24" Widescreen CRT (FW900) From Ebay arrived,Comments.

mathesar said:
Actually PVA LCDs have excellent shadow detail & black levels (I'm typing this on one now) the biggest problem with PVA is the slower response time which causes more motion blur than IPS & TN based monitors, so they aren't the best choice for gaming but perform great with movies / web browsing / photos etc.

A typical TN & IPS monitor measures around 800 - 1000:1 contrast ratio while PVAs range from 2800 - 3300:1

Although I dont own a CRT anymore I still think they had the best overall balance and I still miss the smoothness of gaming on the FW900.

Plasma is at a very close 2nd and even exceeds CRT in a few key areas.
Click to expand...

Skeptical.

I'm thinking that classic pic you posted all those years ago, showing your CRT next to the washed out LCD in a darkened room would still hold true today, PVA notwithstanding?

As far as I've seen, LCD black is still nothing like CRT black...

EDIT: Your aforementioned classic pic: http://ded.zenblue.net/g520p_2001fpe.jpg

(I used a PVA TV panel for a couple of years, when I thought my F520 was broken. And it had its charms. I also briefly used a 40 inch local dimming backed LCD TV as a computer monitor. And I think the latter panel's approach is the only way LCD can achieve an excellent black level. Unfortunately, full array local dimming never has made it down to the smaller consumer screens that would be more suitable for a monitor...)
 
Last edited:
SH1 said:
Skeptical.

I'm thinking that classic pic you posted all those years ago, showing your CRT next to the washed out LCD in a darkened room would still hold true today, PVA notwithstanding?

As far as I've seen, LCD black is still nothing like CRT black...

EDIT: Your aforementioned classic pic: http://ded.zenblue.net/g520p_2001fpe.jpg

(I used a PVA TV panel for a couple of years, when I thought my F520 was broken. And it had its charms. I also briefly used a 40 inch local dimming backed LCD TV as a computer monitor. And I think the latter panel's approach is the only way LCD can achieve an excellent black level. Unfortunately, full array local dimming never has made it down to the smaller consumer screens that would be more suitable for a monitor...)
Click to expand...

The Dell 2001FP in that pic was a very early model S-IPS, At the time it was a popular LCD but it suffered from probably the worst black levels Ive seen to date lol, I wasn't well informed on contrast ratio measurements back then and turns out the 2001FP was only rated at 400:1 (ouch!). Also the motion blur was worse than any LCD ive used but again it was an earlier model and was rated at a slow 16ms response time.

My current 2ms TN panel fares much better in the black level department & motion clarity vs the 2001FP but still no match for a CRT.

Anyhow this pic shows my current LCDs, TN on the left & PVA on the right, The shot came out a little over exposed so the TN's blacks are elevated because of it (looks better in person) but the PVA's blacks are deep enough that even the over exposed shot didn't elevate black levels:

px2370_2333t_moon.JPG
 
the windas program on my pc cant communicate with the monitor because the driver is missing
where do i get the driver for windas cable for windows 7?

another question
my usb windas cable has 4 pins and so does my monitor
do i just put 4 pins with no order?
 
Last edited:
mathesar said:
The Dell 2001FP in that pic was a very early model S-IPS, At the time it was a popular LCD but it suffered from probably the worst black levels Ive seen to date lol, I wasn't well informed on contrast ratio measurements back then and turns out the 2001FP was only rated at 400:1 (ouch!). Also the motion blur was worse than any LCD ive used but again it was an earlier model and was rated at a slow 16ms response time.

My current 2ms TN panel fares much better in the black level department & motion clarity vs the 2001FP but still no match for a CRT.

Anyhow this pic shows my current LCDs, TN on the left & PVA on the right, The shot came out a little over exposed so the TN's blacks are elevated because of it (looks better in person) but the PVA's blacks are deep enough that even the over exposed shot didn't elevate black levels:

px2370_2333t_moon.JPG
Click to expand...

Thank you, Mathesar. I never tried a cPVA, which at 4000:1, appears to be officially rated at twice the contrast ratio of the TV panel I used. Maybe it would satisfy my black level obsession. :)

cPVA excluded, I do suspect against most LCD monitors your original image is still sadly illustrative...
 
My fw900 often looked much more pale than my tn in photos, when in reality it was the reverse. When I looked at that photo it was on my old TN at first. The difference in darkness as represented in that photo was still obvious of course, but I take any photos with a grain of salt. You are limited by the camera and its settings, the lighting conditions in the room change how camera's (and your eyeballs) perceive contrast, the settings on each monitor by the user affect everything as does the relationship of the brightness between the monitors to the camera, the compression used affects the photos, any software editing of the photos to "correct" anything (even built-in auto contrast, etc).. then the monitor viewing a photo, the monitor's settings viewing the photo, and the lighting conditions in the room the monitor viewing the photo is in. I always recall the TV commercials "Look how much better this tv looks!" - but you are watching it on your current tv. ;)
.
. The black on the right one would look different if I loaded the same page on my VA tv's htpc. I've had many monitors, and several of the more modern non-VA ones could actually hit a deep black if I messed with the settings. What they could not do , is have detail-in-blacks when brightness/contrast/gamma was set to make the blacks very low. That is a much more important part of the equation. I'd rather have some detail in blacks and not as deep blacks on monitors where I have to compromise.
.
... Its all about tradeoffs. VA is great for my TV (the best blacks outside of plasma), but VA is typically a very poor choice for gaming - usually plagued by bad input lag and other issues like bad color shift, some trailing, blur (response time and lack of aggressive RTC) etc.. I would not watch a movie on my IPS or TN due to the black levels, but the ips has gorgeous uniform accurate colored imagery at very high ppi, and great desktop real-estate and ppi for apps. A 120hz 2ms response time + high overdrive/compensation (RTC) TN has some appreciable blur reduction in gaming compared to any other LCD.
elvn said:
be aware of why 120hz TN monitors reduce blur, and even artifacts due to reducing blur, so much.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/monitors/display/samsung-sm2233rz_10.html#sect0
Click to expand...
A CRT has essentially no blur in gaming. It also has very good black levels (when in prime condition and set up properly) by comparison to an ips or TN, so if I had to watch movies at my desk, it would be on the fw900 crt. I also have a 34" sony xbr960 widescreen hdmi input 1080i/"720p" superfine pitch trinitron tv I use at times in my living room. Currently my ps3 is hooked up to it. It has great blacklevels and detail in movies, and puts any LCD tv to shame imo. Its very lush and great black detail. It also has no input lag or LCD blur, etc. I typically watch movies on a 46" VA samsung for the size though. Only when the newer VA tv's came out did I think black levels were good enough in LCD tv's to stomach the other tradeoffs vs the crt (I never was interested in plasma). The VA tv has good black levels but I have to suffer the blur and/or fake 120hz artifacts/tradeoffs in movies (I usually just turn that off or keep extremely low), and very bad input lag in games (which is why the ps3 is on the crt). The only upgrade is the size of the screen and thinness.
 
Last edited:
elvn said:
I also have a 34" sony xbr960 widescreen hdmi input 1080i/"720p" superfine pitch trinitron tv I use at times in my living room. Currently my ps3 is hooked up to it. It has great blacklevels and detail in movies, and puts any LCD tv to shame imo.
Click to expand...

I have the XBR 910 for a TV. Same Superfine Pitch tube as the XBR 960, and I have my PS3 hooked up to it as well. So glad I have this beautiful CRT! Sold my LCD TV and picked the 910 off craigslist. Came with the Sony stand too. Playing Dark Souls and this game looks so fine displayed on the 910! Maybe it is from watching CRT all my life, but I can't get to liking any LCD monitor or TV I see. To my eye a quality CRT is a superior display to LCD.
 
elvn said:
My fw900 often looked much more pale than my tn in photos, when in reality it was the reverse. When I looked at that photo it was on my old TN at first. The difference in darkness as represented in that photo was still obvious of course, but I take any photos with a grain of salt. You are limited by the camera and its settings, the lighting conditions in the room change how camera's (and your eyeballs) perceive contrast, the settings on each monitor by the user affect everything as does the relationship of the brightness between the monitors to the camera, the compression used affects the photos, any software editing of the photos to "correct" anything (even built-in auto contrast, etc).. then the monitor viewing a photo, the monitor's settings viewing the photo, and the lighting conditions in the room the monitor viewing the photo is in. I always recall the TV commercials "Look how much better this tv looks!" - but you are watching it on your current tv. ;)
.
. The black on the right one would look different if I loaded the same page on my VA tv's htpc. I've had many monitors, and several of the more modern non-VA ones could actually hit a deep black if I messed with the settings. What they could not do , is have detail-in-blacks when brightness/contrast/gamma was set to make the blacks very low. That is a much more important part of the equation. I'd rather have some detail in blacks and not as deep blacks on monitors where I have to compromise.
.
... Its all about tradeoffs. VA is great for my TV (the best blacks outside of plasma), but VA is typically a very poor choice for gaming - usually plagued by bad input lag and other issues like bad color shift, some trailing, blur (response time and lack of aggressive RTC) etc.. I would not watch a movie on my IPS or TN due to the black levels, but the ips has gorgeous uniform accurate colored imagery at very high ppi, and great desktop real-estate and ppi for apps. A 120hz 2ms response time + high overdrive/compensation (RTC) TN has some appreciable blur reduction in gaming compared to any other LCD.

A CRT has essentially no blur in gaming. It also has very good black levels (when in prime condition and set up properly) by comparison to an ips or TN, so if I had to watch movies at my desk, it would be on the fw900 crt. I also have a 34" sony xbr960 widescreen hdmi input 1080i/"720p" superfine pitch trinitron tv I use at times in my living room. Currently my ps3 is hooked up to it. It has great blacklevels and detail in movies, and puts any LCD tv to shame imo. Its very lush and great black detail. It also has no input lag or LCD blur, etc. I typically watch movies on a 46" VA samsung for the size though. Only when the newer VA tv's came out did I think black levels were good enough in LCD tv's to stomach the other tradeoffs vs the crt (I never was interested in plasma). The VA tv has good black levels but I have to suffer the blur and/or fake 120hz artifacts/tradeoffs in movies (I usually just turn that off or keep extremely low), and very bad input lag in games (which is why the ps3 is on the crt). The only upgrade is the size of the screen and thinness.
Click to expand...

You guys need to start considering Plasma, they've come a long way and are superior to LCD in the Black level & motion handling departments.

In fact the Panasonic VT50 plasma was rated the best TV of 2012 just a few days ago and can be had for considerably cheaper than high end LED models that were also included in the HDTV shootout.

Plasma has now reached CRT quality black levels and shadow details.

I'm of course referring to pc gaming, console gaming & movies and not as a Primary PC monitor.
 
Last edited:
Being limited to 1080P @ 60Hz with an unknown input lag number, no thanks.
 
If I had to buy a TV now I'd probably be looking at used widescreen trinitrons...
Failing finding anything good I'd look at plasmas, at least that doesn't suck nearly as much as LCD.
But for a PC monitor I think I'll keep my CRT for as long as I can...
 
mathesar said:
You guys need to start considering Plasma, they've come a long way and are superior to LCD in the Black level & motion handling departments.

In fact the Panasonic VT50 plasma was rated the best TV of 2012 just a few days ago and can be had for considerably cheaper than high end LED models that were also included in the HDTV shootout.

Plasma has now reached CRT quality black levels and shadow details.

I'm of course referring to pc gaming, console gaming & movies and not as a Primary PC monitor.
Click to expand...

I own a 50" panny vt, the xbr 960 sony, and the fw900. Plasma still is not better at shadow detail but black level has matched crt. Also plasma has better ansi contrast. Imo all 3 sets are within a hair of each other image quality wise. If someone wants a large set with fw900/xbr960 quality the panny plasmas I agree will not disappoint(why would anyone buy an LCD now). But for our smaller pc monitors there is still nothing around to replace the fw900. It's sad really
 
I'll give up my CRT when they pry it out of my cold, dead hands! ( or until I see something I like better )

Then there is the price. What does a plasma TV cost to replace a Sony xbr 960 or 910? I got my 910 about 5 years ago for under $400. Stand included. Haven't checked lately but back then peeps were dumping these beautiful CRTs for pennies on the dollar. Craigslist was loaded with CRT HDTVs, maybe 1 or 2 a week. It was like everyone was struck with LCD fever and had to have the latest replacement technology.
 
I've been living with my 24" HP ZR24W, which is ok, but the IPS glow really gets to me at times, particularly when trying to use it to do any photo editing. This thread has got me really been thinking of going to my dad's house and dragging my old 21" Sony Trinitron GDM-500PS (paid $1200 for it when I bought it back in 1998/1999 when I was in college!!!) monitor here and setting it up to use just for photo editing and maybe ditching the HP and going for a 120Hz 3D TN panel for games and miscellaneous stuff. Hell, I might just use the CRT for everything, lol, though it is 4:3 obviously.

I have my Kuro for my non-3D gaming needs, blacks are great on that obviously.
 
Poordevil said:
I'll give up my CRT when they pry it out of my cold, dead hands! ( or until I see something I like better )

Then there is the price. What does a plasma TV cost to replace a Sony xbr 960 or 910? I got my 910 about 5 years ago for under $400. Stand included. Haven't checked lately but back then peeps were dumping these beautiful CRTs for pennies on the dollar. Craigslist was loaded with CRT HDTVs, maybe 1 or 2 a week. It was like everyone was struck with LCD fever and had to have the latest replacement technology.
Click to expand...

The mid-range 2012 Panasonic TC-P50ST50 plasma costs around $1200 which isnt bad for a 50" 1080p / 3D capable HDTV. Especially considering it measures 0.005FL black level and excellent color accuracy.

Panasonic's are also known for having the least input lag when using Game mode vs other plasmas, from what ive seen online the 2011 models were around 18ms input lag which isn't bad at all so i'd imagine the 2012 models are similar.

I'm just trying to help those that are considering entering the flatpanel world (not PC monitors), after all our CRTs arent going to last forever... Ive had a Kuro plasma since 2008 and it was a much easier transition from CRT than I imagined, I still remember the first time I fired up Bioshock (Xbox360) on the Kuro it was honestly the best I had ever seen the game look and is a great game for showing off black levels. The higher ansi contrast ratio on Plasma gives them an extra punch in the contrast department that even CRTs cant match.
 
Last edited:
The main thing with plasma is the size when considering desktop apps and gaming. They also have an aliased look when you sit too close to them. For all the "there is no burn in if you do X and Y" , there are always HEAVY concerns and recommendations on how to make sure you avoid getting it i.e. "Just in case - NEVER DO THIS OR LEAVE IT LIKE THAT". :p
.
Plasmas are still 60hz too. They use backlight strobing 10x per frame to achieve their "600hz" quote. This helps them appear a bit smoother in regard to blur but its still the same frame "repeated" 10x. Some people can see trails and artifacts on strobing displays too. I could always see it on dlp sets I've watched, and I see it on 240hz LCD's I've watched. (The 240hz I've seen used "tween" interpolated frames to achieve fake "120hz", then strobing to achieve "240hz").
.
. I sometimes crash on my couch for hours with the tv on, and forget to put the tv timer on to shut it off. Its a htpc too so can potentially crash and get stuck on a bios or logon screen for any given time, or have some notification on screen, etc.. Maybe the tv's themselves have an infallible screensaver that kicks in now in addition to pixel shifting, etc.. but I still have reservations considering how much static material I leave on my tv for hours on end, some of it 4:3 no less (with bars).
.
. I wouldn't completely rule a plasma out as a main tv display if I were in the market though, at a considerably low price it could be worth the risk (and with a good return policy). I have a samsung led edgelit VA that has good blacklevels even if there is a little flashlighting tradeoff. Its glossy and very lush too. So between that and the xbr960 + ps3 I should be good for quite some time. I enjoy movies on my modest surround system but typically use my computer(s) much more of the time - where plasma is not a viable option.
 
what size screwdrivers did you use to adjust the pot for sharpness. I found in store I think size 00.0, and 1.
I looked around and I found some but they only come in imperial sizes not metric. I dunno if they ones they have in the store are even long enough to fit between the grill so I don't have to take the shell off. Or is there any place in particular that carries.
 
elvn said:
The main thing with plasma is the size when considering desktop apps and gaming. They also have an aliased look when you sit too close to them. For all the "there is no burn in if you do X and Y" , there are always HEAVY concerns and recommendations on how to make sure you avoid getting it i.e. "Just in case - NEVER DO THIS OR LEAVE IT LIKE THAT". :p
.
Plasmas are still 60hz too. They use backlight strobing 10x per frame to achieve their "600hz" quote. This helps them appear a bit smoother in regard to blur but its still the same frame "repeated" 10x. Some people can see trails and artifacts on strobing displays too. I could always see it on dlp sets I've watched, and I see it on 240hz LCD's I've watched. (The 240hz I've seen used "tween" interpolated frames to achieve fake "120hz", then strobing to achieve "240hz").
.
. I sometimes crash on my couch for hours with the tv on, and forget to put the tv timer on to shut it off. Its a htpc too so can potentially crash and get stuck on a bios or logon screen for any given time, or have some notification on screen, etc.. Maybe the tv's themselves have an infallible screensaver that kicks in now in addition to pixel shifting, etc.. but I still have reservations considering how much static material I leave on my tv for hours on end, some of it 4:3 no less (with bars).
.
. I wouldn't completely rule a plasma out as a main tv display if I were in the market though, at a considerably low price it could be worth the risk (and with a good return policy). I have a samsung led edgelit VA that has good blacklevels even if there is a little flashlighting tradeoff. Its glossy and very lush too. So between that and the xbr960 + ps3 I should be good for quite some time. I enjoy movies on my modest surround system but typically use my computer(s) much more of the time - where plasma is not a viable option.
Click to expand...

Burn in on Plasma is a thing of the past, They can get temporary Image retention (which goes away in 1-2 minutes) but it would take deliberate abuse to be permanent, it would take literally weeks of the tv displaying the same static image 24/7 to cause burn in, this same abuse would cause burn in on a CRT as well. Ive seen it happen with the security monitors at work which are on 24/7 (CRT).

Anyhow I was referring to HDTVs, not PC monitors. a big plasma just isn't practical as a Primary PC monitor.

My plasma (and most others these days) has timer adjustments outside of the standard sleep timer which you can set, for example I have mine set to automatically shut itself off after 3 hours of inactivity, so even if I don't set a sleep timer it always shuts off after 3 hours as long as the volume or channel isn't changed within that time frame.
 
plasma is a great supplement technology to CRT. and im still jealous of anyone here who has a kuro! :cool:

but like any category of monitor, you cant just go out any buy any plasma and expect it to 'tick all the boxes'. friend bought an on-sale LG plasma... not kosher; another friend bought a budget ~27" vizio - or some brand - plasma... gets considerable burn-in (goes away after ~5 min, but happens often), washed out colors, etc.

you also cant expect to buy any panasonic and have it legitimately give the fw900 a run for its money. friend has a ~2009 50" panny... lots of black crush, over-saturated color, etc.

just as all CRTs are not the same, great examples of plasma technology exist via very specific display models. though when a plasma is good, damn is it good. what saved my pioneer plasma from annoying the fudge out of me with its off color was a secret calibration menu with a host of options. calibration. is. key.

a question though: my plasma via PC allows for 60hz, 72hz and 75hz. it is a low resolution plasma - ~720p - and is connected by a vga cable. I think ive read most plasmas only allow a low resolution from vga. is this true? no 1080p via vga?
 
cinnamonandgravy said:
plasma is a great supplement technology to CRT. and im still jealous of anyone here who has a kuro! :cool:

but like any category of monitor, you cant just go out any buy any plasma and expect it to 'tick all the boxes'. friend bought an on-sale LG plasma... not kosher; another friend bought a budget ~27" vizio - or some brand - plasma... gets considerable burn-in (goes away after ~5 min, but happens often), washed out colors, etc.

you also cant expect to buy any panasonic and have it legitimately give the fw900 a run for its money. friend has a ~2009 50" panny... lots of black crush, over-saturated color, etc.

just as all CRTs are not the same, great examples of plasma technology exist via very specific display models. though when a plasma is good, damn is it good. what saved my pioneer plasma from annoying the fudge out of me with its off color was a secret calibration menu with a host of options. calibration. is. key.
Click to expand...

Ya Kuro plasmas were ahead of their time, a 2009 Panasonic plasma couldnt even compete with a 2007 model Kuro especially in the black level department, but the 2012 Panasonics are matching and even slightly exceeding Kuro in some areas which is why I recommended them specifically (ST50 or VT50).

When my FW900 was working it was only a foot away from my Kuro and to be honest the FW900 didnt have any glaring advantages other than color accuracy (which the FW900 is amazing at), But I had the Plasma hooked up as a secondary monitor via HDMI and whenever I'd display a picture on both, such as a forest at night, the Plasma's contrast was so much brighter it made the nighttime sky & stars stand out far more than the CRT which looked "muted" in comparison.

You could say well duh even LCD is a lot brighter than a CRT but what makes it more impressive on the Plasma is when you see these bright stars displayed with a proper / deep black level in the rest of the image its a whole different story & wow factor vs. a typical LCD.
 
Last edited:
For flat panel, definitely plasma for me. Though I think I still kind of prefer projection, because I don't like being able to make out individual pixels on large screens...
 
SH1 said:
Panasonics have caught up to the last Kuros? (500M if I recall...)
Click to expand...

They are getting very close , considering Panasonic has all of Pioneer's former Kuro tech it won't be long before its the same or possibly better.

I've seen a calibrated VT50 and my god is it sexy. Really though , the only thing on the horizon that has a chance to be a true step up is full fledged OLED. Until then a high quality CRT or Kuro is very hard to beat.
 
last i heard, no large flat-panel is better than the elite kuro. for all the LCD hate (guilty, myself, and often rightly so) apparently some uber-expensive LCDs (~$6k) come close to even a kuro elite.

http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-...82_7-35004013.html?tag=rb_content;contentBody

^ it even has an 'elite' emblem that looks like it was ripped off a kuro

they say it technically beats a kuro in some tests, but overall image quality still goes to the kuro elite.

im excited to see what panasonic can do, but, for all that money, and at the sizes theyre pumping them out at (40"+), a max resolution of 1080p just seems too small to make the jump. once 4k hits the market, things'll get a little sexier.

also, anyone have any experience with a monitor like this?

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&cs=04&l=en&sku=224-9949

$1400 IPS 30" 2560 x 1600 monitor with "PremierColor Details"...
 
I'd take a look at Plasma if they ever made a display with more than crappy 1080P.
 
cinnamonandgravy said:
last i heard, no large flat-panel is better than the elite kuro. for all the LCD hate (guilty, myself, and often rightly so) apparently some uber-expensive LCDs (~$6k) come close to even a kuro elite.

http://reviews.cnet.com/flat-panel-...82_7-35004013.html?tag=rb_content;contentBody

^ it even has an 'elite' emblem that looks like it was ripped off a kuro

they say it technically beats a kuro in some tests, but overall image quality still goes to the kuro elite.

im excited to see what panasonic can do, but, for all that money, and at the sizes theyre pumping them out at (40"+), a max resolution of 1080p just seems too small to make the jump. once 4k hits the market, things'll get a little sexier.
Click to expand...

When it comes to HDTVs I wouldn't want anything higher than 1080p (yet) until they actually come out with source material that can match the increased resolution, Current video game systems run most games at 720p (native) and are scaled to 1080p, bluray is 1080p, cable tv maxes at 1080 ,you'd be running a 4k TV outside of its native resolution most of the time which isn't ideal. (Unless you're talking strictly PC usage which would be another story).

cinnamonandgravy said:
^ it even has an 'elite' emblem that looks like it was ripped off a kuro
Click to expand...

The Elite Pro is a calibration by Pioneer (makers of Kuro) and Sharp, they basically put pioneer & sharp engineers in a room and said lets make the best tv in the world, although they may of succeeded (for the most part) it ended up being very expensive.

In this years 2012 HDTV shootout they chose the Panasonic VT50 plasma for TV of the year with the Elite Pro coming in 2nd place (the Elite Pro won 1st place last year).

EDIT: Heres the HDTV shootout I was referring to, there is a lot of YouTube footage from it found to the right of this page.
 
Last edited:
4k TV's outside of OLED I've read about are VA for the black levels since they are geared for movies. VA + scaler is a bad setup for gaming on both counts, and most I've seen are much too large for desktop use as well. Quad Full HD panels are supposed to be 3840x2160 (QFHD) 60hz ips with some in desktop sizes of around 26" or 32" at 166ppi or 140ppi. Those QFHD ips would look great for desktop stuff but be bad for gaming due to blur. Gaming lcd's need ultra low response times and aggressive RTC (- or use a fw900 CRT for no blur). In regard to TV's , 1080p is barely discernible from 720p on movies at some TV size/distance ratios. The tv I've seen that could use it is a 70" one that I see weekly, when viewing closer than 20'. OLED has its own burn-in and color burn-out issues from what I've read. At extreme prices even when they someday hit "enthusiast consumer" prices, I wouldn't want a panel that could burn-in or otherwise degrade within 3 - 5 yrs.
.
Since this is a fw900 thread, the focus is on desktop monitor usage. Plasma does not come in a desktop size. I think they used to make 32" ones, which is still a little large for a desktop unless set back a bit , or perhaps on its own pillar/stand or mount just behind a desk. They have an aliased look when viewed up close so I think they would still prob be a bad idea as a monitor. They are also 60hz, utilizing backlight strobing 10x per frame to achieve "600hz", so in gaming you are still only seeing 60hz of action updates. Strobing can introduce its own artifacts that some people can see. I tend to be able to see all simulated higher speed "work-around" artifacts on different technologies.
.
I'm good with my samsung 7000 series "LED" VA TV for living room movie watching for a long time I think. I'd much rather spend money on my pc, and if any huge advancement in pc monitors ever actually comes out and hits within a grand+ or so I'd rather get that than a tv. However they've been showing SED and OLED at CES for so many years now its ridiculous. I think since 2005. People in this thread have been saying "this fw900 will hopefully hold me over for 2 more years until X comes out" for like 7 years now if not longer. :p
 
Last edited:
elvn said:
.
Since this is a fw900 thread, the focus is on desktop monitor usage. Plasma does not come in a desktop size. I think they used to make 32" ones, which is still a little large for a desktop unless set back a bit , or perhaps on its own pillar/stand or mount just behind a desk. They have an aliased look when viewed up close so I think they would still prob be a bad idea as a monitor. They are also 60hz, utilizing backlight strobing 10x per frame to achieve "600hz", so in gaming you are still only seeing 60hz of action updates. Strobing can introduce its own artifacts that some people can see. I tend to be able to see all simulated higher speed "work-around" artifacts on different technologies.
Click to expand...

Plasma 600hz doesnt introduce artifacts during motion like 120/240hz lcds, When you enable the smoothing option on a 120hz LCD it causes movies to have a "Soap opera effect" by making the framerate smoother than it was intended, this also causes random artifacts / judder effects during motion as the TV tries to process all of this adding fake frames nonsense.

A plasma doesnt need these smoothing options so they don't mess with the framerate or add in fake frames to achieve its motion resolution, Ive been gaming on mine for years and 60fps gaming looks very very close to a CRT's smoothness without any artifacts etc. being displayed. The only artifact I can think of is some phosphor trailing in certain situations but thats the nature of the technology, CRTs can have trailing as well. (both being phosphor based).

You mentioned "backlight strobing" but i'm assuming you know Plasma's have self emitting pixels and don't have backlights which is another big advantage over LCD.

But I do agree this is an FW900 thread and people might think I'm trying to recommend Plasma as a PC monitor (Which I dont) I have the plasma hooked up to my PC but I only enable it when wanting to watch a movie or play games that allow me to use my wireless 360 controller.
 
Its still strobing and not 600hz of new frames, but 60hz of frames strobed 10x per 1 hz screen update is what I meant. I'd consider one for my tv but I'm set on tv for a longtime I think. Maybe if my xbr960 failed I'd consider getting a cheap one for my ps3 though.
 
ill come out and say it: i recommend plasma as a desktop replacement if youre mainly into gaming. it wont match the fw900 in raw overall image quality, but a great plasma can do PC gaming very, very well, and functions fairly well for desktop work (assuming you dont mind the size, heat and power consumption).

and thats why i mention 4k: i want a big ol' 4k display as a replacement for my primary monitor (currently the fw900), and im going to be running it at its max resolution for everything via PC. theres something about sitting close to a big screen, playing a game and having even your peripheral vision filled with gaming goodness. just looking for a big monitor that can display accurate color (none of this over-saturated neon crap), achieve deep blacks (with minimal black crush), no ghosting / doesnt use interpolation (dont mind phosphorus trail), and at least a relatively high ppi (1920 x 1080 just isnt quite enough)

not too much to ask, really.
 
I disagree. Imo any primary gaming space much over 27" - 30" at a desk is too big. Literally eye-bending to the periphery. I had a 37" 1080p lcd at my desk for a short period. I soon moved it back around 4' on its own pillar until I could sell it because bending my gaze to the perimeter got old really fast. Unless games start to allow you to define a virtual primary gaming monitor space in the middle (like a window with invisible borders) - with all the extents outside of that virtual space additional FoV , larger monitors will continue to just be the same scene made jumbo and oversize with the extents outside of your focal gaze. The only way I could see using a "TV-sized" monitor at a desk would be on its own stand much further away than desktop monitor distances, to essentially shrink it (and appreciably its ppi as well) in relation to your viewpoint.
.
.. This differs from landscape x3 eyefinity (LLL). In landscape eyefinity the sides are peripheral by design, and games that support it properly keep all HUD, notifications, pointers, chats, etc within the primary monitor's extents. The sides are like "blinders" to block out your actual view of your room and fill it with extended game-world space , fooling your brain into feeling more immersed in the scene.
.
http://www.web-cyb.org/images/lcds/eyefinity_config-aspects-visualized_sm.jpg
.
Currently all high ppi monitors will blur badly. Some of the 4k ones will be VA panels for blacklevels since they are geared to movie watching.. the QFHD ones will be ips 60hz with high response times most likely. OLED's issues - we will have to wait and see if they get ironed out, and wait on desktop sized models with "reasonable" enthusiast prices.
 
"larger monitors will continue to just be the same scene made jumbo and oversize with the extents outside of your focal gaze."

thats the fun part :cool:
 
cinnamonandgravy said:
"larger monitors will continue to just be the same scene made jumbo and oversize with the extents outside of your focal gaze."

thats the fun part :cool:
Click to expand...

I think he's saying you wouldn't want to sit right in front of a large display which would be typical with PC usage, But I sit about 5 1/2 feet from my 50" when playing games and its glorious.
 
Yes that would work Mathesar at that kind of distance. However cinn seems to be a proponent of jumbo sizing the main focal game scene outside of your normal viewpoint and into the periphery for immersion. I disagree strongly, but to each their own. Only if it were as I outlined earlier ,with the main scope of your focal FoV preserved and the rest of the periphery just extra FoV would it make any sense to me. The only thing approaching that in games that support it fully is eyefinity/nvidia surround in landscape x3 (LLL) - as primitive as it is by comparison.
 
elvn said:
Yes that would work Mathesar at that kind of distance. However cinn seems to be a proponent of jumbo sizing the main focal game scene outside of your normal viewpoint and into the periphery for immersion. I disagree strongly, but to each their own. Only if it were as I outlined earlier ,with the main scope of your focal FoV preserved and the rest of the periphery just extra FoV would it make any sense to me. The only thing approaching that in games that support it fully is eyefinity/nvidia surround in landscape x3 (LLL) - as primitive as it is by comparison.
Click to expand...

On a game that alows fov adjustments on the vertical and horizonal acceas, it would not be that hard to make that virtual large monitor. It require some calculating. Then you would need a way to move the hud. A source game would be a good way to demo what you want.
 
I have a dell p1130 that I brought used a year ago. It has a slight blue push. I ve been fooling around in windas to try to correct the problem but it has not gone away. It has a lot of life in it left, as it warms up pretty quick and has no "brightness" problem. Any idea's fellow crt lovers?
 
i prefer my focal gaze to be dead center, with the margins of the display edging just beyond my peripheral vision. when i play a game, all i see is game; no monitor, no room.

i dont want my hud to be in perfect focus, because to me, theres much more interesting things to be focused on. plus you can still read it via peripheral vision. but of course, thats just me. as it was said, to each their own.
 
It's been a good run, but my 10 yr old FW900 seems to be on it's last legs. For a few months it would pulse blue or green screens as my PC booted. This has gotten worse over time and the other day the screen turned itself off during the pulses. Fortunately manually turning it off and on again worked fine and once warmed up it still looks great. For fear it won't cold start again I have left it on continuously while I wait for the ASUS VG278H I ordered. It's particulary sad to see the end of an era when there is no worthy replacement.

Since my monitor still looks good when running, is it sellable? I hate to send it for salvage, but I don't see anyone buying a monitor about to die unless they live near one of the few service centers (I am in MI so nothing is close enough to justify the shipping cost).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top