Would you upgrade from a Sony FW900?

N

n370zed

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 21, 2012
Messages
450
i5 2500k @ 4.5ghz
8gb ddr3
HD 6950 shaders unlocked
Sony FW900 @ 2304x1440 (22.5" viewable)

Games I mostly play is Diablo3 and WoW currently. Going into MW3 or BF3 for some fps action. I love how D3 and WoW looks on the CRT. Very rich colors. Ive been seeing people going crazy over the Korean 27' 2560x1440 lcds. Would you keep whats considered the best CRT ever made or jump onto a larger display?
 
Is it still working properly, not having sync issues or color shift / dark spots / etc? If so, keep it till it dies. If it's having problems, which is common with CRTs at this point, get rid of it.
 
Got an Apple 30" cinema display along side the FW900, but I keep finding myself going back to FW900 for gaming also. Sometime I woudn't even turn on the 30" for days. Yep! I'll stick with CRT until it die :).
 
Think about upgrading from a good quality working CRT only when you see this specifications on the market:
- 1 ms GtG response time or "absolutely no ghosting/bluring" sticker on it.
- IPS panel with A-TW or some IPS glow free variation of IPS tech.
- super absolutely awesome ag- coating that is totally "grain/dot" free.
- RGB LED or CCFL.

If they do come out with OLED, upgrade even your crt is working perfectly.
 
keep FW900 for gaming until 120Hz 0ms input lag 4K OLEDs with BFI (black frame insertion) come out :)
or it dies :eek:
bigger != better
 
From what I can see with my eyes my FW900 is working flawlessly. Just seeing all the hype about these 27" 2560x1440 monitors people have been gawking over I was afraid I was missing out on something big. But Yeah I'll keep my CRT until it explodes on me ;) Thanks guys.
 
People want those Korean monitors for 3 reasons:
1. They are much cheaper then the very similar models from other companies like Dell, Apple, etc.
2. They come without any anti glare coating, even better, without the tempered glass which is a bit too glossy imo.
3. Some models can go up to 120hz, and since most fps games are programmed very bad, you can feel in the mouse, and in the smoothness of a turning around the difference between 60 and 120hz. This wouldn't be a problem with a crt since you can not see any refresh problems if you play with more fps then what the crt refresh rate is, or at least I have never been able to see it. But with an LCD you can very easily see the "tearing" effect(or how is called), which is annoying.

The current technology with monitors is far from CRTs, but is not so bad that you can't live without a crt. Is just that there are so many compromises you have to accept, that you end up on forums like this one, hoping for a better solution :p

Also here a point, I do agree that on a static image, you can't tell the difference between 120hz and 60 hz, but when your fps are matching the hz you have, and you start moving around in a fps game, you can feel it in your mouse movement, and everything in that game will let you feel that you are actually playing on 120hz instead of 60 hz. There are games out there that will have different sensitivity based on your fps, so ye, whoever says there is no difference, either never tried, or they simply sustain their narrow point about a static image where we all agree you can;t tell if is 60 fps or 120 fps. So, the general logic is:
You want to avoid "tearing" => you go with max fps equal to refresh rate => you want bigger refresh rate as everyone knows that 120fps is much more smooth then 60 fps.
 
I'm a proponent of keeping more than one display type, because they all have tradeoffs. I keep a 2560x1440 ips for everything desktop outside of games, and use faster screens that don't blur as much dedicated to gaming. The gaming monitors I own are a 120hz 2ms + high/very high RTC TN (27" samsung 750D) , and a fw900. I've had a fw900 die on me so I sprung on the samsung when I saw it at $399 on sale at one point. It has appreciable blur reduction, especially compared to a 10ms+ response time ips in games. They shot up in price to $600 or so afterward though which I would not have paid.

I was very skeptical of 120hz 2ms TN's until I tried one, and later found an article explaining why the mess during FoV movement was able to be appreciably less messy on a 2ms + high/very high ResponseTimeCompensation 120hz TN.

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1038811403&postcount=2653

Its not the "zero" blur of a fw900 but its definitely more palletable and playable, and of course larger and can more easily display "crisply".

A "100hz - 120hz" korean ips will still have 10ms+ response time and likely lacks the aggressive RTC - so it would blur/smear much worse than a 2ms + aggressive RTC 120hz TN.
 
22.5 is so small imho. Also the CRT got to be damn space heater. Any one got any idea what the power draw on that is? I remember my old 21 inch dell crt draw like 250w or something.
 
I could never go back to an old crt... Granted the last one i had was crappy,but even at 75mhz my head used to hurt...they are plain ugly,take up a lot of space and make a lot of heat. I have an IPS monitor now and i hate the white glow,but still lcd's > crt', at least in my book. Lcd's nowadays are not like 10 years ago,there realy isnt much a crt offers over them...but seeing how u already have a cinema display i dont see the point in geting another lcd..
 
A graphics professional fw900 is in another league compared to run of the mill crt. All lcds blur on FoV movement. The fw900 is still so far removed from that that nothing can touch it. That said, a very low response time (2ms) + aggressive response time compensation TN has appreciable blur/rtc artifact reduction compared to other lcds. I find them more acceptable (sufferable?) than any other lcds, though they still blur. I would say it tends to be closer to an out of focus effect much of the time during FoV movement as opposed to other lcds that smear the entire scene outside of the object footprints/shadow mask so to speak (especially 10ms+ response time ips) . That is still nothing like a fw900 where all high detail texture and bump mapping is crisply "readable" during its clear FoV movement.
 
Last edited:
@elvn
todays fastest 120Hz TN's are sure very fast
is a shame they don't add backlight BFI (Black Frame Insertion) to those monitors. On 120Hz it wouldn't cause headaches like it did on some 60Hz LCD that had it and it would definitely remove remaining blur.

It's this constant going to black after every frame that makes CRT feel crazy fluid. Without BFI even 120Hz Blue-Plase LCD will feel more blurry than 80Hz on FW900...
 
Well to me when comparing CRT vs 120Hz LCD side by side I got the feeling 120Hz LCD (VX2268wm which is one of the first ones but still very fast) I thought 120Hz on the LCD aproximately corresponded to 100Hz motion/performance/feeling on the CRT which I used to use on that one. However my CRT still had perfectly even blacks which this LCD does rather poorly with and have to use as low as 23 brightness to help avoiding it and contrast isn't as good etc as my old trinitron 19" CRT but yea I couldn't find any good CRTs locally in good shape so that's the only reason I went to 120Hz LCD as it was able to satisfy me performance/motion smoothness wise with 120Hz.

It's a shame the market has to be so form-factor dependant, I'd use a monitor big as a fridge if only performance was great. Performance is by far what I prioritize the most personally, size etc comes at the very end of the ladder.
 
As I said, the 2ms + aggressive RTC & RTC error reduction 120hz (as opposed to 10ms+ response time ips's of any hz) do have appreciable blur reduction, for the most part to me seeming to blur in a more out of focus way during FoV movement rather than smearing outside of the scene objects as much. I agree that the increased number of screen updates feel smoother than other lcds even considering the out of focus FoV movements. However the crisp "readability" of fine, very high detail + depth via bump mapping textures modern games are capable of is still lost where a crt is crisply readable throughout. That is the biggest thing. The non-uniformity and inferior black levels of a TN is another, and a lesser tradeoff is the resolution limitation ( I find 1080p adequate for games alone). I still often play on the 27" TN though as it is appreciably better than any other lcd on motion. It is more acceptable/sufferable. I do have a fw900 that I may do a 60/100hz/60hz LLL eyefinity setup with a 60hz lcd on each end though. My 2ms + 120hz +aggressive RTC/rtc error reduction TN and fw900 are both dedicated to gaming (with the odd video played on the fw900), and I use a 2560x1440 ips for all things desktop outside of games.

Whether due to sample and hold on LCD and/or shuttering effect of crt's , in the end the effect is what it is and results in a huge tradeoff on motion clarity when using lcd. The readability of text translates into the readability of textures/object-detail, and conversely the blurring out of it.

Vega said:
Anyone ever run the Pixperan program before: http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/testsoftware/pixperan.html

On the readability test of super fast text there is a speed scale from 0 to 30 (30 being fastest). On the FW900 I can read the text at speed 30, and on the 2ms 120Hz Samsung's, it's 4!

I knew CRT's were always faster at movement, but not this much faster... :eek:
Click to expand...
 
CRTs are garbage. The geometry issues, small size, clarity and poor ansi contrast are all big issues. For image editing today's IPS and even VA panels surpass CRT in numerous areas. If you are into gaming they may be of some use but really only if you are into twitch gaming like Quake, Unreal Tournament or the like. Today's "strategic" (easy) shooters are fine on any monitor.

If you really want the best of both worlds you can get an IPS monitor for desktop use and a plasma for gaming and video. Plasma motion handling is equal to CRT and many models have low input lag. The only thing holding them back from desktop use is their size and unfortunate technological limitation with displaying full screen white. Burn in and image retention are things of the past.
 
Last edited:
StaticSurge said:
CRTs are garbage. The geometry issues, small size, clarity and poor ansi contrast are all big issues. For image editing today's IPS and even VA panels surpass CRT in numerous areas. If you are into gaming they may be of some use but really only if you are into twitch gaming like Quake, Unreal Tournament or the like. Today's "strategic" (easy) shooters are fine on any monitor.

If you really want the best of both worlds you can get an IPS monitor for desktop use and a plasma for gaming and video. Plasma motion handling is equal to CRT and many models have low input lag. The only thing holding them back from desktop use is their size and unfortunate technological limitation with displaying full screen white. Burn in and image retention are things of the past.
Click to expand...

You've never seen a high end CRT such as the GDM-F520, which Displaymate still has not been able to replace as their reference computer monitor after all of these years?

http://www.displaymate.com/best.html

You think IPS ANSI contrast, which is actually nothing to write home about, makes up for the over 15 to 1 CRT advantage in on/off contrast so critical to animation and video?

And black levels?

Are you serious or just trying to stir things up? :)
 
Revisit my previous post if you want to talk about clarity during motion. I do keep a 2560 x 1440 ips for all things desktop, and a VA TV for movie blacklevels (a plasma would do well for that too of course). . It's all about tradeoffs.
 
had 2 FW900s . one is going in the trash tomorrow since it has the black G2 issue. I plan on keeping my 2 WUXI2690 calibrated with spectraview for a very long time.
I would never go back to CRT unless they made one 3/4 quarters the size of the FW900 and weight. So basically dropping it down to 25-30 pounds and about 10 inches in depth.

Everything looks so much better on a IPS
 
Everything looks so much better on a IPS
Click to expand...

except for motion, especially FoV movement. (and to a degree, black levels). Even a 120hz 2ms + aggressive RTC/RTC error reduction TN is appreciably better at motion than an ips.
.
The point is everything does not look better on any display type. They all have tradeoffs and are better and worse at some things than others.
 
I have an fw900, I am getting tempted to go with a catleap 2b because it would offer more realstate, higher resolution, uniformity, would have less depth so I would gain some realstate on my desk, the weight of the fw900 is killing my desk over the years, power consumption, warm up takes longer than before and colors aren't as nice as when you fire it up due to aging phosphors.
it comes down to if you want to go bigger crt does not have an offering. I do love the response time, if I remember correctly the reason why crts don't ghost has more to do with that the crt draws every other line and kind of flashes the image whereas an lcd does not and will always hold the image, sometimes redrawing the same to keep its refresh.
 
I don't care if it's OLED, you have to be batshit insane to pay $15,000 (or even $3000) for a 15" display. Forget that noise.
 
Problem with us fw900 owners is that the monitors will eventually dim and parts are scarce. I love my fw900 but it does not look as nice as when I got it 7yrs ago.
 
I've swapped out displays several times over the years (FW900s, F520s, LCDs) such that the F520 I have on my desk now, but which I actually bought NOS in 2005, has a bit over 3.5 years on it. I think the rule of thumb was 3 to 5 years usability for color critical applications for a CRT, but hopefully that doesn't count "image restore" functions, etc. Anyway, hoping it lasts until OLED is proven and affordable...

I've heard the Sony OLEDs have an aggressive screen saver, which I assume is due to concern about uneven wear/loss of uniformity. (Others here mention WOLED might solve that...)

As to the Catleaps, etc., certainly a lot of screen for the money...color uniformity and such appears to be a bit of a lottery from folk's postings....
 
120hz 2ms + aggressive RTC/rtc-error reduction TN has sufferable/"contained" blur. I wouldn't use a 10ms+ response time ips for FoV movement games, but at those korean prices I'd grab one for everything outside of games.
 
elvn said:
120hz 2ms + aggressive RTC/rtc-error reduction TN has sufferable/"contained" blur. I wouldn't use a 10ms+ response time ips for FoV movement games, but at those korean prices I'd grab one for everything outside of games.
Click to expand...

They're 6ms panels, actually. Blur is there if you look for it obviously, but even in titles with fast motion it's not bad.
 
yep.. saying same things on repeat.

elvn said:
As I said, the 2ms + aggressive RTC & RTC error reduction 120hz (as opposed to 10ms+ response time ips's of any hz) do have appreciable blur reduction, for the most part to me seeming to blur in a more out of focus way during FoV movement rather than smearing outside of the scene objects as much. I agree that the increased number of screen updates feel smoother than other lcds even considering the out of focus FoV movements. However the crisp "readability" of fine, very high detail + depth via bump mapping textures modern games are capable of is still lost where a crt is crisply readable throughout. That is the biggest thing. The non-uniformity and inferior black levels of a TN is another, and a lesser tradeoff is the resolution limitation ( I find 1080p adequate for games alone). I still often play on the 27" TN though as it is appreciably better than any other lcd on motion. It is more acceptable/sufferable. My 2ms + 120hz +aggressive RTC/rtc error reduction TN and fw900 are both dedicated to gaming (with the odd video played on the fw900), and I use a 2560x1440 ips for all things desktop outside of games.

Whether due to sample and hold on LCD and/or shuttering effect of crt's , in the end the effect is what it is and results in a huge tradeoff on motion clarity when using lcd. The readability of text translates into the readability of textures/object-detail, and conversely the blurring out of it.

Vega said:
Anyone ever run the Pixperan program before: http://www.prad.de/en/monitore/testsoftware/pixperan.html

On the readability test of super fast text there is a speed scale from 0 to 30 (30 being fastest). On the FW900 I can read the text at speed 30, and on the 2ms 120Hz Samsung's, it's 4!

I knew CRT's were always faster at movement, but not this much faster... :eek:
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

elvn said:
A graphics professional fw900 is in another league compared to run of the mill crt. All lcds blur on FoV movement. The fw900 is still so far removed from that that nothing can touch it. That said, a very low response time (2ms) + aggressive response time compensation TN has appreciable blur/rtc artifact reduction compared to other lcds. I find them more acceptable (sufferable?) than any other lcds, though they still blur. I would say it tends to be closer to an out of focus effect much of the time during FoV movement as opposed to other lcds that smear the entire scene outside of the object footprints/shadow mask so to speak (especially 10ms+ response time ips) . That is still nothing like a fw900 where all high detail texture and bump mapping is crisply "readable" during its clear FoV movement.
Click to expand...
 
I'm only using LCDs now because my FW900 bit the dust and it certainly doesn't feel like an upgrade.

My Pioneer Kuro plasma from 2007 puts both of my LCDs to shame (No really, it's a pretty bad beat down in all categories), Especially with motion clarity during gaming.

LCD just comes off as a very flawed technology to me but at least they look nice while browsing the web.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top