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

have a bead one on buying one of these, anything I should know before buying it? And whats the easiest device I could get to test it before taking it home? (Craigslist.) I think the only computer I have with analog video out is my big desktop.

if you are talking about the fw900 also be aware of the warmup time it requires for proper color , black level, etc representation, which in mine is about 10 minutes to get decent color and black levels and about 30 min to get those correclty as i had set up via OSD menu.
when i bought it and checked for the first time on the seller's house, image was horrible due to the monitor being just turned on, so it was not warmed up yet, i checked for brightness and contrast settings, lowered them to the lowest and still the image was horrible, the seller did not tell me about the required warm up time and i did not know about it,(maybe he didnt to avoid the risk of me not buying the monitor after all) but i was confident after discovering a lot of settings in the OSD menu and all oll the positive coments about the monitor that with some patience i could setup it propertly.

in fact this nomnitor requieres patience to get it a right setup to suit your tastes, patience while it warms up, and also experienced people with this monitor highly recomend calibating it with colorimeters and some special software to get the most of it, in this site you can find guides about that.
 
So I have a couple G520P's near me. They were previously used at a hospital. What are the chances they were left on 24/7 without screensavers and got burnt out? Or were they used for very sensitive imaging work and treated with care?
 
Last edited:
So I figured it out. Turns out, I had Blu-Ray/DVD video set to output at RGB, when really they are coded in YCbCr. I set my display to full (0-255) and set Blu-Ray/DVD to YCbCr and problem solved. :)

Hopefully this will help someone in the future. Sadly, CRTs are yesterday's tech and we're all just figuring out how to keep our last-of-its-kind displays running.
 
In that case I'm sure you're going to be able to run higher resolutions&refresh rates. Once you have everything set up, download CRU and then;
1st: On the detailed resolutions box click "Add"
2nd: On the pop up window, select timming "Automatic- Crt standard" and input the resolution you want at the refresh rate you want. Using a gtx1060, you're going to be limited to the pixel clock of the adapter, most likely 165mhz, so don't surprass that number or else you'll have problems or directly no image.
3rd: Once done, press Ok to close the box and ok again to close the main program.
4rd: Restart your pc, and you're done. You will be able to select the new resolution in windows and any game. If you wanna make that resolution the default one just move it to the first position on the "detailed resolutions" box of the cru program.
What kind of games are you planning to play?
ok I'll see If i can get a bit higher refresh rate at 1024x768, though beyond 100hz i don't see as huge a benefit as going from 60>90. I'm more interested in seeing how high i can get the refresh rate at 1280×960. Unfortunately when running anything above 1024x768 the text for desktop use seemed hard to read and the picture less share/more blurry. I havn't tried this resolution in a while, so I'll give it a go with higher refresh rate and report back.

Games I'm playing or may play soon: Spring RTS, TFC, Paladins, World Of Warships, Borderlands 2, Wildlands, GTA V, Fistfull Of Frags, Kerbal Space Program, Rocket League. 1024x768 is a bit low on the CRT for RTS, would be nice to get a bit more resolution without giving up my 105hz.
 
ok I'll see If i can get a bit higher refresh rate at 1024x768, though beyond 100hz i don't see as huge a benefit as going from 60>90. I'm more interested in seeing how high i can get the refresh rate at 1280×960. Unfortunately when running anything above 1024x768 the text for desktop use seemed hard to read and the picture less share/more blurry. I havn't tried this resolution in a while, so I'll give it a go with higher refresh rate and report back.

Games I'm playing or may play soon: Spring RTS, TFC, Paladins, World Of Warships, Borderlands 2, Wildlands, GTA V, Fistfull Of Frags, Kerbal Space Program, Rocket League. 1024x768 is a bit low on the CRT for RTS, would be nice to get a bit more resolution without giving up my 105hz.
You won't be able to push more than 95hz at 1280x960 due to the cheap adapter, that's why we are all waiting for better adapters.
95hz is more than enough to avoid any kind of flickering
 
95hz is more than enough to avoid any kind of flickering

True. But when talking about games it's also important to note that you should always try to match your frame rate to your refresh rate if you wish to have the smoothest motion. So using vsync or a frame limiter, then choosing a refresh rate close to your minimum frame rate, will give you the smooth, clear motion CRT's are famous for. So if you're having trouble keeping above 80fps all the time, then it's best to chose 75hz and vysnc, or 75hz and a frame rate limit of 75fps.
 
You're complicating your life for nothing. CRTs have never been used with such tricks and yet their motion is smooth.

Matching FPS and vertical refresh rate is a pain in the ass in practice, and it would introduce flickering which is really, really bad.
 
You're complicating your life for nothing. CRTs have never been used with such tricks and yet their motion is smooth.

Matching FPS and vertical refresh rate is a pain in the ass in practice, and it would introduce flickering which is really, really bad.

Pain in the ass? By clicking "vsync on"? Or moving the "limit FPS" slider to 75 or whatever?

And of course it looks way better than vsync-off. There's a reason why almost every console and arcade game has been vsynced since 1977. And most of those were 60hz.

Only in PC gaming have people convinced themselves that vsync-off looks "ok"
 
Pain in the ass? By clicking "vsync on"? Or moving the "limit FPS" slider to 75 or whatever?

And of course it looks way better than vsync-off. There's a reason why almost every console and arcade game has been vsynced since 1977. And most of those were 60hz.

Only in PC gaming have people convinced themselves that vsync-off looks "ok"

Exactly! The whole idea of "eye candy" in games (AA, AF, HDR, etc) goes to the toilet when you disable vsync and have whole screen tearing....yuck!!!. I have never disabled it since playing my first 3d shooter (Quake II) in 1998 on a Voodoo 2 videocard :p. I guess the whole idea of "vsync-off" became popular with younger generations that play exclusively on LCDs where you have severe motion lag (ghosting) by default. The Vsync + Triple Buffering combination does indeed increase input latency a bit but is virtually unnoticeable on a CRT.
 
Last edited:
Pain in the ass? By clicking "vsync on"? Or moving the "limit FPS" slider to 75 or whatever?
Well, according to the policy you described above it's not just a click on vsync or a slider. You have to check how many FPS you have on a said game (which may vary heavily depending on the areas in the game) and set the refresh rate accordingly for every game (refresh rate, not FPS cap). What happens if the game is a demanding one that is often below 50 fps ? It's not even a matter of killing your eyes, you just can't set a 50Hz refresh rate.

Actually you're more or less talking about simulating some kind of low grade freesync/Gsync manually with a screen technology that has major drawbacks at low refresh rates. That's insane.
 
I always had Vsync enabled with the FW900 (or any CRT) screen tearing is unacceptable for me with gaming lol, and depending on the game I usually ran 75Hz or 85Hz.

Luckily my eyes weren't very sensitive to refresh flicker (except 60Hz was a little noticable).

If a game didn't support Vsync I would then cap the framerate to 60fps and run a high refresh rate in order to reduce screen tearing, but if I recall the only time I had to do this is when playing the Painkiller series which oddly didn't support vsync and it couldn't be forced on outside of the game.
 
Last edited:
I don't mind 60 hz for some reason. I've been playing Persona 5 and the new Zelda on an FW900, and everything looks great, even with occasional frame drops. I think the colors really make up for any visual quirks in my mind. Maybe that's why I don't really notice the flickering.
 
Well, according to the policy you described above it's not just a click on vsync or a slider. You have to check how many FPS you have on a said game (which may vary heavily depending on the areas in the game) and set the refresh rate accordingly for every game (refresh rate, not FPS cap). What happens if the game is a demanding one that is often below 50 fps ? It's not even a matter of killing your eyes, you just can't set a 50Hz refresh rate.

Actually you're more or less talking about simulating some kind of low grade freesync/Gsync manually with a screen technology that has major drawbacks at low refresh rates. That's insane.

That minor amount of work is worth it to have a consistent, smooth, frame pacing in your games. Otherwise, when you set to an arbitrary refresh rate and set vsync off, you have a stuttering, tearing mess. That really takes away from the immersiveness of the visuals the game developers painstakingly crafted.

And when I can't keep steady above 50fps? That's easy. Set minotor to 100hz and use double vsync. BAM, 50fps perfectly frame-paced. Then add a small amount of motion blur in-game to blend the frames. 30fps games? Set to 90hz (90/3=30).

I don't mind 60 hz for some reason. I've been playing Persona 5 and the new Zelda on an FW900, and everything looks great, even with occasional frame drops. I think the colors really make up for any visual quirks in my mind. Maybe that's why I don't really notice the flickering.

Yeah, 60hz is fine for games and video. Maybe not web browsing or writing, where you're looking at big white pages (I think this is where 60hz got its bad rap). I'm playing the new Zelda on my CRT too. Looks great, as do other console games running at 60 or 30. I'd say 60hz is the lower limit, though. I have to double the refresh rate for anything lower, like I was talking about above
 
Last edited:
Well, I must be from another planet then, because I've always used a steady 85 to 100hz refresh rate (depending on the screen), often with vsync on but sometimes without, and:
- tearing is very rare if present at all
- stuttering might happen in some cases, when the fps drop for a reason or another. But then it's the good old issue of feet coded games or hardware too weak, you can't expect a game to be smooth when it goes down to 20fps or below.

On the other hand I see flickering below 80hz and I can even tell a difference between 85 and 100hz.
 
I have vsync off when I play quakelive @ 250 fps and @ 160hz, and I never notice any tearing. Turning vsync off offers a slightly smoother experience but not dramatic by any means. Those are fairly extreme conditions though.
 
- tearing is very rare if present at all
- stuttering might happen in some cases, when the fps drop for a reason or another. But then it's the good old issue of feet coded games or hardware too weak, you can't expect a game to be smooth when it goes down to 20fps or below.

On the other hand I see flickering below 80hz and I can even tell a difference between 85 and 100hz.

Tearing and stuttering aren't rare, you've just become acclimated to them because you always have frame rate/refresh rate mismatch. If you lower settings/resolution to where you can stay above 85fps most of the time, then set vsync on (which will keep your game at 85fps always), your game will be much smoother than when you allow the frame rate to fluctuate.

I have vsync off when I play quakelive @ 250 fps and @ 160hz, and I never notice any tearing. Turning vsync off offers a slightly smoother experience but not dramatic by any means. Those are fairly extreme conditions though.

Well, when you're at 160hz, differences between one frame and the next are pretty minor, so tearing is hidden quite a bit better. But that's you playing a 15 year old game. Harder to keep above 160fps on new games without a very expensive PC
 
Well, when you're at 160hz, differences between one frame and the next are pretty minor, so tearing is hidden quite a bit better. But that's you playing a 15 year old game. Harder to keep above 160fps on new games without a very expensive PC

agreed, and I have very little experience with lower frame rates.
 
Going to look at one of these tomorrow, my only last concern is.... My current desk has a glass top. Bit concerned about cracking it. Anyone use theirs on a glass desk?
 
Going to look at one of these tomorrow, my only last concern is.... My current desk has a glass top. Bit concerned about cracking it. Anyone use theirs on a glass desk?
It's only 100 lbs with a plastic base. Any glass desk built properly should be able to handle it, but I understand your skepticism. I don't have a glass desk to test with for you, however.
 
can anyone recommend me a specific Displayport>Vga converter. I got a monoprice one and I'm able to get my desired 1024x768 @105 hz, unfortunately there are two faint, slightly diagonal, white lines flashing across the center of the monitor. They are not totally centered and they are at a slight angle.

My graphics card is a zotac gtx 1060 mini and my monitor is a Hitachi Super-scan Pro 21, as I discussed on page 370.

I'd really appreciate an ebay/amazon link to a specific DAC that doesn't have this problem. I'm assuming the issue is the converter but I suppose it could be my graphics card...Opinions are very welcome on this subject.
 
I'd really appreciate an ebay/amazon link to a specific DAC that doesn't have this problem. I'm assuming the issue is the converter but I suppose it could be my graphics card...Opinions are very welcome on this subject.

Everybody here likes the VCOM displayport adapter. I used the HD Fury Nano GX. That is HDMI but gives you similar results.
 
can anyone recommend me a specific Displayport>Vga converter. I got a monoprice one and I'm able to get my desired 1024x768 @105 hz, unfortunately there are two faint, slightly diagonal, white lines flashing across the center of the monitor. They are not totally centered and they are at a slight angle.

My graphics card is a zotac gtx 1060 mini and my monitor is a Hitachi Super-scan Pro 21, as I discussed on page 370.

I'd really appreciate an ebay/amazon link to a specific DAC that doesn't have this problem. I'm assuming the issue is the converter but I suppose it could be my graphics card...Opinions are very welcome on this subject.
Post a picture.
Have you tried to lower the refresh rate? Just in case it's because you're off limits, post pictures of the cru configuration you made to set that resolution.
 
Post a picture.
Have you tried to lower the refresh rate? Just in case it's because you're off limits, post pictures of the cru configuration you made to set that resolution.

I'll give that a try tonight. Its 165mhz (https://www.monoprice.com/Product?p_id=5135&gclid=COHYk87asNMCFYmFswodLuQLew) and I'm only running 1024x768@105 hz; someone posted earlier they were running a higher resolution/refresh rate with a comparable converter. This leads me to believe its the converter. I"ll try setting it to 85hz tonight and see if the lines go away, I'll report back. I'm actually hoping it is broken, I don't want to be limited to lower than 100hz.
 
Any converter avaible will do the job. Most of them have a 165mhz cap, so I suggest you to go to your local ebay and get the cheapest one (in europe you could get them for ~5€).
I'm using right now one of those at 1280x960@95hz, really happy with it.

Can you please send me a link to the specific one you bought. Based on your results i got a 165mhz DP>VGA from monoprice. Unfortunately it has two flashing white lines in the middle of the screen that make it unusable for me. They are faint lines, but very distracting. I am driving my Hitachi Superscan Pro 21 with a GTX 1060 at 1024x768 105hz
 
As an Amazon Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Post a picture.
Have you tried to lower the refresh rate? Just in case it's because you're off limits, post pictures of the cru configuration you made to set that resolution.
Here are the pics you requested. In one you can see the lines present, the other they're not there. Those lines flash about twice per second. I tried lowering the refresh rate to 85hz @ 1024x768 but they lines were still there, they just moved upwards slightly.

I never had any problems using a DVI-i to VGA adapter on my old computer with a gtx 980. I tend to think its not an issue with my new computer or the 1060, but the converter. I've gotten cables from monoprice there were DOA; I hope thats the prob, I really want to keep using this CRT; all new LED monitors give me eye major strain.
 

Attachments

  • 20170419_163121.jpg
    20170419_163121.jpg
    133.2 KB · Views: 35
  • 20170419_163123.jpg
    20170419_163123.jpg
    134.7 KB · Views: 38
Can an Nvidia user on the forum do me a huge favor? Please create an interlaced resolution (with Nvidia CP or CRU) and see if your monitor can display it.

It seems the Windows Creator's update (1703) has broken interlaced resolutions. The desktop frame is cut in half, then the upper half is stretched to fill the whole screen. But I'm on AMD so I'm curious to see if it's happening to Nvidia people too.

EDIT: actually, if 1080i is already selectable you can test with that
 
Last edited:
Here are the pics you requested. In one you can see the lines present, the other they're not there. Those lines flash about twice per second. I tried lowering the refresh rate to 85hz @ 1024x768 but they lines were still there, they just moved upwards slightly.

I never had any problems using a DVI-i to VGA adapter on my old computer with a gtx 980. I tend to think its not an issue with my new computer or the 1060, but the converter. I've gotten cables from monoprice there were DOA; I hope thats the prob, I really want to keep using this CRT; all new LED monitors give me eye major strain.

What happened to your GTX 980? Anyway I think you should RMA the Monoprice adapter and get the VCOM linked above.
 
What happened to your GTX 980? Anyway I think you should RMA the Monoprice adapter and get the VCOM linked above.

I sold my 980 rig to build a much smaller mini ITX pc.

I contacted monoprice and they said they'd ship a replacement so I'm hoping it was just a defective unit. I may wait until that arrives before I drop the $25 on the VCOM.

Any theories on what could be causing those lines?
 
Can an Nvidia user on the forum do me a huge favor? Please create an interlaced resolution (with Nvidia CP or CRU) and see if your monitor can display it.

It seems the Windows Creator's update (1703) has broken interlaced resolutions. The desktop frame is cut in half, then the upper half is stretched to fill the whole screen. But I'm on AMD so I'm curious to see if it's happening to Nvidia people too.

EDIT: actually, if 1080i is already selectable you can test with that


i just tested with 1920x1200 @ 85 interlaced and it seemed to work fine. But not sure if anything actually changed. Screen flashed when changing modes, but there was no "click".
 
I sold my 980 rig to build a much smaller mini ITX pc.

I contacted monoprice and they said they'd ship a replacement so I'm hoping it was just a defective unit. I may wait until that arrives before I drop the $25 on the VCOM.

Any theories on what could be causing those lines?
I got something similar when I surpassed the 165mhz limit, but that's not your case. Have you used the crt timmings preset on CRU?
 
I got something similar when I surpassed the 165mhz limit, but that's not your case. Have you used the crt timmings preset on CRU?

I just set 1024x768@105 hz in my Nvidia control panel under custom resolutions. Beyond that, I don't think I did anything. I'll try using CRU instead
 
Last edited:
I got rid of mine a few years ago when the screen took forever to warm up. It would be green for entirely too long before it finally "clicked." Still, I do miss the old mammoth. I'm shocked they're still around and this thread is going strong. I think I even have a post about acquiring mine.
 
i just tested with 1920x1200 @ 85 interlaced and it seemed to work fine. But not sure if anything actually changed. Screen flashed when changing modes, but there was no "click".

What did your monitor's OSD show? For that resolution it should be 53.8kHz horizontal.

Thanks for checking by the way
 
np. shows 107.2khz, same as progressive. I'm using nvidia custom resolution to do it.

have you tinkered with it to see if you can get it to actually display in interlaced? maybe try CRU?

I'm starting to think this is an AMD specific issue, but I don't have any Nvidia cards to test with
 
can you give me step by step instructions on how to get CRU to change desktop resolution? I've used it successfully for games that I run in lower resolutions that I want a high refresh rate, but not very familiar with how it works.
 
can you give me step by step instructions on how to get CRU to change desktop resolution? I've used it successfully for games that I run in lower resolutions that I want a high refresh rate, but not very familiar with how it works.

Any time you add new resolutions in CRU, you have to restart your PC, or restart your driver with the included "restart64.exe".

So for 1920x1200 interlaced at say 100hz , you would enter the resolution, with "CRT standard timings" at the top, then input 100hz for vertical refresh, then check the "interlaced" check box at the bottom. Then restart, and when you go to select the refresh rate in Windows display settings, you'll see it listed as "50hz interlaced".

Your monitor will report the vertical frequency as 100hz, but Windows is thinking more about how many full 1920x1200 frames are being produced, which is technically 50.
 
Hey, who here was able to get WinDas running on Windows 10? What did you to to get it to work?
I am looking to build my new PC soon and wanted to get a calibration done while I was at it.

Too bad Anologix canned their DAC. Does this leave us with the HDFury4 as the best DAC to get now?
 
I got rid of mine a few years ago when the screen took forever to warm up. It would be green for entirely too long before it finally "clicked." Still, I do miss the old mammoth. I'm shocked they're still around and this thread is going strong. I think I even have a post about acquiring mine.

and i am shocked that in 2017 is still very hard, not to say imposible to find a monitor capable of reproduce OLED natural blacks quality levels, IPS color quality levels, excellent contast, excellent viewing angles, very good geometry, clear motion quality without sacrificing brightness or requiring high vertical frecuencies, better non crappy scaled multi resolutions, excellent latency, excellent static image clarity, widescreen resolutions up to 1920x1200@96HZ, even 2k (i can get my fw900 up to 2560x1600 @ 68HZ, with still very good image clarity and quality, more experienced users probably can go even higher), still very good flat screen size at 22.5 inches widescreen 16:10 aspect ratio. all this features in one package: the fw900.

i bet this is why many people like me still want and enjoy this more than a decade "obsolete" monitor, not just this, but the CRT technology in general.

man i miss those ages when even the modest and cheaper color CRT monitors offered many of those features no current monitor is offering in one single package, so practically you only had to choose between monitor screen sizes.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top