AVS Forum banner

21 - 40 of 48 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisherbert /forum/post/0


The issue is not the craftsmanship, it's the manufacturer's method of measuring response time. Since it varies from company to company, listed response times are of very limited usefulness.

Let me put it to you so you'll understand, since I think we're on the same page and you're just nitpicking: if the craftsmanship of one TV is better than another, and that TV is rated at 8 ms whereas the other is rated at 5 ms, the first TV could very well produce smoother, lag-free, un-blurry video compared to the latter even though the other set supposedly has a faster response time.


Is that ok with you or do you want to continue arguing over nothing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,850 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by GamerGirl /forum/post/0


Let me put it to you so you'll understand, since I think we're on the same page and you're just nitpicking: if the craftsmanship of one TV is better than another, and that TV is rated at 8 ms whereas the other is rated at 5 ms, the first TV could very well produce smoother, lag-free, un-blurry video compared to the latter even though the other set supposedly has a faster response time.


Is that ok with you or do you want to continue arguing over nothing?

No, I'm not really nitpicking, I'm saying that the "rated" response times have almost no meaning. The premium brands might be more conservative or honest in their ratings than second-tier manifacturers, but that doesn't have anything to do with the build quality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisherbert /forum/post/0


No, I'm not really nitpicking, I'm saying that the "rated" response times have almost no meaning. The premium brands might be more conservative or honest in their ratings than second-tier manifacturers, but that doesn't have anything to do with the build quality.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
I'm a bit confused here as to how low response time needs to go for 60 fps (console) gaming. 1 frame is roughly equal to 16 ms and many LCD TVs have 16 ms pixel response time, but there is still small amounts motion blurring from time to time, which leads me to believe that 60 hz is refreshing just slightly faster than the pixel response time. Would going to a display with a 12 ms response time just fix that problem entirely, or is it not quite that simple?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,850 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by RyokoYaksa /forum/post/0


I'm a bit confused here as to how low response time needs to go for 60 fps (console) gaming. 1 frame is roughly equal to 16 ms and many LCD TVs have 16 ms pixel response time, but there is still small amounts motion blurring from time to time, which leads me to believe that 60 hz is refreshing just slightly faster than the pixel response time. Would going to a display with a 12 ms response time just fix that problem entirely, or is it not quite that simple?

Refresh rate and response time don't really have any connection.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisherbert /forum/post/0


No, I'm not really nitpicking, I'm saying that the "rated" response times have almost no meaning. The premium brands might be more conservative or honest in their ratings than second-tier manifacturers, but that doesn't have anything to do with the build quality.

Makes perfect sense to me. I agree with that as I have heard it many times on multiple sites that do LCD reviews and such.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GamerGirl /forum/post/0


You don't agree with his statement?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ub3r-L33ch /forum/post/0


Makes perfect sense to me. I agree with that as I have heard it many times on multiple sites that do LCD reviews and such.




You don't agree with his statement?

It has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with his statement. I'm irritated because the thread starter asked people's *OPINIONS* on if he'd notice a difference between sets with different response times, and other people before me posted *OPINIONS* of their LCD and included the response time of their set. But when I posted the exact same thing, this guy singles out my post for some reason and proceeds to talk about response times not being an accurate, consistent measurement since manufacturers use different methods to determine it. First off, why did he single out my post and not mention it earlier when someone else posted their experiences? Second, his comment should be directed at the thread starter.


And I still stand by my comments, which the guy seemed to agree with, that on average, the 8 ms-rated sets from *higher-tier* manufacturers will perform better than 8 ms-rated sets from low-tier manufacturers. It doesn't matter if they all use different methods to arrive at that figure. The point is, USUALLY, you get what you pay for.


Or are you people really going to argue that a $499 set from Insignia, rated at 8 ms (again, how Insignia arrived at that figure is IRRELEVANT for the purpose of comparison), is going to perform better than a $899 set from LG or Panasonic? I think most AVSers would agree with me that the LG and Panasonic would perform better the majority of the time.


I really hope you get my point this time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,850 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by GamerGirl /forum/post/0


And I still stand by my comments, which the guy seemed to agree with, that on average, the 8 ms-rated sets from *higher-tier* manufacturers will perform better than 8 ms-rated sets from low-tier manufacturers. It doesn't matter if they all use different methods to arrive at that figure. The point is, USUALLY, you get what you pay for.

That's definitely true.


Here's what I'm saying -- don't pay any attention to the published response time. Read reviews, buy premium brands, and/or check out the sets for yourself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by chrisherbert /forum/post/0


That's definitely true.


Here's what I'm saying -- don't pay any attention to the published response time. Read reviews, buy premium brands, and/or check out the sets for yourself.

Yep, totally agree. See we're really on the same page.
I know the response time issue can be unreliable since an independent body isn't doing the measuring and there isn't a real standard, but your last comment is the best advice -- everyone should look and see for themselves and if the performance is good, with no blurring, ghosting, etc., it doesn't matter if the set's a Sharp, an iLo, or a Vizio. All that matters is that the viewer is happy. But in general, there's a good chance the Sharp or Vizio will exhibit better PQ than the iLo.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,406 Posts
GamerGirl. I totally understand what you are saying. However, Sharp considered a top tier manufacturer and rates their sets at 4ms with 120hz processing still produces more blur then an 8ms Samsung. So, I would not always trust a big brand name either. BTW, are you hot?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
145 Posts
Actually this is probably reasonably good way to do it. By "scientific" I think you mean that it's not a controlled experiment. You could have a couple of other people perform the calibration too and that would add some extra datapoints that would allow a better derivation of the response times. Now you could start collecting data from other users on other models and create a database of these, the more you had the more accurate the results. It might keep the manufacturers a little more honest. Although the marketeers don't play the honest card.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
Since most games run 30 frames a second, wouldn't you WANT a bit of motion blur? Gears sure looks good on the Samsung DLP in the living room, and I'm sure it has blurring going on there somewhere with that old DLP. I think some blur adds to the visuals, personally. Now, if you've got a game running 60 frames, you don't want any blur, I know this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
275 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordHines /forum/post/0


Since most games run 30 frames a second, wouldn't you WANT a bit of motion blur? Gears sure looks good on the Samsung DLP in the living room, and I'm sure it has blurring going on there somewhere with that old DLP. I think some blur adds to the visuals, personally. Now, if you've got a game running 60 frames, you don't want any blur, I know this.

You're confusing the director/video game creator's intent with a video artifact. Has nothing to do with 30 fps vs. 60 fps. For example, racing games like Full Auto often use a motion blur effect when cars are moving super-fast. You want the display to show this. It's an intentional visual effect on the part of the game designers.


On the other hand, if you see blurring/smearing while flying a plane in Crimson Skies, that's a problem. If it gets to the point that you can't track your plane properly and the image is distorted, it's affecting the gameplay. And that's not what should be happening.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
i believe it depends on how sharp your eyes are. your average person probably wouldn't notice the difference between a 5 ms and 8 ms response time. my lcd tv is an 8 ms response time and i don't notice any blurring whatsoever (when using my xbox 360). my lcd monitor connected to my desktop is 5 ms and i don't really notice any blurring on that either (when playing pc games at maximum resolution).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
Most console games of recent generations run at 60hz. Higher framerates on the computer are possible, but console ports of a game need to be coded to have refresh rates compatible with that of TVs. Like... give examples here of what games run at 30 fps. Most every NTSC console from now and the previous gen runs games at 60hz.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
35 Posts
LCD's I believe are the fastest evolving TV's of the different variety of HDTV types on the market. Im not saying every year they improve drastically over last year's model but they are improving with each year and getting better.


Response times will get lower as there are more then a few 2ms PC LCD's on the market as we speak so HDTV LCD's are not far behind those. Sharp has always had the lowest response times of the well known manufacturer's and have been one of the pioneer's of LCD technology. Me, personally I would look at Sharp when wanting to purchase a LCD HDTV first before any other brand.


And im not sure if this means much to anyone here as it does me but Sharp is one of the only Japanese manufacturers left where most of there products are still made in Japan. For instance the latest XBR's from Sony particularly the 32" XBR2 and now the XBR4 of the same size are made in Mexico which is why they are much cheaper then the original XBR1 of that same TV which was made in Japan and retailed much higher then its successors.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
172 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by LordHines /forum/post/0


Heheheheheh no.

Every game on my Xbox360 outputs a 720P 60FPS signal. (Some games will stumble below generating the 60 FPS, but the video signal itself still sticks to 60 FPS) If your "most games" is only old stuff, then I could see your point, but most people buy current games.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keen /forum/post/0


Every game on my Xbox360 outputs a 720P 60FPS signal. (Some games will stumble below generating the 60 FPS, but the video signal itself still sticks to 60 FPS) If your "most games" is only old stuff, then I could see your point, but most people buy current games.


Perhaps I can fill you in:


Our TVs run at 60 hertz. Our consoles output 60 hertz. 90% of all known videogames (including those on my 360) run at 30 frames a second. What is it exactly that you do not comprehend?
 
21 - 40 of 48 Posts
Top