Question for "BIG screen" gamers

[Rin Stowleigh]

I still play most of my PC action games on a CRT. Its because the
last time I bought an LCD monitor (I own several), none of them
compared in the ability to reproduce color and handle rapid animation
without blurring, yet run at high refresh rates as my antiquated CRTs
(I own several).

I realize that much may have changed as LED TVs, and faster LCDs have
supposedly closed the performance gap with plasma (just as plasma
technology has evolved to eliminate some of the previous drawbacks
like image retention).

I have been getting back into fighting games that are not available on
the PC as of yet, and enjoying playing them on the plasma in the
living room, however I need to move that activity into my the room
that serves as both my home office / gaming room mancave.

It seemed like an easy-enough task, I've read good things about at
least one 120hz LCD monitor with regard to overcoming the things I
hate about 60hz LCD gaming, so I figured I would pick up about a 32"
120hz 1080p set. I didn't want to go plasma because I don't need any
more heat being generated in here than I already deal with, with all
the powered gadgetry I deal with, and also I haven't seen plasma's
under about 42" which is larger than I want for this particular use.

Well, initial efforts have proven not so easy as I thought. I've only
seen one 32" 120hz LCD, and they want in excess of $800 for the
Samsung model I was looking for at Best Buy. The main reason I was
hoping to make the purchase at Best Buy is simply because I have lots
and lots of flyer miles/reward points/whatever accrued on one of my
credit cards, and the point conversion against the dollar is best if I
redeem it for BB gift cards of several hundred bucks each rather than
one of the other options. It doesn't mean I have to limit the TV
purchase to BB, just the reason I looked there first. Either way, I
don't want to spend $800 (even if its points) on a 32" TV that is only
for occasional use.

So, I'm wondering what my options are here? I know there are 30"+
monitors out there with HDMI inputs, but what about my 120hz+
requirement? I am spoiled by plasma and CRT level performance. Is
there some other technological advancement that makes 60hz now more
tolerable than it was say 3-4 years ago? If not, why does there seem
to be such an absence of reasonably priced, action-gaming-worthy 32"
1080p sets? One of the LCDs I already have is a 26" Samsung
TV/Monitor... its great for getting work done on, but sucks for
gaming.

Any help/advice appreciated. I know a few folks have mentioned large
monitor and/or PC-to-TV setups, I know some car sim / flight sim
hobbyists have probably already crossed this bridge, so I hope
something good comes of this request.

Thanks

Rin

[Tim O]

I have two larger LCD's, a 52" Sony XBR and a 70" Sharp Aquos.
Both are fiddley with games, to say the least. With the Sony, I had to
dick around with settings to make text smoothly scroll on the PS3 (my
wife an sister in law belt out god awful karaoke Eye Of The Tiger in
Guitar Hero 3 and the text was scrolling all jerky).

The Sharp is newer, but there is a noticeable input delay running at
1080p. If I switch the 360's output to 1080i, its totally gone. Not
the ideal setup, but good enough for the 1 hour a week I spend playing
games on the 360.

Both TV's also have a Game setting on them that is supposed to turn
off all the filtering and other stuff that causes input lag. I think
there is a thread on the Neogaf forums regarding TV's for gaming.

I'm going to hook the PC up to the 70" Sharp at least one time, maybe
when I'm on vacation. I want to sit really close to it and play racing
games and flight sims. lol

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 21:10:28 -0400, Tim O <timo56...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I have two larger LCD's, a 52" Sony XBR and a 70" Sharp Aquos.
>Both are fiddley with games, to say the least. With the Sony, I had to
>dick around with settings to make text smoothly scroll on the PS3 (my
>wife an sister in law belt out god awful karaoke Eye Of The Tiger in
>Guitar Hero 3 and the text was scrolling all jerky).
>
>The Sharp is newer, but there is a noticeable input delay running at
>1080p. If I switch the 360's output to 1080i, its totally gone. Not
>the ideal setup, but good enough for the 1 hour a week I spend playing
>games on the 360.
>
>Both TV's also have a Game setting on them that is supposed to turn
>off all the filtering and other stuff that causes input lag. I think
>there is a thread on the Neogaf forums regarding TV's for gaming.
>
>I'm going to hook the PC up to the 70" Sharp at least one time, maybe
>when I'm on vacation. I want to sit really close to it and play racing
>games and flight sims. lol

A couple of questions... is the fiddleyness of the TVs with games
related to their size or age? Or is it something I would need to be
concerned with even at the 32" (my ideal target TV size, might not be
able to work out that exact size) range?

The mention of the input delay is a big concern for me. I don't feel
anything like that on Mortal Kombat (a place it would be felt for
sure), where I have a wired Qanba stick connected to the 360 with my
plasma. Everything is crisp / fluid / blur free, like a CRT (although
I have never tried any first person shooter games on it). Steam makes
it easy for me to try out Street Fighter IVAE (which I play more than
MK actually) on another PC which has a CPU and GPU that's more than
capable, but the damn 26" Samsung LCD (about 3 yrs old?) really
diminishes the arcade feel of the experience compared to playing on
the CRT. I only tried it as sort of a litmus test of what it might be
like on a larger 60hz LCD TV set. I want to capture that plasma/CRT
feel, but without spending $800 for a 32" sized set. I thought maybe
all this 3D technology had resulted in more options, and supposedly
new TV models emerge a couple of months after the predictable
superbowl liquidation sales.. but I'm just not seeing the answer and
wondering if the technology is there?

Also, unrelated to TVs but since you brought it up, curious if there
is anything worth seeing on the PS3 I need to know about besides
karaoke games? I will probably need to dump some BB gift cards before
the place goes out of business entirely, and I was wondering if I
should consider the PS3 for my renewed interest in fighting games?
Particularly now that I'm using these Qanba sticks which work same
with all platforms.

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:26:37 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
<rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Also, unrelated to TVs but since you brought it up, curious if there
>is anything worth seeing on the PS3 I need to know about besides
>karaoke games? I will probably need to dump some BB gift cards before
>the place goes out of business entirely, and I was wondering if I
>should consider the PS3 for my renewed interest in fighting games?
>Particularly now that I'm using these Qanba sticks which work same
>with all platforms.

Talking to myself again....

.... forgot to qualify the PS3 portion of the question a bit. I know
PS3 has a good selection of fighting games, and I know my stick will
work with it. The reason I ask what there is to see there is because
I already own the 360, plus a Mortal Kombat disc for it, plus a Live
Gold account. Also because I play folks online, network performance
is a top priority for me and everything I've read says Microsoft's
network is rock solid and Sony's network is less performant and less
reliable. The higher number of players on Xbox's network also means
getting well-matched opponents turns around quicker, which makes more
efficient use of my time.

The down side of having two 360s, one in the man-cave and one in the
livingroom, is that I'm told I can only be logged into one at a time.
This means I always need to worry about whether the girlfriend in the
living room turns on the 360 to surf for free movies and I get logged
out. I'm told the same is true for Sony's network accounts, only one
at a time, but if I had one PS3 and one 360 I can keep the accounts
separate enough.

So, when I ask about PS3 there are a few things there like network
performance, cost of additional subscriptions, etc, I have to think
about. If there were really compelling reasons to look at it, other
than exclusive titles that will show up on Steam in a few months for
twenty bucks, I'm definately wide-eyed and listening, since I can
essentially get one or more for free.

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 01:34:10 -0400, Leg...@Invalid.com wrote:

>On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 19:33:20 -0400, Rin Stowleigh
><rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>I still play most of my PC action games on a CRT. Its because the
>>last time I bought an LCD monitor (I own several), none of them
>>compared in the ability to reproduce color and handle rapid animation
>>without blurring, yet run at high refresh rates as my antiquated CRTs
>>(I own several).
>>

><<<snip>>>
>>Thanks
>>
>>Rin
>>
>
> Seems like you started talking about monitors at first..not tv's.

Either, really. I was originally looking for a TV with no real plans
of using it specifically as a PC monitor in any true sense, the number
and types of input options and various scenarios are something I might
think about as I buy.

Then when I realized that reputable brand 120hz LCD TVs under $800
seem hard to find, as are plasmas of less than 40" size or so, then I
started to think maybe I need to be looking at big computer monitors
rather than smaller TVs?

I think I don't care, but I'm not enough of an HDTV knowledge-ologist
to really know the difference in underlying technologies, and I
thought those who keep one foot in the dark side of console gaming
might be able to enlighten me.

>I bought a 23" samsung 60 hz a couple of years ago abd still use it
>and have none of the problems you mentioned.

Historically, the issues I've described with blurriness seem to vary
between individuals in how bothersome they are. I remember around
2004 having a conversation with one of my better friends -- he was
convinced that LCD blurring/ghosting was a figment of folk's
imagination, but while he shared a lot in common with me with regard
to professional and sport interests, he was not a gamer. It wasn't
until his kids entered the "buy me an xbox" years that he started to
see (not sure if it was through his own eyes or his kids) the blurring
and shortcomings of his existing TV and monitors. He is a highly
athletic guy, as is his now teenage son, and his newest TV is plasma
because (shocking revelation -- sarcasm) they could not stand the
blurring of watching fast paced sporting events on their old TV.

> I play mostly first person shooters and have absolutly no problems
>with color or bluring.
>
>fwiw
>
>Legion

You're not alone, and you may even be in the majority if you've
experienced no visual perception of blurriness or input lag on an LCD.
I have not yet figured out all the answers, I just know that I don't
want to be disappointed if I lug some 60hz LCD into this room, only to
find it is the larger version of what I see on my 1920x1200 26"
Samsung. Maybe my question is really geared toward folks who already
share my perception of difference between 60 and 120hz? Doesn't
matter, I still welcome all input so I will just thank you for yours.

[siva kkolundu]

http://indiasolo.com/46/king004/

[Tim O]

The Sony is about 4 years old. The Sharp is brand new.
I think the main issue with the size you're looking for is that its
now the price-war end of the TV market. Great deals in that size, but
watch for stripped features.

I don't think you're missing much by not having a PS3. Mine spends 90%
of its time as a BluRay player. Other than a couple of decent
exclusive game series (Drakes Fortune, God Of War, Gran Turismo), I
think the XBox is better all-around.

[Tim O]

On Thu, 19 Apr 2012 23:39:06 -0400, Rin Stowleigh

All the online functionality of the PS3 used to be free, which was a
cool perk. They have since added the Plus tier for 50 bucks a year.
I'm not educated enough on it to even know if you need it for online
play, but read up on it just in case.

[Ross Ridge]

Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>It seemed like an easy-enough task, I've read good things about at
>least one 120hz LCD monitor with regard to overcoming the things I
>hate about 60hz LCD gaming, so I figured I would pick up about a 32"
>120hz 1080p set.

There's a world of difference between a 120 HZ computer monitor and 120
HZ TV. The first takes a 120 HZ signal from a computer and displays it
at 120 HZ, the second takes 60 HZ signal and converts to 120 HZ through
frame interpolation and displays that. A 120 HZ TV won't accept a 120
HZ input and won't gain any of the benefits of a 120 HZ monitor.

If you're looking to buy an LCD TV and use it primarily as a computer
monitor then I would suggest looking for one that supports 1:1 pixel
mappping, 4:4:4 chroma, has low input lag, and a low response time. Some
of these features are easier to find than others.

Just about any TV should support 1:1 pixel mapping, but not by
default. Even when fed an image at their native resolution, they crop
out the edges and then scale it up to fit. This is because broadcast
TV and other sources often have junk appearing the top of the screen
(and some times the other edges) that can be distracting. Componding
this problem is the fact that video cards will will add a black border
(overscan) to the output when it thinks its connected to a TV so that
this border gets cropped instead of the Windows desktop. You'll need
to both the disable the cropping on the TV and disable the overscan in
the video card to get a 1:1 pixel mapping.

Support for 4:4:4 chroma is much harder to find. The general problem
here is that HDMI and TVs use a 4:2:2 YCrCb pixel format by default.
With this pixel format, raw three component RGB data is converted into
one greyscale and two colour difference components. The greyscale data
is transmitted at full resolution, but the colour difference channels are
transmitted at half the horizontal resolution. For most uses halving the
colour resolution like thisisn't noticable, but it can make a computer's
text look blurry.

Not that many TVs support 4:4:4 chroma, even if fed a full chroma
resolution RGB 4:4:4 format signal they will still convert it into 4:2:2
YCrCb in order to do their internal processing. Video cards will also
by default transmit 4:2:2 YCrCb if they think they're connected to a TV.
With ATI cards that can be fixed in the control panel, but with NVIDIA
cards apparently you may need to use a fake EDID force it to use a RGB
4:4:4 pixel format when connected to a TV. In some cases using a DVI
to HDMI cable can fool the video card and/or TV.

Input lag can be a small and unnoticable, or game breaking depending
on how bad it is and what sort of games your playing. In the worst
case it can even make moving the mouse around the Windows desktop feel
unresponsive. The cause of input lag is processing done by the TV.
LCD computer monitors do very limited processing, practically none at all.
There's typically one frame (1/60th of second) or less delay between
the time the electronics in a computer monitor receive image data at
one of their inputs and it gets sent to the LCD panel for display.
LCD TVs all unfortunately process thier inputs in some way, and this
causes an additional delay.

The LCD TVs with the lowest input lag are almost invariably the cheapest
TVs that support the least amount of processing. A 120 HZ TV is terrible
choice in this regard because 60 HZ to 120 HZ interpolation requires
buffering multiple frames which increases the input lag signifcantly.
While this interpolation can usually be disabled, either explicitly or
through a "Game" mode which disables many of the TVs processing features.
Most TVs have a "Game" mode like this, but even when using this mode
the more expensive more feature rich TVs still tend not to score as well
their cheaper more barebones cousins.

Response time of LCD panels isn't a big deal as it used to be, but with
TVs the problem is generally worse. There's so much bogus information
from manufactures about the resonse time of their LCD monitors and TVs
that it's hard to really compare them. Most people these days don't
seem to notice LCD motion bluring caused by the amount time it takes an
individual liquid crystal element to switch from one state to another.
I wouldn't have bothered mentioning it but the response time on CRT
monitors and plasma displays is zero, so this could be an issue for you.

Almost all LCD montitors use TN panels, which aside from being cheap have
only one advantage over the other kinds of TFT LCD panels. They have
low response times, and so less motion bluring. Only small crappy
TVs use TN panels, the poor viewing angles of TN panels make them
generally unsuitable for a display that could have multiple viewers
sitting around it. While some TVs claim to have low response times,
typically they're going to be higher than a TN LCD monitor.

I bought an LG 42LK450 for use both as a TV and a second monitor for
my PC. It supports 1:1 pixel mapping, 4:4:4 chroma and has very low
input lag for a TV. The pixel response time isn't so great, but I've
still got my CRT as my primary monitor. I was originally thinking of
getting the 32" 32LK450 instead of the 42" model, but I ended up getting
the 42" for the same price the 32" sold for when it was still in stock.
I just put the the TV further back than I had originally planed.

Ross Ridge

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca/~rridge/
db //

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 14:31:59 -0400, Ross Ridge
<rri...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

>Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>It seemed like an easy-enough task, I've read good things about at
>>least one 120hz LCD monitor with regard to overcoming the things I
>>hate about 60hz LCD gaming, so I figured I would pick up about a 32"
>>120hz 1080p set.
>
>There's a world of difference between a 120 HZ computer monitor and 120
>HZ TV. The first takes a 120 HZ signal from a computer and displays it
>at 120 HZ, the second takes 60 HZ signal and converts to 120 HZ through
>frame interpolation and displays that. A 120 HZ TV won't accept a 120
>HZ input and won't gain any of the benefits of a 120 HZ monitor.
>
>If you're looking to buy an LCD TV and use it primarily as a computer
>monitor then I would suggest looking for one that supports 1:1 pixel
>mappping, 4:4:4 chroma, has low input lag, and a low response time. Some
>of these features are easier to find than others.

[ lots of good info snipped]

First, thanks for all the info, some of the concepts are new to me so
I probably did not mentally absorb it all on the first pass. But, I
seem to be getting the idea that you're saying I'm probably best off
with a cheap 60hz TV?

Basically I was originally trying to get a TV, and I only started
looking at monitors because I noticed there are very few "fast"
(advertised as 120hz +) TVs apparently available in the 30-incher
range. I'm still not clear on whether I need to ditch the monitor
idea or focus more on that.

I also look at my posts thus far in this thread and I think I may not
have summarized my intended usage of this TV or monitor well enough.

I will do that here, in case it helps you or others advise what they
think I should get:


Key criteria that matters to me:
--------------------------------------
- Does not suffer noticable blurring / delay/ input lag when playing
console games. Nobody seems to make plasma in specified size or I
would pick one up in a heartbeat; this more than anything matters to
me. I'll be playing fighting games and If lag is in my way I'd rather
not do this at all, and stick to playing in the living room plasma, or
only games that have a PC version and I'll stay on my CRT.
- Size should be between 32"-37" (no larger, even its if good deal for
the money)
- Price does matter - arbitrarily I'd say say $500 is approximate
maximum for this project. Below that of course is better, as long as
all needs are met.


What I *might* be doing with it in the future (optional stuff):
----------------------------------------
- It might get moved to another room at some point and relegated to a
spare bedroom TV instead of a gaming device, so it needs to do that
reasonably well. If using a monitor that's designed to be both a HDTV
and monitor (like my Samsung) would suck for that, it's probably not a
good candidate.
- If it did turn out to work well as a PC monitor, even though its not
intended use, I might use it for music production at some point, since
music software tends to leave you with tons of knobs and tiny fonts
all over high resolution screens.. in that case it should support PC
resolution of 1920x1200.
- Bouncing a signal off some other device to it, for example using the
iPad or in the future a Windows tablet to wirelessly stream video to
it.


What I probably won't be doing:
----------------------------------------
- Playing PC games on it or using a mouse in situations where I would
care too much about mouse lag, but if it lags with a mouse I'm
guessing the controller performance would get on my nerves eventually
as well?
- Using the 3D features much, if it has those features. I just was
under the impression that 3D TVs may have faster response thus be
better for gaming? Not sure where my impression originated.
- Worrying about viewing angles. The plasma in living room is for
that. I will be sitting directly in front of this during use at maybe
5-6 ft away.

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 01:34:15 -0400, Leg...@Invalid.com wrote:

> Cosumer reports does some good testing and explains the
>features/good/bad of different TV's..might ne wirth a look at your
>neighborhood libaray.

Thanks for the response -- I have found their general TV reviews to be
useful in many ways, and some of their data like history of
reliability of household appliance brands to be valuable. The one
area I find their staff really lacking is in computing or gaming needs
(not because they aren't capable but because of the focus of the
publication). Their advice is usually for more general use; it would
be great if they published a review of which 30-40" TVs are best for
fighting games for folks with a low tolerance for lag or blurring, but
they probably never will). There is probably a site out there that
does, but for some odd reason I thought I'd look for feedback here
first. I was scouring the web for articles for same information, and
there is a lot out there but some is out of date.

[Toby Newman]

On 2012-04-19, Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I still play most of my PC action games on a CRT. Its because the
> last time I bought an LCD monitor (I own several), none of them
> compared in the ability to reproduce color and handle rapid animation
> without blurring, yet run at high refresh rates as my antiquated CRTs
> (I own several).
>
> I realize that much may have changed as LED TVs, and faster LCDs have
> supposedly closed the performance gap with plasma (just as plasma
> technology has evolved to eliminate some of the previous drawbacks
> like image retention).

I feel the same way.

I need to replace my CRTs to free up some space, having just concieved
a 2nd child, my man-pit is going to have some extra furniture competing
for room.

This is my spreadsheet comparing the market:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At1a3rSu4lCmdDdDckgzY2FvenBkSzlNT2JTWE9Sanc
or
http://tinyurl.com/cx3j85b

I looked into this last year and decided that Samsung's SyncMaster
2233RZ and their SA950 were probably the best I could get, but even
those didn't satisfy all my requirements.

In the end I decided to hold fire and wait for the technology to
improve, but this conception thing will force my hand over the next
month or two!

Please do let me know what you settle on or if you see any good
alternatives not considered on that spreadsheet.

--
-Toby
Add the word afiduluminag to the subject to circumvent my email filters.

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 11:12:05 +0100, Toby Newman <goo...@asktoby.com>
wrote:

Thanks for the sheet. About the only thing useful I might be able to
add to it for now might be that you have mentioned the Samsung
S23A750D, but it looks like at the time it was unreleased/unreviewed,
so here's an anandtech link for it:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/5231/samsung-s23a750d-3d-lcd-display

While I will need to do this too at some point (replace my CRTs for
gaming), I'm just dreading the day based on the current state of
technology. I know it wasn't very clear in my first message, but the
project I am embarking on right now is basically for a spare TV that
will be used as a gaming monitor for console fighting games and maybe
netflix movies. Ideal size is 32" which is a little bigger than I
want for a PC gaming monitor. I actually only got started looking at
PC monitors when it seemed the TV choices were so limited. I couldn't
understand why I could so easily find a 42" plasma which is perfect
for this use, but finding a suitable substitute in 32" seems close to
impossible.

[Ross Ridge]

Rin Stowleigh <rstow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>First, thanks for all the info, some of the concepts are new to me so
>I probably did not mentally absorb it all on the first pass. But, I
>seem to be getting the idea that you're saying I'm probably best off
>with a cheap 60hz TV?

Not necessarily the cheapest TV, but from the low end of a manufacture's
range. The TVs from a given manufacturer tend vary more on paper then
they do in the actual hardware that they're made of. A lower-end and a
higher-end TV of given size are going to have much the same components,
just with different features enabled. Most of the extra features in
high-end TVs are ment to improve TV or movie watching, they don't help
and often make thing worse when you're using the TV to play video games
or as a computer monitor.

>Basically I was originally trying to get a TV, and I only started
>looking at monitors because I noticed there are very few "fast"
>(advertised as 120hz +) TVs apparently available in the 30-incher
>range. I'm still not clear on whether I need to ditch the monitor
>idea or focus more on that.

If you want to get the advantages that a 120 HZ refresh rate can have
when playing games then you need to use a PC attached to a 120 HZ computer
monitor. No TV accepts a 120 HZ signal and no console outputs it either.
Note that 120 HZ computer monitors and TVs use the same LCD panels that
60 HZ displays use. They don't have faster response times, their liquid
crystal elements are just asked to switch states twice as often.

>- Does not suffer noticable blurring / delay/ input lag when playing
>console games. Nobody seems to make plasma in specified size or I
>would pick one up in a heartbeat; this more than anything matters to
>me. I'll be playing fighting games and If lag is in my way I'd rather
>not do this at all, and stick to playing in the living room plasma, or
>only games that have a PC version and I'll stay on my CRT.

You can get TVs that have a input lag of only one or two frames, which
should be fine. Most people playing video games these days are using LCD
TVs and few are aware of the problem. Note that plasma TVs to do internal
processing as well, just typically not as much as LCD TVs. The plasma
TV you're using now is probably giving you one or two frames of input lag.

This thread on AVS Forums lists input lag for a number of plasma TVs
and tells you how to measure it yourself if you want:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1166196

Here's the thread for LCD TV input lag:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1131464

Motion bluring is fundamental problem with LCD technology and can never be
eliminated completely. Whether you would be able notice it on a given TV
is hard to say. If you can, I'd suggest geting a TV from a place with a
generous return policy so you can try it and return it if it's a problem.

>- If it did turn out to work well as a PC monitor, even though its not
>intended use, I might use it for music production at some point, since
>music software tends to leave you with tons of knobs and tiny fonts
>all over high resolution screens.. in that case it should support PC
>resolution of 1920x1200.

No TV will support 1920x1200 natively, though some might accept it and
then squash it down to 1920x1080. There might be some computer monitors
with TV tuners that can do that natively, but they'd either be much
smaller than 32" or cost a lot more then you're willing to sepnd.

>- Bouncing a signal off some other device to it, for example using the
>iPad or in the future a Windows tablet to wirelessly stream video to
>it.

Lots of TVs have Ethernet ports these days and can do stuff like that,
usually just one model up from the bottom. However, you can add this
functionality to any TV with a $100 box, which is about what you'll have
to pay extra for a TV with that built in.

[Rin Stowleigh]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:00:27 -0400, Tim O <timo56...@hotmail.com>

At the moment, I'm leaning toward a second Xbox for this particular
project. Still not sure what to do about the single Live gold account
and the fact it can't be used on two devices at once (I just know the
girlfriend is going to power it up and log me out in the middle of an
intense Mortal Kombat bout).

I've also considered getting something like Apple TV or Roku for the
living room and let her watch Netflix off that -- I don't think either
requires a paid subscription for Netflix which would leave the 360 for
me to hog. We'd lose use of the Kinect in the living room but that
hasn't been getting much use lately anyway (ironically her interest in
Kinect was the reason for the original Xbox acquisition).

Are there any titles on the 360 similar to the PS3 exclusives you
mentioned that are worthwhile and not available on PC? Right now
fighting games and potentially sports titles on consoles are my only
reason for looking into this at all.

[Rin Stowleigh]

Today I decided to experiment, and bring the 360 into the mancave and
hook it up to my 26" Samsung LCD monitor/TV combo to see how bad
things were while running Mortal Kombat. The 26" is supposedly 5ms
response time.

I couldn't really tell any more lag was present than on the plasma,
and the blurring was hard to describe. Too fast for the eye to really
see, yet undeniably present enough to completely diminish the
experience.

The whole process was very uninspiring, but it made me start thinking
about how much time I will really spend on any fighting game that I
can't get for the PC, and whether or not I want to go through with
this project or not.

Still thinking about it.

[Tim O]

I'm way out of the loop on this... Wife and her friends play Kinect
Bowling a few times per year. I play Pinball Arcade/Pinball FX2 and
watch HBO Go on it.

I suppose Halo would be the standout series, but I can't play an FPS
with a gamepad for more than 5 minutes without getting disgusted.