3 ms·

Uh, four tenths of a second to change the camera angle would make every 3d game completely and totally unplayable. Even one tenth would have everyone up in arms

by shasta 15y ago

Uh, four tenths of a second to change the camera angle would make every 3d game completely and totally unplayable. Even one tenth would have everyone up in arms about how terrible every game is. Maybe you meant 10 and 40ms.

JoshTriplett 15y ago
> Uh, four tenths of a second to change the camera angle would make every 3d game completely and totally unplayable. Even one tenth would have everyone up in arms about how terrible every game is. Maybe you meant 10 and 40ms. No, as disturbing as it sounds, real TVs really do have hundreds of milliseconds of lag. Games that care deeply about precision timing, notably rhythm games like Guitar Hero, actually have HDTV lag settings to change the offsets between audio, video, and input, so that you can actually strum based on what you see and hear and not miss every note.
- shasta 15y ago
  Citation? sites.google.com/site/hdtvlag/results shows some tests that show it's usually under 100ms for a wide range of TVs. That's bad but more believable. 400ms of latency is not believable. Such a TV would be unsuitable for real time games. Full stop.
  - JoshTriplett 15y ago
    Most people don't buy HDTVs to play real-time games; they buy them to watch TV. As long as the TV delays the audio to match the video people won't notice when watching TV; DVRs commonly introduce similar amounts of lag. Looking at that site, they tested a relatively small number of TVs (only 14), and it sounds like they enabled "game mode" on any of the TVs that had it. I'll certainly acknowledge that 400ms represents the most extreme case, but 100-200ms or more happens pretty regularly, especially when not using "game mode" or equivalent.
    - shasta 15y ago
      Most people don't play games, but I do. If even 200ms was common, it would be widely known among gamers that certain TVs are unsuitable for games. If you can't provide a citation, can you at least explain why you hold this belief? I'm obviously still incredulous.
      - Terretta 15y ago
        Check out avsforums. Or check out high end scalars and the research papers with them. DVDO as even a cheap scalar (I run a VPS 50 from a few years ago on one projector). You'll find more details than you can shake a stick at about the frame lags of various sets. AVSForum is a great place to confirm JoshTriplet's comments. 30 fps is just 33ms per frame. At least one frame of delay is necessary baseline to create transfer and render the image. After that, you're adding delays. 4 frames processing is 133 ms, 6 frames is 200 ms. This is in addition to the console frame rendering time, HDMI transfer from console to TV's frame buffer, and TV's display, assuming a direct connection. Now, the more interesting thing about all this for me isn't that most TVs and most new home video receivers lag, it is the lag in your own perception and how your mind compensates. As an avid gamer, you learn to compensate for the equipment's lag, and certain studies show a kind of precognition with which top gamers seem to anticipate moves before they should occur. (The reaction happens after the event in the CPU, but before your brain and muscles should have been able to respond to it given normal lag time to perceive and react.) Your own perceptions of whether you can't play a game from lag, especially if you are a gamer, is a bad source of data on this one.[1] Fact is, home receivers have frame buffers, and home TVs have frame buffers. Most are two or three frames, many are as bad as four. This makes moving video, especially blocky or mosquito noise video, able to be cleaned much more. These receivers and sets look the best, which is why this lag is still increasing. To an extent, the more frames buffered, the more temporal data to use to clean the frames. Finally, as a gamer, forget the FPS, they're easy to anticipate. You lead your shots naturally and subconsciously. Instead, try something like Geometry Wars Evolved. With the frame lag, you will occasionally be dead in the console before you've seen it on your screen. All my high scores are component video to a Sony Trinitron. I don't come close on a modern set through a receiver. This is well known to the gamers in the GW:E forums. 1. Just one example of improved "anticipation" (as opposed to "reaction"), as I don't have time to look up the various citations... "A different study by Kuhlman and Beitel (1991) measured the anticipation of seven through nine year old children who were categorized as non-experienced, moderately experienced, or highly experienced video game players. The researchers found that children with extensive experience playing video games can more accurately and consistently anticipate the arrival of a stimulus." – http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu/manuscripts/847.php http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu/manuscripts/847.php
  - __david__ 15y ago
    It would also be unsuitable for movies! How can you watch a movie with the sound leading the video by 400ms!? Then again I see a surprising amount of people watching stuff with the aspect ratio set wrong. And a surprising amount of broadcasters broadcasting things in the wrong aspect ratio, so maybe people would just be oblivious...
    - bigbird 15y ago
      The TVs delay the sound to match the latency in the video processing. Very annoying if you have a computer attached with any sort of real time audio (microphone, guitar, etc).
      - __david__ 15y ago
        That only helps if you're playing your audio through the TV. But no serious home theater setup is like that…
        cstejerean 15y ago
        Any serious home theater setup allows you to delay the audio as well.
  - mrcharles 15y ago
    Most people who think they are getting a deal dropping $300 on an HDTV probably aren't hardcore gamers and likely to notice. There's a long laundry list of things that the vast majority of gamers won't notice directly that can affect gameplay. They have neither the vocabulary nor the technical expertise to identify or explain the things they experience. I do agree with you though, 400ms is unsuitable for realtime games. But that doesn't stop people from ending up in that situation. However, one mitigating factor is that if you are buying those super cheap TVs, it is likely that you don't own a 360 or PS3 either.

by shasta 15y ago

JoshTriplett 15y ago

> Uh, four tenths of a second to change the camera angle would make every 3d game completely and totally unplayable. Even one tenth would have everyone up in arms about how terrible every game is. Maybe you meant 10 and 40ms. No, as disturbing as it sounds, real TVs really do have hundreds of milliseconds of lag. Games that care deeply about precision timing, notably rhythm games like Guitar Hero, actually have HDTV lag settings to change the offsets between audio, video, and input, so that you can actually strum based on what you see and hear and not miss every note.

shasta 15y ago
Citation? sites.google.com/site/hdtvlag/results shows some tests that show it's usually under 100ms for a wide range of TVs. That's bad but more believable. 400ms of latency is not believable. Such a TV would be unsuitable for real time games. Full stop.
- JoshTriplett 15y ago
  Most people don't buy HDTVs to play real-time games; they buy them to watch TV. As long as the TV delays the audio to match the video people won't notice when watching TV; DVRs commonly introduce similar amounts of lag. Looking at that site, they tested a relatively small number of TVs (only 14), and it sounds like they enabled "game mode" on any of the TVs that had it. I'll certainly acknowledge that 400ms represents the most extreme case, but 100-200ms or more happens pretty regularly, especially when not using "game mode" or equivalent.
  - shasta 15y ago
    Most people don't play games, but I do. If even 200ms was common, it would be widely known among gamers that certain TVs are unsuitable for games. If you can't provide a citation, can you at least explain why you hold this belief? I'm obviously still incredulous.
    - Terretta 15y ago
      Check out avsforums. Or check out high end scalars and the research papers with them. DVDO as even a cheap scalar (I run a VPS 50 from a few years ago on one projector). You'll find more details than you can shake a stick at about the frame lags of various sets. AVSForum is a great place to confirm JoshTriplet's comments. 30 fps is just 33ms per frame. At least one frame of delay is necessary baseline to create transfer and render the image. After that, you're adding delays. 4 frames processing is 133 ms, 6 frames is 200 ms. This is in addition to the console frame rendering time, HDMI transfer from console to TV's frame buffer, and TV's display, assuming a direct connection. Now, the more interesting thing about all this for me isn't that most TVs and most new home video receivers lag, it is the lag in your own perception and how your mind compensates. As an avid gamer, you learn to compensate for the equipment's lag, and certain studies show a kind of precognition with which top gamers seem to anticipate moves before they should occur. (The reaction happens after the event in the CPU, but before your brain and muscles should have been able to respond to it given normal lag time to perceive and react.) Your own perceptions of whether you can't play a game from lag, especially if you are a gamer, is a bad source of data on this one.[1] Fact is, home receivers have frame buffers, and home TVs have frame buffers. Most are two or three frames, many are as bad as four. This makes moving video, especially blocky or mosquito noise video, able to be cleaned much more. These receivers and sets look the best, which is why this lag is still increasing. To an extent, the more frames buffered, the more temporal data to use to clean the frames. Finally, as a gamer, forget the FPS, they're easy to anticipate. You lead your shots naturally and subconsciously. Instead, try something like Geometry Wars Evolved. With the frame lag, you will occasionally be dead in the console before you've seen it on your screen. All my high scores are component video to a Sony Trinitron. I don't come close on a modern set through a receiver. This is well known to the gamers in the GW:E forums. 1. Just one example of improved "anticipation" (as opposed to "reaction"), as I don't have time to look up the various citations... "A different study by Kuhlman and Beitel (1991) measured the anticipation of seven through nine year old children who were categorized as non-experienced, moderately experienced, or highly experienced video game players. The researchers found that children with extensive experience playing video games can more accurately and consistently anticipate the arrival of a stimulus." – http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu/manuscripts/847.php http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu/manuscripts/847.php
- __david__ 15y ago
  It would also be unsuitable for movies! How can you watch a movie with the sound leading the video by 400ms!? Then again I see a surprising amount of people watching stuff with the aspect ratio set wrong. And a surprising amount of broadcasters broadcasting things in the wrong aspect ratio, so maybe people would just be oblivious...
  - bigbird 15y ago
    The TVs delay the sound to match the latency in the video processing. Very annoying if you have a computer attached with any sort of real time audio (microphone, guitar, etc).
    - __david__ 15y ago
      That only helps if you're playing your audio through the TV. But no serious home theater setup is like that…
      - cstejerean 15y ago
        Any serious home theater setup allows you to delay the audio as well.
- mrcharles 15y ago
  Most people who think they are getting a deal dropping $300 on an HDTV probably aren't hardcore gamers and likely to notice. There's a long laundry list of things that the vast majority of gamers won't notice directly that can affect gameplay. They have neither the vocabulary nor the technical expertise to identify or explain the things they experience. I do agree with you though, 400ms is unsuitable for realtime games. But that doesn't stop people from ending up in that situation. However, one mitigating factor is that if you are buying those super cheap TVs, it is likely that you don't own a 360 or PS3 either.