Which HD tecnology best for game playing?

I have an Xbox now and plan to get the Xbox 2 later this year. The Xbox 2 will support 720P MINIMUM.

I was wondering what is the best direct view HDTV to get for that purpose that is 34" or less.

I won't be watching cable, won't be using any STBs, no tv shows it will be used as a game monitor and that is it. The thing with games is that the image is very defined. Edges and text are very defined etc. With video it is a bit more forgiving as it is not as "clean" and has a softness to begin with that spans many pixels so if some are missing you won't notice as much.

My old NTSC Sony PVM 2030 RGB monitor has worked fine for years and has seen systems from Super Nintendo to Xbox. So I am not concerned with burn-in. But it is time for HD.

I have pretty much narrowed it down (I think) to a sharp Aquos 32" or Sony KD-34XS955.

I am confused as the native resolutions are different. CRT does 1080I and LCDs do 720P only.

If I get an LCD all games in 1080i will have pixels cut down defeating the purpose of more detail with higher resolution to begin with. If I get a CRT nothing will be progressive scan but all of the resolution will come through uncut.

When displaying a 1080i signal on an LCD where do all of the pixels go? This is fixed pixel so if the pixels aren't 1:1 won't it look lousy? How does this work as to not distort the image, obviously you can't change the size of the pixel or do "half pixels" on an LCD? Will I get rippling with motion because of the reduction in resolution? Do edges get fuzzy or aliasy that normaly would be crisp?


When displaying a 720P image on a CRT how does that work? Does it change the refresh rate and make the scan lines thicker like a multisync computer CRT does? does it add redundant pixels or some scan lines?

Which is best suited for gaming from a PQ standpoint? Obviously I want the image to be as sharp as possible. The current Xbox has games that are 480i, 480P, 720P, and 1080i.

Are there better LCDs than the Aquous that allow non-stretched images, better scaling, or better blacks? Do LCD TVs have service menus wher you can adjust picture size, scaling etc?

Are there better CRTs than the Sony?

Thanks.

LCD is excellent for gameplay. I have used my Sony 19" LCD as a monitor for my Xbox. One drawback is LCD tends to blur occasionally. I will be getting a 34" widescreen CRT only because of its low cost. I'm still researching my choices. Besides movies and television look sharper on a CRT. That's just my personal opinion. Sony is good. I have a 32" Wega. However you pay for the name. Other good brands for CRTs are Panasonic, Philips, and Samsung.

my personal experience is i was not happy with my sony 34" HD. I bought a kv-34hs420 a couple months back and have had nothing but problems with it. It overscans way too much, originally i saw jaggies on all my games, including halo 2 where there shouldn't have been jaggies. after having a guy come out the jaggies are gone but the picture is all fuzzy around the edges and distorted now and its still overscanning too much

the biggest problem though is all my PS2 games have a chunk cut out of the top right corner. im having a tech come out for the 3rd and final time to see if it can be fixed if not im getting credit and going for a DLP. they look way better for games in my opinion

id advise against LCDs simply for the motion blur. its really anoying for fast paces FPS's. Sony CRT's are rated the best but my personal experience with them is quite negative.

I have to agree with the overscan. This XS955 is raping me with the overscan problem. Either it be watching HD movie channels or playing a game

:hithere: I know its kinds on the lower end but, the Toshiba 30HFX84 is awesome for xbox. I am a xbox junkie and i love it on this tv. Soul Calibur 2 looks amazing. As well as Fable, Jade Empire, Enter The Matrix(even though the game sucks), Dead To Rights 1 not 2. I could go on and on and on and on but I'll spare you. If you play xbox you know what games you like. One thing I can say for sure is this TV :p rocks for the box :p Look into it, I am very picky about pic. quality, and the picture on this is great, After I did my internal calibrations. This tv really shines, with xbox or anything else. This tv changed the whole way I play games, :banana: AND I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!! :banana:

CRTs are bad for gaming, not just because of burn in, but because they are interlaced. Interlacing died out on PC monitors 20 years ago because it's HORRIBLE for text - expecially when it's moving. Virtually NO CRTs can display 720p, they cross convert it to 1080i at half the framerate. TVs are not multisync, they are MONOsync.

As a gamer, you should appreciate the importance of framerate in producing a smooth rendition of motion... and consider that 1080i is only 30 fps, while 720p & 1080p are 60 fps.

One method of converting a 1080i/30 signal for display on a 720p/60 display is to format convert each FIELD of 1920 x 540 to a FRAME at 1280 x 720. Each frame is scaled down in the horizontal axis & up in the vertical axis. This approach eliminates most interlacing motion artifacts, producing progressive display at 60 Hz.

Going the other way, each FRAME of 720p/60 must be crammed into a FIELD of 1920 x 540... so you scale up horizontally & down vertically. This, of course, produces interlacing motion artifacts of combing & twitter.

The 720p <-> 1080i format conversion is more properly called 'cross conversion' since the resulting number of pixels is always about 60 Mpixels/second. Note that in both conversions above, each frame gets scaled UP in one axis & DOWN in the other...

So where do the pixels go? They haven't gone anywhere (still 60 Mpixels/sec)... they've shifted between resolving space to resolving time, or vice versa.

Ok well the resaon I am getting an HDTV is the same reason as the guy in this thread...xbox360.

Now you guys make good arguments for CRT vs. LCD. HOWEVER, no one has said which one is better. It's been said LCD is good for games because it's progressive scan but there is motion blur...and CRTs are the exact opposite.

In my thread in this section, I was pretty convinced to ditch the idea of a CRT and get an LCD, but if dvds and televsion look like crap on an LCD and there is motion blur in games (FPS is like all i play), then where does that leave me? I have a 15" LCD that puts out 480p and I don't notice any motion blur...maybe I won't notice?...so confused!

The 720p <-> 1080i format conversion is more properly called 'cross conversion' since the resulting number of pixels is always about 60 Mpixels/second. Note that in both conversions above, each frame gets scaled UP in one axis & DOWN in the other...

You're correct in what you say, and yet, not quite covering the whole picture. For still areas of the picture, you're getting 2.5x the resolution (as perceived by the eye and the mind) in 1080i then 720p. In 1080i mode, you have 1080 unique vertical lines being painted and viewed as such by the human eye, and 1920 unique horizontal lines. This feature does not downconvert to 720p without significant loss.

But onto the larger subject of games "which HD technology is best for game playing". Interlaced is bad? For games and computer generated text, I agree. Burn-in a realistic worry on CRTs for home users? No, only for projection screens. Overscan an issue? Yes, if you're using a HDTV and not an HD computer monitor. LCD pixel delay? Not an issue if you select carefully. I really haven't seen Plasmas discussed here, which surprises me.

Of course, the question itself is a little different than what the person asking the question may actually want. The best HD technology for game playing, IMHO, was discontinued a few years ago. A computer CRT. A computer CRT that does 1080p. No overscan issues. True progressive video _and_ true interlaced video. The monitor is multisync and does 1080p, 720p, 1080i, 480i, 480p, and just about any other crazy mode you can come up with. I imagine it'll even work as an arcade monitor. I run it hooked up to my PC, running Windows, at 2048x1280 @70fps progressive video. Desktop. Text is clear as day.

You can get them so very cheap on eBay (http:///aw8mx). Major limitations? VGA style input (which handles 1080p just fine) instead of HDMI or DVI, 24" screen size. Cost: $100-600 plus shipping.

You can get them so very cheap on eBay (http:///aw8mx). Major limitations? VGA style input (which handles 1080p just fine) instead of HDMI or DVI, 24" screen size. Cost: $100-600 plus shipping.

A slightly better search (more hits)...
http:///dh8nb

...you experts in eBay shopping can likely tweak this to get a few extra hits.

Here's a link to a 34" widescreen multisync CRT... $2K...
http://www.digitalconnection.com/products/directview/dm7352sf.asp

>>>For still areas of the picture, you're getting 2.5x the resolution (as perceived by the eye and the mind) in 1080i then 720p.<<<

>>>If I get a CRT nothing will be progressive scan but all of the resolution will come through uncut.<<<


While that's true for SPATIAL res of STATIC images, it ignores that TEMPORAL resolution has been cut in half, from 60 to 30 frames per second... very important for the presentation of motion... as is the elimination of interlacing motion artifacts.

Motion blur is contained within the image... it's an artifact of the capture method being basically a 'time exposure'. Panel blur is caused by LCD panels with a pixel refresh of 16 ms or longer... get a modern panel with a 12 ms refresh and you won't have any PANEL blur.

Since the frame time is twice as long for 1080i/30 the format has twice the motion blur of 720p/60. Each FIELD of the interlace has the same amount of motion blur as with progressive, twice as much in total, PLUS combing & twitter.

The best games actually ADD fake motion blur to make the synthetic image more realistic...

So getting an LCD with a 12m/s refresh rate and I should be good, and that other blur your talking about is unavoidable and actually meant to be there?

Only problem is, like no sites list the panel refresh rates =\. Guess I'll have to go to the store and ask or something.

They're usually listed in the tech specs... aka 'pixel response time'... like here...
http://www.syntaxgroups.com/products/32inch_productd.html

True 'motion blur' is caused by objects moving during the 'shutter open' capture time. Our vision actually works similarly, since our brains scan our eye sensors almost like a sequence of frames of film. Part of the way we analyze speed is by the size of the blur... think of images of 'The Flash' when he goes into super speed... he's all motion blur!

Wow that Olevia is no joke! I can't find any chains around me that sell it. Know of any resellers of that monster?

What is the response time for the Sharp Aqous I wonder?

Here's a link to a 34" widescreen multisync CRT... $2K...
http://www.digitalconnection.com/products/directview/dm7352sf.asp

...


Sounds interesting. Too bad no store carries it that I could just go look at it. I don't like buying a display sight unseen. I wonder if this is better than any consumer TV like the Sony CRT or Sharp LCD?

So where do the pixels go? They haven't gone anywhere (still 60 Mpixels/sec)... they've shifted between resolving space to resolving time, or vice versa.


But the image HAS lost information. What was 1080 lines of resolution is now only 720 lines. 360 lines of info has been eliminated. I want to know how the image is going to look when it is missing so much of it's original resolution. Yes one is interlaced and one is progressive so you may not lose time but you do lose information.

compusa has them in their stores you can see them there

awesome, thanks kingkong. I'm going to go check out those Olevias then.

Well I needed to know the truth so I did it. I lugged my Xbox to CC with 4 games, each with a different HD mode. I tested a 32" Sharp Aquos and the Sony fine dot pitch 34" behemoth.

My take?

The Sharp LCD looked real good when displaying 720P (Freedom Fighters) It was very detailed and pretty crisp. That is no big suprise as that is its native res. The refres was not too great, as I looked right and left black areas smeared and streaked about 1" across. I put 1080i through it (Matrix) and the results were not as good. It looked kind of fuzzy. Then I tried Doom 3 at 480P. It looked *awful*, a blurry mess, my old PVM2030 looked way better. Then I put 480i through it (Arx Fatalis) again, blurry.

What I get from this is that LCDs are good for their native res and that is it.

Then I tried the Sony. 1080i looked great, 720P looked slightly fuzzier than the LCD but had none of the motion smear. It did have a problem with overscan as it cut off around the borders. 480P looked great, 480i looked very good.

If I had to pick today I would go with the Sony, it looked consistantly better across the board. When the LCD looked good it was very good. It is just that it didn't look that great with anything other than its native res. It must have something to do with the way it handles the scaling on a fixed pixel display, it just looked overcooked.

A slightly better search (more hits)...
http:///dh8nb

...you experts in eBay shopping can likely tweak this to get a few extra hits.

How would you connect an Xbox to this with only VGA input? I have tried those key digital converters before when trying to connect my 21" ViewSonic to the Xbox and it looked really bad, all washed out. Is there another way?

But the image HAS lost information. What was 1080 lines of resolution is now only 720 lines. 360 lines of info has been eliminated. I want to know how the image is going to look when it is missing so much of it's original resolution. Yes one is interlaced and one is progressive so you may not lose time but you do lose information.

You misunderstand... interlaced 1080i has a framerate of 30 frames per second, composed of 2 fields to each frame. progressive 720 has a framerate of 60 frames per second. After conversion you have twice as many frames, where did that info come from? It's not a repeat, each frame is unique.

What you are converting is one FIELD of the interlaced frame into a full FRAME of progressive. You convert 1920 x 540 into 1280 x 720, sixty times a second. Each frame of the 60 Hz output contains HALF of an interlaced frame. The other 120 lines come from scaling. Apparent res after conversion will be similar to 1280 x 540p/60.

Well I needed to know the truth so I did it. I lugged my Xbox to CC with 4 games, each with a different HD mode. I tested a 32" Sharp Aquos and the Sony fine dot pitch 34" behemoth.

My take?

The Sharp LCD looked real good when displaying 720P (Freedom Fighters) It was very detailed and pretty crisp. That is no big suprise as that is its native res. The refres was not too great, as I looked right and left black areas smeared and streaked about 1" across. I put 1080i through it (Matrix) and the results were not as good. It looked kind of fuzzy. Then I tried Doom 3 at 480P. It looked *awful*, a blurry mess, my old PVM2030 looked way better. Then I put 480i through it (Arx Fatalis) again, blurry.

What I get from this is that LCDs are good for their native res and that is it.

Then I tried the Sony. 1080i looked great, 720P looked slightly fuzzier than the LCD but had none of the motion smear. It did have a problem with overscan as it cut off around the borders. 480P looked great, 480i looked very good.

If I had to pick today I would go with the Sony, it looked consistantly better across the board. When the LCD looked good it was very good. It is just that it didn't look that great with anything other than its native res. It must have something to do with the way it handles the scaling on a fixed pixel display, it just looked overcooked.

Hey man, thanks for that test, it helps a lot....I have been back and forth between CRT and LCD about 8 times in the past 2 days.

Do games have to support a resolution to display them?

What you are converting is one FIELD of the interlaced frame into a full FRAME of progressive. You convert 1920 x 540 into 1280 x 720, sixty times a second. Each frame of the 60 Hz output contains HALF of an interlaced frame. The other 120 lines come from scaling. Apparent res after conversion will be similar to 1280 x 540p/60.

You are converting combined temporal-spatial data into temporal data only and dropping the spatial. This may end up looking good almost good as 720p on a 720p monitor, but it doesn't compare to 1080i on a 1080i monitor.

Unless.... if the game designer is actually sync'ing video updates to the 60 fields per second, rather than 30 frames per second, then there would be no spatial loss as they are intentionally going for something close to (but not exactly)1920x540/p. But that seems very strange.

BTW... there may be some interesting discussions on this at the Widescreen Gaming Forum (http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/forum/)

A moving image has 3 dimensions, 2 spatial & 1 temporal... temporal only says when, not where which would be useless... the conversion converts temporal/spatial to temporal/spatial. The conversion is of lesser quality than the signal on a display of the same format... this is always true... 720 on 720 is also superior. 1080p/60 displays will do the best job of showing both formats.

If the game designer (or your config) isn't syncing to the video rate, you'll have tearing...

Supporting interlaced modes at all with games is surprising to me... progressive is so much better with motion...

Output of 60 fields per second of 1920 x 540p is the nature of an interlaced signal. If the framedrawing isn't field syncronous, you'll get judder - irregular framerate - as part of one frame, then part of another gets output & converted...

When the conversion is going the other way, from 720p to 1080i, you scale each frame of 1280 x 720 into a FIELD of 1920 x 540, and get a resultant similar to 1280 x 720i/30... with interlacing motion artifacts.

Do games have to support a resolution to display them?

No, that's what we're talking about... games that output in one res & get format converted for display... it's always less ideal than outputing the native res of the display...

No, that's what we're talking about... games that output in one res & get format converted for display... it's always less ideal than outputing the native res of the display...


That is why multiscanning CRTs would be the ideal display technology for games, no format conversion, always at native res.

Problem is that the few examples top out at 34" widescreen...

Problem is that the few examples top out at 34" widescreen...


Which ones models are there? 34" and under is a PERFECT size for me as it will be used in a game room and not a living room setting.

I saw the Monivision on websites but there is no place to actually go and look at it to test PQ etc. What others are there that could hook up to an Xbox/Xbox2?

That is why multiscanning CRTs would be the ideal display technology for games, no format conversion, always at native res.


Wait those aren't coming out anytime soon are they?


Yeah, I'm looking for the same exact thing as you. 32-34" for a gaming room. I'll be going to several stores next week finding out what I can about going lcd vs crt. I'll keep you posted.

Wait those aren't coming out anytime soon are they?


Yeah, I'm looking for the same exact thing as you. 32-34" for a gaming room. I'll be going to several stores next week finding out what I can about going lcd vs crt. I'll keep you posted.


Actually I think they have come and gone awhile ago. The Monivision one seems to have dissapeared. What ever is available is a pain to get. You must order it sight unseen from some obscure website somewhere. You can't just go to a store and look at one.

This is why I couldn't believe that current HDTVs weren't multiscan, it would just make sense. That is an OLD computer monitor technology. It seems that we have gone backwards in that respect. Multiscan is good because it changes the TVs scan rate to match the image rather than change the image to match the scan rate.

Anytime you do a format conversion WATCH OUT, especially for consumer TVs, it looks like total crap most of the time, and looks even worse on fixed pixel devices like LCD. They scale the resolution and add some sort of antialiasing filter that makes it a blurry mess.

I think at this time everything will be a compromise, there is no ideal display. CRT is the most versitile as it can vary the pixel size and scan rate but today's TVs don't use this to an advantage for some reason. I guess it is a result in every TV mfg trying to out price each other. People wan't cheap stuff, not quality for the most part.

When you go and look at TVs you will see canned video running through them. Usually it is running at the TVs native res and looks real good. Hook an Xbox to the same set and get ready to gag. The clean crisp images that computer graphics produce expose all of the flaws real fast. It also exposes dodgy response time. The Aquos that I tested ($2500.00) was very smeary when I took a 720P game and looked righ and left in it.

There should be an option to display at 1:1 on a 1080i LCD. it would have borders in 720P stuff but would at least be sharp. I have this handheld game system that emulates older game consoles and arcade games (www.gp32x.com) GP32. When the resolution of the game is different it just fills however much of the LCD that it can. It would be nice if other fixed pixel displays would give that option if you wanted to use it.

Here's a source for the Monivision 34" multisync... http://www.digitalconnection.com/products/directview/dm7352sf.asp
They've got a B&M in Huntington Beach, CA...

There is no such thing as a 1080i LCD... LCDs are inherently progressive, they don't do interlacing. You want a progressive display for PC & game use, anyway...

There is a huge variation in upconversion chips, many different techniques & algorithms... some are a LOT better than others...

Output of 60 fields per second of 1920 x 540p is the nature of an interlaced signal. If the framedrawing isn't field syncronous, you'll get judder - irregular framerate - as part of one frame, then part of another gets output & converted...

But to clarify for others who may be reading...

1920x540p @60fps is not equal to 1920x1080i @ 30fps

The resolution increase of 1080i is seen with the eye, with the drawbacks of twittering/tearing on fast motion.

Here's a source for the Monivision 34" multisync... http://www.digitalconnection.com/products/directview/dm7352sf.asp
They've got a B&M in Huntington Beach, CA...

There is no such thing as a 1080i LCD... LCDs are inherently progressive, they don't do interlacing. You want a progressive display for PC & game use, anyway...

There is a huge variation in upconversion chips, many different techniques & algorithms... some are a LOT better than others...


Yes but there is no place to actually see how the PQ is on the Monivision. Once you buy it you are stuck with it. I would hate to roll the bones with $2000.

Here's a link to a 34" widescreen multisync CRT... $2K...
http://www.digitalconnection.com/products/directview/dm7352sf.asp

I checked into this. I was hoping it did 1080p like the Sony Widescreen CRTs, but it doesn't. Bummer, one could have hoped. I did find another place that sells it...

http://www.monitoroutlet.com/999745.html

How would you connect an Xbox to this with only VGA input? I have tried those key digital converters before when trying to connect my 21" ViewSonic to the Xbox and it looked really bad, all washed out. Is there another way?

Was that particular transcoder spec'd for high definition, or just 480p video? Was it the KD-CTCA2 or KD-CTCA3 or a different model?

That mtv unveiling of the xbox360 was using some Samsung LCDs...must be good for gaming if they used em. I'll have to check em out.

Which is best suited for gaming from a PQ standpoint? Obviously I want the image to be as sharp as possible. The current Xbox has games that are 480i, 480P, 720P, and 1080i.

It looks like this cousin of the CRT may be a hot technology for gaming, but it'll be quite a while before they hit the shelves, and a while longer before the price comes down:

Flat Panel SED (http://www.canon.com/technology/detail/device/sed_display/)
Toshiba challenges plasma and LCD with SED panel (http://www.cnet.com/4520-10602-5618734-1.html)
SED at CES (http://marketnews.ca/news_archive_detail.asp?nid=430)

Actually, the end technology seems closer to plasma in many respects. But using thousands of single pixel CRTs as the display element.

Sony doesn't make a PC monitor at 34", and their CRT TVs are all interlaced.

SED sounds veeerrrrryyy interesting. But I want to get a tv before sept though so that's out. I'm trying to find out what samsung lcds they used at the mtv xbox thing but can't find it =\

But how many ~32" lcds can they have :p

They seem to have two currently, the LN-R3228 & LN-R328. The 328 has a PC input.
http://product.samsung.com/cgi-bin/nabc/product/b2c_product_detail.jsp?prod_id=LNR328WX%252fXAA

SED sounds veeerrrrryyy interesting. But I want to get a tv before sept though so that's out. I'm trying to find out what samsung lcds they used at the mtv xbox thing but can't find it =\

But how many ~32" lcds can they have :p


But even still they were probably running them at 720P with the Samsung. Even those will look like crap when doing 1080i as they will do a format conversion. Those aren't magic. They are still fixed pixel which looks good only at native res. SED will suffer from the same problems as LCDs as far as scaling as they are still fixed pixel. The only advantage would be faster response and better blacks.

A multiscan CRT is probably the best if one can be found.

Was that particular transcoder spec'd for high definition, or just 480p video? Was it the KD-CTCA2 or KD-CTCA3 or a different model?


It was one of those. The contrast looked terrible though. It was all washed out.

They seem to have two currently, the LN-R3228 & LN-R328. The 328 has a PC input.
http://product.samsung.com/cgi-bin/nabc/product/b2c_product_detail.jsp?prod_id=LNR328WX%252fXAA

Yeah that's the one they used.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v380/limpbizkit69dz/Picture4.jpg

They are still fixed pixel which looks good only at native res.

Basically, ALL HDTVs are fixed pixel... even CRTs, since they are monosync, are usually fixed frequency = fixed res (540p is a trick). So you're saying all HD tuners, which must convert 18 formats, are all failures? :confused:

All formats are ideally displayed on devices with matching res, but conversion of the others is generally decent... you've got to examine subtle details & artifacts to see the flaws... consider that the well respected Sony LCD RPTVS have a 1366 x 768 res, and must be ALWAYS converting since the hardware res doesn't match any of the ATSC formats.

Basically, ALL HDTVs are fixed pixel... even CRTs, since they are monosync, are usually fixed frequency = fixed res (540p is a trick). So you're saying all HD tuners, which must convert 18 formats, are all failures? :confused:

All formats are ideally displayed on devices with matching res, but conversion of the others is generally decent... you've got to examine subtle details & artifacts to see the flaws... consider that the well respected Sony LCD RPTVS have a 1366 x 768 res, and must be ALWAYS converting since the hardware res doesn't match any of the ATSC formats.


You bring up a good point. Ok, now I know that LCD has bad conversion for like 480p DVDs and 1080i hd television. But how bad are we talking here? Are we talking grainy ew that hurts my eyes to look at, or are we talking about oh if you look at her eye there is a little bit of blur or graininess.

I it like so bad it makes it look like standard television, or is it just minor stuff? Like will I still be able to see that booger in the weatherman's nose?

Basically, ALL HDTVs are fixed pixel... even CRTs, since they are monosync, are usually fixed frequency = fixed res (540p is a trick). So you're saying all HD tuners, which must convert 18 formats, are all failures? :confused:

All formats are ideally displayed on devices with matching res, but conversion of the others is generally decent... you've got to examine subtle details & artifacts to see the flaws... consider that the well respected Sony LCD RPTVS have a 1366 x 768 res, and must be ALWAYS converting since the hardware res doesn't match any of the ATSC formats.

That is why it would be best to get a multiscan monitor that accept HD.

Most format conversions on tuners do look rather "soft" do to the scaling. Video hides it pretty well. Video games with their hard edges and clean textures make those artifacts stick out like a sore thumb.

LCDs seem to lose the shades that are close to black, they just don't resolve the dark tones very well, they are "lost in the backlight glow fog" sort of. They look good at the brighter end of the scale.

For an HDTV, it's usually the job of the tuner to do the format conversion to the display's native res. If given a non-native format, the quality of the upconversion will depend on the chip used in the TV... some are much better than others at this.

Just get a CRT for gaming, watching the tube, and DVDs. If your just going to use your HDTV strictly for gaming, then get a nice big LCD.

Just get a CRT for gaming, watching the tube, and DVDs. If your just going to use your HDTV strictly for gaming, then get a nice big LCD.


The TV will be used for games only. Maybe a random DVD once in a while, no regular TV shows though.

As far as LCDs go I still haven't seen any that are any good for games. For the reasons above, especially the backlight glow, blurry scaling, and slow reaction time resulting in smearing.

I plan on purchasing a Sony 26" LCD later this summer for my bedroom. It will be for gaming and watching high def channels. I use my 30" Sony CRT for games and everything else. I think the CRT looks great for games. Just an opinion.

CRT color is good, but the interlacing sux.

what about DLP tech? isnt DLP burn proof? toshiba will be offering a 1080p DLP later in the year. I currently use a toshiba 34hfx84 and GT4 on PS2 looks awesome in hd. just my 2 cents.

so i don't understand if rear projection screens can't do progressive scan than why does my fathers have a 480p selection.

DLP is great, I've got one, yes it's burn proof...

Yep, you misunderstand Semp1... it's not RPTV tech that's the limitation, but the CRT that's used with the cheapest ones... DLP & LCD & other techs are also used for RPTV, and they support 720p. I dislike it when interlaced sets tout their support of 'progressive scan', when it's only psuedo-progressive at half res... yes, it's more or less progressive - but it doesn't support the standard HDTV progressive rate of 720p/60. Poorly informed people come shopping for 'progressive scan' and get sold a 1080i set...