Buying LCD-TV - optimal resolution for Xbox360/PS3

[Jesper]

I agree, Pioneer plasma screen (here in EU and the one that win as the best screen of the year), can't show real 1280*720 since the resolution 1024*768.. I think a lot consumer are getting confused..

However, when Xbox 360 is in the store I would will look very hard for an lcd screen.. I just don't like the bad response time.. But one I am looking at right now is Loewe Xelos A32 - is getting nice test and beat most of the other screens I have seen in test.

Huh, native resolution is only one factor of many when it comes ot overall image quality. I have seen a few 1024x768 Pioneer plasma in action and I'd put their image quality above any LCD I have ever seen.

I am not talking about quality image here..

I have seen many plasma also an I like them too (many times they are a lot better than lcd), but since I can't find any with at least 1280*720 resolution I am not buying it.. (niether is my wallet! )

*edit*
When I said test I mean those lcd screens test I have seen.. NOT lcd vs. plasma..

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I agree, Pioneer plasma screen (here in EU and the one that win as the best screen of the year), can't show real 1280*720 since the resolution 1024*768.. I think a lot consumer are getting confused..

However, when Xbox 360 is in the store I would will look very hard for an lcd screen.. I just don't like the bad response time.. But one I am looking at right now is Loewe Xelos A32 - is getting nice test and beat most of the other screens I have seen in test.

Huh, native resolution is only one factor of many when it comes ot overall image quality. I have seen a few 1024x768 Pioneer plasma in action and I'd put their image quality above any LCD I have ever seen.

I seriously doubt that Pioneer produces better 720p picture than good lcd-tv which has native 720p resolution, because it's incapable to to show full horizontal resolution.

 

[kyleb]

Assuming you are looking straight on at a static image with little varation in color or brightness, yea the LCDs native resolution matching the souce would likely make it the clear winner. However, in normal use things like contrast, saturation, response time, and optimal viewing angle come into play and the LCDs weak points tend to outway its resolution advantage.

 

[Brimstone]

The big problem with plasma is screen burn in. So many games have HUD displays that a person is just flirting with disaster to play a game for an extended period of time on a plasma.

 

[Ty]

I seriously doubt that Pioneer produces better 720p picture than good lcd-tv which has native 720p resolution, because it's incapable to to show full horizontal resolution.

Try comparing them in person and you'll see that resolution is but one factor.

If the PDP has a good scaler, then the difference can be marginal depending on many other factors within the sets themselves OR the viewing environment. Consider viewing distance which affects your ability to perceive details (including SDE). What about ambient lighting which affects your ability to perceive contrast differences?

Why aren't all good LCD monitors the same in terms of PQ? In other words, even amongst good LCD monitors, some are better than others when looking at various categories (motion blurring, view angle, etc.)

The big problem with plasma is screen burn in. So many games have HUD displays that a person is just flirting with disaster to play a game for an extended period of time on a plasma.

Burn-in is much less of a problem nowadays with current PDPs. It's ALMOST to the level of CRTs in terms of possibility.

 

[kyleb]

That has always been an issue with plasmas, but the newer ones are making it less of an issue all the time. I accedently left my screen with a blank 4:3 area and grey pillerbox bars on for about 8 hours over one night and when I woke up that morning I though I had just screwed up my screen, but I pulled up a white webpage right away and didn't even see the slightest bit of image retention, let alone burn in. I'm sure if I left a static image on for a few days it would burn in, but normal use isn't going to cause a problem with the newer/better plasmas.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Why aren't all good LCD monitors the same in terms of PQ? In other words, even amongst good LCD monitors, some are better than others when looking at various categories (motion blurring, view angle, etc.)

I don't understand what is the point of that.

 

[Nite_Hawk]

I plan to use my Sony GDM-FW900 24" Flat Widescreen CRT monitor for next gen gaming.

The downsides are it's only VGA input so no all digital transmission, and it's no longer being made. The upsides are it's a CRT (best picture quality), it does 1920x1080p with ease (can even go higher) and I already have it.

Picture quality is debatable, especially, when new tech improves, whereas your monitor doesn't . Let's hope you can plug next-gen consoles to your monitor. By the way I used 22" Viewsonic for Xbox before I got my hdtv, and it worked great.

Picture quality isn't really debatable at all. Off axis viewing, brightness, etc. and viewing at all resolutions without scaling makes the CRT the continual quality king. When running at an LCDs proper fixed resolution they can provide an arguably equivalent and in some criteria better picture.

"... especially, when new tech improves, ..." I find this a little funny, LCDs have been and will remain more "fixed" with their single native resoluition support. And I haven't seen to many pieces of hardware that improve once you buy the thing, LCDs included.

LCDs are a compromise that people accept because of the "coolness" factor of having a thin, lightweight screen. Picture quality is not their strong suit, although they are getting there. In a few years I expect some flat panel technology to surpass CRTs in quality alone and at a price point that makes them attractive. We aren't there yet as far as I'm concerned, and by then my "outdated" CRT will have provided a decade of outstanding picture quality surpassed by nothing else available during that time.

Oh, and both next gen boxes (PS3 and XBOX360) we have some details on appear to support VGA out of the box.

Honestly I feel that at this point the Dell 2405 gives the FW-900 a run for its money. It is brighter, has nearly as good contrast, and very good response times. What it may lack in contrast and response (and honestly I think it is pretty close) it makes up for in geometry and clearness at high resolutions. I haven't really seen off-axis viewing as a significant problem on most modern LCD displays.

Despite this, there are other displays coming out far earlier than a couple of years off that take care of what little remains of their deficiencies. Viewsonic is claiming 4ms gray to gray response times for their new line of LCDs which are already available for pre-order around the web. Several companies including NEC/Mitsubishi have designed LCD displays which use LED backlights to produce contrast ratios signifcantly higher than even the better CRT displays. Consumer level products are supposed to be available in 2006.

At one point I was pro CRT as well, but LCDs have come a long way in the last couple of years. I'd never go back to my old CRT at this point.

Nite_Hawk

 

[randycat99]

Be careful with these specs, guys! Just like the consoles, a lot of these specs, though based in some truth, are not as "true" as you may suspect. For example, the latency time- often times that is the "peak" or best value out of an entire curve of response times over a range of brightness levels. It's not hard at all to think you have device A better than device B on the count of better latency time at a single point, when the actual curve of latency time points may indicate that device B is better than device A "most of the time". This was just an example to illustrate that specs like "latency" cannot legitimately be conveyed by a single number, but a single number is what is marketed because that is about all the average consumer can grasp. If you extend this same phenomenon to specs such as contrast ratio and illumination uniformity, you see there is plenty of material to serve/exploit as fodder at the feet of marketing folk.

To see more of this in action, I refer you to some of the LCD reviews that have been done as of late at the tomshardware website. The selection of reviews are by no means comprehensive, but the tests they are doing to quantify performance are notable. That is the sort of methodology you should be looking for when you read reviews on myraid other products as you do your shopping, if you really want to ensure there is some "meat" behind the specs that are typically given.

 

[Nite_Hawk]

Be careful with these specs, guys! Just like the consoles, a lot of these specs, though based in some truth, are not as "true" as you may suspect. For example, the latency time- often times that is the "peak" or best value out of an entire curve of response times over a range of brightness levels. It's not hard at all to think you have device A better than device B on the count of better latency time at a single point, when the actual curve of latency time points may indicate that device B is better than device A "most of the time". This was just an example to illustrate that specs like "latency" cannot legitimately be conveyed by a single number, but a single number is what is marketed because that is about all the average consumer can grasp.

To see more of this in action, I refer you to some of the LCD reviews that have been done as of late at the tomshardware website. The selection of reviews are by no means comprehensive, but the tests they are doing to quantify performance are notable. That is the sort of methodology you should be looking for when you read reviews on myraid other products as you do your shopping, if you really want to ensure there is some "meat" behind the specs that are typically given.

Generally what you are speaking of with LCDs is manufacturers listing the white to black or black to white response times rather than gray to gray. Going from white to black or black to white is easy because it only requires a min or maxing of the voltage to the cell.
What Viewsonic is claiming is 4ms gray to gray response times (which are the harder variety). Basically assuming that they aren't horribly misrepresenting the truth (I'll admit that this is certainly a possibility) these displays should be quite good.

Nite_Hawk

 

[randycat99]

Let's just say, you cannot be sure of much unless you are viewing an actual curve derived from a real test. If they are just giving a "single point", even with just a "preface", then really they are not that far off from having told you nothing at all. You can be fairly sure that the "single point" they do give you will be the best on the curve (doing otherwise would be unnecessary suicide, as far as marketing). Doesn't it make sense that the greater concern should be how the device behaves on the worst part of the curve? That will be the bottleneck on the performance, especially if most of the curve resembles the worst part, rather than the best part. Unfortunately, this kind of material will be hard to come by (by design). Suffice to say, if you do get to behold the "curve", you have certainly found a real jewel of info.

 

[Nite_Hawk]

Let's just say, you cannot be sure of much unless you are viewing an actual curve derived from a real test. If they are just giving a "single point", even with just a "preface", then really they are not that far off from having told you nothing at all. You can be fairly sure that the "single point" they do give you will be the best on the curve (doing otherwise would be unnecessary suicide, as far as marketing). Doesn't it make sense that the greater concern should be how the device behaves on the worst part of the curve? That will be the bottleneck on the performance, especially if most of the curve resembles the worst part, rather than the best part. Unfortunately, this kind of material will be hard to come by (by design). Suffice to say, if you do get to behold the "curve", you have certainly found a real jewel of info.

I agree with you. A lot of it depends on the technology being used. If they've adopted feed-forward I'm not as concerned as generally speaking the black to white and white to black transitions should become worst case scenarios which generally are no greater than 16ms these days. If they are just using faster panels it's still up in the air. Still, I think this is a problem that is mostly on it's way out. There have been enough advances in the field lately that I'm not nearly as concerned about it as I used to be. At this point the contrast issue I think is a bigger concern.

Nite_Hawk

 

[Ty]

I don't understand what is the point of that.

Sorry, my point was that even when comparing "good LCD" monitors that have the same resolution, there will be varying degrees of PQ. Therefore resolution is but one factor that makes up PQ.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

I don't understand what is the point of that.

Sorry, my point was that even when comparing "good LCD" monitors that have the same resolution, there will be varying degrees of PQ. Therefore resolution is but one factor that makes up PQ.

Oh ok, now it makes sense. . I still wouldn't consider Plasma which has below 720p resolution good buy if 720p is what you are after...

 

[kyleb]

Heh, that is like saying "I don't consider a 6 cylinder car a good buy if an 8 cylinder car is what you are after." Obviously, if you just fixate on one spec then nothing but that spec will satisfy you; but that doesn't mean you couldn't have found something more suited to your purposes if you had approached the situation with a more open mind.