Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

LED or Plasma?

23 replies to this topic
F4L?
  • F4L?

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#1

Posted 22 July 2013 - 12:43 AM Edited by finn4life, 22 July 2013 - 12:45 AM.

Okay, so I broke my previous plasma blah blah blah who cares.

Anyway, I need to get a new TV about 40" in size and I can't decide whether I want a Plasma or an LED, my budget is around $1000, for a good LED TV here, that's about how much they run for, that includes Smart TV features and 3D. However I can get a $700 LED with the same features, but panel quality is lesser.

Now the here's the pro's and cons of each in my eyes and what the issues are.

LED Cons.
- Bad with fast motion, you end up with motion blur, to combat it, they increase the refresh rate and add in extra frames, this causes the picture to look fake, it's called the soap opera effect, everything looks too smooth, it makes me ill, so I would turn it off meaning I get motion blur.
- Price is higher.
- Judder when camera is panning across any landscape.

Pro's:
- Slim.
- 10 kilos lighter on average.
- Less power.
- Colour is supposed to be of the same quality as Plasma these days.
- 3D and Smart TV. However I doubt I would use those functions.

Plasma Cons:
- More power
- 51" is the smallest size, That might me too big sitting only two metres back.
- Much larger and heavier.
- No smart TV or 3D.


Plasma Pro's:
- Much smoother motion naturally, none of these weird enhancing techniques which make me nauseous.
- Cheaper
- Possible better colour, hard to say though.

So which would you buy? My biggest issue with the Plasma is the screen size, 42" was perfect, any bigger would have been too big, so do you think 51" would just be ridiculous sitting about 2 metres away?
My biggest issue with LED is the motion smoothing, which is fine when I turn it off, but then I have a blurry screen with motion, do you think i'd get used to the judder and such? Does it really matter once you have the TV for a little while?

Edit: If you want to read more about the smoothing crap, here's a good article.
http://reviews.cnet....p-opera-effect/

So again, which would you buy?


Nopheros
  • Nopheros

    Cool, cool cool cool. Pew.

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Apr 2011
  • Sweden

#2

Posted 22 July 2013 - 01:00 AM Edited by Elusion123, 22 July 2013 - 01:03 AM.

I would go with LED, I bought a plasma and I am heavily disappointed.

Some more plasma cons:
They often get burn-ins.. (I don't know if this is still a problem with today TVs."
Pixels often show in dark areas, and after 1-2 years each corners will be full of small pixels that are kinda "buzzing."

And after a few months of owning the TV there was a vertical line across the screen that comes and goes.

Plasma has better color though, but I would go with LED. And sitting 2 metres away from that big a screen can really cause eye damage, and headaches, it did for me, and I often get very bad migraines.. I'm going to buy a LED-TV very soon.

F4L?
  • F4L?

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#3

Posted 22 July 2013 - 03:38 AM

QUOTE
Some more plasma cons:
They often get burn-ins.. (I don't know if this is still a problem with today TVs."
Pixels often show in dark areas, and after 1-2 years each corners will be full of small pixels that are kinda "buzzing."

And after a few months of owning the TV there was a vertical line across the screen that comes and goes.


Burn in isn't a problem anymore, my last plasma was two years old and it had no burn in issues, that was only really a problem 3-4 years back.
I also had none of those weird pixels, or a vertical line.

I am leaning towards LED right now, I don't think I have much of a choice due to screen size, I think I could barter down the price to $900 on this Samsung i've been looking at, 3 stores so far have the same model, I am going to play them against each other.

Wolf68k
  • Wolf68k

    always howling

  • Members
  • Joined: 12 Mar 2003
  • None

#4

Posted 22 July 2013 - 05:02 PM

No smart or 3D tvs for plasma? So the 37 smart tvs (many of which are 3D as well, but not all) listed at BestBuy and the 11 at Newegg that are both smart and 3D don't actually exist?
Do you really need 3D? A smart TV these days I would highly recommend, but 3D I won't unless you have some real purpose other wise it's just a gimmick.

The only reason for the price difference is the age of the technology. Plasma is older, thus cheaper.

There are plenty of plasma tvs that are smaller than 51". Granted none at Newegg or BestBuy that are smart or 3D were below 50".

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#5

Posted 22 July 2013 - 07:17 PM

I wouldn't buy a plasma TV unless I were specificly looking to save a buck on a clearance model.

Let me address some of your pros and cons:

LED Cons.
- Bad with fast motion, you end up with motion blur, to combat it, they increase the refresh rate and add in extra frames, this causes the picture to look fake, it's called the soap opera effect, everything looks too smooth, it makes me ill, so I would turn it off meaning I get motion blur.
This just isn't true. Hands down, the biggest myth out there. Ghosting, like plasma's burn-in, is a non-issue. Yes, the "motion plus" (or whatever marketing team a specific brand uses) is disgusting and an insult to anyone who works in the medium, but it's always an easy thing to disable. AND EVERYONE WHO HAS A TV SHOULD, OR THEY'RE A COMPLETE IDIOT. tounge.gif

- Price is higher.

Maybe if you average the highend brands but there are tons of awesome low end deals.


- Judder when camera is panning across any landscape.
Nope. This may have been true in the past, and may be an issue when using things like the aforementioned post-processing sh*t.... but again, these can (and should) all be turned off.

Pro's:
- Slim.
- 10 kilos lighter on average.
- Less power.
- Colour is supposed to be of the same quality as Plasma these days.
I would argue better in terms of both brightness and sharpness.
- 3D and Smart TV. However I doubt I would use those functions.
3D is pretty cool, but still a strain and a pain in the ass, yeah. Smart TV is neat, but nothing you can't get with a simple $100 add on like an Apple TV or a Roku. So yeah, nothing too special here. But 3D will be a larger focus in the future.

Plasma Cons:
- More power
- 51" is the smallest size, That might me too big sitting only two metres back.
I see 42" all the time.
- Much larger and heavier.
- No smart TV or 3D.
Not true.

Plasma Pro's:
- Much smoother motion naturally, none of these weird enhancing techniques which make me nauseous.
This is related to what was mentioned above re: motion smoothing, and simply not true, even if it ever was.
- Cheaper
Not necessarily.

- Possible better colour, hard to say though.
Nope. LCD outperforms. (and yes, I said LCD - which is the display technology. LED refers to the back-light.


And a couple considerations I'd add:

LCD/LED isn't always evenly lit. This is my biggest bone to pick with the technology; if you're in the dark, and you're looking at "black" (and you've turned off the "dynamic contrast" options) you'll notice hotspots, typically the edge of frame or corners, where the screen isn't evenly dark. This can be combated with "dynamic range" technology that reduces the backlight in dark scenes. But it's far from perfect.

Plasma is low light. It's on par with CRT outputs. We've been spoiled - we can now watch LCD tvs in bright living rooms, but with Plasma, you'll be straining your eyes if you don't pull the shades. I love a good moody movie, but I don't sit in the dark to watch Archer or the evening news.

Audio. The flatter the screen, the less room for powerful speakers. I use an audio system for watching movies and stuff but was very picky when it came to listening for clear audio in the store.




Andreas
  • Andreas

    GTAV Forum Leader

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 27 May 2012
  • Austria

#6

Posted 22 July 2013 - 09:00 PM Edited by Carl CJ Johnsons Brother Brian, 22 July 2013 - 09:03 PM.

From which store do you want to buy the TV? And how do you come to the conclusion that there aren't Plasma TV's that are smaller than 51"? Also, yeah, that is way too big if you sit only two meters away. You should sit around two times further away from your TV than your TV is big. 51" is around 130cm, which means you should sit at least 2.5 meters away from a TV of that size for a pleasant experience. So 40" would fit perfectly in your case.

Trund
  • Trund

    I'm all of ach fo her

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2004

#7

Posted 23 July 2013 - 12:06 AM

It's a little sad how Plasma TV's have such a bad reputation nowadays. In my opinion they definitely have the better color, contrast and viewing angle compared to an equivalent LCD TV. Especially watching TV in a dark room is a pleasure with a Plasma TV, as it actually has true black, unlike LCD's. This was supposed to be fixed with OLED's a long time ago, unfortunately it will still take a few years until you can buy them for an affordable price.

The only true downside of Plasma TV's is the power consumption and the heat it generates, in summer time that can get quite annoying when your room heats up crazily because of the TV, in those terms LCD's are by far superior.

In the end it depends on what you prefer really, it's always a matter of personal taste (as so many things in life). Personally I'd probably still go for an LCD simply because of the lower power consumption.

F4L?
  • F4L?

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#8

Posted 23 July 2013 - 12:07 AM Edited by finn4life, 23 July 2013 - 09:04 AM.

QUOTE
No smart or 3D tvs for plasma? So the 37 smart tvs (many of which are 3D as well, but not all) listed at BestBuy and the 11 at Newegg that are both smart and 3D don't actually exist?
Do you really need 3D? A smart TV these days I would highly recommend, but 3D I won't unless you have some real purpose other wise it's just a gimmick.

The only reason for the price difference is the age of the technology. Plasma is older, thus cheaper.

There are plenty of plasma tvs that are smaller than 51". Granted none at Newegg or BestBuy that are smart or 3D were below 50".

Okay, What I meant to say was that the particular plasma models I was looking at do not have smart TV functions or 3D. Also here in Australia, not a single store I have visited has a Plasma smaller than 50", the market here is far too small. On a sidenote, good to see you posting again.

QUOTE
This just isn't true. Hands down, the biggest myth out there. Ghosting, like plasma's burn-in, is a non-issue. Yes, the "motion plus" (or whatever marketing team a specific brand uses) is disgusting and an insult to anyone who works in the medium, but it's always an easy thing to disable. AND EVERYONE WHO HAS A TV SHOULD, OR THEY'RE A COMPLETE IDIOT.

I haven't seen ghosting, that's not what I am talking about it's not ghosting, it's a funny blurry juddery look I can notice when the screen in panning on a 50hz tv, it's like the picture is catching up every couple of seconds. The 100Hz models then have the Soap opera effect, which like you mentioned, can be disabled, but then I am back with the blurry judder, Plasma televisions are just naturally better with fast motion and it's a non issue with them, I know this because I owned on for two years, and because I regularly drop by tech stores to watch the televisions, I was there yesterday.

QUOTE
Nope. This may have been true in the past, and may be an issue when using things like the aforementioned post-processing sh*t.... but again, these can (and should) all be turned off

Well like I adressed, then you do have the judder. I am sure there is a balance point to be found with the settings though.

QUOTE
Nope. LCD outperforms. (and yes, I said LCD - which is the display technology. LED refers to the back-light.

Perhaps for overall brightness, but I am still unsure of how well LCD televisions handle blacks, Plasma's are the best for different contrasts of blackness, LCD has to come pretty damn close otherwise i'm not buying one.

QUOTE
LCD/LED isn't always evenly lit. This is my biggest bone to pick with the technology; if you're in the dark, and you're looking at "black" (and you've turned off the "dynamic contrast" options) you'll notice hotspots, typically the edge of frame or corners, where the screen isn't evenly dark. This can be combated with "dynamic range" technology that reduces the backlight in dark scenes. But it's far from perfect.

Thanks for this information, because personally, I find dark scene visibility very important, Because many many many films and TV shows have action sequences and such in low light settings, so being able to easily see this is important for me.

QUOTE
Plasma is low light. It's on par with CRT outputs. We've been spoiled - we can now watch LCD tvs in bright living rooms, but with Plasma, you'll be straining your eyes if you don't pull the shades. I love a good moody movie, but I don't sit in the dark to watch Archer or the evening news.

LCD definitely is much better in light, but where the TV will be, light isn't going to be too much of an issue, and even so, I did own a Plasma for two years and I had no issues in dark or light situations, I simply turned the eco-sensor on and my Plasma just brightened up when it was sunny conditions in the room and it wasn't hard to see. Glare can be annoying sometimes though.

QUOTE
Audio. The flatter the screen, the less room for powerful speakers. I use an audio system for watching movies and stuff but was very picky when it came to listening for clear audio in the store.

Yeah my Plasma had great audio, i've noticed many new TV's can sound too quiet and slightly "Tinny". I'll have to get aftermarket speakers if I get one of these ultra slim televisions.

QUOTE
From which store do you want to buy the TV? And how do you come to the conclusion that there aren't Plasma TV's that are smaller than 51"? Also, yeah, that is way too big if you sit only two meters away. You should sit around two times further away from your TV than your TV is big. 51" is around 130cm, which means you should sit at least 2.5 meters away from a TV of that size for a pleasant experience. So 40" would fit perfectly in your case.

Again, Here there is no stores that have smaller than 50" screens, I am trying to find a place aside from the 3 major stores that sell tv's, but not much luck.

QUOTE
It's a little sad how Plasma TV's have such a bad reputation nowadays. In my opinion they definitely have the better color, contrast and viewing angle compared to an equivalent LCD TV. Especially watching TV in a dark room is a pleasure with a Plasma TV, as it actually has true black, unlike LCD's. This was supposed to be fixed with OLED's a long time ago, unfortunately it will still take a few years until you can buy them for an affordable price.

The only true downside of Plasma TV's is the power consumption and the heat it generates, in summer time that can get quite annoying when your room heats up crazily because of the TV, in those terms LCD's are by far superior.

In the end it depends on what you prefer really, it's always a matter of personal taste (as so many things in life). Personally I'd probably still go for an LCD simply because of the lower power consumption.

Ah finally, a fellow Plasma lover! Haha. Power consumption isn't too much of an issue, the Plasma tv's are cheaper for better quality picture so I make the saving there, my only issue with them is size in terms of thickness because I like to move the TV around a lot. I want an LCD, but I don't want to lose out on those blacks/

F4L?
  • F4L?

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#9

Posted 23 July 2013 - 09:05 AM

Just bumping it so you guys know I replied properly

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#10

Posted 23 July 2013 - 07:08 PM Edited by Otter, 23 July 2013 - 07:40 PM.

Judder is more related to translating 24fps to your television's refresh rate than anything else. Well, that and the fact that plasma draws everything line by line instead of the instant change you'll see in LCD.

I'd still argue that LCD is by far the better way to go. My two cents. wink.gif

F4L?
  • F4L?

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#11

Posted 24 July 2013 - 05:23 AM

QUOTE (Otter @ Wednesday, Jul 24 2013, 06:08)
Judder is more related to translating 24fps to your television's refresh rate than anything else. Well, that and the fact that plasma draws everything line by line instead of the instant change you'll see in LCD.

I'd still argue that LCD is by far the better way to go. My two cents. wink.gif

Aside from what I said with the judder and blacks, yes, you ate entirely right, LCD is better, it's still a tough pick though. I really wishI could get a 42" plasma.

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#12

Posted 24 July 2013 - 04:00 PM

If need final convincing, try this. Get a plasma and an LCD side by side and have them display an even field of color. Something deep and vibrant. Slowly back away until you can't see the pixels (or scan lines) and take note of which one resolves into a pure field of color sooner.

I will have to admit to a final reason why I prefer LCD, and it's a medical reason. I grew up with poor vision in one eye that lead to all sorts of oddities with my good eye. One of these oddities is that plasma displays and Dlp break down into rgb components for me when I track my eye across them. This is, of course, because they operate by displaying images in stages - stages that are imperceptible to most.

baguvix_wanrltw
  • baguvix_wanrltw

    Cynical, yeah. Bitter, probably.

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Apr 2012

#13

Posted 24 July 2013 - 04:48 PM Edited by baguvix_wanrltw, 24 July 2013 - 04:52 PM.

Let me just leave this here. Different, but perhaps worthy of consideration.

4K (aka Ultra HD aka 4x Full HD) TV for $1,113.42 on Amazon (see "where to buy").

NostalgiaIsABitch
  • NostalgiaIsABitch

    Snitch

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Jan 2012

#14

Posted 25 July 2013 - 01:45 AM

http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/B00391VM18

I got this TV a couple years ago from best buy for xmas because it was bundled with a PS3 (with games) and it was RIDICULOUSLY cheap. It's a LED-backlit LCD TV..does anyone know how that compares to standalone LED or LCD TVs?

Also, I've heard the plasmas are awesome (under certain controlled conditions) and great for sports. However, the reason I never bought one is because they have a high possibility of dying out in a couple years. How much this is true, I'm not sure, but I did hear it from multiple sources.

Trund
  • Trund

    I'm all of ach fo her

  • Members
  • Joined: 19 Oct 2004

#15

Posted 25 July 2013 - 01:36 PM

QUOTE (NostalgiaIsABitch @ Thursday, Jul 25 2013, 03:45)
http://www.amazon.co...y/dp/B00391VM18

I got this TV a couple years ago from best buy for xmas because it was bundled with a PS3 (with games) and it was RIDICULOUSLY cheap. It's a LED-backlit LCD TV..does anyone know how that compares to standalone LED or LCD TVs?

Also, I've heard the plasmas are awesome (under certain controlled conditions) and great for sports. However, the reason I never bought one is because they have a high possibility of dying out in a couple years. How much this is true, I'm not sure, but I did hear it from multiple sources.

All LCD TV's use LED's as backlight. The only difference is the type of LED arrangement. Most TV's have the LED's on the side, around the TV, more expensive TV's, the "Full LED" TV's, have LED's everywhere behind the LCD Cells, so they give you a better picture quality. The only true LED TV's are OLED TV's, but those are rare and really expensive.

It's not true that they die fast. The only problem is that the color slowly fades, but this takes at least 10 years, and during that time you can always adjust the color by setting it a little higher to compensate for the fading effect, so that's not a big deal really. We have a Plasma TV in the living room for 7 years now and it didn't have a single problem so far, the picture still looks as good as on the first day, and the TV is being used for at least 5 hours per day.


Booze
  • Booze

    Backlashing with a bullet full of love

  • Angels of Death MC
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2008
  • Netherlands

#16

Posted 25 July 2013 - 02:19 PM

There isn't one perfect TV, you should consider your personal wishes. For example, I've been very happy with my Panasonic plasma for three years now, but I mainly sit in a dimmed room so the lower light output fits my situation.
3D adds a significant number to the price, so you should consider if you're actually going to use it. Specs like 3D and 4K are only really significant if the content is there. Watching converted 2D content or upscaled 1080p images won't do the higher price justice in my opinion.

If you're going to use it for video games, you might consider input lag as well. The excellent hdtvtest.co.uk have just published a database of input lag values for every TV they've ever reviewed.

Oh yeah, in that regard: whether you should turn motion interpolation on or off is debatable, but you should definitely turn it off when you're playing games. It looks like crap and adds input lag.

On the topic of LCD vs plasma: my only experience is going from a cheap LCD to an expensive plasma and especially the black values were like night and day. Like ink drops on my screen inlove.gif
I can't comment on LED though.

F4L?
  • F4L?

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#17

Posted 26 July 2013 - 12:41 AM Edited by finn4life, 26 July 2013 - 04:15 AM.

QUOTE (baguvix)
Let me just leave this here. Different, but perhaps worthy of consideration.


Interesting, I did read around a bit, but the refresh rate is at 30Hz supposedly and I don't really trust it. If I can get a TV like that, that cheap, it's probably due to cheap components, also 4K is pretty useless on a 50".

QUOTE
3D adds a significant number to the price, so you should consider if you're actually going to use it. Specs like 3D and 4K are only really significant if the content is there. Watching converted 2D content or upscaled 1080p images won't do the higher price justice in my opinion.


I can tell you now, I am probably never going to use 3D at all, but pretty much every TV in my price range comes with it, so it's a little unavoidable. I'll try find one without though.

QUOTE
If you're going to use it for video games, you might consider input lag as well. The excellent hdtvtest.co.uk have just published a database of input lag values for every TV they've ever reviewed.


Thank you very much for that, lag input is actually pretty important to me as of a few weeks ago when my plasma got cracked. I had owned on Call Of Duty for a long time before I played on my Plasma, then I did and I got worse, I thought it was just me. But nope, when my Plasma broke and I went back to CRT, the difference was instant, I conistently beat the sh*t out of people again, so I will likely continue playing COD on my CRT but I will play other games on my new TV for visual reasons because COD looks sh*t anyway. I don't mind too much about input lag for other games because they aren't so reflex based, but it's a handy chart to have anyway. I was reading around and came across information about different types of panels, IPS and such, and also that Plasma has less input lag and as I was talking about before, a faster pixel response time, any idea about that? (The IPS panel thing) I'll do some reading, but if you have any information that'd be great.

QUOTE
Oh yeah, in that regard: whether you should turn motion interpolation on or off is debatable, but you should definitely turn it off when you're playing games. It looks like crap and adds input lag.

Alright, thanks for the tip, I was actually going to leave it on for games, but if it adds input lag, perhaps not. For Television, hopefully I can find sliders for it so I can strike a balance point.

QUOTE
On the topic of LCD vs plasma: my only experience is going from a cheap LCD to an expensive plasma and especially the black values were like night and day. Like ink drops on my screen inlove.gif
I can't comment on LED though


LED has improved a lot, that's for sure, I know what you mean about the older LCD's (ugh *shivers*) but yeah, I am not sure how much they've improved, because all the stores either have all the settings all the way up, or they are f*cking stupid and have the input coming in a 576i or some sh*t like that making the displays look rubbish (Yes, two stores I visited actually do this.)

I'll have to make the choice when I am ready to buy so I can flaunt my cash and have them show me all the settings and everything while they push the sale.

Quick edit: According to this site you linked me, Samsung are better with Black Levels than other LED companies, which is good because I was looking at Samsungs to start with anyway, however my issue is that the model I wanted to purchase has a shocking 40ms of input lag! No way! As it turns out, the more expensive the TV, the higher the input lag which is a shame.



EDIT: Here is the TV I am getting, I am deadset on it now. I won't be buying it just yet. It is the Samsung UEFO6400 40" LED/LCD. $980, 3D, Smart TV, 40ms input lag and the best blacks out of any TV in a similar price range.

It's actually a bargain for what it is, it is the one I was looking at before I made this topic actually.

http://www.hdtvtest....01305042929.htm

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#18

Posted 26 July 2013 - 07:24 AM

You can reduce that lag to almost nothing by shutting off all post processing. (They include a lot these days, on by default)

F4L?
  • F4L?

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#19

Posted 26 July 2013 - 10:07 AM

QUOTE (Otter @ Friday, Jul 26 2013, 18:24)
You can reduce that lag to almost nothing by shutting off all post processing. (They include a lot these days, on by default)

Yeah the 40 ms figure is with stuff shut off on "game mode".
I've learned a great deal more about televisions today.

F4L?
  • F4L?

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#20

Posted 22 August 2013 - 04:01 AM

Ugh, wow. I played Batman and Max Payne 3 on my new TV, didn't notice too many problems, just tried Call Of Duty as a test, it automatically enabled 3D, ugh, that was the most horrible gaming experience i've ever had, f*ck that sh*t, wowzers, the game felt like it was running at 5 frames per second.

Also the Input lag on my New TV is awful, everything turned off and game mode on (I bought a Panasonic btw, picture was far better.) it supposedly has about 45ms of input lag. My god, it is terrible, I can't stand it, I don't know how people can play on these sets, I mean christ, it's like I'd press the button, and hear the sound from my shot like half a second later, I thought My Plasma before was bad, but holy jesus, f*cking "Smart TV" is actually a dumbass that can't take signal properly, i'm actually considering purchasing a monitor to game on for most games, use my 42" for TV and movies, then use my CRT for call of duty.

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#21

Posted 22 August 2013 - 04:11 AM

Just a hunch here, but did you shut off all post processing (all twenty or so features) AFTER you switched to game mode, or before?

And, weird enough, you may find two separate menus. For example, I've got a 'general' menu and then a 'picture' menu - both with their own versions of frame interpolation! It's crazy, it actually takes a lot of work to shut it all off.

Even - sharpness (set to 0) comb filter, mpeg artifact reduction (huge lag here) noise reduction, etc.

F4L?
  • F4L?

    Well I'm sorry, Princess.

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Jan 2010
  • None

#22

Posted 22 August 2013 - 04:19 AM

I think before I turned on game mode. I didn't try turning down sharpness though. I'll have to give it another shot later.

baguvix_wanrltw
  • baguvix_wanrltw

    Cynical, yeah. Bitter, probably.

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Apr 2012

#23

Posted 22 August 2013 - 03:38 PM

Sorry I didn't read this earlier, what, 4k is useless on 50"?! You do realize many phones nowadays can display at 1/4 of that resolution (Full HD) right? tounge.gif

I wouldn't buy any more Full HD sh*t. But that's just me. Tech's lasted MORE than long enough.

Otter
  • Otter

    sea dwelling madman

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 30 Jan 2003
  • Canada

#24

Posted 22 August 2013 - 05:21 PM

QUOTE (baguvix_wanrltw @ Thursday, Aug 22 2013, 07:38)
Sorry I didn't read this earlier, what, 4k is useless on 50"?!

I have to agree. If I get too close to my TV I can see pixels. smile.gif That said, I was looking at the latest 4K Sony display in store the other day, and despite how stunning the thing was... it was also 25 THOUSAND DOLLARS.

I just can't figure how that's justifiable. I guess it's because some people absolutely must have the best of the best at any price... but sheeeeit. the 55" model is a fifth of that price. Absurd!

http://store.sony.co...2633370-871-270





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users