 mode:







As for as 480p, you are absolutely correct-- the F4500 simply cannot fully resolve it perfectly in full screen, it can only do it using 480 active vertical lines (which you can do with Dolphin and 16:9 games like FZero GX and looks phenomenal, but only uses about 1/2 the screen area)-- but despite that I still LOVE the authentic look of native 480p content on it and it is by far my favorite flat panel for straight 480p games (as you probably already know from shmups, Im sure ).

Like you, I actually very much like the handling of 240p on this set, natively-- I just got through a series of posts discussing 240p PS2 SOTN over component on this set and the intricacies of its internal 240p scaling vs. perfect 3x and bilinear scaling from the PSX emulator.

That thread can be found at: http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic...52063&start=30

Ive also posted comparison 240p shots of the Kega Fusion emulator on it with perfect 3x scaling and scanlines vs. native RGBs > Component on my 27" Trinitron Wega over on the F4500 thread at shmups.

http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic...2511&start=510

Im a bit ashamed of some of my heated apologetics early on in that thread, but it seemed like I was being hit from every angle, even with folks arguing with me that 480i content is sharper than 480p . Even after I posted photos CLEARLY showing 480p was much sharper on the set I still nearly got stoned. It was fun though, and I have even more respect for the F4500's capabilities and value now than I did when I started the discussion there.
Oh, I forgot to mention but I have played with scanlines too and can also confirm the F4500 plays very nicely there too. In Kega Fusion, I set resolution to 640x480, then squeeze it by using 4:3 so actual resolution becomes 480x480, then I apply scanlines so vertical resolution is absolute pristine 240, making overall resolution 480x320, and it looks really, really, close to my Sony BVM and Wega KS120. Horizontal lines sometimes have odd shape because of 4:3 squeezing, but other than that, it looks really close to the real deal.

Btw, thanks for your settings recommendation. Fixed Aspects(Fit),Nearest multiple,No NTSC aspect is what I've started using and yes, even 1024x768 full screen output comes out not too bad.

Same can be said for the ePSXe as well. I set the resolution to 320x480, then apply scanlines, then 2D backgrounds in Resident Evil/Final Fantasy becomes exactly coarse and not smooth, just like I've obtained (and liked) from CRTs. Since 320x480 is too small a window and also has wrong aspect ratio, for playing purpose, I've also set the resolution to 640x480, squeeze it (4:3) so actual resolution is 480x480, then applied scanlines and it looked out of this world too. I could still tell blurry background here and there, but there were many other times I'm also looking at coarse images, it was a very nice compromise, definitely superior to the 2x scaling my Sony Trinitron FW900 PC monitor is putting out in 640x480.

Problem is, I could care less about scanlines. I only like scanlines on CRTs because it's a natural feature for CRTs. I haven't gone into advanced scanlines, but for basic scanlines, I don't like them because it's too dim for my liking. I don't really find the F4500 bright enough, and both my SD CRTs (BVM, Wega KS120) have even greater brightness than even the F8500, so I've become somewhat of a brightness nut. (my previous Sony Bravia has also spoiled me. That LCD has certainly put out really respectable brightness and a scaler vastly superior to the F4500 too. And this was in 2008.) Even for Resident Evil 2/3 where I would have reduced brightness anyways, I just didn't like scanlines. But I agree. Scanlines certainly helps preserving pristine scaling.

As for Nintendo Wii's 480i/480p argument, sorry, but you really have misunderstood there. Like they said themselves, they're not talking about whether 480i is preferable over 480p (Absolutely noone would) but whether the Wii's 480p output has as good details or color as 480i one. Details, it would be incredibly hard to compare (interlace vs progressive) , but for color, the comparison can be very doable. Heck, even for details comparison, comparing Wiiware's 240p output vs 480p should be very doable.

I haven't really seen the difference between Wii's 480i vs 480p myself because none of CRTs I own can switch between interlace to progressive. (Sony BVM 20F1U/Sony KS120 being interlace only, Sony GDM-FW900 being 31hz mininum, etc...) But I am willing to trust people at the shmup because I DID see the difference between Gamecube vs. Wii and the difference was vast.

Even among CRTs, the difference between Wii and GC varied. While I could also tell by using the KS120, it was the BVM that has really made it obvious. The BVM's pretty picky when it comes to connections and even cables.

Here's my subjective (maybe not even subjective as this is more of my gut feeling, not proper comparison I've done simulataneously using same games) scores of each consoles I've used. The first score being "Details" score, while the second score being "Color fidelity" score.

PS2 (Monster component) : A+ A+
DC (Sega Official scart) : A A-
DC (cheap scart) : A- A-
PS1 (Luma scart) : A- A
GC (component) : A- A-
Saturn (model2) : B+ B+
MD (model1) : B B
Wii (Monster) : B+ C+
Xbox (Monster) : D C-

Among the console's I've used, the Wii was pretty much the second worst. Forget about the original Xbox btw. It's truly made for progressive output and its encoder must be of a poor quality, as difference between progressive and interaced is night and day. That statement simply cannot be said for Dreamcast and PS2 either. Even in 480i output, the colors/fidelity is almost just as good as 480p. For DC/PS2, I would say the colors are identical, while for details, I would say it's about 95% of a real 480p output. I've never seen a CRT so good with interlaced output. The BVM truly rules. So, if those shmups people say 480p has worse colors than 480i colors, I would be inclined to believe them because I was also shocked with how bad Wii looked on all my CRTs. The colors were muted which was very unfortunate because the Wii is the best console for emulators. (It's the last console with true 240p output) I was really forced myself to using PS2 emulators that has jumpy framerates compared to the Wii because of IQ alone, haha...

But other than CRTs where analogue output quality really makes a difference, I wouldn't say the same for scalers and digital flat panels. Going through scalers, difference between even PS2 and Wii becomes miniscule that's why you were not able to detect the difference between 480i and 480p for Wii either. If anything, 480i would be far worse because scalers hate 480i. Even for Wiiware's 240p vs 480p, I did not see any difference between the two when using plasmas.

Last edited by KOF; 04-20-2015 at 09:12 AM.
KOF is online now  
post #24 of 31 Old 04-20-2015, 12:00 PM
Senior Member
 
22point8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, UK
Posts: 243
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 132 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Interesting about Wii vs Gamecube, I recently added the capability to play Gamecube games off a SD card to my softmodded Wii. I was amazed at how sharp Super Monkey Ball and F-Zero GX were compared to the few Wii games I have (I mainly use it for emulators (MD/SNES/PC Engine). I'm guessing the Wii by default does some sort of filtering which I must have bypassed by playing from an SD card rather than the Wii OS itself.

Thats on my PVM-2044QM via the official RGB Scart cable. (made in January 1990, it I want maximum image quality I can only get 40cdm2 out of RGB, 70cdm2 out of Component/Composite/S-Video, but the tube can put out 500cdm2 with contrast at maximum where the image turns to a milky mess. I guess it needs some capacitor replacements because its green tinted for about 20 minutes when first turned on).
22point8 is offline  
post #25 of 31 Old 04-20-2015, 02:34 PM
Advanced Member
 
Josh128's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post
Oh, I forgot to mention but I have played with scanlines too and can also confirm the F4500 plays very nicely there too. In Kega Fusion, I set resolution to 640x480, then squeeze it by using 4:3 so actual resolution becomes 480x480, then I apply scanlines so vertical resolution is absolute pristine 240, making overall resolution 480x320, and it looks really, really, close to my Sony BVM and Wega KS120. Horizontal lines sometimes have odd shape because of 4:3 squeezing, but other than that, it looks really close to the real deal.

Btw, thanks for your settings recommendation. Fixed Aspects(Fit),Nearest multiple,No NTSC aspect is what I've started using and yes, even 1024x768 full screen output comes out not too bad.
Not too bad?? It doesnt get any better. 1024x768 with the settings I posted is the only way to get perfect vertical scaling with scanlines if you are running full screen. This setting essentially makes the emulator use only 720 active lines or so (for perfect 240p scaling) out of the 768 available. You can count the vertical pixels in my pictures-- it displays each image line using 2 rows of plasma pixels, and uses 1 plasma pixel row for the scanline. It is a perfect match for how RGBs G The only way to get perfect scaling using 480p vertical resolution is if you only use 480 active plasma lines which would leave you with a little more than 1/3 of the vertical screen space black. There is no other way to perfectly scale 480 vertical lines with a full screen output on this set.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post
As for Nintendo Wii's 480i/480p argument, sorry, but you really have misunderstood there. Like they said themselves, they're not talking about whether 480i is preferable over 480p (Absolutely noone would) but whether the Wii's 480p output has as good details or color as 480i one. Details, it would be incredibly hard to compare (interlace vs progressive) , but for color, the comparison can be very doable.
Actually, they were talking about differences in sharpness of edges due to increased horizontal scan rates, which doesnt apply to just the Wii, but in any analog video device. Problem with that is, it sounds good in principle, but in practice, more often than not, its the other way around. It also is a non-starter when working with digital signals.

With the F4500, with every game Ive compared, 480p is sharper-- usually much sharper. Ive already posted pictures of Sonic Adventure 2 Battle and Zelda TP, paused screens, clearly showing far sharper 480p than 480i, after which I could basically hear crickets chirping. Fudoh himself in his Sony W6 review, posted 480i vs 480p PS2 comparison shots on the first page and guess what, the 480p image is clearly sharper.

If you can take a look at the images comparisons below and tell me with a straight face you believe the 480i image looks sharper, we have really have nothing more to discuss. Its not even remotely close. Right click and hit "View Image" for full resolution.

480i

480p

480i

480p




Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post
I haven't really seen the difference between Wii's 480i vs 480p myself because none of CRTs I own can switch between interlace to progressive. (Sony BVM 20F1U/Sony KS120 being interlace only, Sony GDM-FW900 being 31hz mininum, etc...)
But I am willing to trust people at the shmup because I DID see the difference between Gamecube vs. Wii and the difference was vast.
Well now you have. If you want to trust those guys over your own eyes, well thats your perogative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post
Even among CRTs, the difference between Wii and GC varied. While I could also tell by using the KS120, it was the BVM that has really made it obvious. The BVM's pretty picky when it comes to connections and even cables.
Later in the thread over there you can see that I did indeed see a difference in GC output vs. Wii on FZero GX. The GC was noticeably sharper, but certainly nothing drastic, at least on the F4500. The Soul Calibur 2 macro shots I posted of Wii vs GC are virtually identical.


Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post
That statement simply cannot be said for Dreamcast and PS2 either. Even in 480i output, the colors/fidelity is almost just as good as 480p. For DC/PS2, I would say the colors are identical, while for details, I would say it's about 95% of a real 480p output. I've never seen a CRT so good with interlaced output. The BVM truly rules. So, if those shmups people say 480p has worse colors than 480i colors, I would be inclined to believe them because I was also shocked with how bad Wii looked on all my CRTs.
For PS2-- look at the car pic comparison in Fudohs W6 thread I linked above, 480p is sharper. Most of the games Ive tried on the 4500 show the same.

For DC-- Ive compared its 480p VGA to its RGBs 480i--- the 480p is WAY sharper on the F4500. This is the case with Sonic Adventure, Daytona, Ecco, and Skies of Arcadia, at least.

Displays: Samsung PN51F5300BFXA, PN51F4500AFXA, PN51F4500BFXA

Josh128 is offline  
post #26 of 31 Old 04-20-2015, 04:02 PM
KOF
Advanced Member
 
KOF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 911
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh128 View Post
Not too bad?? It doesnt get any better. 1024x768 with the settings I posted is the only way to get perfect vertical scaling with scanlines if you are running full screen. This setting essentially makes the emulator use only 720 active lines or so (for perfect 240p scaling) out of the 768 available. You can count the vertical pixels in my pictures-- it displays each image line using 2 rows of plasma pixels, and uses 1 plasma pixel row for the scanline. It is a perfect match for how RGBs G The only way to get perfect scaling using 480p vertical resolution is if you only use 480 active plasma lines which would leave you with a little more than 1/3 of the vertical screen space black. There is no other way to perfectly scale 480 vertical lines with a full screen output on this set.
Oops, you're right. It's actually true 3X. I thought it only had borders because I removed border colors in Kega options. While 960x720 is not ideal for Guilty Gear because it's 1.5X, for MD, 3X doesn't really hurt picture too much compared to 4X.

So, if I were to rank the scaling satisfaction (other than unscaled) it would be like this...

240p
640x480 (F4500) (2x)
960x720 (F4500) (3x)
640x480 (S60) (2x)
1024x768 (F4500)
1280x960 (S60) (4x)
960x720 (S60) (3x)
1920x1080 (S60)

480p
640x640 (F4500)
960x720 (F4500) (1.5x)
1280x960 (S60) (2x)
856x480 (F4500)
1024x768 (F4500)
960x720 (S60) (1.5x)
1980x1080 (S60)



Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh128 View Post
Actually, they were talking about differences in sharpness of edges due to increased horizontal scan rates, which doesnt apply to just the Wii, but in any analog video device. Problem with that is, it sounds good in principle, but in practice, more often than not, its the other way around. It also is a non-starter when working with digital signals.

With the F4500, with every game Ive compared, 480p is sharper-- usually much sharper. Ive already posted pictures of Sonic Adventure 2 Battle and Zelda TP, paused screens, clearly showing far sharper 480p than 480i, after which I could basically hear crickets chirping. Fudoh himself in his Sony W6 review, posted 480i vs 480p PS2 comparison shots on the first page and guess what, the 480p image is clearly sharper.
Oh, if they're talking about universally, then I really don't know... I've played hell out of KOF 94 Rebout on both FW900 and BVM and there was no notable difference in crispness or colors between both. And I've already told you most scalers hate 480i, whether it's fake 480i or 240p. Even for the F4500, I prefer Wiiware's 480p output than 240p output because Wii scales better than F4500's internal one.

One thing I can say for sure is, I'm never going to underestimate interlaced output again after seeing what the BVM can do with interlaced signal. Looks so much better than other 480i TVs dealing with interlaced signal.
KOF is online now  
post #27 of 31 Old 04-20-2015, 05:12 PM
KOF
Advanced Member
 
KOF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 911
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by 22point8 View Post
Interesting about Wii vs Gamecube, I recently added the capability to play Gamecube games off a SD card to my softmodded Wii. I was amazed at how sharp Super Monkey Ball and F-Zero GX were compared to the few Wii games I have (I mainly use it for emulators (MD/SNES/PC Engine). I'm guessing the Wii by default does some sort of filtering which I must have bypassed by playing from an SD card rather than the Wii OS itself.

Thats on my PVM-2044QM via the official RGB Scart cable. (made in January 1990, it I want maximum image quality I can only get 40cdm2 out of RGB, 70cdm2 out of Component/Composite/S-Video, but the tube can put out 500cdm2 with contrast at maximum where the image turns to a milky mess. I guess it needs some capacitor replacements because its green tinted for about 20 minutes when first turned on).
Not running off SD, but I do run from HDD and there was no difference from what I remember. I'll be sure to try SD method and see.

I know...That's one thing I hate from my BVM too. If I want get maximum vibrancy, I have to sacrifice both black and colors. That's why I was trying hard to get a display that has both good blacks and brightness. I still personally find plasmas dim for my taste, so it some ways, I did prefer the way my previous Sony LCD did with pictures, but it had horrible motion performance.

So, in a nutshell, is Samsung F4500 the best flat panel for 240p/480p games? I'm debating it myself too. I've been looking hard for the Sony BVM/XBR960 killer too, but so far, there are no such definitive displays.


"Sony BVM-A32E1WU"

+ Handles both 240p and 480p natively, making it the only HD 16:9 display that can display 240p contents in 32 inches (16:9)
+ Perfect motion performance/input lag as expected from a CRT
+ Geometry uniformity is excellent for a CRT
+ Excellent colors
+ Satisfactory brightness

- Poor ANSI contrast ratio
- Trying to decide between more brightness/contrast ratio versus better black/more accurate colors gets tiring


"Sony XBR960"

+ Can handle 480p natively, so 480p unscaled is equivalent to 32 inches 16:9 TVs.
+ Perfect motion performance as expected from a CRT
+ Excellent colors once calibrated
+ Spectacular brightness

- Poor ANSI contrast ratio
- Poor geometry
- Calibration is not easy
- Has to scale 240p


"Samsung F4500" (assuming 51 inches)

+ Unscaled, its 240p output is equivalent to 17 inches 16:9 monitor and 480p output is equivalent to 32 inches 16:9 TV
+ Very scaling friendly
+ Decent ANSI contrast ratio
+ Good colors even in PC mode
+ Decent brightness/ABL for a plasma. Even when running in 960x720, brightness comes out ok.

- 1024x768 native resolution can only be used in PC mode
- Input lag is not poor, but not great either
- Heavy dithering


"Panasonic S60" (assuming 65 inches)

= Unscaled, its 240p output is equivalent to 14.5 inches 16:9 monitor and 480p output is equivalent to 29 inches 16:9 TV
+ Excellent black level
+ Decent color accuracy
+ Satisfactory input lag

- 1080p makes it unfriendly to scaling
- Dithering, not as bad as the F4500, but still irritating
- Phosphor trailing (even the F4500 doesn't suffer from this)
- Really sensitive to ABL. Even when running in 640x480 (less than quarter window) it gets slightly uncomfortably dim when contents asks for more ABL



"Sony W850B"

+ Excellent input lag
+ Great colors
+ Excellent brightness

- 1080p makes it unfriendly to scaling
- Terrible Motion performance. Motionflow Impulse is still useless in pratical purposes
- Bad uniformity
- Mediocre ANSI contrast ratio


So, really, there are only about four candidates vying for the position of the best flat panel for "240p/480p" contents, and they are

Panasonic S60 (for the best input lag among plasmas released in 2013~2014)
Panasonic GT50 (trades slight black level for more brightness for games the S60 is struggling. Still excellent)
Kuro Gen 8 720p (For combination of great black level,decent brightness when modded, and scaling friendliness)
Samsung F4500 (the best for scaling friendliness)

I've ommited the VT60 because the GT50's brightness has made it irrelevant, but it still has combination of great input lag, black level, decent brightness

Despite having the best input lag, I've also ommited the U50, because it can't be purchased in 65 inches, and being dimmer than the S60 is asking for more trouble when the S60 is already struggling

I'm also ommiting the F8500, despite being the most balanced PQ-wise, as the F4500's input lag is already pushing

The 64 inches Samsung F5500A is also pretty balanced as its brightness can be modded only second to the F8500 among plasmas released in last years. Still, since I've also used the F5300B, I know for sure that the GT50 should have no trouble matching it in a quarter window, and have so much better black level to boot too.

The H5000 is not considered at all as pentile makes it impossible to run games unscaled (I should know as I own the 60 inches F5300B)
KOF is online now  
post #28 of 31 Old 04-20-2015, 07:55 PM
Advanced Member
 
Josh128's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 525
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 257 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post
Oh, if they're talking about universally, then I really don't know... I've played hell out of KOF 94 Rebout on both FW900 and BVM and there was no notable difference in crispness or colors between both.
Yeah, they def. were talking about universally-- comparing the lower horizontal scan rate of 15kHz 480i vs 31kHz 480p on a CRT. The real point of contention was, I was talking about how GC, Wii, and PS2 games (and later DC) actually looked, even in still/paused images on the F4500 and the 36" Hitachi Ultravision Digital CRT (and indeed every other 480p capable set Ive tried them on for that matter ) and they were talking about theoretical differences-- differences that to this day I have still never happened across in real-world practice.

Even giving them the benefit of the doubt-- the captures one of the guys produced to try to show me looked identical--ie even in the best example they could muster the images appeared equally sharp, which doesnt really bode well for their argument that 480i is actually sharper, but oh well, its definitely not true on the F4500 as my photos prove.

I think one of the main reasons a lot of 480i games look so dull in comparison to 480p that hasnt really been discussed is that many games across GC/PS2/DC/Wii employ flicker filters in 480i that are not present in 480p. A good example is SSB on GC or God of War on PS2-- those games allow you to turn the flicker filters off-- and when you do, presto, still images appear just as or almost as sharp as they do when you switch to 480p. Problem is, most games dont have a feature to turn off the flicker filter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KOF View Post
I prefer Wiiware's 480p output than 240p output because Wii scales better than F4500's internal one.
Interesting that you bring that up. You can take the exact same 240p image and display it in either 240p mode or 480p mode on the F4500 and the 240p mode is softer. Softer, but not necessarily worse.

I say this because for 3D N64 and PS1 games, and indeed 2D games like Dreamcast Street Fighter 3 (which is a very good 2D game to demonstrate this), I think the proprietary 240p scaler in the F4500 is genius and looks much better. Its soft, but not as soft as bilinear filtering in emulators-- the softer edge scaling lends itself extremely well to N64 games, which look HORRIBLE on most other flat panels and even 31kHz CRTs, such as my old Hitachi.

The F4500s 480p mode, in contrast, makes 240p content look like it does on most other flat panels-- quite sharp-- which is definitely fine for some games as you point out-- but not for others.

If you havent gathered yet, I primarily game on the real consoles instead of emulators, and base most of my feelings of this set on actual native content sent (unaltered except for being transcoded lag free from RGBs to YPbPr), straight to the F4500.

Ive found recently that there is quite a bit (definitely noticable) less lag when using the real consoles vs. using either PC or even Wii or PS2 to emulate retro titles. IMO the lag when using the real consoles on the F4500 is almost non-existent, but when using emulators its clearly noticable. Dont get me wrong, I still use emulators for arcade titles and roms that are impossible to find, but I prefer the real deal when possible.

Displays: Samsung PN51F5300BFXA, PN51F4500AFXA, PN51F4500BFXA


Last edited by Josh128; 04-20-2015 at 08:07 PM.
Josh128 is offline  
post #29 of 31 Old 04-20-2015, 09:34 PM
KOF
Advanced Member
 
KOF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 911
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 111 Post(s)
Liked: 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh128 View Post

I think one of the main reasons a lot of 480i games look so dull in comparison to 480p that hasnt really been discussed is that many games across GC/PS2/DC/Wii employ flicker filters in 480i that are not present in 480p. A good example is SSB on GC or God of War on PS2-- those games allow you to turn the flicker filters off-- and when you do, presto, still images appear just as or almost as sharp as they do when you switch to 480p. Problem is, most games dont have a feature to turn off the flicker filter.
Take the PS2 off your list. While few games do offer anti-flickering, the PS2 for the most part does not offer anti-flickering. That's why it's VERY hard to get PS2 games to look good for 3D games. Not only it lacks mipmapping compared to DC/GC, lack of anti flickering makes 3D graphics look really bad. I used to bag the PS2 for that reason...until I've purchased Sony BVM. For 2D games, that LACK of anti-flickering is what truly makes the PS2 shine. Images are clear and crisp, it practically destroys DC/GC in any 2D games. (Heck, just for Sony BVM, I'd say it does for 3D as well. Even terribly low res games like GT3 and VF4 looks pristine despite having tons of jaggies) For 480p, yes, the DC/GC (and even Xbox which has way too much anti-flickering filtering) catches up fast.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh128 View Post
Interesting that you bring that up. You can take the exact same 240p image and display it in either 240p mode or 480p mode on the F4500 and the 240p mode is softer. Softer, but not necessarily worse.

I say this because for 3D N64 and PS1 games, and indeed 2D games like Dreamcast Street Fighter 3 (which is a very good 2D game to demonstrate this), I think the proprietary 240p scaler in the F4500 is genius and looks much better. Its soft, but not as soft as bilinear filtering in emulators-- the softer edge scaling lends itself extremely well to N64 games, which look HORRIBLE on most other flat panels and even 31kHz CRTs, such as my old Hitachi.
I understand. Actually, I'm pretty acquainted to the F4500's scaler already because it really reminds me of the scaler in the Dell U2311H LCD monitor. While that monitor only offers VGA/DVI, adaptors can be either made/purchased to support component and HDMI as well, and both VGA and component can also output in 15hz. It also has no problem accepting 240p and recognizing it. (I was surprised it also accepted Gran Turismo 4's 1080i input and displayed in 540p correctly, because its native resolution is 640x540) That Dell monitor's 240p output was slightly fuzzier compared to 480p output (using Wiiware again) yet felt organic somehow, so yes, I understand where you're coming from.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh128 View Post
If you havent gathered yet, I primarily game on the real consoles instead of emulators, and base most of my feelings of this set on actual native content sent (unaltered except for being transcoded lag free from RGBs to YPbPr), straight to the F4500.

Ive found recently that there is quite a bit (definitely noticable) less lag when using the real consoles vs. using either PC or even Wii or PS2 to emulate retro titles. IMO the lag when using the real consoles on the F4500 is almost non-existent, but when using emulators its clearly noticable. Dont get me wrong, I still use emulators for arcade titles and roms that are impossible to find, but I prefer the real deal when possible.
Very true. While archaic, the F4500's scaler is indeed very fast. Usually scaling 480p resolution AND transcoding analogue component signal should add a lot of lag, but really doesn't add much from its base input lag.

BTW, while emulators do accentuate the problem further, it's actually the PC that adds quite a bit of lag compared to consoles. Up to Windows XP, PCs were just as fast when engaging in V-sync, but started trailing behind since Vista. Input lag cost when engaging in v-sync and triple buffering is very expensive on PCs. If you try running Kega Fusion and controversial ZSNES using Windows XP, you will quickly find v-sync/triple buffering will no longer add significant amount of input lag.

That's why I personally find it unfortunate Nintendo Wii's component output quality leaves a lot to be desired. Other than that issue, it's practically the best device for playing emulators. Wii's 480p output will have significantly less lag than today's PC emulators engaging in v-sync, and unlike PCs, Wii's native 240p output does not suck either. Heck, even running a DOS emulator on the Wii will look more native and authentic than real PC DOS games because it can output in 320x240 properly whereas they must all be scaled up on VGA PCs.

The PS2 certainly has the best image quality running emulators (yes, even over the PCs with the best RAMDAC employed. On the Sony BVM, even Canopus cards do not compare against the PS2) but is too slow to be useful, and for NES emulators, I prefer the Wii over PS2 for convenience reasons.

But either way, despite my S60's scaler adding a bit more lag than the F4500 on real consoles, my S60 still comes out winner. My S60 going through Kega Fusion engaging in v-sync/triple buffering feels similiar to the F4500 running real consoles through component, so the S60 is at least half frame faster than the F4500. For testing input lag by hand, I use hearing test. Run Sonic 2, scratch the button slightly on the Xbox 360 controller, then hear through clicking while also seeing Sonic jump. On the real console on a CRT, Sonic practically jumps simultaneously as I start hearing the clicking sound. For the laptop display, the S60,(both running Kega Fusion with v-sync on) Sonic jumps not simultaneous but somewhere in the duration of clicking sound. For the F4500, Sonic jumps after clicking sound is finished. (again, engaging in v-sync)
KOF is online now  
post #30 of 31 Old 05-11-2015, 10:14 PM - Thread Starter
Newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Philippines
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 0
Plasma is here. Really beautiful TV. Samsung 43H4900. The last breed of plasma from Samsung. Please share me your break-in tips of this lovely TV. Thank you.

The best things in life are FREE!
valiente is offline  
Reply Plasma Flat Panel Displays
Gear in this thread



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