toloveistorebel Impressive. Most impressive. Central FLRegistered Userregular
So I got a PS4 a couple weeks back and have been playing Destiny a bunch with friends. I'm not sure if there's an actual difference between playing games on my PC vs the PS4 but it sure feels better on the lag side of things (Panasonic ST60). Even Injustice: Gods Among Us feels very responsive which really surprised me. I have a budget Seiki 40" down stairs that I'll use at times as well. Holy cow there's such an unbelievable difference between the two sets! I've had this thing for about a year now and am still blown away by it.
0
Options
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
So I got a PS4 a couple weeks back and have been playing Destiny a bunch with friends. I'm not sure if there's an actual difference between playing games on my PC vs the PS4 but it sure feels better on the lag side of things (Panasonic ST60). Even Injustice: Gods Among Us feels very responsive which really surprised me. I have a budget Seiki 40" down stairs that I'll use at times as well. Holy cow there's such an unbelievable difference between the two sets! I've had this thing for about a year now and am still blown away by it.
There's a Game mode that cuts out the lag significantly by removing a lot of the post-processing, but TVs will rarely have the same responsiveness as, say, a high-end PC gaming monitor.
+1
Options
toloveistorebel Impressive. Most impressive. Central FLRegistered Userregular
Yeah, the problem with the ST60 is the "smart" OS features significantly add lag and there's no way to turn it off. With absolutely every image processing feature you can think of turned off and game mode on, there is still around 60ms of lag. I think I've just gotten used to it.
The smart features on the step down model, the S60, are significantly reduced and lag is about 30ms I think. In the step up models, the VT60 and ZT60, there is a better processor and they handle the smart features better and have reduced lag. Oh well.
I wasn't complaining or even looking for help in my original post, just kinda sharing my findings. I definitely bought the TV knowing what I was getting into. I knew it would be a tradeoff of low lag for a superior picture.
I know it's probably a mostly a question of personal preference; but I'm wondering if there's any general guideline of what is a good TV size for the distance you will be from it?
In that I mean just from a field of view perspective; lets say I was replacing my current PC monitor (27in) with a TV, to use for both my PC and all my gaming. I sit about 2 1/2 ft from the monitor with proper posture, and if I'm reclining in my chair more like 3 1/2 - 4ft away.
With my current monitor I can quickly see any information on the screen with just movement of my eyes; I don't really have to turn my head itself unless I just want to focus more closely on a single part of an image.
Is there any rough math to tell me what size of a monitor I could still do this with before it got too large and parts of the screen would be outside my discernible field of vision? Or do I just kinda need to do some visual tests on my own to get a grip on my own personal field of view and what size that translates to?
But if folks here have any experience with using larger screens as their desktop monitor (I'm currently looking at a couple samsung and sonys, 40 and 48in; though the input lag on the Samsung looks to be higher than what I'd really want), and what their experience has been?
I don't really do any work on my monitor, aside from just personal news, information and research about things I'm interested in. It's otherwise 100% for gaming and general interweb use. I have mostly decided against a 4k for the time being, until there is more content that actually uses it, and pc components come down enough to not be basically 1k-1.5k for the video cards alone to adequately pump out a 4k res on modern games. Plus the PS4 and xbone I just bought do nothing with 4k, so meh.
I guess my main concern, outside of the general usefulness of that large of a monitor potentially exceeding my field of view, is that the TV's I'm looking at don't seem to have any adjustability options; i.e. they just face forward, but don't swivel up/down or back/forth. PC monitors that do this tend to cap out around 30in or so and I think I want something larger than that realistically. So back to the question of whether folks here have experience with this, do you alternate between upright and reclined use? does the static angle of the tv/monitor cause any issues? My current 27in, if I'm sitting up I often have to angle it up toward me, or I'm looking down on the monitor, but if I'm reclining it is about the perfect height. I could lower my chair when I'm sitting upright but then my legs are at a bad angle and it gets uncomfortable real fast. I have a corner desk so wall mounting, without a long arm anyway, isn't really an option; and I have an ikea desk so it likely wouldn't be able to adequately handle a desk mounted arm for a TV that size.
So, thoughts? tips? facts?
EDIT: curved seems like it'd be nice for how close I'll be, I've read people who use a curved as a desktop feel it's far more useful and immersive than a living room set. I'm not sure if I care about 3D or not. I've never gamed in 3D though I know some games support it; but it's something I've never really felt made a damn difference except for the 48p hobbit in theatres. Is samsung pretty much the only curved option?
I know it's probably a mostly a question of personal preference; but I'm wondering if there's any general guideline of what is a good TV size for the distance you will be from it?
In that I mean just from a field of view perspective; lets say I was replacing my current PC monitor (27in) with a TV, to use for both my PC and all my gaming. I sit about 2 1/2 ft from the monitor with proper posture, and if I'm reclining in my chair more like 3 1/2 - 4ft away.
With my current monitor I can quickly see any information on the screen with just movement of my eyes; I don't really have to turn my head itself unless I just want to focus more closely on a single part of an image.
Is there any rough math to tell me what size of a monitor I could still do this with before it got too large and parts of the screen would be outside my discernible field of vision? Or do I just kinda need to do some visual tests on my own to get a grip on my own personal field of view and what size that translates to?
But if folks here have any experience with using larger screens as their desktop monitor (I'm currently looking at a couple samsung and sonys, 40 and 48in; though the input lag on the Samsung looks to be higher than what I'd really want), and what their experience has been?
I don't really do any work on my monitor, aside from just personal news, information and research about things I'm interested in. It's otherwise 100% for gaming and general interweb use. I have mostly decided against a 4k for the time being, until there is more content that actually uses it, and pc components come down enough to not be basically 1k-1.5k for the video cards alone to adequately pump out a 4k res on modern games. Plus the PS4 and xbone I just bought do nothing with 4k, so meh.
I guess my main concern, outside of the general usefulness of that large of a monitor potentially exceeding my field of view, is that the TV's I'm looking at don't seem to have any adjustability options; i.e. they just face forward, but don't swivel up/down or back/forth. PC monitors that do this tend to cap out around 30in or so and I think I want something larger than that realistically. So back to the question of whether folks here have experience with this, do you alternate between upright and reclined use? does the static angle of the tv/monitor cause any issues? My current 27in, if I'm sitting up I often have to angle it up toward me, or I'm looking down on the monitor, but if I'm reclining it is about the perfect height. I could lower my chair when I'm sitting upright but then my legs are at a bad angle and it gets uncomfortable real fast. I have a corner desk so wall mounting, without a long arm anyway, isn't really an option; and I have an ikea desk so it likely wouldn't be able to adequately handle a desk mounted arm for a TV that size.
So, thoughts? tips? facts?
EDIT: curved seems like it'd be nice for how close I'll be, I've read people who use a curved as a desktop feel it's far more useful and immersive than a living room set. I'm not sure if I care about 3D or not. I've never gamed in 3D though I know some games support it; but it's something I've never really felt made a damn difference except for the 48p hobbit in theatres. Is samsung pretty much the only curved option?
As for setting up the television, you're right in that most don't allow for a lot of articulation, particularly in the up-down direction. I'm guessing you'll have to check out each television to see if their bases support the kind of setup you need. There are some that don't allow any articulation at all.
I wouldn't get bent out of shape regarding 3D. It's not in a place where it really adds much to the gaming experience, particularly if you're using the television's rendering and not some sort of native solution.
Hmmm...those all seem to indicate that under 4ft I shouldn't go any higher than 32 for a 1080; but with a 4k bigger could work, mainly for pixel density reasons (EDIT: Though, given that I'd be using the 4k as 1080 most of the time, I suppose that benefit would be negated anyway).
I guess realistically I'll have to take a trip to best buy/costco and just get my face in front of one of the ones I'm interested in and just see, from my viewing distances, if the pixel density bugs me.
The response times of those Changhong TVs are in the too good to be true territory, as in 5 ms response times, when the best two TV brands for gaming, Sony and LG, would have a 17 ms or 25 ms response time respectively.
0
Options
toloveistorebel Impressive. Most impressive. Central FLRegistered Userregular
Its probably referring to the refresh rate of the pixels rather than the input lag. I bet the refresh rate of LG and Sony sets are 5ms or below as well. But input lag is a different animal. The fact that Sony can get down to 17ms for input lag is crazy to think about.
Do they sell 3D glasses that are better quality/more comfortable than the pack-in glasses they include with Samsung TVs?
Mine work, but they're pretty dinky and require a bit of readjusting. If there are better quality glasses that are compatible with the TV, I'd like to look into it.
toloveistorebel Impressive. Most impressive. Central FLRegistered Userregular
edited January 2015
I'm sure someone makes some better ones. Samsung may even sell premium ones but I'm not sure. Anyway, check amazon and see what comes up. Just make sure they are compatible with Samsung TVs.
On a related note, Oakley makes some passive 3D glasses that would be awesome. Would make going to see 3D movies at a theater so much better. The optical clarity of Oakley's are tough to beat. I've been playing golf at a high level for almost 20 years now and Oakley is the only brand I trust for that. Too bad they won't work with any TVs other than the few passive 3D sets that are out there.
Are they active or passive 3D glasses (active needs to have batteries or be charged, passive does not)? I think Sammys are active so you'll want to make sure whatever you find is compatible with your set.
@toloveistorebel try something with glass/crystal lenses, you'll never go back to plastic.
Is the ARC function on the TV/Receiver only for sound that originates from the TV? I'm setting up a new TV and I'm not sure where to put things. When I plug my PS4 into the receiver the audio lag is fairly noticeable, when I thought it was supposed to pass the sound back form the TV so it syncs up properly.
Yes ARC is for audio originating on TV (source is OTA antenna connected to tv, smartapp on the TV, other devices that are directly connecting to TV so audio path goes thru TV to receiver). It won't be at play for devices plugged directly into your receiver. Lag is likely coming from processing by the PS or by the receiver.
Hrm, I figured the receiver and PS would be able to sync their audio, and blamed it on image processing on the TV. It sounds like if I want things hooked up the the receiver, I need to run an audio cable back from the TV, which seems weird.
You shouldn't have to do that. I'd mess with audio output settings on PS4 and settings on the receiver (some have adjustable delay). If it were a PS3 I'd say set it to 2 channel PCM and the receiver to 2 channel stereo and see if it is still there (no processing), but I don't know the PS4 settings.
The Samsung seems to be the slightly better set. I'm just not sure if it's enough better to justify the $140 price difference.
What I'm wondering is, am I missing anything? I.E. are there factors I might not be considering? I looked at both at Best Buy, so colors etc weren't really able to be tested, but I was looking at pixel density based on how I usually sit at my desk to see if it'd work for me, and I decided 40in is the biggest I can go and not have it feel like the pixels are too big. That is without going 4k; but nothing I own, or will likely own in the forseeable future, can do 4k, so it seems really not worth the extra cost. And I am to understand from some googling that while using 1080 devices on 4k works well enough, it makes things maybe a bit 'fuzzy' due to the 4:1 pixel use and doesn't feel as 'natural'? as just having a normal 1080. 32in is nice in that the pixels are much more tightly packed, but it just doesn't feel big enough over my current 27 to feel worth the upgrade currently. 40in feels more 'big screen' from where I sit and is more what I'm thinking.
Also, I guess the only other thing is...could there be an 'off' brand that has just as good specs, response, color depth, etc etc, for a better price?
EDIT: Though, I guess for $200 more is this Samsung 4k 40in that seems to have decent reviews too. :rotate:
toloveistorebel Impressive. Most impressive. Central FLRegistered Userregular
I would say definitely go with that Sony. Since you'll be using it mainly as a computer monitor you want as low input lag as possible (not to be confused with refresh rate, input lag will be the length of time from when you move your mouse/click a button to when it shows on screen). The Sony only has 29ms of lag while the Samsung has 42ms. Anything above 30 I think is considered pretty high. And just stay away from 4K I think unless you go with an actual 4K monitor. Which you may actually be able to get for about the same price. But smaller size which makes it moot.
I like that answer because the Sony is the cheapest!
But yeah the input lag on the Samsung was a concern, and you have to put it in pc/game mode to even get it to 42ish. I'm not a super competitive gamer so I figured it'd still be low enough to not bug me.
The other major thing that 'concerns' me is the 60 vs 120mhz refresh on the sony vs samsung. They both have whateverandstuff tech that makes them 'effective' 240, whatever that means; I guess I'm just concerned about ghosting on the Sony...though my current monitor is 60 so I don't know why that is even worrying. :rotate:
Personally I wouldn't be concerned about 60Hz vs. 120/240Hz. On a TV basically what happens is it takes a 60Hz (or 60fps) signal and then duplicates frames to make it look "smoother" or like there is less judder. It does work but it gives movies and TV shows a really weird soap opera looking effect. If you're using that TV for gaming though, as soon as you put it in game mode it shuts off that 120 or 240Hz feature and just keeps it at 60Hz anyway. And even keeping the feature active anyway introduces extra lag. Also you will only ever be able to push 60Hz to a TV from your computer. If you had a 120Hz or 144Hz PC monitor then you could send it the corresponding signal. PC monitors with refresh rates that high actually DO display 120fps or 144fps if your computer can pump frames from a game that high. I think you're getting the point... but basically don't worry about it. Get the 60Hz with low lag and be happy
As far as 4K goes... I say monitor vs a TV because its pretty tough to get a 60Hz signal on a TV currently. You would need the TV to have HDMI 2.0 as well a GPU that has HDMI 2.0 and then *maybe* you could get it working. Otherwise you're stuck at 30Hz and its awful for PC use. There may be a couple TVs that can properly do 60Hz but I'm not totally sure. PC monitors have a bit better compatibility for that and you can use Display Port and get the full resolution at 60Hz. Pretty much the whole thing is a pain until it matures for another year or two.
Personally I wouldn't be concerned about 60Hz vs. 120/240Hz. On a TV basically what happens is it takes a 60Hz (or 60fps) signal and then duplicates frames to make it look "smoother" or like there is less judder. It does work but it gives movies and TV shows a really weird soap opera looking effect. If you're using that TV for gaming though, as soon as you put it in game mode it shuts off that 120 or 240Hz feature and just keeps it at 60Hz anyway. And even keeping the feature active anyway introduces extra lag. Also you will only ever be able to push 60Hz to a TV from your computer. If you had a 120Hz or 144Hz PC monitor then you could send it the corresponding signal. PC monitors with refresh rates that high actually DO display 120fps or 144fps if your computer can pump frames from a game that high. I think you're getting the point... but basically don't worry about it. Get the 60Hz with low lag and be happy
As far as 4K goes... I say monitor vs a TV because its pretty tough to get a 60Hz signal on a TV currently. You would need the TV to have HDMI 2.0 as well a GPU that has HDMI 2.0 and then *maybe* you could get it working. Otherwise you're stuck at 30Hz and its awful for PC use. There may be a couple TVs that can properly do 60Hz but I'm not totally sure. PC monitors have a bit better compatibility for that and you can use Display Port and get the full resolution at 60Hz. Pretty much the whole thing is a pain until it matures for another year or two.
Awesome, thanks so much for that info. Sony it is!
If you want to play games on your TV, either PC or console, you should reference displaylag.com to choose a TV with sub 30 ms input lag. Let me give you the summary: only LG and Sony make large TVs with low lag.
I don't know if this is the right spot to ask, since it involves TV antenna rather than about a TV itself, but I figure it would be the best bet.
Recently Time Warner in my area cut off access to local/basic channels through cable if you don't have a subscription so I am looking into an antenna to set up in my apartment. The other weekend I picked up a cheap stand up one from Target, but it didn't have great results. While it was sitting on my tv stand all of the channels it could get were very choppy. I had to hold it high enough so that I could get a clear picture without it going in and out every few seconds. Then if I raised it even higher I gained NBC, but lost CBS.
I researched online about where the signal comes from and the type of antenna I should look into (a small multidirectional). However with the way my apartment is set up, with a big glass window behind my tv, and in the opposite direction of where I should point the antenna, I'm not quite sure what I should look for to help in my situation. I figure something with a strong wide range and easily attached to a window. Probably something like this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16882576010&cm_re=tv_antenna-_-82-576-010-_-Product
If anyone can think of anything I should look into, it would be appreciated.
While I am able to watch most of my shows on my computer, it would be nice to be able watch them on my tv from my couch every once in a while. Of course TWC had to go screw that up.
Looking for a decent brand in the 40"+ range at a max of $600. The girlfriend is looking at some LG thing from best buy. Any suggestions? Oh she wants it to be smart.
I don't know if this is the right spot to ask, since it involves TV antenna rather than about a TV itself, but I figure it would be the best bet.
Recently Time Warner in my area cut off access to local/basic channels through cable if you don't have a subscription so I am looking into an antenna to set up in my apartment. The other weekend I picked up a cheap stand up one from Target, but it didn't have great results. While it was sitting on my tv stand all of the channels it could get were very choppy. I had to hold it high enough so that I could get a clear picture without it going in and out every few seconds. Then if I raised it even higher I gained NBC, but lost CBS.
I researched online about where the signal comes from and the type of antenna I should look into (a small multidirectional). However with the way my apartment is set up, with a big glass window behind my tv, and in the opposite direction of where I should point the antenna, I'm not quite sure what I should look for to help in my situation. I figure something with a strong wide range and easily attached to a window. Probably something like this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16882576010&cm_re=tv_antenna-_-82-576-010-_-Product
If anyone can think of anything I should look into, it would be appreciated.
While I am able to watch most of my shows on my computer, it would be nice to be able watch them on my tv from my couch every once in a while. Of course TWC had to go screw that up.
We bought the unpowered leaf before we cancelled cable and channels came in mostly okay. Bought the powered leaf after determining that the normal leaf was pretty good and then cancelled cable. We ran both the cable box and the HTPC in tandem for awhile to determine if we could actually get away without cable. Power bill was a bit more that month, but we realized we didn't need cable for the broadcast shows.
With the powered leaf we picked up a lot more channels and the ones we mostly cared about, your big networks, come in a lot better and are interrupted less often. You will have to play with positioning a bit. Ours currently lives above a closet opening because that's where we get the best reception for the channels we care about. Yeah, it's not all that fun to have the TV scan, realize you're missing something, move the antenna and scan again, and possibly repeat the whole process about 10 times, but once that thing is situated where it's needed to be, you don't need to mess with it again.
Yes, it's more expensive than the antenna you linked, but if this is going to be your permanent solution to picking up broadcast signals, splurge a little and get something that you'll want to keep around. Originally my wife was skeptical but now we very rarely get any signal interruption except on the CW which is much farther away than all the other broadcast towers.
Also be prepared for a bunch of channels that you don't want. But it's easy to remove those. So many 24/7 religious channels. There's also a channel that shows infomercials 24/7. Who watches that?
Looking for a decent brand in the 40"+ range at a max of $600. The girlfriend is looking at some LG thing from best buy. Any suggestions? Oh she wants it to be smart.
Looking to get a smart TV but have never really used these things. I want one that can connect to other networked devices eg my PC or a hard drive plugged into my router and stream videos off of them. Does such a thing exist? Do any companies do it better? I have tried googling but don't really understand most of the results.
Play Smash Bros 3DS with me! 4399-1034-5444
0
Options
toloveistorebel Impressive. Most impressive. Central FLRegistered Userregular
Looking to get a smart TV but have never really used these things. I want one that can connect to other networked devices eg my PC or a hard drive plugged into my router and stream videos off of them. Does such a thing exist? Do any companies do it better? I have tried googling but don't really understand most of the results.
I know that some manufacturers have been coming out with better smart TV functionality over the last year or so. Samsung, LG, and Vizio are among the best I believe. I'm not sure if any of them have a feature for streaming content over the local network or not though. Pretty sure my Panasonic does and it's smart features are awful, so it's probably a good bet others have the same feature. But generally it's usually best to just get the best TV you can for your budget based on picture quality, input lag, etc. and then just get a standalone box like a Roku or Apple TV. Almost always they do a much better job than using the built in functions of a TV.
My 55" smart LG streams Hulu+, Netflix, Amazon Prime, and HBO Go. However, the wifi connection sucks, as in disconnects every minute bad, even though my PS3 is solid as were my (no longer connected) Wii and Roku boxes. I assume that wired ethernet would work perfectly, but I haven't done that yet.
Posts
There's a Game mode that cuts out the lag significantly by removing a lot of the post-processing, but TVs will rarely have the same responsiveness as, say, a high-end PC gaming monitor.
The smart features on the step down model, the S60, are significantly reduced and lag is about 30ms I think. In the step up models, the VT60 and ZT60, there is a better processor and they handle the smart features better and have reduced lag. Oh well.
I wasn't complaining or even looking for help in my original post, just kinda sharing my findings. I definitely bought the TV knowing what I was getting into. I knew it would be a tradeoff of low lag for a superior picture.
Any recommendations?
Also you need to do some homework.
Read up projectorcentral.com
In that I mean just from a field of view perspective; lets say I was replacing my current PC monitor (27in) with a TV, to use for both my PC and all my gaming. I sit about 2 1/2 ft from the monitor with proper posture, and if I'm reclining in my chair more like 3 1/2 - 4ft away.
With my current monitor I can quickly see any information on the screen with just movement of my eyes; I don't really have to turn my head itself unless I just want to focus more closely on a single part of an image.
Is there any rough math to tell me what size of a monitor I could still do this with before it got too large and parts of the screen would be outside my discernible field of vision? Or do I just kinda need to do some visual tests on my own to get a grip on my own personal field of view and what size that translates to?
But if folks here have any experience with using larger screens as their desktop monitor (I'm currently looking at a couple samsung and sonys, 40 and 48in; though the input lag on the Samsung looks to be higher than what I'd really want), and what their experience has been?
I don't really do any work on my monitor, aside from just personal news, information and research about things I'm interested in. It's otherwise 100% for gaming and general interweb use. I have mostly decided against a 4k for the time being, until there is more content that actually uses it, and pc components come down enough to not be basically 1k-1.5k for the video cards alone to adequately pump out a 4k res on modern games. Plus the PS4 and xbone I just bought do nothing with 4k, so meh.
I guess my main concern, outside of the general usefulness of that large of a monitor potentially exceeding my field of view, is that the TV's I'm looking at don't seem to have any adjustability options; i.e. they just face forward, but don't swivel up/down or back/forth. PC monitors that do this tend to cap out around 30in or so and I think I want something larger than that realistically. So back to the question of whether folks here have experience with this, do you alternate between upright and reclined use? does the static angle of the tv/monitor cause any issues? My current 27in, if I'm sitting up I often have to angle it up toward me, or I'm looking down on the monitor, but if I'm reclining it is about the perfect height. I could lower my chair when I'm sitting upright but then my legs are at a bad angle and it gets uncomfortable real fast. I have a corner desk so wall mounting, without a long arm anyway, isn't really an option; and I have an ikea desk so it likely wouldn't be able to adequately handle a desk mounted arm for a TV that size.
So, thoughts? tips? facts?
EDIT: curved seems like it'd be nice for how close I'll be, I've read people who use a curved as a desktop feel it's far more useful and immersive than a living room set. I'm not sure if I care about 3D or not. I've never gamed in 3D though I know some games support it; but it's something I've never really felt made a damn difference except for the 48p hobbit in theatres.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
The first four results of this Google search seem legit.
As for setting up the television, you're right in that most don't allow for a lot of articulation, particularly in the up-down direction. I'm guessing you'll have to check out each television to see if their bases support the kind of setup you need. There are some that don't allow any articulation at all.
I wouldn't get bent out of shape regarding 3D. It's not in a place where it really adds much to the gaming experience, particularly if you're using the television's rendering and not some sort of native solution.
I guess realistically I'll have to take a trip to best buy/costco and just get my face in front of one of the ones I'm interested in and just see, from my viewing distances, if the pixel density bugs me.
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Also, build your own screen
http://www.carlofet.com/build-your-own-projector-screen/
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889623018&cm_re=changhong-_-89-623-018-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889624007&cm_re=changhong-_-89-624-007-_-Product
I don't know what a Changhong is, though. You might be better off looking for a used name brand on craigslist or ebay at that price point.
Edit: I don't know if that first one was actually 120Hz.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889624001&cm_re=changhong-_-89-624-001-_-Product
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889624003&cm_re=changhong-_-89-624-003-_-Product
Note: only one of those 4 sets is HDMI 1.4 the others are 1.3
Mine work, but they're pretty dinky and require a bit of readjusting. If there are better quality glasses that are compatible with the TV, I'd like to look into it.
Blog||Tumblr|Steam|Twitter|FFXIV|Twitch|YouTube|Podcast|PSN|XBL|DarkZero
On a related note, Oakley makes some passive 3D glasses that would be awesome. Would make going to see 3D movies at a theater so much better. The optical clarity of Oakley's are tough to beat. I've been playing golf at a high level for almost 20 years now and Oakley is the only brand I trust for that. Too bad they won't work with any TVs other than the few passive 3D sets that are out there.
@toloveistorebel try something with glass/crystal lenses, you'll never go back to plastic.
I think I've narrowed down my search for a replacement desktop monitor to a 40in 1080p set.
There's two in particular that seem to both be in the price range-ish I want, and have specs that are good for gaming and PC use. They are:
Samsung UN40H6350
and
Sony KDL40W600B
The Samsung seems to be the slightly better set. I'm just not sure if it's enough better to justify the $140 price difference.
What I'm wondering is, am I missing anything? I.E. are there factors I might not be considering? I looked at both at Best Buy, so colors etc weren't really able to be tested, but I was looking at pixel density based on how I usually sit at my desk to see if it'd work for me, and I decided 40in is the biggest I can go and not have it feel like the pixels are too big. That is without going 4k; but nothing I own, or will likely own in the forseeable future, can do 4k, so it seems really not worth the extra cost. And I am to understand from some googling that while using 1080 devices on 4k works well enough, it makes things maybe a bit 'fuzzy' due to the 4:1 pixel use and doesn't feel as 'natural'? as just having a normal 1080. 32in is nice in that the pixels are much more tightly packed, but it just doesn't feel big enough over my current 27 to feel worth the upgrade currently. 40in feels more 'big screen' from where I sit and is more what I'm thinking.
Also, I guess the only other thing is...could there be an 'off' brand that has just as good specs, response, color depth, etc etc, for a better price?
EDIT: Though, I guess for $200 more is this Samsung 4k 40in that seems to have decent reviews too. :rotate:
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
But yeah the input lag on the Samsung was a concern, and you have to put it in pc/game mode to even get it to 42ish. I'm not a super competitive gamer so I figured it'd still be low enough to not bug me.
The other major thing that 'concerns' me is the 60 vs 120mhz refresh on the sony vs samsung. They both have whateverandstuff tech that makes them 'effective' 240, whatever that means; I guess I'm just concerned about ghosting on the Sony...though my current monitor is 60 so I don't know why that is even worrying. :rotate:
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
Personally I wouldn't be concerned about 60Hz vs. 120/240Hz. On a TV basically what happens is it takes a 60Hz (or 60fps) signal and then duplicates frames to make it look "smoother" or like there is less judder. It does work but it gives movies and TV shows a really weird soap opera looking effect. If you're using that TV for gaming though, as soon as you put it in game mode it shuts off that 120 or 240Hz feature and just keeps it at 60Hz anyway. And even keeping the feature active anyway introduces extra lag. Also you will only ever be able to push 60Hz to a TV from your computer. If you had a 120Hz or 144Hz PC monitor then you could send it the corresponding signal. PC monitors with refresh rates that high actually DO display 120fps or 144fps if your computer can pump frames from a game that high. I think you're getting the point... but basically don't worry about it. Get the 60Hz with low lag and be happy
As far as 4K goes... I say monitor vs a TV because its pretty tough to get a 60Hz signal on a TV currently. You would need the TV to have HDMI 2.0 as well a GPU that has HDMI 2.0 and then *maybe* you could get it working. Otherwise you're stuck at 30Hz and its awful for PC use. There may be a couple TVs that can properly do 60Hz but I'm not totally sure. PC monitors have a bit better compatibility for that and you can use Display Port and get the full resolution at 60Hz. Pretty much the whole thing is a pain until it matures for another year or two.
Awesome, thanks so much for that info. Sony it is!
Origin: Galedrid - Nintendo: Galedrid/3222-6858-1045
Blizzard: Galedrid#1367 - FFXIV: Galedrid Kingshand
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/lg-50-class-49-1-2-diag--led-1080p-hdtv-silver/6007128.p?id=1219180373258&skuId=6007128
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/panasonic-50-class-49-1-2-diag--led-1080p-hdtv-black/4875001.p?id=1219104862306&skuId=4875001&st=4875001&cp=1&lp=1
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/samsung-50-class-49-1-2-diag--led-1080p-smart-hdtv-black/6443025.p?id=1219217424554&skuId=6443025
I know all three of those are pretty good, and I'm not completely unknowledgeable on TV, but I'm not sure which of those would be the better TV.
Any input would be appreciated.
Recently Time Warner in my area cut off access to local/basic channels through cable if you don't have a subscription so I am looking into an antenna to set up in my apartment. The other weekend I picked up a cheap stand up one from Target, but it didn't have great results. While it was sitting on my tv stand all of the channels it could get were very choppy. I had to hold it high enough so that I could get a clear picture without it going in and out every few seconds. Then if I raised it even higher I gained NBC, but lost CBS.
I researched online about where the signal comes from and the type of antenna I should look into (a small multidirectional). However with the way my apartment is set up, with a big glass window behind my tv, and in the opposite direction of where I should point the antenna, I'm not quite sure what I should look for to help in my situation. I figure something with a strong wide range and easily attached to a window. Probably something like this: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16882576010&cm_re=tv_antenna-_-82-576-010-_-Product
If anyone can think of anything I should look into, it would be appreciated.
While I am able to watch most of my shows on my computer, it would be nice to be able watch them on my tv from my couch every once in a while. Of course TWC had to go screw that up.
Get the powered Leaf.
Link to new:
http://www.amazon.com/Mohu-Leaf-Amplified-Indoor-Antenna/dp/B00APPDX86/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1425315361&sr=8-2&keywords=leaf
Link to a refurb:
http://www.amazon.com/Mohu-Indoor-Antenna-Certified-Refurbished/dp/B00DHKKI16/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1425315361&sr=8-5&keywords=leaf
We bought the unpowered leaf before we cancelled cable and channels came in mostly okay. Bought the powered leaf after determining that the normal leaf was pretty good and then cancelled cable. We ran both the cable box and the HTPC in tandem for awhile to determine if we could actually get away without cable. Power bill was a bit more that month, but we realized we didn't need cable for the broadcast shows.
With the powered leaf we picked up a lot more channels and the ones we mostly cared about, your big networks, come in a lot better and are interrupted less often. You will have to play with positioning a bit. Ours currently lives above a closet opening because that's where we get the best reception for the channels we care about. Yeah, it's not all that fun to have the TV scan, realize you're missing something, move the antenna and scan again, and possibly repeat the whole process about 10 times, but once that thing is situated where it's needed to be, you don't need to mess with it again.
Yes, it's more expensive than the antenna you linked, but if this is going to be your permanent solution to picking up broadcast signals, splurge a little and get something that you'll want to keep around. Originally my wife was skeptical but now we very rarely get any signal interruption except on the CW which is much farther away than all the other broadcast towers.
Also be prepared for a bunch of channels that you don't want. But it's easy to remove those. So many 24/7 religious channels. There's also a channel that shows infomercials 24/7. Who watches that?
PSN : Bolthorn
Here you go: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00JP7OW76?tag=thewire06-20&linkCode=w40&creative=374929&camp=211189#
And here's what Cnet has to say about it: http://www.cnet.com/products/vizio-m422i-b1/
I know that some manufacturers have been coming out with better smart TV functionality over the last year or so. Samsung, LG, and Vizio are among the best I believe. I'm not sure if any of them have a feature for streaming content over the local network or not though. Pretty sure my Panasonic does and it's smart features are awful, so it's probably a good bet others have the same feature. But generally it's usually best to just get the best TV you can for your budget based on picture quality, input lag, etc. and then just get a standalone box like a Roku or Apple TV. Almost always they do a much better job than using the built in functions of a TV.
It was at a Walmart, so there is an incredibly low chance that they set it up in any way at all.
I have the willpower to not get one though since I'm still completely satisfied with my current TV. Not enough 4k source to tempt me just yet.