I perfectly know what HDR is, thank you. What is incorrect in what I wrote exactly? Is it not true that you got multiple HDR tags and that there is no standard for HDR, resulting in many dubious displays getting labeled as HDR when they're not?If you want to DM me I can explain what HDR is and how you get a good experience with it, in the most polite way possible what you wrote indicates you don't really understand it at all.
They absolutely did. The KS8000 is advertised as a 120Hz display when it isn't. It's a 60Hz display.You're mixed up about terminology. The same with refresh rate vs. motion rate. These are very different and almost unrelated concepts, they never sold 60hz TV's saying they were 120hz, they just did what they do in every industry, try to make the lower end products sound as good as the higher end ones by using confusing terminology.
Hence why I said TV manufacturers are some of the biggest liars in the tech industry.You must do research if you want to know the truth I'm afraid, if you rely on companies whose primary motive is to make money to give you advice then they're going to make it hard for you to get to the truth.
Not many. Almost everyone I knew had composite cables not even aware of component even if their TVs supported it. I didn't learn I wasn't getting most out of my TV until years after getting it.How many people did you know that had a widescreen CRT TV with component input for progressive scan?
Not many. Almost everyone I knew had composite cables not even aware of components even if their TVs supported it. I didn't learn I wasn't getting most out of my TVs until years after getting it.
agreed. The dropoff from 4k to 1440p at a standard viewing difference is almost nill.
20-30fps is better than 50fps?
Was it worth games running the way they did? Looking back at the PS360 games, the performance was brutal for many games.
This isn't mutually exclusive. Higher resolution results in lower performance. It's exacerbated even more with how hard the PS3 was to program for.That wasn't because of the move to HD. That was because of hardware that was balls to develop for.
I perfectly know what HDR is, thank you. What is incorrect in what I wrote exactly? Is it not true that you got multiple HDR tags and that there is no standard for HDR, resulting in many dubious displays getting labeled as HDR when they're not?
They absolutely did. The KS8000 is advertised as a 120Hz display when it isn't. It's a 60Hz display.
Hence why I said TV manufacturers are some of the biggest liars in the tech industry.
I listed what is advertised on the box and what the manufacturers sell you. There is no governing body for HDR so there is no universal standard. With all due respect, you're completely and purposely misrepresenting what I'm saying and come across as condescending. I didn't describe what HDR is, I said that TV manufacturers use confusing terminologies to sucker buyers into getting inferior products.With all due respect, you don't know what HDR is, you listed different concepts, some of the terms you listed are standards, the others are measures of the peak brightness capabilities of the display.
If a monitor claims HDR support without a DisplayHDR performance specification, or refers to pseudo-specs like “HDR-400” instead of “DisplayHDR 400” it’s likely that the product does not meet the certification requirements. Consumers can refer to the current list of certified DisplayHDR products on this website to verify certification.
No, I mean the KS8000.Both the US and EU variants of the KS8000 use 120hz native refresh rate panels:
[/URL][/URL]
[/URL][/URL]
Maybe you meant a different model? They do change the naming scheme for different regions sometimes. Even the KS7000 is 120hz though so not sure which KS model you would be referring to.
Since this TV is 120Hz, 'Auto Motion Plus' can be used on 30Hz and 60Hz signals. This will add the soap opera effect (SOE). Low custom values will work well to smooth out motion with a minimum of the soap opera effect.
Which is exactly what I did. I did my research and found out they're full of shit and you absolutely cannot rely on the advertisements on the boxes because there's a bunch of asterisks they don't mention anywhere. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that my KS8000 couldn't do 1080p/120Hz which is what I bought it for. I spent hours upon hours scouring the web, researching display technologies so please, quit it.They are rarely lying, that would be false advertising and illegal, they are starting figures that are valid within very specific sets of circumstances. You need to do independent research by looking at the results of unbiased enthusiast reviewers, even then you need to collate data from several sources to avoid bad methodologies giving false positives.
By "subpar" evidence, do you mean the evidence of the advertised features?You've reached a conclusion from which you can't be dissuaded with subpar evidence/information. If you won't listen to others then you will never learn the truth. This is applicable to many things in life, always keep an open mind and take on new evidence.
To make it all worse many "720p" TVs were not 720p, but 768p, so the games did not match the panel resolution, making the image look worse.What hurt games more IMO was the absolutely awful internal scalars in most TVs and monitors. It meant that unless outputting at the display's natives res, games would look like shit. Thankfully, we're at at the stage now where games can be rendered internally at a lower resolution and rely on upscaling/reconstruction to output at whatever res works best with the display, which is a much better position to be in.
It's all going to be even more of a mess if 8k becomes less niche and more commonplace.
To make it all worse many "720p" TVs were not 720p, but 768p, so the games did not match the panel resolution, making the image look worse.
Nintendo was half right, half wrong with the Wii. It should have been 480p, on CRTs, but with the power PS360 had. That would have been a nice jump in visuals and gameplay.So Nintendo wins again?
This is clearly a sarcastic joking answer.
Tbh I found the jump to 1080P great and then a few years later 4K arrives but there isn’t enough 4K tv signals to justify. Then it’s going up to 8K
I think 2K 60fps should be the main standard for a few years console wise so we can get rock solid games from that.
On this alternate route perhaps we could have had evolved CRTs, with HDMI inputs and widescreen as a standard. I'd prefer that to the low quality LCDs we had running at sub native resolution and low fps.
Yep. My mom had ordered a 55" CRT and we needed four grown men to carry it. I was able to carry my 50" plasma with just my brother. It was cumbersome and weighed 80lbs. Then came my KS8000 55" which I was able to carry and set up on my lonesome.It wouldn't have happened anyway because of the size and weight of widescreen CRTs that was absurd
People wanted bigger screens but FLAT
I listed what is advertised on the box and what the manufacturers sell you. There is no governing body for HDR so there is no universal standard. With all due respect, you're completely and purposely misrepresenting what I'm saying and come across as condescending. I didn't describe what HDR is, I said that TV manufacturers use confusing terminologies to sucker buyers into getting inferior products.
You got Vesa HDR 400 and HDR400 which aren't even the same thing. You got the standard HDR10 then within that standard you got different levels of HDR. None of this is explained on the box or by the manufacturers. The customer has to do his homework not to be misled but to the average person, HDR is HDR...except that's not the case.
Source
No, I mean the KS8000.
See this? That's for the KS8000. It doesn't support 120Hz in any kind of way. It's "120Hz" because of the motion interpolation.
Which is exactly what I did. I did my research and found out they're full of shit and you absolutely cannot rely on the advertisements on the boxes because there's a bunch of asterisks they don't mention anywhere. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that my KS8000 couldn't do 1080p/120Hz which is what I bought it for. I spent hours upon hours scouring the web, researching display technologies so please, quit it.
By "subpar" evidence, do you mean the evidence of the advertised features?
The axiom is that TV manufacturers deliberately mislead customers with confusing terminologies. You then come with a complete strawman and go "hur hur, you don't know what HDR is" which has nothing to do with the premise and even if it were true, it would only further cement my initial claim.
That's bullshit ! Lots of games in the PS2 era were 30 fps or 25 fps in the PAL zone, some even unstable so, and quite a bunch of PS3 games were 60 fps. The passage to HD is not directly related to the switch from CRT to LCD, both Sony and Samsung produced full HD CRT, and I'm sure that they weren't the only ones, but the CRT was expensive and impratical for monitor of big dimension and that is why it disappeared in favor of LCD for the low budget and plasma for the high budget. Between, plasma has a better contrast ratio of the normal, commercial CRT, the only monitor CRT with better conteast ratio are thing like the Sony Pro Studio, that have always have ridiculous pricesAnd that leap came with a massive drop in performance. Our pixels are clearer but the frame rate got chopped in half. Furthermore, CRT TVs were plain better than LCDs even factoring the resolution. The contrast ratio of CRTs wasn't replicated until OLED TVs became a thing.
It was back then that a major push was made to sell LCD TVs with high-definition capabilities. Most at the time were 720p TVs but the average consumer didn't know the difference.
I actually agree. HDTVs during the PS3/360 era were shit anyway. CRTs were far better. Heck, even now CRTs are better than most HD monitors/TVs.
I listed what is advertised on the box and what the manufacturers sell you. There is no governing body for HDR so there is no universal standard. With all due respect, you're completely and purposely misrepresenting what I'm saying and come across as condescending. I didn't describe what HDR is, I said that TV manufacturers use confusing terminologies to sucker buyers into getting inferior products.
You got Vesa HDR 400 and HDR400 which aren't even the same thing. You got the standard HDR10 then within that standard you got different levels of HDR. None of this is explained on the box or by the manufacturers. The customer has to do his homework not to be misled but to the average person, HDR is HDR...except that's not the case.
Source
No, I mean the KS8000.
See this? That's for the KS8000. It doesn't support 120Hz in any kind of way. It's "120Hz" because of the motion interpolation.
Which is exactly what I did. I did my research and found out they're full of shit and you absolutely cannot rely on the advertisements on the boxes because there's a bunch of asterisks they don't mention anywhere. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that my KS8000 couldn't do 1080p/120Hz which is what I bought it for. I spent hours upon hours scouring the web, researching display technologies so please, quit it.
By "subpar" evidence, do you mean the evidence of the advertised features?
The axiom is that TV manufacturers deliberately mislead customers with confusing terminologies. You then come with a complete strawman and go "hur hur, you don't know what HDR is" which has nothing to do with the premise and even if it were true, it would only further cement my initial claim.
Nintendo isn't a technically achieved company. It relies on gimmick consoles and not power to achieve more fidelity. Their focus is on Mario and Zelda and gimmicks. Not to technically achieve anything. They were right when it comes to that about their own company.So...Nintendo's been right all along?
Eh, these days a high quality LCD isn't that far behind an OLED. But depending on the price difference it could be worth it with prices on OLED dropping like a rock.eh even then OLED exists which blows them out of the water in IQ. i wish we got more OLED monitors though