I see many people saying 120 Hz is useless for anything but games. This is not true. Cinema can't be displayed smoothly on 60 Hz displays. Are there no cinema buffs here? I'm kind of aggravated that the TV industry will flaunt their 120 Hz displays while limiting input to 60 Hz. They could easily just slap a dual-link DVI driver in there, and I would be happy.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
120 Hz
- Thread starter grimster
- Start date
dragonstongue
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 3,162
I though the numbers for TV were 24fps/hz and cinema or movie quality 30 some fps/hz, blue ray and 3d capable of exceeding this numbers as can fast action scenes, sports shows?
Kind of funny come to think of it, I always though tv/movies looked just fine on older sets, maybe not as vibrant or colorful, but they also did not appear blurred out even in fast motion, but todays sets can suffer from this very much so often from up scaling/down scaling.
I can also say movies and such that can actually use the 120Hz becuase of fast motion, 120Hz or equivalent is a dream, everything is so smooth in comparison to older 60Hz displays..
Kind of funny come to think of it, I always though tv/movies looked just fine on older sets, maybe not as vibrant or colorful, but they also did not appear blurred out even in fast motion, but todays sets can suffer from this very much so often from up scaling/down scaling.
I can also say movies and such that can actually use the 120Hz becuase of fast motion, 120Hz or equivalent is a dream, everything is so smooth in comparison to older 60Hz displays..
RESTfulADI
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,218
120hz on PC works great for movies because it can be evenly divided by 24. And by 60 for 1080i content, and by 30 for everything else. Not to mention it reduces frame latency to 8ms for gaming.
No judder = happy eyes
No judder = happy eyes
And I bet the desktop experience is also enhanced. I just don't see myself spending any money on it until the TV market becomes undiluted and responds to demands outside of just the average dumb consumer. I see them phasing away from DVI, and just sticking with HDMI anymore, and IMO it's total crap. They keep on catering to resolutions that don't even exist on any medium yet, while they could rather cater to maybe refresh rate, for applications that CAN be applied NOW. I hate judder in my movies. /rant
RESTfulADI
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,218
Definitely, just moving windows around the desktop is twice as smooth. You can actually read the text of a window you are moving, and there is no blur and no eye strain.
RESTfulADI
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,218
It's worth every penny, as long as you can put up with the usual TN downsides.
1. Uh... Practically every CRT ever produced?
2. You could change it back to 60 Hz, and that would pretty much eliminate that problem, no?
What kind of nut would even consider a CRT these days? Damn, the eyestrain. The whole point of having 120 Hz is to eliminate needing to switch. This discussion is more a rant about TVs lacking a 120 Hz input despite all the marketing hype surrounding the panel's refresh rate.
I used to get eyestrain with LCDs, now I don't with a CRT, because LCDs need high brightness for high contrast, you can't get a clear picture on low birghtness, that's not a problem with CRTs. I don't meant to root for my team too much, but there's a reason the FW900 thread is nearly 200 pages.
1. all CRTs and many LCD can also do it without skipping frames.
2. 120Hz don't cover everything also as there is a lot of 25/50Hz content
also 48Hz content is or will be soon available... So even 120Hz don't cover it all...They aren't going to release any 48 Hz content. There is no standard on Blu-ray for it. They are not going to change Blu-rays specs because of some Hobbit-lovers. They are going to just blur down to 24 FPS for home releases. I don't care about PAL. Their displays are all fine over there. They need not be brought up.
dragonstongue
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 3,162
as far as contrast and brightness levels, well that really depends on panels now doesnt it. Cheaper TN panels use excessive brightness levels to hid the fact they cannot do very black blacks or whitest whites, not to mention color bleeding because of this. However IPS panels, and some newer types about to hit market are able to achieve very vivid coloration even in low brightness usage.
I guess the saying goes, sometimes it just worth paying more.
But yeh anything divisible, its the odd numbers that throw them for a loop, this is why 120Hz or even some of the newer 240Hz(not plasma as this is ually a vyre high internal Hz but poor visual Hz level) can capture alot of fast motion without any problems.
Crt can hit extraordinary contrast and Hz that "most" LCD can only dream of, only now are the responce times catching up for quality panels compared to most CRT even the older not quite as nice ones. Many new technologies are about to hit the market within the next 2-4 years though, so keep a look out.
I guess the saying goes, sometimes it just worth paying more.
But yeh anything divisible, its the odd numbers that throw them for a loop, this is why 120Hz or even some of the newer 240Hz(not plasma as this is ually a vyre high internal Hz but poor visual Hz level) can capture alot of fast motion without any problems.
Crt can hit extraordinary contrast and Hz that "most" LCD can only dream of, only now are the responce times catching up for quality panels compared to most CRT even the older not quite as nice ones. Many new technologies are about to hit the market within the next 2-4 years though, so keep a look out.
I disagree about plasma having a poor "visual Hz level". They are pretty much the best displays out there, if you don't buy into the burn-in hype. It should never happen in reality, since only stores loop the same crap over and over, and sometimes shit freezes at the store and an image can stay frozen for hours before someone catches it. Playing pillar-boxed stuff is just as likely to burn them in as playing letter-boxed stuff. People will flip out about 4:3 stuff, but won't hesitate to play 2.35 - 2.4:1 movies all day.
But, I think they should start driving the plasma TVs at 1,200 Hz. I really am bothered by the DLP-like rainbow effect from just moving my eyes. Even the 600 Hz would take care of all sane frame rates (exclude 48, because I don't understand why film makers want to stick with multiples of 24. They could just bump to 60.) 1,200 Hz would take care of 48 Hz for the one movie that will ever be released like that. 600 Hz playing all common frame rates really wouldn't be difficult to attain with electronics. Then the PAL tards could stop whining that their crap doesn't play smoothly on NTSC hardware.
LEDs are going to be where it's at, but they need to stop foreplaying with OLEDs already, and just start working with solid state, traditional LEDs again. I don't want a display, 10 years down the line, that barely out-specs what can be done now for cheap.
But, I think they should start driving the plasma TVs at 1,200 Hz. I really am bothered by the DLP-like rainbow effect from just moving my eyes. Even the 600 Hz would take care of all sane frame rates (exclude 48, because I don't understand why film makers want to stick with multiples of 24. They could just bump to 60.) 1,200 Hz would take care of 48 Hz for the one movie that will ever be released like that. 600 Hz playing all common frame rates really wouldn't be difficult to attain with electronics. Then the PAL tards could stop whining that their crap doesn't play smoothly on NTSC hardware.
LEDs are going to be where it's at, but they need to stop foreplaying with OLEDs already, and just start working with solid state, traditional LEDs again. I don't want a display, 10 years down the line, that barely out-specs what can be done now for cheap.
plasma low "visual Hz level" is from their good performance. Plasma next to CRT@60Hz will show exactly the same level of smoothness.
LCD blend frames together and because of that image looks smoother eg. 30Hz material will always look smoother on smearing LCD than plasma and CRT.
LCD blend frames together and because of that image looks smoother eg. 30Hz material will always look smoother on smearing LCD than plasma and CRT.
LCDs don't blend anything. You're comparing apples to oranges to bananas. LCD tech holds the image on the display until the next one wants to be drawn. At 60 Hz, plasma flashes the same pixel 10 times before the next refresh (the pixels can't stay lit with a constant DC voltage, they need AC or pulsed DC.) CRTs literally scan left to right, from the top down. This isn't 10 years ago. LCDs have just as good refresh times as other technologies now. They simply peak and hold an image, they don't flash an image so many times a second. No flicker.
In reality, they give your eyes closer to what they see than anything else, and since our eyes can really see 100's of Hz when an image is not flashed at us, but rather updated, our source materials really really need to be updated. They keep pushing all this crazy 4k crap on us, with disregard to maybe ever gaining refresh rate, and not pixels. Then you have ass-hats, who obviously have no idea how to film, claim that everything will look like a home movie, so they stick with 24 FPS for "artistic" reasons, which is bullshit. When these people film with high shutter speeds still at 24 FPS, it makes it horrible. Watch Crank 2 as an example. I couldn't follow motion easily.
Remember, time is a dimension. If you include time into resolution, you can see with common sense that a higher refresh rate gives you a higher resolution. Ever wonder why 720p60 looks just as good as 1080p30? It looks just as good, if not better, because of the more life-like representation of motion. With proper camera work, movies wouldn't look like they were shot on a camcorder. Camcorders on a tripod don't suffer from this, it is human motion that makes it crap.
In reality, they give your eyes closer to what they see than anything else, and since our eyes can really see 100's of Hz when an image is not flashed at us, but rather updated, our source materials really really need to be updated. They keep pushing all this crazy 4k crap on us, with disregard to maybe ever gaining refresh rate, and not pixels. Then you have ass-hats, who obviously have no idea how to film, claim that everything will look like a home movie, so they stick with 24 FPS for "artistic" reasons, which is bullshit. When these people film with high shutter speeds still at 24 FPS, it makes it horrible. Watch Crank 2 as an example. I couldn't follow motion easily.
Remember, time is a dimension. If you include time into resolution, you can see with common sense that a higher refresh rate gives you a higher resolution. Ever wonder why 720p60 looks just as good as 1080p30? It looks just as good, if not better, because of the more life-like representation of motion. With proper camera work, movies wouldn't look like they were shot on a camcorder. Camcorders on a tripod don't suffer from this, it is human motion that makes it crap.
sadbuttrue
Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2008
- Messages
- 519
Your're both right in a way.
During fast motion the colour transitions can take far longer than the frametime. Any given pixel will be in constant flux or "blending". This is why 120hz lcds still suck at fast motion compared to crt.
During fast motion the colour transitions can take far longer than the frametime. Any given pixel will be in constant flux or "blending". This is why 120hz lcds still suck at fast motion compared to crt.
Typical response times are from 8 to 16 ms for black-white-black. 16 ms being 62.5 Hz, and 8 ms being 125 Hz. This is plenty fast for such a rare scenario. GTG is a better stat; 2 ms to 6 ms. Plenty fast for an image that doesn't flicker, but is held. CRTs flicker, and it is total crap to look at after any decent period of time. CRTs died 10 years ago. That is a fact. Sorry to upset the 5 people in the world still clinging to them.
quantum112
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2010
- Messages
- 392
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/features/display_myths_shattered
Too bad those specs aren't true.
LCD backlight flickers as well unless it's at 100% brightness, hope you knew that.
CRT flicker is invisible at and above 85 Hz, interestingly enough most people who hate them never figured out how to actually adjust refresh rate.
Plenty of working CRT's in my house. Sounds more like opinion.
I don't suppose you've looked at one of the CRT threads around here, or you would have found that there is quite a few of us around.
dragonstongue
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 3,162
All I was saying about the plasma thingy was what I have read many times before, Plasma in itself has some absolutely astounding clarity and vivid colors that few LCD can match except for the super fancy expensive kind, example would be OLED or some upper end IPS types, I forget the name of the newest kind they are about to start marketing.
Anyways as far as "visual" was simple, plasma may have a ridiulous internal Hz level, that is more or less reuqired to power the unit and give it all its immense fidelity if you will, it simple does not "visually" display this, from the last time I read about this, at the time 600Hz internal became just under 110Hz external or viewable level, this was with a 10ms actual responce/refresh time. In general, I know many folks whom use Plasma for movies and such, mostly because they are truly excellent for these things, but for gaming, it is not their stong point, I am not sure if its the way they "refresh" or the way they diplay colors and such, I just do not know, it may have something to do with "lag" from user commands to the actual display of the information, I think that had something to do with it, and has effected older LCD like crazy, not so much nowadays.
In a general sence, CRT especially high quality ones, tend to still have the lowest responce/refresh rates of any monitor/tv out there, however they tend to not have the highest color pallet and I believe thier contrast rates are still very good, though not the best if you look at everything available, I suppose CRT stong point is thier Hz levels achievable and thier refresh/responce if anything. This does not mean they are the best, but simply most consumers are now asking for LCD/plasma/LED and the like, so manufacturers decided to shift thier attention, it is often about what the consumer is willing to buy, and what the seller can sell after all.
Also, thanks lads, this thread is quite informative
Anyways as far as "visual" was simple, plasma may have a ridiulous internal Hz level, that is more or less reuqired to power the unit and give it all its immense fidelity if you will, it simple does not "visually" display this, from the last time I read about this, at the time 600Hz internal became just under 110Hz external or viewable level, this was with a 10ms actual responce/refresh time. In general, I know many folks whom use Plasma for movies and such, mostly because they are truly excellent for these things, but for gaming, it is not their stong point, I am not sure if its the way they "refresh" or the way they diplay colors and such, I just do not know, it may have something to do with "lag" from user commands to the actual display of the information, I think that had something to do with it, and has effected older LCD like crazy, not so much nowadays.
In a general sence, CRT especially high quality ones, tend to still have the lowest responce/refresh rates of any monitor/tv out there, however they tend to not have the highest color pallet and I believe thier contrast rates are still very good, though not the best if you look at everything available, I suppose CRT stong point is thier Hz levels achievable and thier refresh/responce if anything. This does not mean they are the best, but simply most consumers are now asking for LCD/plasma/LED and the like, so manufacturers decided to shift thier attention, it is often about what the consumer is willing to buy, and what the seller can sell after all.
Also, thanks lads, this thread is quite informative
CRTs are dead in the consumer area. Period. Just because few people still use them for some professional work doesn't mean they are worthwhile. Could you imagine a 42" CRT?
Plasmas have excellent response, if your eyes do. This can be seen by moving your eyes quickly across a black and white contrast, you will see a slight rainbow effect, but it's really only reddish yellow, so not really as bad as a DLP.
LED is the future, but I will only buy into if they use semiconductors, and not this OLED garbage.
Plasmas have excellent response, if your eyes do. This can be seen by moving your eyes quickly across a black and white contrast, you will see a slight rainbow effect, but it's really only reddish yellow, so not really as bad as a DLP.
LED is the future, but I will only buy into if they use semiconductors, and not this OLED garbage.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,944
LCD response times are still inadequate, and additionally suffer from retinal retention blur caused by non-instant backlight strobing. Both LCD and CRT have their pro's and cons, but for fast motion LCD's will blur. When you move your FoV in a game quickly every pixel in the scene is trying to change practically, so the whole scene blurs.
Just because they serve up a profitable display tech at prices the masses can finally stomach (mostly TN panels), and it pushes CRT out doesn't mean its a better tech (especially as pertains to gaming). Worthwhile to get a fw900 for pc gaming? Imo opinion hell yes, if you can even find one now as many people have realized how good they are and how inferior lcd's are for fast motion. Cling to them? You should. Just because everyone else is buying into an inferior (for fast motion) tech, and even being forced into it, doesn't mean you should if you have a better-suited alternative. I try to keep a pair of different monitors together in a multi-monitor setup though so that I can spread the tradeoffs. CRT won't be dead until the crt itself dies and I can't get it repaired or find another to replace it. I wouldn't use a 42" screen of any sort at a computer desk , which is where crt is still the best for pc gaming and where I would choose to argue the point.. In fact for 1080p limited monitors I wouldn't use over 23" or so at a desk because after that the ppi is bad imo. I'd just keep it closer. And any pc monitor over 30" at anything near normal desk monitor distances is 'eye-bending' due to the screen limits being in your periphery so is also foolish imo.
I own a fw900 crt I run at 85hz, and I own a 34" widescreen sony xbr960 tv whose black levels are great and whose lack of input lag and blurring can't be touched by lcd tv's. I also own a 27" 60hz ips cinema display (2560x1440) , and a 46" samsung VA 1080p glossy hdtv. LCD blurs. I have acute eyesight and can see it plainly, especially when pc gaming on very modern, highly demanding games that have incredibly detailed textures and bump mapping "3d" depth added to the textures - both of which are lost during blurring on fast FoV moves. This blurring wrenches my eyes from their lock on such finely detailed and depth-added textures in a wash during fast FoV movement. It strains my eyes as they always try to focus away blur. I can try to ignore it on video content on my tv usually, but on the type of high end pc games I just mentioned on a lcd monitor its obnoxious.
I haven't had a plasma but would not use one for a pc monitor for many reasons/tradeoffs they have, most importantly the strong recommendation that you don't use static images or screen elements (HUDS, action bars, icons, taskbars) for hours on end, the fact that they require some "Window washing" vs retention even if babying it vs the most common static pc screen elements.. the fact that some have a high pitched whine (and I have good hearing), and that I can see rainbows. They are also usually a bad ppi and screen size for a desk monitor on top of all that. Their quoted response times are due to the backlight strobing 10 pulses per screen update too.. so they label it 600hz instead of 60hz. I'm not sure exactly where plasma would fit in the blur representation photo I posted. Similar to the 120hz lcd? or somewhere between it and the crisp non-blurred crt image?
http://www.best-3dtvs.com/guides/what-does-600hz-sub-field-drive-mean/
Last edited:
Retinal retention blur? You're delving into pseudoscience here. Why would your eyes react differently to an LCD than it does to a CRT? Burn-in on plasmas are overrated. Mine is hooked up to my computer, but it's not a monitor. It's for video only. How did we get from wanting nice 120 Hz to display all [NTSC] frame rates to this? If I ever stumble into money I am going to go straight to Panasonic and have them design a control board around their plasma panel to do the "sub-field drive" at 1200 Hz, and have them put a damn dual-link DVI input on it.
Look up Sample and hold, semi-common knowledge as far as i know. LCD and OLED has it, and its bad. Not that i wouldn't take an OLED over everything right now.
I use a plasma. It has mild bluring 90% less than even the fastest 120hz LCD TN's is my very rough guestimate. It's rated at 0.1 ms response time. What that really means, who knows.
Last edited:
I have acute eyesight and can see it plainly, especially when pc gaming on very modern, highly demanding games that have incredibly detailed textures and bump mapping "3d" depth added to the textures - both of which are lost during blurring on fast FoV moves. This blurring wrenches my eyes from their lock on such finely detailed and depth-added textures in a wash during fast FoV movement. It strains my eyes as they always try to focus away blur. I can try to ignore it on video content on my tv usually, but on the type of high end pc games I just mentioned on a lcd monitor its obnoxious.
This is an extremely important point imho. For a while when my plasma was down for repair i tried playing some games on my TN 3ms monitor, and first thing i noticed was textures disappear in my eyes while moving.
"Sample and hold" is closer to reality than a flashed image, period. Things that exist in reality do not flash before us, they are constantly there (well in theory all particles oscillate in and out of existence constantly, but I can say with certainty that would not be something any human sense would ever detect.)
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,944
closer to reality of something smeared across a a screen rather than strobed fast enough that it would have been perceived like a crisp high refresh rate crt frame on fast motion perhaps.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,944
Types of blur explained
http://scianford.edu/pages/labsite/2010/psych221/projects/2010/LievenVerslegers/LCD_Motion_Blur_Lieven_Verslegers.htm
scianford.edu/pages/labsite/2010/psych221/projects/2010/LievenVerslegers/LCD_Motion_Blur_Lieven_Verslegers.htm
===============
and from another forum regarding retinal retention...
"A frame drawn on a CRT starts to disappear immediately, so by the time the next frame starts to be drawn your eyes have had a chance to clear the afterimage caused by the first frame. On an LCD, the first frame is shining full blast at your eyes right up until it is drawn over by the next frame, so the 'image retention' of your retina causes you to see both frames at once for longer."
.......
The main blur type is still the response time of the pixels. Its not fast enough, and washes out the high detail textures and bump mapping virtual depth of textures on fast motion.
LCD's suck this bad ... even worse on full FoV movement where the whole screen blurs and washes out the extreme texture quality.
http://scianford.edu/pages/labsite/2010/psych221/projects/2010/LievenVerslegers/LCD_Motion_Blur_Lieven_Verslegers.htm
scianford.edu/pages/labsite/2010/psych221/projects/2010/LievenVerslegers/LCD_Motion_Blur_Lieven_Verslegers.htm
===============
and from another forum regarding retinal retention...
"A frame drawn on a CRT starts to disappear immediately, so by the time the next frame starts to be drawn your eyes have had a chance to clear the afterimage caused by the first frame. On an LCD, the first frame is shining full blast at your eyes right up until it is drawn over by the next frame, so the 'image retention' of your retina causes you to see both frames at once for longer."
.......
The main blur type is still the response time of the pixels. Its not fast enough, and washes out the high detail textures and bump mapping virtual depth of textures on fast motion.
LCD's suck this bad ... even worse on full FoV movement where the whole screen blurs and washes out the extreme texture quality.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,944
Its not philosophy.. its the pixels and textures washing out with blur on fast FoV movement. Worse on 60hz, but still blurred out on 120hz "about half as much".
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,944
yes , movies are different, and there is shutter speed and judder in addition to pixel response times. But the statement was made that
And I replied showing that in my opinion they are more than worthwhile in the pc gaming arena, because LCD's obnoxiously blur out the extremely high/fine detail textures and "3d" depth bump mapping on the textures in todays most modern, demanding-of-gpu pc games every time you quickly move the FoV. 120hz input capable pc monitors are an improvement but they still blur out so is not good enough. Until lcd or some other display tech can do fast FoV movement without washing out the textures, wrenching your eyes as they try to focus away the blur -- CRT's will remain worthwhile for those who refuse to suffer that texture washout. Unfortunately they aren't made anymore and over the past few years have become exceedingly hard to find (likely all snapped up off ebay warehouse sellers, etc by the many posters in the fw900 thread, including myself). So maybe most of the owners of some of the only blur-free unwashed-out-extreme-high-detail-textures-and-bump-depth on fast movement displays are clinging to them, wisely.
I can't speak for plasmas however, but I have concerns about using them anyway - besides the size and ppi at a desk, as most modern ones are 40" or larger 1080p or course.
I've also seen it referenced that CRTs are indeed used for some professional CGI movie work, as I think you were indicating. (one notably referenced in the fw900 thread was a making of "the mummy: tomb of the dragon emperor).
And I replied showing that in my opinion they are more than worthwhile in the pc gaming arena, because LCD's obnoxiously blur out the extremely high/fine detail textures and "3d" depth bump mapping on the textures in todays most modern, demanding-of-gpu pc games every time you quickly move the FoV. 120hz input capable pc monitors are an improvement but they still blur out so is not good enough. Until lcd or some other display tech can do fast FoV movement without washing out the textures, wrenching your eyes as they try to focus away the blur -- CRT's will remain worthwhile for those who refuse to suffer that texture washout. Unfortunately they aren't made anymore and over the past few years have become exceedingly hard to find (likely all snapped up off ebay warehouse sellers, etc by the many posters in the fw900 thread, including myself). So maybe most of the owners of some of the only blur-free unwashed-out-extreme-high-detail-textures-and-bump-depth on fast movement displays are clinging to them, wisely.
I can't speak for plasmas however, but I have concerns about using them anyway - besides the size and ppi at a desk, as most modern ones are 40" or larger 1080p or course.
I've also seen it referenced that CRTs are indeed used for some professional CGI movie work, as I think you were indicating. (one notably referenced in the fw900 thread was a making of "the mummy: tomb of the dragon emperor).
When did I mention games? The thing I care most about is removing judder from movies because of the 3:2 bullshit. Blur would not be a problem playing a 24 FPS movie on a 120 Hz panel. That's what this thread was about. I could give two shits about games. I don't do that. I could also care less about the supposed usefulness of CRTs in the "professional" area. This is about TVs really, not monitors.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,944
Fixed:
CRTs are dead in the consumer area. Just because few people still use high quality desktop versions of them for some professional film work doesn't mean they are worthwhile for anything other than that and pc gaming where they are still the only high resolution desktop sized display that can do fast movement without blurring and washing out detail and textures on the whole screen.
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,944
After the first few comments, this thread quickly started making statements and comments about CRT tech and desktop 120hz input capable PC monitors, including visible screen update speeds being just as fast as crt now, no blur on 120hz pc monitors, crt flicker eyestrain etc, crts being worthless for anything, etc so I (and a few others) spoke up.
I have plenty of modern tech, butI have had both a LCD and a CRT at my desk in dual monitor desktop for years, mainly because LCDs blur, and otherwise to enjoy the best of both technologies considering the tradeoffs of each.
I appreciate the 27" size and high ppi of my modern 2560x1440 ips monitor, just not the blur it has, or the - "half as much blur" that a 120hz computer monitor would have in an inferior TN panel at a high price. So I will game on the more than worthwhile fw900 24" widescreen 'graphics professional' crt (at 1920x1200~85hz usually) for as long as I can until something comes out that doesn't blur out textures and details on fast motion, . In fact it is so worthwhile, I would buy another one if I could find one as a backup. More likely someday the crt will die with no repair/replacement in the long run and I'll be forced to buy the least blurring of the LCD pc monitors I can find at the time.
I do agree that faster input response times on tv's would be great however, considering both judder and you would hope similar to 120hz pc monitor blur reduction..
I have plenty of modern tech, butI have had both a LCD and a CRT at my desk in dual monitor desktop for years, mainly because LCDs blur, and otherwise to enjoy the best of both technologies considering the tradeoffs of each.
I appreciate the 27" size and high ppi of my modern 2560x1440 ips monitor, just not the blur it has, or the - "half as much blur" that a 120hz computer monitor would have in an inferior TN panel at a high price. So I will game on the more than worthwhile fw900 24" widescreen 'graphics professional' crt (at 1920x1200~85hz usually) for as long as I can until something comes out that doesn't blur out textures and details on fast motion, . In fact it is so worthwhile, I would buy another one if I could find one as a backup. More likely someday the crt will die with no repair/replacement in the long run and I'll be forced to buy the least blurring of the LCD pc monitors I can find at the time.
I do agree that faster input response times on tv's would be great however, considering both judder and you would hope similar to 120hz pc monitor blur reduction..