Printable View
I've been looking at tvs... and I'm pretty 'meh' about what I'm looking at.
I haven't found a 65" with the latest 240hz tech yet.
Is there any reason they haven't come out with that yet?
I'm also noticing that most of the tvs only have a couple composite inputs... I want a tv with 4+ composite inputs.
Just get a bunch of AV switch boxes. I've seen some that have 8+ inputs and support S-Video and Component.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSchool
That's what I have...Quote:
Originally Posted by Guntz
I have two - 4 input switch and they all go to one input on the TV.. Less wires going every where
I have 4 systems on one and the output goes to the other one then I have 3 systems on that one.
I have the LN52A650 120hz samsung LCD. Its a great tv and upscales very well.....Sega Genesis with composite looks pretty damn good......That being said, my parents bought the 52" LED Samsung 240hz and its amazing.....When I was over there, Return of the Jedi was on Spike HD. That looked better than my TV did running blu ray........I was in shock.....
I don't like those things... my GF got me one for Christmas last year from Radioshack and the stupid thing had a delay on it that caused an audio pop everytime it booted up = was retarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guntz
I like the idea though... it simply needs to have an on/off switch built on it to circumvent the audio pop artifact.
Funny thing, the unit coming on automatically was the highest regarded "feature" on the unit, lol. I'd love to smack the dumbshit that thought that 'brilliant' idea up.
Considering most console games struggle to maintain 30fps, 240Hz is overkill. I wonder whether these crazy expensive TVs with 240Hz refresh make much of a difference to 3D display, not that I'm keenly interested. 60Hz fits the bill just fine and 3D is a sham.
Perhaps someone can explain this, in layman's terms if possible, seeing that the other HDTV topic became quite a mess. What benefit is there to refreshing the same frame of animation that many times? Don't humans have their limits too?
I need a 65" with this new 240hz Tech... and I want it to have assloads of audio ins/outs, and lots of video ins/outs.Quote:
Originally Posted by runback22
:(
Damn, good point... if the game is locked at 60 hz and the software can only do a max of 30-60 fps, then I guess 240hz is overkill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pulstar
I suppose it depends on the software/game.
Well, I can see this making a huge difference if I decided to hook my PC up to this tv. Running V-Sync on a 240hz screen :rock: there'd be assloads of leftover frames = be pretty hard to lose any fps I'm thinkin.
Does it turn on automatically for you when you turn your TV on? If so... that's not what I want at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbigreddog
http://slashdot.org/story/10/05/08/2...-Quattron-Hype
I think newer HDTVs look better because of the improved liquid crystal technology used and not just the refresh rates involved. Sharp has even introduced a fourth colour into the RGB formula.
Edit - Having read a few comments it seems that less interpolation is involved with frame transition at higher refresh rates. I can't tell myself, sure 60Hz was annoying on CRT monitors and I had to bump it up but with LCDs I never had to. They say Plasma is still the best for gaming, but frankly I'm not that keen. It all looks good to me, and I can't tell the difference between a 30fps racing games versus a 60fps one. Apparently videophiles can, but most people go with "if it's good enough". Same thing with audio tech.. Most people are happy with lossy encodes of music but to the "elite" they never accept less than perfection ie original source uncompressed.
...what? Was it an "auto" switchbox? All the switchboxes I have are basically a lightswitch but for A/V connections rather than lights and I don't see any reason they would be any different from plugging it straight into the TV aside from perhaps a little signal degradation from running through more cable/connections.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSchool
try something more like this:
http://www.unitedsale.net/products/i...-Switch-02.jpg
http://cgi.ebay.com/New-Video-AV-RCA...#ht_4043wt_901
60Hz is all you need for most TV/DVD/Game consoles. The main advantage of 120Hz is better rendering of each frame, but you wouldn't even notice unless it's a super hi-res input to begin with (most games I have don't even do 1080p anyway). Actually, for normal TV viewing, I don't even like the 120hz mode as it makes everything look very soccer mom handycam-ish. I usually put it in 24hz mode so it makes everything look like it's actually on 35mm film. IMO, going LED would make more of a difference than going 240hz.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pulstar
The only reason I want a 120hz TV is so I can use it with my computer and not have to worry about missing frames since computers tend to be capable of more FPS than most DVD/Blu Ray/Game consoles/etc.
dream on, ain't gonna happen, and if it did, holy christ that would be expensive. Like I said, get some simple switchboxes. If you need more than 3 ports per box, there are some that have more inputs, but they get expensive quick if you don't find a deal on a used one. I snagged a nice used 4 port one with S-Video for like $6 at the Play N Trade I used to work for.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSchool
I guess...?...Quote:
Originally Posted by 17daysolderthannes
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...26tbs%3Disch:1
That dumb ass thing ^... I liked everything about it except for it having this retarded "auto sensing" feature... because it would turn on a second or two later and cause a pop in my audio everytime, AND, since the Video signal was delayed, I would miss the first couple seconds of video when I booted a game on, not critical or anything, but it annoyed the fuck out of me.
PLUS, bottom line is that it is degrading the signal by a small amount and I don't want that.
I want the TV to have the ins I need.
Why can't these TV manufacturers simply make a 'GAMING' tv? wth is so hard about that
swear to christ, I'm gonna be stuck with a 27" analog tv forever because these cocksuckers won't make something I can use
pardon me, I'm annoyed today, I lifted yesterday and I'm all "rah rah rah" :?
:o
Why do you NEED 240Hz? 120Hz is fine. The only real reason to use 120 or 240 Hz is for watching Blu-ray in true 24fps. But whatever you do, do NOT turn on the "motion flow" (called other things on different brands). It adds frames that are not there, making it look more like a camcorder movie than a filmed movie. It's awful and looks very wrong. It will also add lag since the TV has to see frames 1 and 2 before it can create and display fake frames 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9.
It's called "roid rage".Quote:
Originally Posted by oldschool
Come on, composite is blur city, you aren't going to notice a difference. You won't find a new HD TV with more than two or so composite inputs, it's just not going to happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSchool
OMG THIS^Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Redifer
When we first got the HDMI cable for the PS3, my dad wanted to watch a movie to see what the quality was like (nevermind it was a DVD instead of a Blu Ray). The frame interpolation was on (don't remember what it's called) and it almost made me sick to watch Terminator 2 like that. The frames would "jump" during fast motion and pans (due to the 1+2=1.1,1.2,1.3,...etc.) and everything looked like it was filmed with a 1992 handycam. Now I always make sure it's in 24 FPS mode when I watch any TV or movies. The only real reason I want 120hz is so I can hook it up to a computer without sync issues.
Hmmm... well, I guess I'll just have to suck it up... oh well, I'm used to unplugging and plugging in my current stuff now so not a biggy to do it on the new tv either.Quote:
Originally Posted by 17daysolderthannes
I don't get it though, my Sis has a 42" from (I dunno) back in like '05ish maybe... and that thing has like 6+ sets of Composite ins.
dodn't bother me
I think it looks great... guess what, I'll get on my PC and play games in high resolution and be happy there too. I know what to expect from the different systems and setups, and I'm happy with that.
I'm curious to see what the SNES is going to look like with S-Video though... I recently picked up a cable for it and the N64. I wonder if I'll notice much of a diff on the SNES if any.
well, 5 years ago composite was more prevalent, but now it's becoming the new RF. Composite is fine for retro systems, it's what it's supposed to use, but I'm just saying what little additional signal quality loss you'll get won't make enough difference to really matter. Just keep your wires from getting crossed up too much and you'll be fine (wires in close proximity can cause interference with one another, if they're both powered on anyway).
I know you're right... but I'm anal. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by 17daysolderthannes
If we were talking about Audio, I'd argue differently. ;)
Composite seems to be more common than S-video now. (all TVs seem to include composite, sometimes it might be the only SDTV input on an HDTV -particularly if component doesn't support 240p)
Minimum for most current HDTVs seems to be composite+stereo+Y'PbPr+HDMI. (s-video and VGA are optional)
The PC input is more common that it was in 2005.
Maybe you need to calibrate your television?Quote:
Originally Posted by runback22
I have the LN52A630, and HD on Fios doesn't come close to Blu-Ray; it's full of MPEG-2 compression artifacts.
Yep! And let's not forget about motion blur. The higher frame rate you have, the less motion blur there will be. So something shot at 24fps is going to have more motion blur than something shot at 120 or 240fps. When the framerates are interpolated, the blur does not and can not go away, so you are seeing more blur than you should at such a fast speed. This helps make things look very, very wrong. It works OK for 60fps material like sports games or whatever, but I'd still leave it off all the time. You can set your PS3 to force 24fps and the TV won't turn on that shitty mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by 17daysolderthannes
The mode is totally optional, it won't do it automatically. Also, I play PS3 in my TV's "Game Mode" so it turns off all that anyway, unless of course you meant for Blu Rays...Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Redifer
Yes, for Blu-rays. You don't want 24p for games.
Is the frame rate for BD truly 24fps? I don't think so. Why is that? For b/c with older NTSC and PAL televisions?
24fps is film: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film#Technology
PAL is 25fps and NTSC is 30fps.
Blu-ray is 24fps (it can also be 30fps or 60fps). It is converted for shitty NTSC and PAL by the hardware itself.
I know 24fps is film. Isn't BD really ~23.97? I could have sworn the Blade Runner rip I made off a BD is that exact frame rate (don't have a BD drive so ripped it on laptop)
It's the same. The only difference is the time code.
Blu-ray is 24fps. 23.98 or whatever is the NTSC version of 24fps. NTSC doesn't really run at 60fps, but instead at 59.97 or some shit like that (I forget the exact number right now). The program you used to rip the Blu-ray probably just put it at 23.98 instead of 24.00 because they figured you wanted to make a DVD or watch it on an NTSC TV. DVD cannot have 24fps, but only 23.98. It's all weird and confusing, yes.
For DVD video yes (in fact, I think DVD video only encodes in SDTV resolutions -the hardware has to assemble 480p frames for players supporting that iirc -not sure abotu 240p, but that's all VCD uses)
However, for the DVD medium, that's not the case, of course, and some newer DVD players supporting MPEG-4 with DivX and such should be more flexible. (of course, then DVDs are not "DVD video" but simply DVD-ROM -or CD-ROM for that matter) Bitrate isn't limited in the same manner either iirc. (most definitely not on PCs)
That's the main point I was thinking of in terms of an intermediate blu ray/DVD format in some previous discussions. (as to blu ray what SVCD is to VCD -except you have the potential for dual layer DVDs, unlike CDs -as Double Density CDs never caught on)
But that's another topic. ;)
I agree with everyone else. 240 Hz is overkill, and you don't need a billion A/V inputs, just a few simple A/V switchboxes.
rather than making a new thread, I'll tack this one here since it's somewhat relevant (he mentioned he wanted to use a computer with it potentially):
HDMI is HDMI is HDMI, right? None of that "analog vs. digital" like VGA and Component, right? I ask this because I know they make a mini-DisplayPort->HDMI adapter for my Macbook Pro and I want to make ABSOLUTELY SURE it will work with ANY HDTV featuring an HDMI port before I make my final decision on my TV.
Also, would a plasma be a bad choice if I was to use it as second monitor on occasion? I won't use it for day to day stuff like web browsing, but there may be an occasion that I need the extra desktop space and have a near-static image for hours at a time. I'm really hesitant to buy an LCD/LED TV as the game mode feature seems to be hit and miss and the LED I was originally going to buy LACKS GAME MODE (FML). On the other hand, plasma TVs seem to offer everything I'm looking for and allegedly the newer ones have lifespans of up to 100,000 hours. I would imagine if it works for 5-10 years I'll be happy. If anyone is wondering, I'm looking for 40"-42" TVs.
Yes, the signal is standard. However, if the two devices do not handshake properly, nothing will function correctly. Usually this isn't a problem, but it does slow the initial syncing of the device with the display before an image appears, unlike analog connections.
Yes, but beware: HDMI can be a BIT*CH to work with for some computers, VGA doesn't have that problem. (I think it's a driver issue, but possibly a hardware one, but it limits the display resolution via HDMI, at least with some video cards)
VGA is usually fine, unless you have a weird TV with poor analog to digital conversion.
So a simple mini DVI to VGA adapter should work fine. (unless you have a mac pro, which use full sized DVI iirc, still VGA compatible though)
I don't want to use a shitty VGA cable, though, as that would limit me to less-than-1080p resolution.
(edit: apparently it wouldn't, but still, the VGA port is for my Dreamcast, I have 3 HDMI sockets that will be unused)
Upon further review via the ikea "build your home with our crap" program, I'm realizing the space will be pretty small and I'm thinking I'm just going to get the exact same LCD TV my dad got a couple weeks ago. It's about $500 for a 32" with 1080p and 120hz and it works great for games and I love all of the features of it. It does have VGA, but like I said, I want to use HDMI for maximum resolution potential.
You may not be able to output bore than 720p from HDMI... There's weird limits imposed for some computers (or drivers at least) which make little sense, both PCs and MACs. (not for straight DVI, of course, but HDMI for sure, at least on "720p" tvs, not sure about 1080p native sets)
All I know is that we ended up using DVI-A for the LCD projector for demonstrations from my digital media instructor's Macbook pro last semester and VGA (DVI-A) is the only way to display in the full 1360x768p native resolution of our HDTV (or higher res for that matter -downscaled), HDMI with my dad's PC wants to go with 1280x720 or 1360x768i (both scaled, the latter deinterlaced so both blurry): 1024x768 is the only native pixel accurate resolution HDMI supported. (and that's with pillarboxing, of course)
You can do 1080p with component too (though it's technically not rated for that), but some TVs don't let you. There's really nothing wrong with doing it though.
For consoles with HDMI output or dedicated bluray players, home theater equipment, etc HDMI should be fine (other than issues Joe mentioned), but computers can be a pain. (not sure if it'd driver related or the video cards themselves)
For an older computer (and many newer PC notebooks) you're stuck with analog out anyway. (VGA, often S-video, and component support)
Excuse me if I missed something but VGA cables should allow 1080p without issues.Quote:
Originally Posted by 17daysolderthannes
(HDMI or DVI still would be preferrable to VGA)
He already corrected himself in that post...Quote:
Originally Posted by Christuserloeser
Anyway, yeah DVI/HDMI would be preferable except in the problematic situations I mentioned. (if VGA is a more convenient option, not much wrong there either -I think it might matter more if you were running long cables -VGA potentially loosing signal quality depending on the cable too)