Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Plasma TVs for Video Games? 54

Posted by Cliff from the better-than-the-tube? dept.
moonboy asks: "As plasma televisions continue to come down in price (Gateway even has a 42" available for $2999) I'm considering purchasing one. Has anyone here had any experience with these and particularly playing games on them? I'm thinking about both console and PC games however, I'm concerned about refresh and resolution. How do they compare?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Plasma TVs for Video Games? More

Plasma TVs for Video Games?

Comments Filter:

  • Philips... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jsimon12 ( 207119 ) on Monday November 11, 2002 @08:21PM (#4646933) Homepage
    I have played Quake III on an 8000 dollar Philips Plasma 60" (I think it was 60", might have been 56"). It rocked to no end, whether I would shell out the money for something like that though is another question entirely (personally my 21 inch Viewsonic is enough for games? Guess it was personal preferance though.

    • Re:Philips... (Score:4, Informative)

      by HRbnjR ( 12398 ) <chris@hubick.com> on Monday November 11, 2002 @09:11PM (#4647268) Homepage
      Heh, funny you would say that.

      I just made exactly this decision. I had the money saved and wanted a high end viewing solution to go with my high end audio solution.

      What I think it boils down to is how it's going to be used.

      When you start comparing resolutions vs $ etc. Size is a matter of perspective - how close are you to the screen. How close /can/ you be to the screen?

      If it's going to be more than just you viewing the screen, then a large screen makes sense. But my primary usage was personal. I wanted something to play games and watch movies on. Other than what would end up being perhaps 1 movie night a month with a group for friends, 99% of the time it would be just me viewing.

      Huge dollars for $ 1024x760 on a big screen, or less $ for 1600x1200 on a smaller one?

      The other major consideration in a major purchase like this is HDCP. High Definition Copy Protection. If your prospective set doesn't have it, don't buy it, cuz there is a good chance you might not be able to view future HD content. (thanks MPAA)

      I chose to spend my money on a 21" Viewsonic LCD and an Nvidia Ti4600 to drive it, leaving enough left over to upgrade that purchase much sooner than I could of with the big screen.
      • The other major consideration in a major purchase like this is HDCP. High Definition Copy Protection. If your prospective set doesn't have it, don't buy it, cuz there is a good chance you might not be able to view future HD content. (thanks MPAA)

        I'm sorry, but isn't this like feeding from the hand that beats you? I can understand why you say this, but I have a feeling that there will be a way around this DRM scheme when they try and implement it.

      • Re:Philips... (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Who the hell says "high-end viewing solution" to refer to their damn tv/monitor?

        Hmm, the same people who say "high-end audio solution" to refer to their damn stereo.
  • does this occur as badly on plasma displays? what are the fundemental differences between LCD and plasma? they seem awfully similar from the outside... although one would suspect the plasma display to run more hot.

  • No Problem (Score:2, Informative)

    by Cokelee ( 585232 )
    It shouldn't, most plasmas are progressive scan and 1080i- hence they should refresh every pixel VERY quickly. Progressive Scan means that the entire screen is redrawn in a certain time interval not just the pixels that change. 1080i is just a form of HDTV.

    • Re:No Problem (Score:5, Informative)

      by Cecil ( 37810 ) on Monday November 11, 2002 @08:30PM (#4646996) Homepage
      Uh. 1080i and progressive scan are mutually exclusive. The 'i' in 1080i stands for 'interlaced' which is the opposite of progressive scan.

      720p is a progressive scan HDTV format with 720 lines. 1080i is an interlaced HDTV format with 1080 lines.

      Which one is better is debatable, but knowing they are seperate makes your post nonsensical, and that's besides the fact that neither of these directly relate to the speed of the refresh rate, only the resolution of the picture.

      What were you trying to say?
    • Actually, 1080i is interlaced mode, which means that every other line is drawn on each scan.

      I don't know of any TVs that support 1080p, which is what your describing. (Not that they don't exist.)

      Usually 720p is the highest progressive scan available.

      There's a fairly good description of progressive vs. interlaced at Panasonic [panasonic.com], but it concentrates on 480p vs. 480i. (The basic idea is the same though.)

      • A lot of mid-high to high end projectors designed for home theater support 1080p, but note that (I beleve I am correct on this but it's possible I misuderstood something), you'll see some broadcasts in 1080i, but never in 1080p because there is not enough bandwidth allocated to any HDTV channel to support a 1080p broadcast. Perhaps once we get past the digital drop-dead date (yeah right), we'll have some satellite providers helping out with beautiful 1080p feeds.

    • Re:No Problem (Score:4, Informative)

      by mr3038 ( 121693 ) on Monday November 11, 2002 @09:09PM (#4647252)
      Score: -1, Wrong

      Progressive or interlaced has nothing to do with refresh rate[1]. A display be could called progressive even if its refresh rate were 1 frame per second[2]. In the same way, an interlaced display could display 200 fields per second and therefore be able to display 100 frames per second but it would still be interlaced. That's because term "interlaced" means that every other line is refreshed at once (all the odd lines or all the even lines), usually from the top to bottom and then the other lines are refreshed in the same way. Interlaced does not mean that only pixels that don't change are refreshed. With slow enough phosphor interlaced displays look good with static images but they are inferior to progressive displays when there's any movement. In addition, slow phosphor decreases image quality during movement (like extra motion blur effect without an option to toggle it off).

      If specs of plasma or LCD display say that it supports progressive inputs it doesn't mean that it can display the full progressive stream but simply that it can display some kind of image. For example, many new LCD projectors allow progressive VGA signals with 90kHz horizontal sync and 85Hz vertical sync. You can be pretty sure that LCD display isn't able to refresh its pixels at that rate but the spec is only saying that it can sync to the input data. If the display cannot keep up with the data some intermediate pixel values will be skipped and the end result can be pretty close to slow phosphor effects - in the best case.

      That being said, plasma displays should be plenty fast for progressive HDTV signals but that's only because HDTV image really isn't that high quality. Any 19" CRT monitor can display much higher resolutions with higher refresh rates than HDTV setup. Don't expect to be able to get high quality image from PC. I suggest previewing the cheapest plasma displays before buying, though. They might have used low quality components to reduce price.

      [1] Except that with low quality components it's easier to do a viewable interlaced display than a progressive display.
      [2] For example, a slide projector is progressive display.

  • 852 x 480 resolution isn't going to look that good I'd rather have 1280x1024 or higher on a 21" screen it will work just don't expect the detail of a modern computer monitor. 42 inches equals some pretty big pixels, it sounds like a good TV, not good enough for HDTV and not good enough for a computer monitor. If you're mainly interested in a TV its great elsewise look else where.
    • "852 x 480 resolution isn't going to look that good"

      I've played a lot of games at 800x600, and most of them looked pretty good. For me, it was a trade off of speed vs resolution. As for pixel size, that all depends on how far back you sit.

      I can't help noticing that the resolution you say "won't look good" exceeds that of DVD. It's also the native resolution of my projector, whichs "looks good". :-)

      A.

  • Burn-in (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Plasma displays will burn in, so if you have a video game with a part that doesn't change (score box or whatever) it will always be lightly visable, in negative, on whatever you do. It may even change the color so it's visable when the display is off.

    • Re:Burn-in (Score:2, Insightful)

      by i_am_nitrogen ( 524475 )
      Okay, if a score box will burn in, then how can television networks get away with superimposing their logo on every freaking second of television on their station? I'd be quite likely to have one television station on longer than one game screen (cinematics between levels would erase the score box).

      • Re:Burn-in (Score:3, Informative)

        by pbox ( 146337 )
        Most high end plasmas move their virtual screen around on their physical screen. This is a really slow process (ie. 1-2 minutes cycle time) and it only moves a few pixels up and down, so it is unnoticable. This is because they also realized that burn-in is an issue and they need to do something. I have personally watched a Sony 50+ inch at Good Guys for several minutes but it was unnoticable, unless I put my fingertip at the edge of the picture.

        However, it might not protect against burn-in in case of more static screens, like video games or public ad displays.

        Peter
      • I wonder the same thing. I worked for a .com during the spending sprees and they had a big plasma screen TV running MSNBC all the time. After a few months you could see the MSNBC stock ticker thingy at the bottom of the screen whether it was there or not.

        I'd be really upset if my 4 or 5 digit price tag television had the sci-fi channel logo permanently etched in the lower right hand corner! What about channels like TNN that use the bottom part of the screen for advertising? Can you sue these people for damages?

  • Long-term image quality (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tchdab1 ( 164848 ) on Monday November 11, 2002 @08:41PM (#4647068) Homepage
    I have heard a couple rumors that I've not been able to substantiate, and would appreciate feedback from someone with experience with these displays. One is that the display has a useful life of only a few years (my source was not able to say what happens then). The other is that they grow fuzzy after 2 - 3 years. Now I would consider (just consider!) planning for one of these, but for multi kilobucks I would expect it to live at least as long as my trinitron-based TV, not less. Thank you for your experiences!
    • I don't have any long term experience with these TVs, but a relative of mine works at Philips making the software that controls these TVs. He told me that the software has to start adjusting the color intensities after 300 hours of operation already to keep it bright. The effect is that dark parts of the screen will gradually become brighter. If the software would not adjust the screen would turn darker over time. 300 hours is just 12 and a half day of continuous operation. Of course the difference after those 300 hours is not yet noticeable but it makes me wonder what such a screen would look like after 2-3 years.
    • also, you are much more likely to get a burn-in and ruin your screen.

      having gone to many trade shows where there are often plasma monitors showing the same presentation with a logo in the same place over and over, i have noticed that many of these screens suffer from burned-in images.

      My crt is good enough for me.

  • Light guns don't work (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MaxQuordlepleen ( 236397 ) <el_duggio@hotmail.com> on Monday November 11, 2002 @09:04PM (#4647224) Homepage

    We had a client's ~50-inch plasma display at work for a few months, (we were developing a custom advertising banner type application), and we brought in the Dreamcast and gave it a whirl.

    To make a long story short, gaming on this particular model (a japanese make, possibly Mitsubishi, but I could be mistaken) was awesome, with one rather glaring exception.

    We fired up The House of The Dead 2 and found that the light gun wouldn't work with the plasma unit. Not sure why, maybe somebody who understands the technology of these things better can comment on that...

    • Re:Light guns don't work (Score:4, Informative)

      by psyconaut ( 228947 ) on Monday November 11, 2002 @09:30PM (#4647396)
      Because light guns rely on the horizontal and vertical blanking that's inherently a CRT thing. :-)

      Plasma and LCDs don't refresh that way, ispo facto: your light gun won't work.

      -psy

      • Re:Light guns don't work (Score:4, Informative)

        by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Monday November 11, 2002 @11:50PM (#4648241) Homepage
        To read about how the work (exactly), look here [howstuffworks.com]. As for the point, light guns shouldn't work (at least traditional ones). He's right that they depend on timing information. Interesting to see how House of the Dead III on the XBox gets around this, since the XBox can put out progressive scan. Anyway, it's the same reason (I think) that Timex Datalink watches only work with CRTs.

        Of course, light guns are based on technology almost as old as arcade games are (70's at least) so maybe someone will come around and develop a new one soon that will work with LCDs. I think we can all agree that LCDs are going to become common: they use less electricity, less space, and are 'cooler' ;)

    • I watched a review of House of the Dead 2 on CNN HLN and they had it running on the plasma screen so you could see the graphics and then flipped over to a smaller CRT to show the light gun. They specifically mentioned that the light guns don't work on plasma screens, because of the lack of the blanking period.

  • Some plasma screens used as "noticeboards" (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11, 2002 @09:08PM (#4647245)
    They (Sony):

    Seem to go fuzzy (text wise). This is bad for those strategy gamers out there.

    Seem to be suffering from burn-in.

    Are widescreen so you need a game that does widescreen resolutions.

    Need higher resolutions to avoid seeing all those single pixels.

    Are expensive - you could buy a bloody good 21 inch CRT.

  • Gateway Plasma is NOT HD (Score:4, Informative)

    by tswinzig ( 210999 ) on Monday November 11, 2002 @10:20PM (#4647689) Journal
    I was amazed when I heard Gateway was coming out with a $3000 plasma HDTV. Then I found out why it's so cheap... it's not HDTV. You'll notice no where on their site do they refer to it as an HDTV or capable of DISPLAYING at that high resolution. You'll see stuff like, "capable of accepting 1080I and 720p HDTV signals," or "16:9 Wide Aspect Ratio," or "compatible signals include computer display resolutions up to 1280 X 1024 and HDTV signals including 720p and 1080i."

    However, notice the native resolution of the TV is only DVD quality (approximately 480 horizontal lines). That's twice as good as regular TV, but for $3000 I'll either fork out more for a real plasma HDTV, or a little less for a good rear-projection HDTV.

    I wonder how many people out there will buy one of these Gateway TV's assuming they are HD, just because they're plasma, 16:9 screens?
    • I don't know the technical specs, but I saw one in a gateway store and it looked terrible. It was playing one of the stock HDTV loops I've seen at hi-fi type stores. Unlike most TVs, this one didn't even have to compete against 100 neighbors, or get a video feed from a bajillion-way splitter, and it still made me cringe to look at it.

      I've also seen the Sampo 42" display (which is not one of the higher res 42" displays) and it was much, MUCH nicer looking, just playing a regular DVD on a cheap player.

  • A friend of mine... (Hi Plonk) (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Zapman ( 2662 ) on Monday November 11, 2002 @11:58PM (#4648297)
    He has the right idea. For the same $, you get a DTS projector. Effectivly arbitrary screen size (your 'pad' doesn't need a 40' projection), multi input, etc etc.

    He even had the two tier couch thing going on for movie nights.

    I saw him type on an 80x24 screen (at 8' x 5'), play nethack, the origional Zelda, and Gran Turismo. Anything you wanted.

    About the only 'downside' is that you must have a decent receiver for your audio (and realistically, some of your video) switching, since your projector won't have any sound capability.

    When the time comes for me to upgrade my 36", that's the route I'll go.
    • I'm planning to shell out for a projector when I have the cash for a livingroom large enough to accomodate it. Even when I looked at some really nice 50" plasma screens, at the local high end audio shop, they just didn't seem as clear or as sharp as the projector when watching anything besides an action flick. While not cheap at all, hey were all dreaming a bit here, you can get projectors that can compete with your monitor in case you want to fire up a game of quake on the neighbor's wall in 1600x1200 anti-aliased goodness.
      • ...a couple of years back when plasma displays were not viable. the caveats on plasma are the burn-in and contrast. the caveats on LCD projectors is pixel burn in and contrast. if you get a DLP projector, you will get better contrast but you can still get stuck pixels. a decent projector + screen will cost more than a plasma display and last a little longer. if you're looking at a 2:1 cost ratio, though, then buying plasma might make sense because you can get another one cheaper in 3 years anyway.
        • The big bonus for going the projector route is the flexibility of the image size. You may pay $5000 for a nice projector, but it will be a long time before you can buy a 180" plasma display, let alone for a mere 5k!
    • Yeah, but how are they in the dark? I can say I've honestly never seen one in full light in someone's living room. For day to day use, is it viable?

  • Burn-In (Score:2, Insightful)

    by checkyoulater ( 246565 )
    I'm concerned about refresh and resolution. How do they compare?

    I would be much more concerned with burn-in than with any refresh rate. We recently got 5 Panasonic plasmas here at work. They are used to show mostly flash animations and the occasional PowerPoint show. Static images can burn-in within hours. We have to take great care to make sure there is never anything left on screen that can cause burn-in. The worst case I have seen is an IE error message, left on overnight. In the morning, we could actually read the text with the monitor turned off. I would be afraid to run a video game, which has static images like score overlays that never go away.

    There is a "white wash" feature, which helps remove the burnt-in image, but it is never totally gone. Often, I will pause a game and leave it for an hour or more. Doing so on a plasma would have disastrous effects.

    Aside from the burn-in, I have noticed a reduction in brightness, and this is only since last summer. Not a very good lifetime for a product which cost $20,000 CDN last summer.

  • Same TV at Costco (Score:2, Interesting)

    by brw215 ( 601732 )
    The gateway tv is made by acompany called Sampo [sampoamericas.com]. This gateway model is the same as the Sampo PME-42S6.

    While gateway's tv includes a tuner, the costco [costco.com] one for the same price includes the expensive (200$) wall mounts which are a must have. Assuming you have a cable box or sattilite, and don't use an anntena you are better off with the costco one.

    The other posts are correct, the monitor is not HDTV it is EDTV (Enchanced definition television) but the picture still rocks. DVDs look very sharp as does the color, these monitors are far better then HD projection models.
  • Couple of years ago plasma screens were all the rage at E3 (the industry's annual trade show in L.A., for those that don't know). For reasons that became obvious, most publishers switched back to CRT's the following year.

    I don't know exactly where the problem lies and I don't know if it's been fixed in more modern plasma screens, but all the video games I saw at E3 on a variety of different plasma screens looked like crap. Most of the problems were with text - which was generally unreadable - but the graphics in general looked both blurry and harsh at the same time (almost as if you took a still image in Photoshop and did a smart-blur on it, then cranked up the sharpness well past the natural limit).

    I suppose two things could help here if you're in the market for one of these sets:

    a) you could just get used to the way this looks.
    b) higher-end or newer sets may not exhibit the same problems. No doubt you get what you pay for.

    But I can tell you most publishers still use CRT's at E3, after the great experiment at going high-tech a couple years ago. Cost is probably a factor, but it's obviously not the only factor, as the gaming press ravaged quite a few games' visuals mainly because they just looked significantly worse on plasma sets than they otherwise would.
  • Have you looked into using a digital projector? A half decent one runnning 1024x768 can be had for around 2000-3000$. The only downside is you need a room where you can easily make it dark, projectors in the day don't work too well =). I've played GTA3/Q3/Racing Games on a projector and its an absolute blast =]

  • Halo on Plasma (Score:3, Interesting)

    by kirn_malinus ( 159763 ) on Wednesday November 13, 2002 @03:51AM (#4657575) Homepage
    My room mate played in the Halo National Championships this summer, he didn't say what kind of plasma TV's they were using, but just that some things in the game were too dark on them. Apparently the winning strategy in the final game involved hiding in shadows because you were nearly invisible in the extra-dark shadows on the plasma TV.

    • Re:Halo on Plasma (Score:2, Interesting)

      by vudmaska ( 584760 )
      I've been playing Halo on a 36' rca crt (is crt the right term _big_heavy_tube_ that supports hdtv but no tuner). I'm no gamer- just interested and man was I blown away!! Better than the last game I got into... space invaders :)

      Anyway, the one thing I would say about the darkness is that it is too dark on this tv as well. This tv I have is high end(2g when bought) so, the darkness might by more the game than the plasma screen...

Slashdot Top Deals

"If I do not want others to quote me, I do not speak." -- Phil Wayne

Close