Which Monitor for Gaming?

[therock003]

I want to purchase a monitor so i can play games from the last generation Consoles (mostly PS3) and watch video files (mostly standard Def).

The 3 best LCD-LED i have in mind are Philips PFL469704 Samsung UE46B8000 and Sony Bravia KDLZ5500.

Mostly i'm interested for the first 2 since they're supposedly better than the Sony model, but i'm concerned that some say that it communicates better with the plyastation 3 being both products from sony that is.

MY Question is how can i decide which one is best, so i can be the most satisfied wtih my Decision?

My Criteria.

I dont care for 3rd party addons such us native mp3 and jpg and avi playback, or usb and ethernert ports, card slots, onboard dvd and bluray roms, internet, sound quality of speakers, a million hdmi ports and other crappy stuff like these.

All i care is the the video quality is as good as it gets, clear picture, noise being masked and filtered as best as it can, dark black and local dimming, and nice upscaling capabilities since i will be running standard def as i lack in my hd video collection.

Also 200Hz and frequency multiplier technologies would be nice, since games should alternate frames pretty fast!

That's all of my requirements at this point. Could you plez help make my decision?

[rallynavvie]

I don't think anything other than maybe a computer can take advantage of anything higher than 60 Hz so those fast refresh rates the advertise are mostly just marketing gimmick. I'm also unsure what you mean by "noise" in the picture if you're coming from a digital source. Are you using analog cable or a VCR with this TV? A digital source on an HDMI cable is either going to have a great picture or none at all (except sometimes on digital OTA that falls somewhere in between).

[jagabo]

All i care is the the video quality is as good as it gets, clear picture, noise being masked and filtered as best as it can,

Wouldn't you rather see the picture the way it is supposed to be seen? The TV/monitor's job is to display the image it's given -- as exactly as possible.

dark black and local dimming,

In exchange you'll get halos around bright objects on dark backgrounds. Every serious review of HDTVs with LCD backlights suggests you turn off this feature.

and nice upscaling capabilities since i will be running standard def as i lack in my hd video collection.

The upscaling will be done by the PS3.

Also 200Hz and frequency multiplier technologies would be nice, since games should alternate frames pretty fast!

The multiplier happens inside the monitor/TV. The connection between the PS3 and monitor remains the same old 50 Hz. The TV can generate motion compensated in-between frames but often makes mistakes. Again, almost every serious review of HDTVs recommends you disable this feature too.

[therock003]

Wouldn't you rather see the picture the way it is supposed to be seen? The TV/monitor's job is to display the image it's given -- as exactly as possible.

If that were the case then i would be happy with my pc monitor when viewing video files but obviously i'm not. And this is easily understood since when you play back stadard definition files 624x380 on a fullhd monitor, if you expect to see the image unaltered then you're in for a treat arent you?

In exchange you'll get halos around bright objects on dark backgrounds. Every serious review of HDTVs with LCD backlights suggests you turn off this feature.

I honestly thought that Local Dimming is supposed to be the new feature everyone is looking out for. I'm reading reviews from the magazine sound and vision, and the first feature the comment on nowadays is this. If the LCD Displays offers it it gets a plus otherwise it is regarded as a negative if it's absent...

and nice upscaling capabilities since i will be running standard def as i lack in my hd video collection.

The upscaling will be done by the PS3.

Yes as far as the games are concerned which this is not the case here. I was refferng to the standard definition video files which I willl be streaming files though from my pc so the monitor will have the need to scale them from their origintal resolution to the native supported from the screen (FullHD)

Also 200Hz and frequency multiplier technologies would be nice, since games should alternate frames pretty fast!

The multiplier happens inside the monitor/TV. The connection between the PS3 and monitor remains the same old 50 Hz. The TV can generate motion compensated in-between frames but often makes mistakes. Again, almost every serious review of HDTVs recommends you disable this feature too.

I thought 100Hz and 200Hz is also something to llok out for. I dont know if this is a marketing scheme as well, but i hear mentions in various sourced that the monitors i have mentioned use smart algortihms and procedures to account for the missing frames with very respectfull results.

[edDV]

The goal of local dimming is to dynamically increase contrast (push blacks) but it generates artifacts and would be useless for games. If you want great blacks get a plasma.

100/200 Hz. is a method to reduce classic PAL 50 hz flicker. 50Hz (fields or 720p/576p frames) come in and are repeated or interpolated 2x or 4x. Goal is flicker reduction and/or smoother motion. Again artifacts result.

[MOVIEGEEK]

Get a HDTV(preferably plasma) that has a VGA port and game mode, all of the other features are useless for gaming.

[aedipuss]

Get a HDTV(preferably plasma) that has a VGA port and game mode, all of the other features are useless for gaming.

why would you want a vga port for a ps3/xbox360/wii? that's the type of gaming mentioned.

[therock003]

The goal of local dimming is to dynamically increase contrast (push blacks) but it generates artifacts and would be useless for games. If you want great blacks get a plasma.

100/200 Hz. is a method to reduce classic PAL 50 hz flicker. 50Hz (fields or 720p/576p frames) come in and are repeated or interpolated 2x or 4x. Goal is flicker reduction and/or smoother motion. Again artifacts result.

I see, so local dimming is something i should not care about in games, and should have disabled as an option. But i suppose it should be great for movies, especially the darker ones, since SD compressed movie files have lots of noise and artifacts on the dark segments of the movies. And that's something that concerns me.

As for the Hz segment, could you give me an example of where it should be applied? I am aware that when watching sports and racing the added Hertz should be beneficial, but is it true that when watching movies or playing video games, that 100-200Hz technology doesnt offer improvements?

Get a HDTV(preferably plasma) that has a VGA port and game mode, all of the other features are useless for gaming.

why would you want a vga port for a ps3/xbox360/wii? that's the type of gaming mentioned.

Exactly, console Gaming is what i'm refering to, since i got PC gaming covered, by using a 30 inch 2560x1600 Samsung Monitor.

[rallynavvie]

I was refferng to the standard definition video files which I willl be streaming files though from my pc so the monitor will have the need to scale them from their origintal resolution to the native supported from the screen (FullHD)

If you are streaming them from your PC then you should have the PC resampling the video to the TV's native resolution.

[edDV]

The goal of local dimming is to dynamically increase contrast (push blacks) but it generates artifacts and would be useless for games. If you want great blacks get a plasma.

100/200 Hz. is a method to reduce classic PAL 50 hz flicker. 50Hz (fields or 720p/576p frames) come in and are repeated or interpolated 2x or 4x. Goal is flicker reduction and/or smoother motion. Again artifacts result.

I see, so local dimming is something i should not care about in games, and should have disabled as an option. But i suppose it should be great for movies, especially the darker ones, since SD compressed movie files have lots of noise and artifacts on the dark segments of the movies. And that's something that concerns me.

As for the Hz segment, could you give me an example of where it should be applied? I am aware that when watching sports and racing the added Hertz should be beneficial, but is it true that when watching movies or playing video games, that 100-200Hz technology doesn't offer improvements?

A plasma has best natural contrast and deep blacks but needs a darkened room. An LCD uses tricks to extend contrast but produces a brighter image for bright rooms.

100/200Hz SDTV source...
50Hz fields are deinterlaced to 50 frames per second, then frame doubled or interpolated to 100Hz or quadrupled to 200Hz.

100/200Hz TV HD sports
1080i/50Hz fields are deinterlaced to 50 frames per second, then frame doubled or interpolated to 100Hz or quadrupled to 200Hz. Interpolation of missing frames tends to smooth motion.

720p 50 fps gets frame repeated or interpolated to 100 or 200 frames per second.

24p movies get sped up to 25p, then frame repeated or interpolated 4x to 100 Hz, or 8x to 200Hz.

[jagabo]

I honestly thought that Local Dimming is supposed to be the new feature everyone is looking out for.

It's a feature manufacturers want you to look out for since it only comes on more expensive LED backlit displays. It creates halos at sharp, high contrast edges (there's only about one LED for every 100 pixels) that are more objectionable than simply having a slightly non-black black level.

I was refferng to the standard definition video files which I willl be streaming files though from my pc so the monitor will have the need to scale them from their origintal resolution to the native supported from the screen (FullHD)

Unless your TV/monitor has a built in media player your computer (graphics card) will be doing the scaling, not the TV.

I thought 100Hz and 200Hz is also something to llok out for. I dont know if this is a marketing scheme as well, but i hear mentions in various sourced that the monitors i have mentioned use smart algortihms and procedures to account for the missing frames with very respectfull results.

Aside from the fact that many film aficionados don't like the overly smooth motion that results, the synthesized in-between frames are not perfect. They contain obvious artifacts (like multiple balls in a soccer game, warped backgrounds around moving objects, etc.). Most serious reviews I've read recommend you disable the feature.


The solution is to go see the TV/monitor in person. Somewhere where they'll let you play with the device's settings. Bring some test material along with you.

[therock003]

Unless your TV/monitor has a built in media player your computer (graphics card) will be doing the scaling, not the TV.

The newer ones have playback capabilities ethernet ports and dlna with faroudja scalers whether you want it or not.

Even though if you use it as an external secondary monitor, should you set the reoslution to the nearest neighbour of the video file, ie 640x372 via the windows monitor properties, then i suppose the monitors internal scaler should take over and upconvert it right?

Aside from the fact that many film aficionados don't like the overly smooth motion that results, the synthesized in-between frames are not perfect. They contain obvious artifacts (like multiple balls in a soccer game, warped backgrounds around moving objects, etc.). Most serious reviews I've read recommend you disable the feature.

If there are noticeable issues then why invent this technology at all? Supposedly every new thing comes out as a solution to something. IF 100 and 200Hz doesnt offer solution to any problems then why have it and pay more so that we have this feature disabled?

The solution is to go see the TV/monitor in person. Somewhere where they'll let you play with the device's settings. Bring some test material along with you.

MAterials such as? Movie files inside usb sticks? I really hope i could test my ps3 gaming console, but i wonder if any salesman will let you do this! [/code]

[edDV]

Aside from the fact that many film aficionados don't like the overly smooth motion that results, the synthesized in-between frames are not perfect. They contain obvious artifacts (like multiple balls in a soccer game, warped backgrounds around moving objects, etc.). Most serious reviews I've read recommend you disable the feature.

If there are noticeable issues then why invent this technology at all? Supposedly every new thing comes out as a solution to something. IF 100 and 200Hz doesnt offer solution to any problems then why have it and pay more so that we have this feature disabled?

In 50 Hz areas, 100 Hz frame repeats reduce flicker. This technology started with analog TV sets.

100/200 Hz frame interpolation creates full frames that don't exist coincident with and between the existing fields (50 fields per second). This creates the illusion of smooth motion but for some types of video, artifacts are created. You either like it or you don't.

In 59.94 Hz. areas this technology (120/240/600 Hz.) also solves the 3/2 film judder issue that exists on all 59.94 Hz. TV sets.

[jagabo]

In 50 Hz areas, 100 Hz frame repeats reduce flicker. This technology started with analog TV sets.

LCD's don't flicker. The picture stays on until the LCD cells are changed. The 100 and 200 Hz refresh rates without motion interpolation are an attempt to reduce motion blur.

If there are noticeable issues then why invent this technology at all? Supposedly every new thing comes out as a solution to something. IF 100 and 200Hz doesnt offer solution to any problems then why have it and pay more so that we have this feature disabled?

It's partly a marketing issue. High end sets need to have something new to get you to pay more for them. The motion interpolation can work well for some material -- panning shots especially. Here's an old post with a 24 fps panning shot:

https://forum.videohelp.com/topic367641-30.html#1964709

and a motion interpolated version (done with AviSynth):

https://forum.videohelp.com/topic367641-60.html#1965436

Notice how the first one is jerky (the jerks are so fast many people will say it flickers) and the second one is very smooth (you'll need a 60 Hz display to see it at its smoothest). But watch the guys right hand as it moves back and forth you'll see obvious distortions. Watch the straight lines in the door jam as he moves in front of them. See how they warp (especially obvious if you watch frame by frame)?

[edDV]

In 50 Hz areas, 100 Hz frame repeats reduce flicker. This technology started with analog TV sets.

LCD's don't flicker. The picture stays on until the LCD cells are changed. The 100 and 200 Hz refresh rates without motion interpolation are an attempt to reduce motion blur.

Flicker does affect CRT and plasma displays. The original 100 Hz. PAL sets were analog CRT. The new Panasonic plasmas in the USA are now repeating or interpolating frames at a 600 Hz. rate (10x for 720p, 20x for 1080i, 25x for film source). The goal of these fast update rates is to depict smoother motion with less artifacting.

Panasonic explains 600Hz "Sub-field Drive" this way.

"600Hz technology lets you view superb full-HD motion and still images with 1,080 lines of resolution. For even greater clarity with motion images, Panasonic uses its own unique image-analysis technology. This technology converts the motion in each scene into data. And each frame is practically displayed for a shorter length of time than in previous systems, to reduce aftereffects."

[jagabo]

Panasonic explains 600Hz "Sub-field Drive" this way.

"600Hz technology lets you view superb full-HD motion and still images with 1,080 lines of resolution. For even greater clarity with motion images, Panasonic uses its own unique image-analysis technology. This technology converts the motion in each scene into data. And each frame is practically displayed for a shorter length of time than in previous systems, to reduce aftereffects."

Whatever that means!

[therock003]

I just went to an electronics store yesterday and tbh I couldn't really notice the difference and that saddens me. Even a low end budget LG didn't really look all that different.

How bad is this?

[edDV]

I just went to an electronics store yesterday and tbh I couldn't really notice the difference and that saddens me. Even a low end budget LG didn't really look all that different.

How bad is this?

State of the art.

Save your money. But if in Greece, avoid sinking currency. Buy a commodity (e.g. copper, gold, fertilizer).

[jagabo]

As edDV pointed out, the difference between middle and high end LCDs isn't huge now. Differences can be hard to see on the showroom floor:

Differences in black level aren't very visible under bright lights. The store may have a darkened theater room but it will only contain high end TVs.

Motion interpolation will be most obvious on high contrast, sharply focused, medium speed panning shots. If the motion is too slow differences don't show up. If the motions are too fast there is a lot of motion blur so the differences doesn't show up. And the difference is really only visible on film based material.

Most shops send a single feed to all the HDTVs. That feed is designed to make HDTVs look good. They won't contain problematic shots.

[yoda313]

If you want great blacks get a plasma.

'

Aren't plasmas a dying breed? I thought led was the new hottness for hdtv?

why would you want a vga port for a ps3/xbox360/wii? that's the type of gaming mentioned.

For a ps3 and WII it wouldn't matter since as far as I know there isn't a vga adapter for the ps3 or WII (in fact Wii is only 480P so high def is not a factor at all for the WII other than progressive via component). HOWEVER for a xbox 360 a vga adapter is viable. I use the hd vga cable for mine and it works great. Up until recently I only had a non hdmi xbox 360 so it was the best solution for me and better than component cables (to my eyes).

It allows me to get 1360x768 resolution which is closest to my 32" westinghouse's native resolution of 1366x768. That makes it sharp and clear. And it frees up the other ports for other connections.

I have since replaced my other xbox 360 with an hdmi xbox 360 (the rrod) but I haven't moved to the hdmi signal yet as I don't have enough free ports and don't want to buy a new hdmi switch yet.

[rallynavvie]

Aren't plasmas a dying breed? I thought led was the new hottness for hdtv?

Not if it's a Pioneer KURO

LEDs are great but high-end plasmas do still have the edge on them for color representation. However LED-LCDs are light, very thin, and use very little electricity so they are probably the better choice for most folks. But if you're putting together a really high-end home theater: KURO.

[edDV]

Pioneer has decided to exit the high end plasma market (Kuro=black in Japanese) but Panasonic is taking up the slack. Samsung and Vizio also are active in plasma. The latest plasmas are more power efficient partly due to new refresh technologies but nothing like LED backlit LCD displays.

Plasmas are for the purists. LCD tech is for the masses. LCD is brighter but has poor blacks and more image lag. Average Joe consumer thinks a bright screen equals better picture so has voted his wallet for LCD.

Nothing makes an image scream quaility like a deep non-artifected black.


PS: Downside of plasma is greater power consumption (including A/C heat load), reflective screens and tendency to image burn-in. Various anti-burn technolgies or recovery modes address the issue.

[therock003]

So are you saying that i should go for a PLASMA Screen for my gaming needs?

The Dark room setup is demanding though, habing to prepare the room whenever you need to view something. Tha'ts i am amongst the many that prefer the bright screens so that you can view comfortably even with the sun shooting million sun beams at the screen!

As for some possible Plasma solution i like this one

http://www.e-shop.gr/show_per.phtml?id=PER.157009

And a few of the Panasonic Vierra Products. the 42/46/50 G15E.

I really have a hard time getting this one right. Get LED or Plasma and which one?

Also it seems as though PS3 runs most games at 720p with only a few exceptions at 1080p.

So does it really matter if screen is FullHD? Will i get better results with 1366x768 screen?

[edDV]

I really have a hard time getting this one right. Get LED or Plasma and which one?

You need to research the pro con and make a decison for your needs.

Plasma has the best contrast and overall picture quality but has less total brightness. It also has best motion performance.

LCD is good in bright rooms but has to play tricks to get a good black. Also has more viewing angle issues for multiple viewers.

Also it seems as though PS3 runs most games at 720p with only a few exceptions at 1080p.

True. You would get 1080p for Blu-Ray or off air 1080i.

So does it really matter if screen is FullHD? Will i get better results with 1366x768 screen?

No not better but just about as good for 1280x720p games. 1920x1080 and 1366x768 displays both must upscale 1280x720p.

[therock003]

Plasma has the best contrast and overall picture quality but has less total brightness. It also has best motion performance.

Is this a bad thing? I only need brightness where it's needed. But i suppose that lack of brightness on critical points might make for an image not as vivid as it should be. Is this correct?

LCD is good in bright rooms but has to play tricks to get a good black. Also has more viewing angle issues for multiple viewers.

Are there any other advantages? Cause i can only see the bright room as an advantage. I am not aiming in multiple audinece viewing so that doesnt appeal to me. I can comprisie with plasma by positioning myself in order to get the optimal viewing angle.

What about other technologies?

Each manufactuer market its own and it gets to a point that becomes chaotic. Toshiba has this technology called Resolution+ where supposedly it converts sd resolution to hd like with smart algorithms. Then You have The Picture Perfect and Precise HD from Philips, o the Bravia Engine 2/2 Pro/3 from Sony and others like these. Should i care for any of these?

Besides gaming it's critical that an SD resolution can get upconverted on a hardware level to FullHD and for me not to be able to notice the noise and artifacts the way i now do on my PC Monitor.

No not better but just about as good for 1280x720p games. 1920x1080 and 1366x768 displays both must upscale 1280x720p.

Yes but doesnt the fact that 1366x768 is almost 720p account for anything?

[edDV]

Brightness and screen reflectivity matters if you are in a room with windows and direct sunlight.

Day viewing favors LCD.

LCD also is more economic in small screen sizes (under 42"). There are no small plasmas.

SD quality varies by manufactuer and model level in each manufactuer's line. It has nothing to do with plasma vs. LCD. Normally, the higher you go in a manuufacturer's product line, the better the SD performance.

Reviewers are poor evaluating SD quality so you need to do it yourself. Most do well with SD progressive DVD. You need to evaluate SD interlace content, such as sports or home camcorder material.

Quote: "Yes but doesnt the fact that 1366x768 is almost 720p account for anything?"

No. Could be better, could be worse. It depends on the scaler. Problem is there are fewer 1366x768 sets today and those that remain are the lowest price bargain models that use the cheapest parts. So that said, a 1080p display is more likely to use higher end scaling components.

[therock003]

SD quality varies by manufactuer and model level in each manufactuer's line. It has nothing to do with plasma vs. LCD. Normally, the higher you go in a manuufacturer's product line, the better the SD performance.

Reviewers are poor evaluating SD quality so you need to do it yourself. Most do well with SD progressive DVD. You need to evaluate SD interlace content, such as sports or home camcorder material.

I agree. so is there really a way to test upscaling on certain models before buying?

Another thing i am thinking is buying an external av receiver like onkyo or harman kardon and quit worrying about the tv's internal upscaling.

BTW my sources are hdtv-rips from tv shows that are noticeably worse in quality than SD DVDs.

[edDV]

AV receiver scalers aren't necessarily better than HDTV's scalers. They all need evaluation.

HDTV rips should look better than DVD. How are you "ripping"?

[jagabo]

The upscalers in A/V receivers don't get better than those in current HDTVs until you spend ~US$1000 or more on the receiver.

Your "worse than DVD" videos are going to look poor on anything.

[therock003]

I watched some ad material on a fiends lg and it wasn't that bad. I imagine that the more expensive models would do better. But how can I make certain of that?

As for avr's i think that even the
more expensive models have the same processors but can decode more audio formats. For example you can get a harman Karson at 2000 usd that will decode almost anything and have faroudja dcdi and get a cheaper model with the same faroudja but with
lomatations on the audio decoding formats.

Is this information correct?