or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › Official Panasonic TC-PxxST60 Series thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Panasonic TC-PxxST60 Series thread - Page 26

post #751 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stump909 View Post

Normally I would, but the requests here are clearly coming from the uninformed and spoiled. They don't even bother to ask nicely. The just demand as if they're owed a response.


Ex. "I need someone to take a picture of the 55st60 playing blu-rays".

A request like this should set off two alarms. First, they clearly don't understand the concept of manners. Second, they aren't smart enough to realize a camera will never give you an accurate reproduction of being in the room, so why bother? They could actually scan the pages and find what they need, answer and concept wise, but they're too lazy.

You'r right- it just makes that much more noise to wade through to get to the substance- I did find amusing your example above. I laughed to myself when I first read it.

Looking forward to DNice's settings.

Take Care.
post #752 of 12340
Is it possible with the hexaprocessor in the vt60 will lessen the inputlag?
post #753 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by kobyh15 View Post



Thanks for the replies. It seems like it would be worth a try if you had a player with good video upscaling. I agree that each channel seems to differ in its characteristics. Very hard to find the perfect situation.

The harsh reality is cable and sat. providers have been slowly downgrading quality over the last few years. They don't want to pay for infrastructure or compression improvements, so instead they lower the bitrate and compress already compressed material (a big no-no for quality). I swear I can see more detail on certain standard def channels than I do HD. If you're only allowing 5-7mb to complete 24-30 1280x720 or 1920x540 images, the result is shared pixel, loss of detail, and noisy blacks. Luckily for them, most people can't tell the difference, so they have no reason to do anything but up their rates and collect the additional profits.
post #754 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimitrios007 View Post

Is it possible with the hexaprocessor in the vt60 will lessen the inputlag?

Yes, the more horsepower that can be effectively distributed for multitasking will most definitely decrease input lag. Or you can try game mode, but this will decrease PQ to some degree or another.
post #755 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimitrios007 View Post

Is it possible with the hexaprocessor in the vt60 will lessen the inputlag?

Possibly, but only marginally. While I understand the input lag concern, I do believe it's thrown way out of proportion. I'll just copy and paste what I submitted in another thread:

"Honestly, I think you may be overreacting. As a gamer myself, I understand the concern when it comes to input lag. What you may not realize is how common input lag is across other components. Do you use a wireless controller? Input lag. Are you going through a receiver? More input lag. Have to go thorugh the XBL or PSN service? Network lag. Do you think the millions of user on XBL or PSN even know what input lag is? They have an equal disadvantage, so the playing field evens out. The only numbers we have to go on right now are from HDTV Test. They only tested the UK model, which will inevitably be a little different than the US model, but it should give us a general idea. They were measuring 47-60ms (perfectly acceptable), while their advanced machine showed an outlier like discrepancy. I think it's safe to say its not in the upper 70s, and even they themselves doubt that result. My guess as to the cause (of the oddly high number) is the sensor's reading of the FFD, which in my opinion offsets the effects of input lag by providing higher motion resolution."
post #756 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hatcher View Post

Yes, the more horsepower that can be effectively distributed for multitasking will most definitely decrease input lag. Or you can try game mode, but this will decrease PQ to some degree or another.

Thanks smile.gif
post #757 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stump909 View Post

Possibly, but only marginally. While I understand the input lag concern, I do believe it's thrown way out of proportion. I'll just copy and paste what I submitted in another thread:

"Honestly, I think you may be overreacting. As a gamer myself, I understand the concern when it comes to input lag. What you may not realize is how common input lag is across other components. Do you use a wireless controller? Input lag. Are you going through a receiver? More input lag. Have to go thorugh the XBL or PSN service? Network lag. Do you think the millions of user on XBL or PSN even know what input lag is? They have an equal disadvantage, so the playing field evens out. The only numbers we have to go on right now are from HDTV Test. They only tested the UK model, which will inevitably be a little different than the US model, but it should give us a general idea. They were measuring 47-60ms (perfectly acceptable), while their advanced machine showed an outlier like discrepancy. I think it's safe to say its not in the upper 70s, and even they themselves doubt that result. My guess as to the cause (of the oddly high number) is the sensor's reading of the FFD, which in my opinion offsets the effects of input lag by providing higher motion resolution."

Sorry, but It tested 74ms with the Leo Bodnar lag tester, which is accurate to the millisecond. I don't mean to be negative, but it's important to state all the facts, not downplay them. That's quite a bit of lag, and while it may be perfectly playable to some, it's definitely not going to feel as smooth to others. Experts say that 100ms is the lag threshold, but I say it's more like 80ms personally, that your inputs are still perceived as instant. However, while 80ms may still be "instant" for the most part, there's really no doubt that 40ms feels smoother and more responsive when it comes to twitch games.
Edited by JSpectre88 - 4/2/13 at 10:53am
post #758 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSpectre88 View Post

Sorry, but It tested 74ms with the Leo Bodnar lag tester, which is accurate to the millisecond.

Sure it is that's why it's being investigated. Comparing a CRT monitor with the TV using a highspeed camera is IMO still the way for accurate testing. Seeing how processing isn't always the same, inputlag isn't always going to be the same.
post #759 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stump909 View Post

Possibly, but only marginally. While I understand the input lag concern, I do believe it's thrown way out of proportion. I'll just copy and paste what I submitted in another thread:

"Honestly, I think you may be overreacting. As a gamer myself, I understand the concern when it comes to input lag. What you may not realize is how common input lag is across other components. Do you use a wireless controller? Input lag. Are you going through a receiver? More input lag. Have to go thorugh the XBL or PSN service? Network lag. Do you think the millions of user on XBL or PSN even know what input lag is? They have an equal disadvantage, so the playing field evens out. The only numbers we have to go on right now are from HDTV Test. They only tested the UK model, which will inevitably be a little different than the US model, but it should give us a general idea. They were measuring 47-60ms (perfectly acceptable), while their advanced machine showed an outlier like discrepancy. I think it's safe to say its not in the upper 70s, and even they themselves doubt that result. My guess as to the cause (of the oddly high number) is the sensor's reading of the FFD, which in my opinion offsets the effects of input lag by providing higher motion resolution."

Thank you to:)

Hmmm my eyes are on the vt60
I will try it with a console. I am a console gamer. Play online to.
post #760 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by $$Buck-Naked$$ View Post

Sure it is that's why it's being investigated. Comparing a CRT monitor with the TV using a highspeed camera is IMO still the way for accurate testing. Seeing how processing isn't always the same, inputlag isn't always going to be the same.

That's the old way of testing, and is less accurate with more variance between numbers.
post #761 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSpectre88 View Post

Sorry, but It tested 74ms with the Leo Bodnar lag tester, which is accurate to the millisecond. I don't mean to be negative, but it's important to state all the facts, not downplay them. That's quite a bit of lag, and while it may be perfectly playable to some, it's definitely not going to feel as smooth to others. Experts say that 100ms is the lag threshold, but I say it's more like 80ms personally, that your inputs are still perceived as instant. However, while 80ms may still be "instant" for the most part, there's really no doubt that 40ms feels smoother and more responsive when it comes to twitch games.

I don't doubt it's the most accurate system out there (in terms of actual timing), but even the reviewers thought the difference between numbers were a bit odd. If the FFD is refreshing a cell at 2500 times a second to create the illusion of a static pixel, the Leo Bodnar could theoretically mis-register the constant flashing as a continuance of the older output.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JSpectre88 View Post

That's the old way of testing, and is less accurate with more variance between numbers.

Variance is fine, it's outliers people should be skeptical of. What we really need are comparisons of the two measurement systems across multiple plasmas with the same FFD rate.
post #762 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stump909 View Post

I don't doubt it's the most accurate system out there (in terms of actual timing), but even the reviewers thought the difference between numbers were a bit odd. If the FFD is refreshing a cell at 2500 times a second to create the illusion of a static pixel, the Leo Bodnar could theoretically mis-register the constant flashing as a continuance of the older output.
Variance is fine, it's outliers people should be skeptical of. What we really need are comparisons of the two measurement systems across multiple plasmas with the same FFD rate.

It doesn't really matter, 47-62ms (cloned timer) is still a poor result. The same site/reviewer measured 16ms (cloned timer) on the ST50's with presumably the same set up. This is up to almost 4x worse, the ST60 is an awful gaming display. The cumulative effect is what kills you.
post #763 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stump909 View Post

Possibly, but only marginally. While I understand the input lag concern, I do believe it's thrown way out of proportion. I'll just copy and paste what I submitted in another thread:

"Honestly, I think you may be overreacting. As a gamer myself, I understand the concern when it comes to input lag. What you may not realize is how common input lag is across other components. Do you use a wireless controller? Input lag. Are you going through a receiver? More input lag. Have to go thorugh the XBL or PSN service? Network lag. Do you think the millions of user on XBL or PSN even know what input lag is? They have an equal disadvantage, so the playing field evens out. The only numbers we have to go on right now are from HDTV Test. They only tested the UK model, which will inevitably be a little different than the US model, but it should give us a general idea. They were measuring 47-60ms (perfectly acceptable), while their advanced machine showed an outlier like discrepancy. I think it's safe to say its not in the upper 70s, and even they themselves doubt that result. My guess as to the cause (of the oddly high number) is the sensor's reading of the FFD, which in my opinion offsets the effects of input lag by providing higher motion resolution."

I don't see why every discussion of how much lag a display has needs to turn into a debate about whether or not it matters. Obviously the people who want to know think it matters, so why try to tell them otherwise? It'd be like me coming into this thread and saying to the majority of the posters, "does your quest for perfect color accuracy really matter, can you really tell in normal content?" It's not something I think about a lot, so to me it might seem a little obsessive, but that doesn't mean that the people concerned about it are wrong just because we have different perspectives.

As a PC gamer I definitely find the 2012 Panasonics to be a bit too laggy already, with the ~50ms they get in game mode being just tolerable. Anything more than that (ie, switching to custom) starts to produce obvious delays in camera motion that can really throw you off. I might agree that it's less of a concern for console gamers, who are already using a somewhat laggy and/or inaccurate control method (analog sticks), but I honestly can't judge since I don't really play any console games aside from the occasional single player exclusive (RDR or whatever).

Now, to the specific points you mention, the problem with your logic is that it isn't a question of "this lag or that lag," it's a matter of additive lag. If console components really are as laggy as you say (they might be; at the very least almost all of them use wireless controllers), then that gives console players even more reason to know about their display lag. If we say that a PS3 has 70ms of latency of its own (totally made up number) and the display has another 70, that brings us to 140 ms of input lag. 140 is well above the threshold where even the casual player will wonder why their controls are so unresponsive. Your statement about an even playing field might be more or less accurate for consoles, but I think a lot of people just don't enjoy playing a game with high latency controls regardless of the competitive aspect.

The PC has a similar potential situation. While very few PC gamers would use wireless mice or other particularly high latency components, they might use triple-buffered vsync. This introduces a good bit of input lag on its own, and using it with a display with high latency will bring you into that same range of really obviously unresponsive controls. And with a PC you're often using audio straight out of the system (to headphones or straight to speakers) instead of passed through the display, so you'll start to get audio/video desync that makes it clear just how high the display latency is.

The network latency bit is not applicable here. Any game built in the past decade and a half by a competent developer will use the same type of client-side prediction originally developed for the unofficial "QuakeWorld" client for Quake (this is what the original Team Fortress was played on). Basically, the client makes some assumptions in order to allow the player to have lag-free control of their player object. Latency comes into play during hit detection, but not during the motion of your player object on your client (ie, a player with 50ms of latency to the server does not experience 50ms of mouse lag when moving their camera, but might get a 50+ms delay in being informed they've been hit by another player).

I can't speak about the specific numbers from the early tests of the ST60, but I don't see why every attempt to discuss it needs to turn into this debate. Some of us want to know the numbers. Obviously there need to be way more tests done to get accurate results, but a 74ms result from that lag testing device isn't a good start considering the 2012 models consistently got about 48ms every time they were tested (and the 2012 Samsungs got about 36ms with the same device). A lot of us were hoping for an improvement (I wasn't realistically expecting better than Samsung's 2012 ~37ms considering how much motion processing needs to be done, but I definitely wasn't expecting an increase), so 74 looks terrible compared to our expectations.

I'm aware that most of the participants of this thread probably don't care about any of that, so I apologize for being so long-winded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orta 
It doesn't really matter, 47-62ms (cloned timer) is still a poor result. The same site/reviewer measured 16ms (cloned timer) on the ST50's with presumably the same set up. This is up to almost 4x worse, the ST60 is an awful gaming display. The cumulative effect is what kills you.

The ST50 did not get 16ms, that test was way off. It's about 48ms itself in literally every other test ever done on it (in game mode). I can test it well enough with the limited equipment I have to see that it has a 3 frame delay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSpectre88 
Experts say that 100ms is the lag threshold
That's largely regarded as the threshold for "obvious" lag, ie the point at which basically anyone will notice latency without being told to look for it. It's definitely possible to detect input lag below that point, but the casual user won't notice it if they aren't thinking about it.
Edited by headlesschickens - 4/2/13 at 11:47am
post #764 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by headlesschickens View Post

The ST50 did not get 16ms, that test was way off. It's about 48ms itself in literally every other test ever done on it (in game mode). I can test it well enough with the limited equipment I have to see that it has a 3 frame delay.

Yea I'm well aware, was just using it as a frame of reference as he seemed to be caught up on the cloned timer Vs. lag tester.
post #765 of 12340
Just started my 100 hours of prep panels.. C'mon Saturday afternoon!
post #766 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSpectre88 View Post

That's the old way of testing, and is less accurate with more variance between numbers.

Load of the processing can switch from light to heavy duty so inputlag will switch from low to high accordingly and thus will never be the same. Any program saying something different just isn't accurate.
post #767 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orta View Post

Yea I'm well aware, was just using it as a frame of reference as he seemed to be caught up on the cloned timer Vs. lag tester.

Ah, yeah, sorry.

I do agree that both tests are potentially inaccurate. The lag testing device might be thrown off by plasma refresh, that could be possible. But even if that were the case, I'd expect it to be consistently wrong between incremental generations. It got ~37ms for every single 2012 Samsung, 47ms for every 2012 Panasonic. That's fairly consistent. I'd expect that if the drive in the 2013 ST60 had been significantly altered it would be a big marketing deal already, so my assumption is that it's largely the same as the 2012 models and should be giving at least consistent numbers, whether they're correct or not.

The cloned timer method should be relatively accurate given the method they claimed to be using (an HDMI splitter instead of actually using an OS-level desktop clone), but I can still see a lot of potential issues created by how frame refreshes are handled. I mean, to begin with there's an assumption of 0 latency on one of the displays which isn't necessarily true. What's their other display? Because even most fast modern LCDs will keep a full frame in the buffer, meaning 16ms of latency at 60hz. I don't know of many CRTs that take HDMI, but even then many CRTs were not zero latency. So a measurement of 47ms-62ms in this test might actually translate into 63-78, which would be consistent with the other test. Without knowing more about their testing procedure it's hard to make a conclusion. I do know that they were originally rating the 2012 Panasonics in the 30-something range last year, which would fit with my theory.

It's disappointing either way, because at the absolute best it's the same as 2012. At worst it's 20ms higher. I hate to even say the words, "I wonder how the Samsung will do this year," but I'm saying it.
post #768 of 12340
Does the ST60 have IP control by any chance?
post #769 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stump909 View Post

No, but do you realize how pathetic single-sentence demands sound? You could a formulated a question with a reason, but you went with the bratty child approach. This thread has been flooded with requests towards calibrators and owners, and they always seem to be from people who have no idea what they're talking about or looking for. Why would you tell a calibrator (whose sole job is to adjust the picture to industry standards) to do an evaluation based solely around your outrageous torch mode needs? He's willing to provide us the details of his evaluation free of charge, but clearly you deserve more.

Who would want a calibration in torch mode? I thought the request was an attempt at humor. No? Changing the subject a bit, is there ever any technical reason to get a TV calibrated in torch mode?
post #770 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by headlesschickens View Post

Ah, yeah, sorry.

I do agree that both tests are potentially inaccurate. The lag testing device might be thrown off by plasma refresh, that could be possible. But even if that were the case, I'd expect it to be consistently wrong between incremental generations. It got ~37ms for every single 2012 Samsung, 47ms for every 2012 Panasonic. That's fairly consistent. I'd expect that if the drive in the 2013 ST60 had been significantly altered it would be a big marketing deal already, so my assumption is that it's largely the same as the 2012 models and should be giving at least consistent numbers, whether they're correct or not.

The cloned timer method should be relatively accurate given the method they claimed to be using (an HDMI splitter instead of actually using an OS-level desktop clone), but I can still see a lot of potential issues created by how frame refreshes are handled. I mean, to begin with there's an assumption of 0 latency on one of the displays which isn't necessarily true. What's their other display? Because even most fast modern LCDs will keep a full frame in the buffer, meaning 16ms of latency at 60hz. I don't know of many CRTs that take HDMI, but even then many CRTs were not zero latency. So a measurement of 47ms-62ms in this test might actually translate into 63-78, which would be consistent with the other test. Without knowing more about their testing procedure it's hard to make a conclusion. I do know that they were originally rating the 2012 Panasonics in the 30-something range last year, which would fit with my theory.

It's disappointing either way, because at the absolute best it's the same as 2012. At worst it's 20ms higher. I hate to even say the words, "I wonder how the Samsung will do this year," but I'm saying it.

You guys seem to have missed the point of my remarks. I dislike input lag just as much as the next person, but I'm realistic in my expectations. I wasn't trying to start a "it matter/doesn't matter" debate. When I see an outlier as large as 30ms greater than another other test, it does make me curious as to what could be the cause (besides the display being slower, which it very well could be). For instance when comparing the ST50 to the ST60, we fail to take into account the fact their FFD differ by 25%. Possibly the lag tester syncs better with one refresh rate over another. There's also the fact it was the EU model being reviewed, which we know is not 100% the same as the US model. Firmware is also first generation. We really need more conclusive numbers to figure out what the actual delay of the display is. Honestly for gaming, we might be better off the with Guitar Hero test tongue.gif. The only reason I brought up the concept of additive lag is because some people are not aware there are other adjustments they can make to decrease the delay.
post #771 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blind Broccoli View Post

Who would want a calibration in torch mode? I thought the request was an attempt at humor. No? Changing the subject a bit, is there ever any technical reason to get a TV calibrated in torch mode?

3D during day time viewing would be my best guess.
post #772 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by dimitrios007 View Post

Thanks smile.gif

Anytime, you're welcome. Just don't hold me too that. Hardware wise, it makes sense, but it all depends on how the software allocates the processing power to take advantage of the increase in horsepower. wink.gif

Make sure you're using a wired controller when gaming as well if you're counting milliseconds. Wireless controllers have input lag. Also, get a gaming router and use a wired Ethernet connection. If you're on a gaming PC, then a Killer gaming NIC would also help.

You're only as fast as the slowest link.
Edited by Mr. Hatcher - 4/2/13 at 1:16pm
post #773 of 12340
I for one appreciate the Lag discussion, especially this week as I am trying whittle down my plasma search.

Based on this article my options change.

I am not willing to explore a more expensive pdp than the st60's and I was kind of wanting to stay around 55" or larger. So I can look into whether the s60 & S64 will do better. Or maybe look at a 2012 set (but I have no idea if they are still available, so I hope to find the best answers quickly). Or I can take the xbox away from the home theater, and continue shopping without worrying about lag, but I don't think that is the route I want to go this time around.

So when would more tests of lag become available and who does these tests?

The article in discussion, again, is here: http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/panasonic-tx-p42st60-201303312779.htm?page=Performance

And he compared a 42" st60 in the article to a 50st50 which he deemed "buttery-smooth". For easy reference here is the text from his Console Section of the review:

"Console Gaming
There had to be some bad news, right? Here it is: although gaming is still enjoyable on the ST60, its input lag is higher than the outgoing ST50. The fastest configuration is to enable the “Game Mode” and make sure that “1080p Pixel Direct” is disabled. Under this configuration – which is the fastest we could squeeze out of the ST60 – we clocked the TXP42ST60B in as lagging by anywhere between 47ms and 62ms, using the high-speed camera measurement method. Enlisting the more concrete services of the Leo Bodnar Lag Tester, the measurement came out as 74.5ms (it also clocks our old ST50 in at about 47ms, the large discrepancy between this result and our camera method being something we have some theories about, but are still investigating).

As you can see, measuring input lag is not always an exact process, so to get a better understanding, we played some first-person shooter (FPS) games through an HDMI splitter, simultaneously feeding our old 50ST50 as well as the new P42ST60 (by the way, we checked to the best of our ability to guarantee that the HDMI splitter wasn’t adding its own lag, and didn’t feel that it was adding any). The take-home message should be this: this year’s ST is definitely slower for gamers, although exactly how much is difficult to determine.

We tried everything we could to reduce the TX-P42ST60′s lag, including cycling through picture modes, enabling/disabling “1080p Pixel Direct”, changing the “HDMI Content Type” mode… but 47ms was the lowest number we could get. This by no means makes games unplayable, but the buttery-smooth, blink and you’ll miss it responsiveness of the ST50 is not here. We just hope that the step-up series – the GT60, VT60/VT65, and ZT60/ZT65 – can improve on this… although it’d be the first time a higher-end model was had less lag than the mid-ranger so we’re not hugely hopeful. Still, those higher-up models do feature the new Hexa-Core processor… so perhaps the ST60′s slightly decreased gaming responsiveness will be a one-off.

If you’re using a PC with the TX-P42ST60B, you can get full 4:4:4 chroma by using the [1080p Pixel Direct] mode, which on its own will result in large edge halos. These can be defeated by setting the “HDMI Content Type” for that input to “Photo”, although this may have an impact on colour accuracy with some content (it appears to make no difference for RGB content from computers, but changes colour decoding with YCbCr video, like what is commonly output by set-top boxes and disc players)
."


Now I am not trying to clog up the thread. But I know there were a couple things in there that were not remembered correctly when discussed and just thought I would put it here like this so it was clear what models he used while testing.

I really do appreciate everyone's help now and in the future, thank you.
Edited by mphfrom77 - 4/2/13 at 1:25pm
post #774 of 12340
is the Price BestBuy has the 50" listed for the normal price or are they running some special?
post #775 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSpectre88 View Post

Sorry, but It tested 74ms with the Leo Bodnar lag tester, which is accurate to the millisecond. I don't mean to be negative, but it's important to state all the facts, not downplay them. That's quite a bit of lag, and while it may be perfectly playable to some, it's definitely not going to feel as smooth to others. Experts say that 100ms is the lag threshold, but I say it's more like 80ms personally, that your inputs are still perceived as instant. However, while 80ms may still be "instant" for the most part, there's really no doubt that 40ms feels smoother and more responsive when it comes to twitch games.

Make sure you're using a wired controller when gaming as well if you're counting milliseconds. Wireless controllers have input lag. Also, get a gaming router and use a wired Ethernet connection. If you're on a gaming PC, then a Killer gaming NIC would also help.

You're only as fast as the slowest link. smile.gif
post #776 of 12340
why can you?
post #777 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bond 007 View Post

Because I can.

really ? why is that?
post #778 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hatcher View Post

Make sure you're using a wired controller when gaming as well if you're counting milliseconds. Wireless controllers have input lag. Also, get a gaming router and use a wired Ethernet connection. If you're on a gaming PC, then a Killer gaming NIC would also help.

You're only as fast as the slowest link. smile.gif

Wireless controllers have virtually no input lag, tests done between them found no detectable lag. I use wired controllers anyway though, but that's so I can use them with the PC easily. I'm not even concerned with input lag honestly, just stating the facts. I have terrible TWC high speed internet and average between 80-90 ping in any of the games I play, so having minimal input lag doesn't do much for me. lol
Edited by JSpectre88 - 4/2/13 at 1:37pm
post #779 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by skoor View Post

Wow! If this hold true across the VT 50/60, Panasonic must have been busy tweaking these sets a lot more then a insider thread had indicated.by mostly the same panels as 2012 with some changes. And have to go look at the specs, but I don't think the ST has the Hexa processing engine either.
Not sure about the VT60, but the ST series in particular has seen a pretty nice jump for the simple fact that it now includes 10pt white balance controls, a (limited) color management system and 96Hz mode. What this translates to is that the ST60 can achieve a better calibration, and can handle 24p content better. It also appears to have better black levels. I'm curious if there are any other improvements, such as dither and video processing. Makes me wish I waited a year for the ST60, but I needed a new TV last year. Still very happy with my ST50 though.

The VT60 also obviously has some additions over the VT50, but we'll have to wait and see if they actually make a noticeable difference.
Edited by rahzel - 4/2/13 at 3:09pm
post #780 of 12340
Quote:
Originally Posted by $$Buck-Naked$$ View Post

Load of the processing can switch from light to heavy duty so inputlag will switch from low to high accordingly and thus will never be the same. Any program saying something different just isn't accurate.

It will never change, the input lag of the display remains completely constant.

Other factors can add to your total input latency, but that's a separate issue entirely.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Plasma Flat Panel Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › Plasma Flat Panel Displays › Official Panasonic TC-PxxST60 Series thread