Which 3DHDTV has teh lowest 3D response time?

Discussion in 'LCD & LED LCD TVs Forum' started by chaos prime, Nov 29, 2010.

Tags:
  1. chaos prime

    chaos prime
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2006
    Messages:
    53
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    Ratings:
    +1
    Hi all as the title states really, im a avid gamer and spend alot of time playing video games. Response time for me is very important and as such with my current setup i still see blurring with 8ms. Im currently reading 3D gaming is at about 40ms on average..... Is there any others you can advise that is lower than that figure as to me it just sounds far too high..

    My main purpose for the TV will be as follows in Priority
    1. Gaming
    2. Movies
    3. PC

    If anyone can help that would be really awesome. Budget around £1200 can stretch a few bob more if the TV warrents it.

    As a side question is 3DTV available in less than 40''?

    Thanks
    Chaos
     
  2. andrewfee

    andrewfee
    Well-known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2004
    Messages:
    3,066
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    136
    Ratings:
    +500
    There are several types of response time, and people seem to confuse them.

    The first is the refresh rate. If a screen refreshes at 60Hz then the response time of the video signal is limited to 16ms. (1/60 = 16.67ms)
    If the screen is 120Hz (usually they advertise 50/100/200/400 in Europe) then it is 8ms (1/120 = 8.33ms) 240Hz = 4ms, 400Hz = 2ms.
    This has little bearing, if any, on actual screen response time, it is simply the fastest that the screen could theoretically respond. This is what many manufacturers choose to advertise now, if they list anything at all. (it seems to be disappearing off spec lists)


    Another response time is the display panel response. This is the time it takes from the panel being sent the signal telling it to change the image to when the image actually changes on the screen. This is considerably slower than the theoretical maximum. On a 400Hz screen while the response could be 2ms, in reality it might take the LCD crystals 20ms to change. This is the real-world response that shows up as motion blur. Higher refresh rates do help reduce this, but not to the extent that the theoretical numbers might suggest. (but a 400Hz set is usually still going to look better than a 50/100/200Hz set)


    The third type of response time, which is most important to gamers, is the processing delay built into the television. This has no real bearing on people using the television to watch TV/films (though it might affect people with older amplifiers that do not have lip-sync options) but because games are interactive it is very important.

    This is the delay between the TV being sent a signal, and it actually showing up on the screen, and is often referred to as 'input lag.' (though 'output lag' would be a more correct term) A display could have an instant panel response (no blur) but would still be unsuitable for gaming if there was a high 'input lag'.

    This is a problem, because there is a delay between your controller inputs and seeing the effects on the screen. This number can be as low as 16ms and go above 100ms. Games are typically running at 30fps which means that the image is updated once every 33ms (1/30) so every ≈30ms delay on your TV, you are one 'update' behind the game.

    This means that if you are using a high lag screen, say 90ms, you are three updates behind the game (six if the game is 60fps, though that is rare now) and so if you were playing competitively, it means another player in a shooting game has the potential to kill you before they're actually displayed on your screen. (or they might at least have a slight advantage) It can also make some games more difficult to control. If you are turning at high speeds in a racing game, because of the delay between your input and that input being shown on the screen you might oversteer into corners because it looks like you have to turn more than you actually do. You have already turned enough in the game, but the screen has not shown that yet, so you turn for an extra three updates (frames) more than necessary.


    Ideally the screen will have as low an 'input lag' for games as possible, and Panasonic's current plasmas seem to have the quickest response time of around 16ms if I remember correctly, though I do not feel that plasmas are really suitable for gaming if you play for more than an hour or so at a time due to image retention/burn-in problems.

    Sony's higher-end LCDs seem to be some of the best LCDs for 'input lag' this year, measuring around 30ms. I have not measured it in 3D, but in the game mode with local dimming enabled, my 46HX903 measures between 30-60ms which I have not found to be a problem so far. (but I am not as bothered about it now as I used to be) Apparently if I were to disable local dimming, it would drop to being 30ms all the time, which is only one frame of delay and among the best for LCD televisions. 60ms is about the absolute maximum I could tolerate for gaming though, and for many, this is still too high. (if you had asked me a couple of years back, I would have said it was too high for me as well)

    The downside here is that in a game mode, you have to disable 100/200/400hz interpolation, because that increases the processing delay on the TV. (often doubles the input lag) So while interpolation improves the second form of response time, reducing motion blur, it increases the processing delay, making the screen less suitable for gaming.

    Usually you have to compromise on image quality to get the best response times for gaming.

    This is all most noticeable when coming from a CRT which typically has no 'input lag' at all, and a very quick 'panel' response time. (very little blurring)
     
  3. chaos prime

    chaos prime
    Standard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2006
    Messages:
    53
    Products Owned:
    0
    Products Wanted:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    11
    Ratings:
    +1
    Firstly let me start by saying thank you for the detailed response you have given. It is very much appreciated and things have sure changed alot from when i last bought be LCD TV xD.

    In response however i was looking into plasmas but the burn in and image retention has always scared me and put me off them. I would really love to move into 3D however im constantly put off by the huge input lag/response time they keep spouting at us through their reviews and stuff.

    Thinking maybe its best to stick to a standard HDTV LCD till they sort them selves out, i dont know. Gaming on the TV ill be buying wont be for more than a hour or 2 at any given time unless i have the lads round for a night of pro evo :)

    With that said im still unsure which way to go. With the advancement of technology and the blurring now being more complicated than before (just look at the response time/refresh rate), im finding myself looking at and feeling alianated in a market a few years ago i knew so well...

    Do plasmas still suffer from the same problem they use to in the past with the screen providing a poor performance the higher its mounted (old age question and severely doubt its a issue today but thought i ask anyway) as i've seen a couple 600hz Plasmas at 1080p with fairly good reviews (e.g. PANASONIC VIERA TXP42G20 to name one) and was interested.

    2 that have cought my eye is the above mentioned:
    PANASONIC VIERA TXP42G20 and,
    PANASONIC VIERA TXP42GT20 (same TV with 3D support).

    Panasonic really does seem the way forward and seeing as this will be in my living room, gaming can only occur an hour or 2 at most in most cases.

    Whats your views on the above TV's, worth their weight in gold?

    As a final note, would it be worth waiting for the January Sales now for the best prices on these TV's listed? or any TV for that matter?

    Thank You
    Chaos
     

Share This Page

Loading...