Response time for gaming.....what I found

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
A

admin_exported

New member
Aug 10, 2019
2,556
5
0
Best of the bunch[lower the better]:

LG SL8000 10 ms [edited]

Panasonic TX-P46G10 , Panasonic TX-L32V10E 5ms

Philips 46PFL9704, Philips 32PFL8404 10ms

Samsung 40 LED 8000 60ms

Sony KDL-52Z5500 30ms

Sony KDL-46W5500 40ms

Sony KDL-32W5500 50ms

Sony KDL-46Z4500 25ms

Sony KDL-40ZX1 70ms

Looks like the Sony aren't best for the PS3??



 
so the g10 is the fastest flatscreen then flatscreen ?????
 
er , the rate of speed at which each tv travels when dropped from a plane ?? that sounds like a fun game..
 
maxflinn:so the g10 is the fastest flatscreen then flatscreen ?????

Ooh, quick off the mark Maxflinn. I had me a slight hunch but then thought less of it - I'm not sure yet. More evidence is required before you can claim this one.

Could it be, no it couldn't, but could it, no it couldn't, and if it could, it wouldn't...........(or something along those lines)

 
Andrew Everard:So what's faster, a TV being dropped from a plane or people jumping to conclusions...?

Well, quite clearly the latter, but I have not yet reached any conclusions other than that it is time for bed.
 
Maxflintoff:
Best of the bunch[lower the better]:

LG SL8000 10 ms [edited]

Panasonic TX-P46G10 , Panasonic TX-L32V10E 5ms

Philips 46PFL9704, Philips 32PFL8404 10ms

Samsung 40 LED 8000 60ms

Sony KDL-52Z5500 30ms

Sony KDL-46W5500 40ms

Sony KDL-32W5500 50ms

Sony KDL-46Z4500 25ms

Sony KDL-40ZX1 70ms

Looks like the Sony aren't best for the PS3??





Are you sure those were in GAME mode as my 46W5500 is supposed to be 30ms

The panasonic looks like RESPONSE time too and not actual LAG time
 
Those are game mode times, and not normal times from the only study of the kind from Europe. The data is compelling. It confirms what many believe that the Philips and Panasonics TVs have greater refresh times and better panels altogether.

The Samsungs and Sony seem to same similar outcomes? Not surprising given the business relationship.

The data is not authoritatives, but gives the Philips and Panasonics something to boost about.There is more to agree than to disagree here.
 
Maxflintoff:It confirms what many believe that the Philips and Panasonics TVs have greater refresh times and better panels altogether.No, if I read it correctly, the Philips and Panasonic models - at least from those figures - have less refresh time, not greater. ie they refresh faster.

Maxflintoff:The Samsungs and Sony seem to same similar outcomes? Not surprising given the business relationshipMore than likely they're the same panels, made by S-LCD.

Maxflintoff:The data is not authoritativesWhat? The data isn't authoritative? Then why on earth go to all the trouble to quote it?

Maxflintoff:There is more to agree than to disagree here.No, sorry - I have no idea what that sentence means.
 
Yes, 'less refresh time', not greater refresh time, my mistake.

The study in question shows how different panels have different refresh times, not that we do not know this, but which order they come in is not a known quoted fact. I would be very surprised if the Philips had greater rather than less response time than Sony. Before I read the review I banked on the Philips doing well as their panels had something like an average 2ms response time as some of the adverts states.Sony had something like 11ms or something but not for Gaming mode which the stats I quoted alludes to.

The data is not from an authoritative study as there isn't any other study to confirm its accuracy but It is worth quoting as it is research that I have not been able to find in any UK publications and have wanted to know.

Some TV manuals only tell us the average response time.Game mode response times are aways absent but I have seen it in Panasonic brochures - 2ms, and all the data can inform buying choice for some people.

The study was done to address the data gap.
 
The study was done with 'gaming mode' set to ON or settings equal to it to give the best performance. If you turn the 200hz motion thing on the Samsung, then it probably make the response worse.But check the manual to be sure.

However, it all really boils down to whether you notice it?

I don't think I can tell if a TV have a 40ms response time or 5ms just watching Blu Ray? But some people with quick reflex reaction times might do in any fast and intensive interactive TV experiences.

Manufacturers like Panasonic and Philips are active in promoting these data as a selling point for their TV, rightly so too. I don't know about Samsung? We should be given all the the relevant tech information.

The study in question of about 25 TVs would have taken quite a bit of time to conduct. I had to have someone who could read Italian to translate it for me for a £5.

I would say anything less than 70ms is good enough, but stats do matter.All Plasmas and some expensive LCD have this issue licked
 
My tv is supposed to have a 50ms 'lag' and I can definitely notice it on dvds etc and so set my amp to 50ms lag to suit

GAME mode is supposed to be 30 ms for mine (Measured elsewhere)

The quoted 'response' times are nothing to do with lag (Which is the figures that most manufacturers quote)
 
Maxflintoff:I don't think I can tell if a TV have a 40ms response time or 5ms just watching Blu Ray?
<SNIP>

I would say anything less than 70ms is good enough

Take a breather, reload: the frequency and speed with which you're pumping ammunition into your foot you're going to run out of shells soon...
 
I spoke to my friend who is an engineer, this is what he said about motion blur and response time in LCD TVs.He has a degree in Physics.It's technical but clear. This is his email to me.It's very complex and really beyond what any magazine would go into.

'motion blur' is often being used by both TV manufactures and retailers to describe a rather hazy concept without differentiating between say a 'jerky image' or judder due to a different frame rate content, 'motion resolution' due to limitations within the video processing in an HDTV, and image lag or 'blur' due to a slow LCD response time. This despite that judder, motion resolution, and image lag due to a slower pixel LCD response time - while all lead to blurring and lack of motion smoothness, are technically completely different issues.

Admittedly, the 'pixel response time' of the latest generation LCD display panels has improved significantly. 4msec LCD response times has become the standard while LCD displays with a rated 2msec response time are becoming relatively common, this when up to just over a year ago, 8msec was the norm.

For many, the latest 4 msec and 2 msec LCD displays should be perfectly adequate, however the discerning eye may still be able to detect a slight 'trailer' or blurring effect, where the individual pixels on the LCD display appear to be just out of step with the image on the screen during very fast sports events and action movie scenes.

On response time, he saids,

The lack of standard specifications for measuring LCD response time means that manufactures can choose to quote, or in that case even leave out, whatever suits them best.

Unfortunately, there is a lot of consumer misinformation surrounding the issue of motion blur and 120Hz/240Hz LCDs. In particular, the general notion among consumers has so far been that the slower refresh rate of 60Hz HDTVs coupled with the slower LCD pixel response time in comparison to plasma TVs, leave 60Hz LCD HDTVs more susceptible to motion blur. True!

The best advice.....Should you decide to compare LCD response times between different TV makers, the best way is to judge with your own eyes. Product specs published by manufactures for LCD response time should only be taken as indicative
 
Maxflintoff:
I spoke to my friend who is an engineer, this is what he said about motion blur and response time in LCD TVs.He has a degree in Physics.It's technical but clear. This is his email to me.It's very complex and really beyond what any magazine would go into.

Meaning we're all thick?

And what about 'phosphor trails' on plasmas?
 
Yes, yes - so when do we get to the the very complex bit?

There's nothing in your friend the engineer's email to challenge a reader of The Ladybird Book of How Things Work, let alone being Maxflintoff:beyond what any magazine would go into
 
Maxflintoff:

I spoke to my friend who is an engineer, this is what he said about motion blur and response time in LCD TVs.He has a degree in Physics.It's technical but clear. This is his email to me.It's very complex and really beyond what any magazine would go into.

Etc (added by hmtb)

Funny, your "friend's" email seems to be made up from a summary of the article linked to below, whilst also including directly lifted passages.

http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/lcd-response-time.html

Amongst other parts contained in the "email", the article ends with:

"It is therefore evident that the term 'motion blur' is often being used by both TV manufactures and retailers to describe a rather hazy concept without differentiating between say a 'jerky image' or judder due to a different frame rate content, 'motion resolution' due to limitations within the video processing in an HDTV, and image lag or 'blur' due to a slow LCD response time. This despite that judder, motion resolution, and image lag due to a slower pixel LCD response time - while all lead to blurring and lack of motion smoothness, are technically completely different issues."

Sound familiar?
 
emotion-3.gif
Good spot, hmtb - was so amazed by his physics-degree'd engineer friends lack of anything very complex I didn't bother to Google it to see where it came from.

I really am beginning to wonder what on earth is the point of this whole thread...
 
hmtb:Maxflintoff:

I spoke to my friend who is an engineer, this is what he said about motion blur and response time in LCD TVs.He has a degree in Physics.It's technical but clear. This is his email to me.It's very complex and really beyond what any magazine would go into.

Etc (added by hmtb)

Funny, your "friend's" email seems to be made up from a summary of the article linked to below, whilst also including directly lifted passages.

http://www.practical-home-theater-guide.com/lcd-response-time.html

Amongst other parts contained in the "email", the article ends with:

"It is therefore evident that the term 'motion blur' is often being used by both TV manufactures and retailers to describe a rather hazy concept without differentiating between say a 'jerky image' or judder due to a different frame rate content, 'motion resolution' due to limitations within the video processing in an HDTV, and image lag or 'blur' due to a slow LCD response time. This despite that judder, motion resolution, and image lag due to a slower pixel LCD response time - while all lead to blurring and lack of motion smoothness, are technically completely different issues."

Sound familiar?

ahhhh, but youll find his 'physics engineering mate' wrote that
emotion-4.gif


Good find, ive sussed a few out with 'google robbing' before today
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom