The TV Decision Making Thread

[HEMAN]

5 hours ago, kunjanp said:

My Sony x900e does 4k + 8bit HDR at around 30-35ms and to be honest I have never faced the issue of lag in any single player game even if it is racing. 

Didn't even experience once in forza 7.

Have played a fair bit of multi player too, unless you are going for being the quickest of the quick or hard core competitive, it doesn't disappoint.

Now I can't compare the tv's at such different price points but if Mi really pulls off 8ms then I think it's pretty great, given hardly any tv goes below 10, unless you go OLED.

Source for lag and pretty much everything: Rtings.com

That is input lag times you are posting. My lg has 5ms response time and 20ms input lag in sdr and close to 30ms in HDR. If input is changed to pc and pq set to game its under 20ms even in Hdr.

Anything under 35ms input lag is considered satisfactory for gaming.

[HEMAN]

4 hours ago, kunjanp said:

Hardly any TV manufacturer mentions about the device's native capability to reduce judder, they will throw terms like 1000XR or Motion Plus to convince you that it doesn't have it but that's just software Interpolation, they are basically software emulating frames so the tv's native refresh rate matches with the input's. That may rectify experience sometimes but most of the times it just adds extra lag.

You would have to look for reviews like rtings.com, they do pretty good analysis but I doubt that they will do for Mi.

Best bet would be personal demo because everyone is affected differently by judder.

 

Now keep in mind that Judder is majorly pronounced over 24p signals sent over 60p/60i, given most games will run below 60p on consoles on a native refresh rate of 60 of Mi, you should definitely check it out before buying. 

Mi might be lucky to produce a judder free display.

Judder is more noticeable when you play a 24frams content 24p(movies) on a 60hz display and due to the mismatch of refresh rates you see stuttering like motion. Consoles games are 60hz although fps is limited 30 most of the time.

[playstationdude]

Well damn! It's a f**king science to pick up a TV these days :/

My 6 year old plasma tv has a 0.01ms response time. 

[HEMAN]

Oh, Plasma the good old days of black level awesomeness. 

[playstationdude]

5 minutes ago, HEMAN said:

Oh, Plasma the good old days of black level awesomeness. 

Yeah. It boggles the mind why the tech was discontinued. The Full HD plasmas were just glorious.

[HEMAN]

1 minute ago, Playstationdude said:

Yeah. It boggles the mind why the tech was discontinued. The Full HD plasmas were just glorious.

I really wanted a next gen plasma with all the goodness and none of the drawbacks. OLED still has some of the issues we had with plasma.

[VelivolusDas]

6 hours ago, kemosabe said:

Can't we side load Netflix and Amazon prime video app?

Sent from my LG-H990 using Tapatalk
 

Not sure of that.

[KunjanPSD]

2 hours ago, HEMAN said:

That is input lag times you are posting. My lg has 5ms response time and 20ms input lag in sdr and close to 30ms in HDR. If input is changed to pc and pq set to game its under 20ms even in Hdr.

Anything under 35ms input lag is considered satisfactory for gaming.

The input lag values I pulled up from Rtings have response time factored in to the maximum of 10ms, thus I said that anything around 8ms response time wouldn't be bad. 

Now obviously that will differ for different units, I personally have seen Sony and Lg units differ by 10ms overall on the same model but different units.

[KunjanPSD]

2 hours ago, HEMAN said:

Judder is more noticeable when you play a 24frams content 24p(movies) on a 60hz display and due to the mismatch of refresh rates you see stuttering like motion. Consoles games are 60hz although fps is limited 30 most of the time.

Yes they are 60hz in most games but sometimes the Interpolation done by the console doesn't match response rate of Logic gates inside the hardware especially the NAND, thus judder is caused on hardware level even if the the content is at 60hz. Correct implementation of dynamic Performance and delay in such gates is what removes judder at hardware level.

Instances are rare and you can just ignore them but testing the device before hand would give a rough idea if one is bothered by it or not.

[Aftrunner]

21 hours ago, Playstationdude said:

Yeah. It boggles the mind why the tech was discontinued. The Full HD plasmas were just glorious.

 

Oh god yes.

 

I have one of the last Panasonic Plasma's that I am holding on to as long as I can. 

[playstationdude]

55 minutes ago, Aftrunner said:

 

Oh god yes.

 

I have one of the last Panasonic Plasma's that I am holding on to as long as I can. 

Luck you. I have a 1024*768 plasma so thinking of switching to either a full hd or ultra hd tv for ps4. If I had ine of those full hd plasmas I wouldn't have even bothered to upgrade.

[mohit9206]

On 15/02/2018 at 10:25 PM, Playstationdude said:

Yeah. It boggles the mind why the tech was discontinued. The Full HD plasmas were just glorious.

 

Just when it seemed plasma TVs had caught up to the performance benchmark set by the Pioneer Kuro—the Panasonic ZT60 and Samsung F8500 were notably great TVs—the major manufacturers pulled the plug on plasma production. Here are 10 reasons you can't buy one anymore.

1. Bright showroom conditions put plasmas at a distinct disadvantage versus LED-lit LCDs that can output much more light, allowing them to stand out in bright environments.

2. Aesthetics may have played a role in hastening plasma's demise. There are limits to how thin you can make a plasma, and edgelit LCDs (and OLEDs) are thinner than that. Unfortunately, high-end LCDs didn't just outshine plasmas in the showroom—they also looked sexier.

3. UHD/4K caught on quickly, and it's difficult—if not impossible—to build UHD/4K plasma TVs in popular screen sizes. Panasonic developed a few giant UHD plasmas, but they were not consumer products. 

4. Screen-size limitations also played a part in plasmas plight. The vast majority of 1080p plasmas came in sizes ranging from 42 to 64 Inches, while 1080p LCDs were—and continue to be—available in a much wider variety of screen sizes.

5. You can't bend a plasma. I hate to think that being flat contributed to the death of the technology, but the last two companies to produce plasma TVs were LG and Samsung. Both companies are committed to selling UHD/4K curved-screen TVs. 

6. Plasmas were harder to deal with than LCDs. They are heavier and yet more fragile than many LCDs. Shipping a plasma requires a large box that must remain upright. Plus, plasmas developed a reputation for being susceptible to image retention and screen burn-in, which was much more of a real problem in the early days of plasma, but the reputation stuck. 

7. While OLED is still in the early stages of development, there's no question it offers greater potential than plasma. OLED is the future of emissive display technology. It should not come as a surprise that LG and Samsung stopped building plasmas—which are also emissive—shortly after OLED debuted.

8. Energy efficiency may have played a part in putting plasma out to pasture. Both LED-lit LCD and OLED are more energy-efficient display technologies than plasma. 

9. Plasma was the original flat-panel technology, and that worked against it. It did not matter that it was a mature technology capable of offering superior performance. People just thought of it as old technology.

10. Projectors improved in quality and prices dropped. With LED-lit LCDs being well suited to bright rooms, the existence of decent 1080p projectors for under $2000 may have affected sales of flagship plasmas.

[HEMAN]

Lol.

[Heaven Angel]

If you are buying a new set, go for a proper 4K set. Getting FHD isn't worth it anymore even if you don't have 4K content.

 

I have upgraded everything to 4K at home and it is simply amazing. Can't even compare to 1080p. 

[mohit9206]

31 minutes ago, Joe Cool said:

If you are buying a new set, go for a proper 4K set. Getting FHD isn't worth it anymore even if you don't have 4K content.

 

I have upgraded everything to 4K at home and it is simply amazing. Can't even compare to 1080p. 

You can compare to 1080p. 1080p is still great. 4K is not at all needed unless one is a videophile just like we don't need anything more than 1080p on phones. 

[Heaven Angel]

Great if you are on 24" screen. Anything above that on FHD is simply meh. 

 

1 minute ago, mohit9206 said:

4K is not at all needed unless one is a videophile just like we don't need anything more than 1080p on phones. 

 

This is so not right. 

[mohit9206]

1 hour ago, Joe Cool said:

Great if you are on 24" screen. Anything above that on FHD is simply meh. 

 

 

This is so not right. 

So before 4K became a thing, did u think all full hd sets were meh? 

[Heaven Angel]

Depends on the screen size. 21-24" for FHD was completely fine. Watching it on 32" inch was not a good experience. 

 

Can't imagine watching 1080p on 40-50" inch screen. My point is, if you are going to spend $500-1000 on telly, might as well go for the 4K set than investing on FHD now. 

 

1080p - 24" inch.

1440p - 27-32" inch.

4K - above 40" inch. 

Edited February 18, 2018 by Heaven Angel

[mohit9206]

Just now, Joe Cool said:

Depends on the screen size. 21-24" for FHD was completely fine. Watching it on 32" inch was not a good experience. 

 

Can't imagine watching 1080p on 40-50" inch screen. My point is, if you are going to spend $500-1000 on telly, might as well go for the 4K set than investing on FHD now. 

Well you're obviously right. Spending more than $500 means 4K is the way to go but what i'm saying is 1080p is still great for sub $500 TVs and TVs 42 inches and under don't really need 4K but the good thing is most TVs 42 inches and under are under $500 anyways so its ok.

[AtheK]

1080 p is bad on TV above 32", wow that is news