11-06-2016, 09:28 PM
(11-06-2016, 07:25 PM)gstanford Wrote: Most people don't care about TV tuners. Only people your age and mindset do. Lots of people use TV's for something other than watching TV. If a TV has a bad tuner but is otherwise OK a simple solution is to use an external tuning box.
34 MS is nothing in terms of TV response times, most of the TV's on the market would be worse than that.
Bad motion handling is caused by TV's interpolating tuner input and inserting additional frames plus other "IQ enhancing" manipulations. It shouldn't happen on other inputs or it should be able to be disabled if it is happening. If you can't disable it then the TV really is cheap and nasty.
Poor IQ when upsampling content under 1080p to 4K is (unfortunately) a common trait of cheap 4K TV's and this one appears to be no different.
Why would you think you know these things and the review site doesn't?
From the review of my TV, Sony XBR65850D:
Quote:Lowest 1080p input lag is achieved under 'Game' picture mode. The 'Clearness' setting under 'Motionflow' can be used to clarify action some more and won't increase the input lag (although it does darken the screen). 1080p input lag also stays low enough for some slower games when image interpolation is turned on, which is something that can't be said for most TVs.
They obviously understand interpolation and game modes in their testing?
They state on their drill down explanation of motion blur testing:
Quote:Motion blur that you see on TVs influences how blurry fast movement appears to be on the screen. For the most part, motion blur manifests as a trail on moving objects, and is of particular importance for sports and video games. If you enjoy watching either of those things, it’s important to get a TV with minimal blur.
When evaluating motion blur, we photograph the appearance of blur on the TV, and then test for pixel response time and overshoot time, as well as whether is flickering on the lighting.
I know you like to argue and say cheap TVs are good, but this TV has issues.
A gamer would be better off with a good 65" from Vizio that is only $1299 at Best Buy any day of the week:
http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/vizio/m-series-2016
Does it make sense to spend $928 on a 70" tv that is rotten for gaming when you can get a good 65" TV for gaming for $372 more at most? AND you don't have to camp out at Sams for Black Friday, and battle mobs like an hyena in the jungle scrapping for a deer carcass?
Not in my world. Wouldn't buy something junky when I could get something good for a couple hundred more.