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

[spacediver]

this is awesome, thanks!

and the 66% figure is a decent match to my attempt to measure the same thing, using a different method (flod's idea).

See this post

 

[3dfan]

The DTP-94 has excellent build quality. Those things last decades. The second hand one which is $20 would be $60 for you because of all the shipping costs etc. That's still a good deal.

to be more precise, checking a delivery web service to colombia, it would be $94 actually, however, if i could bring it directly with relatives in a couple of months considerably cheaper, i will consider that option, i like my monitor as it is configured now, but i am curious to know how much improvement using the WPB guide it can get, (also i have to admit your guide intimidates me quite a bit )

Strat_84
got your warning!! so i will not mess anymore with ABL values

i like good colors but i am not too strict with color accuracy, i have other similar settings for colors : 100 100 60 85 86 95, which results in a bit more accurated colors, but whites look a bit more yellowish and i like white to be more white, i setup those while comparing colors from my other compaq crt 17" which is in excelent condition and also comparing with a superamoled screen on a smartphone.
using 100 contrast is more a personal preference, i can lower it and still get decen bright screen but i like shiny whites at 100, really look beautiful especially on games and retro games i play

however as i wrote, i will consider the DTP-94. curious about it.

 

[bramabul5353]

Anyone interested in an FW900 without anti glare in great condition or a SGI FW9011 in mint condition with perfect antiglare PM me. I also have a brand new D-Board and Flyback. Both units have been Calibrated with WINDAS and work extremely well.

 

[igsux3]

So roughly the original AR coating is one with a transmittance of 66% with a curve similar to the bold one here (extract from The Transmittance Control of Film Laminated CRTs by Light Absorbent Anti-reflective Coating and Pigmented Adhesive):

View attachment 23970

I have bought polarizing foil with 64% transmittance and it's much darker than original one. Wonder if it's not properly described or there is a difference in AG and polarizing foils when it comes to transmittance.

Are there any foils confirmed to have similar properties to original AG coating?

http://allegro.pl/folia-polaryzacyjna-0-2mm-120x50-cm-nieklejaca-i6773125181.html the one I bought is good quality but too dark - picture calibrated to 85 nits becomes too blurry.

 

[Strat_84]

Maybe the transmittance they state isn't right ? From what I've seen polarizers don't seem to have transmittances usually exceeding 40%.

Anyway I'm not going to go for existing products, I'll rather finish a list of requirements and try to find a manufacturer which can make a custom film matching perfectly the original. The film also needs some electrical conductivity you'll never find on regular films. It has pads for grounding and really, this isn't useless. The screen's surface has static electricity easily building up without AR film.

Edit: oh wait, I put your link into googletranslate (I don't speak a damn word in Polish ), and it translates the 64% in "transparency", not "transmittance". That's not the same thing, and that would explain the blur issue. Transmittance is the ability to let light pass, transparency is the ability to let the light pass without scattering it.

64% transparency is very bad, it's not suitable for a screen.

 

[flod]

Are there any foils confirmed to have similar properties to original AG coating?

highly doubt it. the original ag coating isn't just a grey film. there's an antireflective coating on it (like the type on glasses) that cuts down specular reflections significantly.

 

[igsux3]

Maybe the transmittance they state isn't right ? From what I've seen polarizers don't seem to have transmittances usually exceeding 40%.

Anyway I'm not going to go for existing products, I'll rather finish a list of requirements and try to find a manufacturer which can make a custom film matching perfectly the original. The film also needs some electrical conductivity you'll never find on regular films. It has pads for grounding and really, this isn't useless. The screen's surface has static electricity easily building up without AR film.

Edit: oh wait, I put your link into googletranslate (I don't speak a damn word in Polish ), and it translates the 64% in "transparency", not "transmittance". That's not the same thing, and that would explain the blur issue. Transmittance is the ability to let light pass, transparency is the ability to let the light pass without scattering it.

64% transparency is very bad, it's not suitable for a screen.

Wow that is some useful information, never noticed the difference Thank you for pointing this out, that will make next search wiser. By the way I wouldn't say that it's very bad, screen looks really contrasty and blacks are amazing.

By the way, please let us know if you find any suitable company, I think that there would be many interested folks around here.

highly doubt it. the original ag coating isn't just a grey film. there's an antireflective coating on it (like the type on glasses) that cuts down specular reflections significantly.

Yeah I guess everyone knows that but no one ever found any other film with AG coating I guess. Of course I would be willing to buy AG coated film if there is any existing.

 

[igsux3]

Blast from the past! Sorry I must have missed this post, but hopefully 3dfan would read this some day.

igsux3, a couple of questions:

1. exactly what type of coating you used and were did you get it? i used a polarized security film which was the closest thing similar to the original one i found where i live.

http://allegro.pl/folia-polaryzacyjna-0-2mm-120x50-cm-nieklejaca-i6773125181.html As mentioned by Strat_84, with its 64% is not really suitable for a screen. Where did you get yours?

2. how much reflective your new coaing is comparing to the original older, and also compared with no coating screen,? in your pictures seems some reflectiveness but hard to notice exactly how much.

It is clearly not as good as original AG, but still years better than no foil at all. I would not recommend it if you have your monitor in highly reflective surrounding.

3. are you having issues with electrostatic with your new coating so dust and other things keep attaching to the coating? if so, how are you dealing with it?

Much better than original AG. No electrostatic issues at all. It just gathers some dust over time, but I wipe it once a month with microfiber cloth.

4. i contracted someone experienced with polarized films installations for cars but it was impossible to him to install the film with no bubbles at all, even after 2 attemps, 2 attemp was much better with few small bubbles remaining, maybe due to environment contamination, he used watter and shampo the same way the do for cars window, as illustrated in the photos, he first cleaned the uncoated screen with the tool shown in the picture spraying water on the screen first , then spryed a lot of shampoo to both the uncoated screen and on the side of the film with addesive glue exposed, and mixed with water (forgot to take pictures of that part) and started to attach the film to the screen, then removed the remaining bubbles with some kind of "sponge" as shown in the second picture.
so igsux3, you said you were able to install your coating with no remaining bubbles at all and sticked it with water, can i know how exactly you did? what tools did you use, did you do it on and specific cleaned enviroment?

My setup looked pretty similar to what you showed on your photos - black stretch around the glass and water/shampoo mix sprayed with sprinkler. Then I attached the foil and used plastic "sponge" A LOT to make sure that there is not a single smallest bubble of air under the foil, going from center towards edges. I also pointed a flashlight towards the screen to make air bubbles more visible. Getting rid of bubbles took me few minutes, so it wasn't quick process. At first I was little worried to use much force, but then I realized that this is the only way to get rid of every single piece of air.

And no, no special environment - just my room.

thanks for sharing

Thank you too - I'm very interested in your foil that should be similar to original AG. When I get my hands on new one, then I'm about to take photos or even record some short movie on my process.

 

[3dfan]

i read this topic almost everyday indeed

i got mine from a car workshop in which those polarized films designed for windows cars like the one i bought are sold, mine is a security film polairzed, i got the less dark i found in my entire city :s and also similar in thickness to the original. Fortunately, it was cheap and i expended about what would be equal to 20$ USD in total for various samples plus the installation since there was various attempts to get it attached the best possible and it was quite of an adventure!, my fw900 was so ugly without any coating that not even at brightness 0 blacks looked black, only notable in the night and with the room completely dark, which i did not want it to be, so i did not want to use the fw900 anymore and store it and used my other 17" compaq crt while i was able to get someone much more experienced to install the polarized (my own attemps were a complete dissaster), it took about a week to find someone to do so, most people did not want to do something like that (even being paid) since no one here did something like that before. also the weight of the monitor made it impossible to carry it were more experienced in polarizing installation people were available, which was far from where the fw900 was, but finally found someone that came and installed the thing......

not certainly sure by numbers what level of "transparency" it has, but according to the seller, this was the clearest avaible being at 50%, (for reference, 0% is the darkest).

agree, it is definitely much better with this than with no coating at all for me too, i had to darken my room a little more with new polarized but nothing dramatic, i have a room half filled with windows, have a blackout behind the one against the monitor, other side windows were keep with semi dark curtains,
the screen got a little more reflective than when with the original coating, but not by much, also at first, the screen become a dust collector due to electrostatic, but i attached the remaining leftovers of the inside conductive type to the polaized with glue type and it improved a little, of course not as good as the original coating, but i dont have now to fight everyday with dust when turning on the monitor.

you seem quite expericiende when installing these things, not even the man i paid for was able to install it bubble free, but it is good as it got now and one good thing is that now the screen looks newer regardless of few remaining bubbles hard to notice, and since the original coating had some scratches. (nothing that bothered me, i retire it more for curiosity due to testimonials than for scratches). now that i keep learning how to setup the monitor better than when it had the original coating, it makes me wonder how how much contrast i could gain with an original coating, something i would probably wont ever know, after all this, dont want to mess with coatings anymore

 

[flod]

highly doubt it. the original ag coating isn't just a grey film. there's an antireflective coating on it (like the type on glasses) that cuts down specular reflections significantly.

actually i take that back
maybe some film for car windows have a similar ar coating

but the conductive part of the original film... that you wouldn't get i'm fairly sure

 

[XoR_]

my fw900 have 100 cd/m2 @ 1920x1200 full screen at 90% contrast. Going at 100% gives additional 10-15cd/m2 but is beyond point where image become noticeably blurry and frankly ~100cd/m2 is enough

at 1920x1080 white rise to 105 cd/m2

Full black can be set to any value including below capability of i1 Display Pro. More realistic value is 0.002 thus 54K:1 contrast ratio. Ofcourse ANSI contrast is measly 205:1

test done with something like 80% screen coverage in HCRF to avoid ABL. This methodology is adequate for real life images, except maybe games where you walk with white coated white guy walking in arctic at day ; )

@3dfan
using zoom to make image very small make it into 175 cd/m2 which is considerable upgrade in peak luminance. Actually more than I anticipated it would be but also screen was pretty tiny, smaller than I thought it would be As predicted no increased blurriness or changed in ABL behavior was observed.

personally I see absolutely no point in reducing screen size as 100cd/m2 whites is just perfect anyway. If you can live with smaller screen size then solution is very simple: get 4:3 monitor, they can have much better screens anyway and are pretty much available for grabs for free (or bottle of vodka if you live in Slavic country XD ) and you do not wear down FW900 with something you can do on different monitor. My Dell P1110 measures over 120cd/m2 at 1600x1200 and at 16:9 it would be even brighter as basically the same power would be emitted at smaller screen area.

anyway, if you hit something like 80-100cd/m2 full screen then it is proper value for darker coatings for this monitor

@Strat_84
original AG on FW900 is pretty bad. Why bother replicating it?
polarizer have as much glare reduction if not more and as a bonus offsets pale-green-cyan phosphor tint making blacks naturally more close to proper chromatic point, especially with ambient light. Issues with electrostatics (like plaguing AG-less tube) also seems to be mostly gone so this is not really an issue anymore. Polarizer are also super cheap because they are already made in large quantities.

there is absolutely nothing exceptional or even good about AG that Sony used. In fact it is worse than HP version of this monitor and worse than AG that many other CRT monitors used. Sony ran large scale production and by not using true Polaroid they saved small fortune. Instead using cheap (for you - difference of scale of production) Polaroid you want to use some expensive custom replica of cheap sheet of plastic? U mad bro?

@igsux3

ze zdjęć fajnie Ci to wyszło!!!111
Kupię tą folię i założę jak będę miał u siebie FW900
Niestety dopóki nie kupię swojego mieszkania nie widzę sensu rozbijania monitora po stancjach, szkoda monitora i kręgosłupa, i muszę się ratować 4:3 Dell-em =(
a obecnie założony polaryzator posłuży do ochrony ekranu przy transporcie

 

[l88bastard]

How do you make the FW900 work with the Titan X pascal? Looks like there is a DVI, but no DVI-I.

I just pulled my FW900 out of the closet to play with but my DVI-I connections obviously do not work :-(

Am I screwed? Is there a work around?

 

[Krenum]

Will this work you think? DVI to HDMI converter cable.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B014I8UL8...t=&hvlocphy=9027206&hvtargid=pla-187910164619

 

[Enhanced Interrogator]

How do you make the FW900 work with the Titan X pascal? Looks like there is a DVI, but no DVI-I.

I just pulled my FW900 out of the closet to play with but my DVI-I connections obviously do not work :-(

Am I screwed? Is there a work around?

There has been on and off discussion about this over the past few dozen pages. So just work your way backwards to get the full scoop.

But the TLDR from my perspective is that the VCOM Displayport>VGA adapter seems to have given good results for everybody that tried it. Decently high pixel clock, though it won't be able to hit the highest resolution/hz combo the onboard DAC's of past video cards could hit.

Alternatively, I've used the HD Fury Nano GX, which converts from HDMI. It had similar pixel clock range to the VCOM and looks pretty good. Though I did notice some faint ringing with my unit, it wasn't noticeable most of the time. Not sure if that will be true for all units. Added benefit for the Nano GX is that you can also use it with game consoles, blu-ray players, etc.

 

[l88bastard]

Will this work you think? DVI to HDMI converter cable.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B014I8UL8...t=&hvlocphy=9027206&hvtargid=pla-187910164619

Hmmm I dunno about that one....I just ordered this
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00GPTOPMY/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

and also this

http://www.ebay.com/itm/291608881161?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK:MEBIDX:IT

 

[3dfan]

Will this work you think? DVI to HDMI converter cable.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B014I8UL8...t=&hvlocphy=9027206&hvtargid=pla-187910164619

i have my doubts that converter would work, from the picture, its dvi side seems only digital since it does not have the 4 pins that carry analog signals. (the ones surrounding that horizontal paddle (dvi d)) and you need a dvi that carry analog signals, (dvi i) more info here about dvi types: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface

 

[3dfan]

XoR_
talking about bluriness when using contrast 100, when i started using that value, of course i noted text being a bit blurier but nothing that bothered me, but after i ran the image restoration some days ago, text sharprness improved noticiable using same 100 contrast, and overall contrast seems to be improved a bit too, of course not as high levels as on a reduced screen size, but also i can now rise brighness (black level) further without crushing blacks and colors at the range it did before, also the image restoration got rid of a high pitch noise from the inside of the monitor that is was making since months ago while being warmed up, its like it rejuvenated the monitor, interesting what the image restoration do from an electronic perspective.

of course i would not use such small screen size on this monitor, that was more of a casual test in which i have accidentally realized how much improved contrast gets when using a reduced screen and made me wonder if that level of luminance would be able to be achievable on the entire screen using more sophisticated methods like hardware calibration with colorimeters.

thanks for sharing your cd/m2 values and compare with reduces screen, very usefull, lets hope some other that have hardware calibrated their fw900 share their results.
by the way, can be a stupid question but, you use colorimeters to discover those cd/m2 vales?

actually i take that back
maybe some film for car windows have a similar ar coating

but the conductive part of the original film... that you wouldn't get i'm fairly sure

i noted that after i attached the remaining leftovers of the inside conductive type to the polaized with glue type, it does not collect as much dust as before, but its not such a big difference than before., polarized may have some minimal conductance maybe?. it does a very good job making blacks feel black again even on a non dark or artificial light controlled room.

 

[Strat_84]

@Strat_84
original AG on FW900 is pretty bad. Why bother replicating it?
polarizer have as much glare reduction if not more and as a bonus offsets pale-green-cyan phosphor tint making blacks naturally more close to proper chromatic point, especially with ambient light. Issues with electrostatics (like plaguing AG-less tube) also seems to be mostly gone so this is not really an issue anymore. Polarizer are also super cheap because they are already made in large quantities.

there is absolutely nothing exceptional or even good about AG that Sony used. In fact it is worse than HP version of this monitor and worse than AG that many other CRT monitors used. Sony ran large scale production and by not using true Polaroid they saved small fortune. Instead using cheap (for you - difference of scale of production) Polaroid you want to use some expensive custom replica of cheap sheet of plastic? U mad bro?

From what I've found:
- polarizers don't exceed 40% transmittance by much (which means unnessarily wearing out the tube/electronics)
- they aren't that cheap either
- you may buy some crap with a substrate of standard quality while optical quality is required for such application (as we just discovered with Igsux3, and that may explain the low price)
- no polarizer will have an electric conductivity small enough to fit the requirements for EMI shielding
- Funny that you bring a color accuracy argument, because no film is perfect and a WPB is mandatory to fix that.
- The original AR coating goes as low as 0.2% reflection in the visible range, this is nowhere near "bad". If you found a polarizer sheet that is more effective than that, please point it out.
- ... and if I'm mad to want a proper replacement, apparently this is collective madness and you're the only poor sane man stuck in this mess

 

[spacediver]

there is absolutely nothing exceptional or even good about AG that Sony used. In fact it is worse than HP version of this monitor and worse than AG that many other CRT monitors used. Sony ran large scale production and by not using true Polaroid they saved small fortune.

Just to be clear, are you saying that the Sony GDM FW900 uses a different antiglare than the HP A7217A?

 

[XoR_]

@spacediver
actually I only suspect it might have from photos that seem to have blue tint and are darker than those of FW900 which are generally much more green. There was some auction with photos showing two monitors with quite a big difference in screen color... but all that could be due to lighting only, meaning random chance and . I should really put 'probably' here

my main point here was that there are 4:3 monitors with either better looking screens
this I can confirm with my own experience, eg. Dell P1110, have much darker screens, even darker than FW900 + polarizer and contrast is also better

@Strat_84
- polarizers don't exceed 40% transmittance by much (which means unnessarily wearing out the tube/electronics)
lower transmittance is exactly the reason why it is good idea to replace original coating to polarizer, at least if your priority is image quality
I found original AG ability to block ambient light inadequate and maximum luminance of monitor unnecessarily high.

If it dies faster then it dies faster. Simple fact of living in entropy increasing universe: everything that is will end = )

- they aren't that cheap either
- you may buy some crap with a substrate of standard quality while optical quality is required for such application (as we just discovered with Igsux3, and that may explain the low price)
your conclusion from Igsux3 post is simply wrong
image become blurry not due to 'substrate of standard quality' coating but higher emission needed to achieve 85cd/m2
can't you see that if you increase monitor contrast near maximum emission it becomes blurry?

- no polarizer will have an electric conductivity small enough to fit the requirements for EMI shielding
for personal use it doesn't matter and for case where company would use it in their production they would buy custom version with higher conductivity. Zero issues here

- Funny that you bring a color accuracy argument, because no film is perfect and a WPB is mandatory to fix that.
funny than you bring WPB argument when it is not necessary at all for achieving proper color accuracy
besides I have EDID emulator to force proper gamut correction on my CRTs and thus have more accurate colors than you =)

- The original AR coating goes as low as 0.2% reflection in the visible range, this is nowhere near "bad". If you found a polarizer sheet that is more effective than that, please point it out.
polarizer I used is of bad quality and almost impossible to put on screen properly but block reflections
cannot rate any polarizer that is there in this regard
when using testers my impression was that circular polarizer produced best results
I do not remember it all that well but in one configuration there was better contrast (more blocking of ambient light) and in other less reflection with circular polarizer. Those unfortunately are even darker which might be too much. It is not too far fetched to assume circular polarizer to be of higher 'optical' quality than any ordinary linear polarizer. I found one company selling them and for quite a lot. Might try it in future.

- ... and if I'm mad to want a proper replacement, apparently this is collective madness and you're the only poor sane man stuck in this mess
I spent more than ten years on perfecting the way I feel parts of my perceptions and to control their presentation, especially my sight. I can now volitionally make colors become vastly more vibrant, so vibrant in fact that they can become full blown color->all-sense synesthesia

this direct control mean I am not as susceptible to placebo regarding quality of things that come to my senses like most people are

when you cannot feel mind faculties then you miss a lot of information that they contain. When you cannot control mind faculties then they control you. Then you do eg. WPB or whatever and see changes that are not there and at the same time miss real differences because your mind makes corrections to match everything to patterns it expects and discards patterns it does not expect.

BTW. if you did not notice it yet original AG make image to have cartoonish presentation due to light being simply dispersed inside it. I like this effect but not on FW900 where they did not fine tune it. I mean everything, phosphor, glass and AG.
Polarizer reduce glare mostly by mechanism of polarization blocking reflected light and not dispersion and this results in image of much higher fidelity. Even more so with circular polarizer.

There is some almost religious cult of everything that 'factory' in this topic.
And you know what?
f..k factory and its cost cutting crap. I do not even have factory sight anymore so why would I care for monitor and not mod hell out of it also? <_<

 

[SpiderWaffle]

Is there a consensus a good DVI-I to VGA adapter and/or cable to use?
That doesn't gimp your bandwidth, break or cause any issues.

Or does just about any DVI-I cable plus adapter or both in one cable do the job just fine?

 

[XoR_]

there can be some differences in quality between adapters but their influence on image is already very small and variation in quality seems to be completely insignificant

when I tried to choose best one I didn't see any difference I could be really sure of is really there

 

[Strat_84]

@Strat_84
- polarizers don't exceed 40% transmittance by much (which means unnessarily wearing out the tube/electronics)
lower transmittance is exactly the reason why it is good idea to replace original coating to polarizer, at least if your priority is image quality
I found original AG ability to block ambient light inadequate and maximum luminance of monitor unnecessarily high.

So arguably better image quality at the cost of a 150%+ brightness to reach the same display setting ? And you call that a fair trade-off ?

- they aren't that cheap either
- you may buy some crap with a substrate of standard quality while optical quality is required for such application (as we just discovered with Igsux3, and that may explain the low price)
your conclusion from Igsux3 post is simply wrong
image become blurry not due to 'substrate of standard quality' coating but higher emission needed to achieve 85cd/m2
can't you see that if you increase monitor contrast near maximum emission it becomes blurry?

Here we go ... Not a problem to overdrive the screen but ... it causes problems.

There ARE different qualities of plastic film in polarizers, for displays, windows, or just to protect devices. Do your research.
Igsux3 told it, his polarizer is darker than the original coating, while it has a specification of 64% "transparency" (or whatever it can be), with the original AR film at 66% transmittance. So, that 64% can't be transmittance. So it must be what it is called, "transparency". Which means ONLY 64% of the light getting through does it straight, that is 36% of light going through with a deviation. That causes unclear display, and that's just a film quality not suitable for a screen.

For your information, a polarizer film in the current state of technology has nothing to do on a CRT. Sony couldn't use that, not because of a so called penny saving policy but because of TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS. How do you achieve the required 60-70% transmittance with a kind of film stuck at 40% transmittance ? And I'm not relying on a conspiracy theory, I have the papers published by the guys who designed the AR films !
Polarizers are fine on LCD screens because most LCDs have massively excessive brightness and this is not a problem to have a lower transmittance, CRTs are capped in brightness.


Xor, seriously, it's not a king of the topic game. You're happy with your setup, fine. But stop telling nonsense to defend it at all costs.


And please, stop mixing antireflection and antiglare, everytime I read antiglare here I murder a kitten.
An AR film does just what it means, prevent reflections. That's what we have on CRTs. An antiglare film diffuses the reflected light so that the reflected image isn't coherent anymore, but it still reflects as much light as without a film.

 

[XoR_]

@ Strat_84
So arguably better image quality at the cost of a 150%+ brightness to reach the same display setting ? And you call that a fair trade-off ?
there is nothing to argue here, especially when rating image quality of polarizer compared to monitor without AG which is intended case to consider polarizer. Never did I directly recommend to anyone to remove good condition AG and put polarizer in its place. I just said that if you did it the result is even better contrast ratio than with original AG and very similar to what screens with dark screens offer.

Here we go ... Not a problem to overdrive the screen but ... it causes problems.
yes but somehow most CRT's especially made after 2000 have very dark screen and achieve 100cd/m2 with very noticeable amount of blurriness => they are in overdrive! FW900 is simply designed to have sharpest possible image because it was intended for office use and it is reflected by how it was advertised. They could as well make it for multimedia and it would be blurrier and had better contrast but obviously at that time all multimedia devices were squarish =)

There ARE different qualities of plastic film in polarizers, for displays, windows, or just to protect devices. Do your research.
obviously
I might skip coating Igsux3 used and go for state of the art (of what is easily available): http://www.polarizingsheet.com/circular-polarizer-500x1000mm.php

Igsux3 told it, his polarizer is darker than the original coating, while it has a specification of 64% "transparency" (or whatever it can be), with the original AR film at 66% transmittance. So, that 64% can't be transmittance. So it must be what it is called, "transparency". Which means ONLY 64% of the light getting through does it straight, that is 36% of light going through with a deviation. That causes unclear display, and that's just a film quality not suitable for a screen.
have you considered specs can be wrong?
It is very cheap polarizer and no one expect very high quality from it but to assume it is causing image to be 'blurry' is too far fetched conclusion, especially that Igsux3 said image is blurry only at higher contrast setting which is expected. Raise any CRT to near its maximum emission and it will be much blurrier. At this level of blurriness caused by imperfection in electron beam any effects from coating become completely insignificant. Not to mention it doesn't matter in games one bit, certainly not as much as having awesome contrast does =)

For your information, a polarizer film in the current state of technology has nothing to do on a CRT. Sony couldn't use that, not because of a so called penny saving policy but because of TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS. How do you achieve the required 60-70% transmittance with a kind of film stuck at 40% transmittance ? And I'm not relying on a conspiracy theory, I have the papers published by the guys who designed the AR films !
For FW900 it might be true but not so much for smaller screens which have very dark coatings. They could use polarizer but used cheaper technology instead. And who said it is not possible to make thinner polarizer with higher transmittance sacrificing perfect polarization? It would still be technically superior because polarizers have many desirable light properties and in this case perfect polarization is not required.

Xor, seriously, it's not a king of the topic game. You're happy with your setup, fine. But stop telling nonsense to defend it at all costs.
I just say that original AG is nothing you would really want to replicate. If you could buy original AG then it would be awesome option despite it not being the best coating for this screen. But it would be entirely justified to use original AG. It is different thing than paying premium for custom made coating that is not original and just tries to replicate all of its flaws.

If make custom coating then make something like plasma coating instead that have somewhat higher transmittance but still have quite low illumination of phosphor by blocking most light from above. Also give it color that would entirely offset phosphor imperfect color to make screen completely gray. This would be truly best coating for the screen, the one it deserves!

BTW. did you know that if you have polarizer on your CRT and use polarizer in front of your ambient light source then you can significantly improve perceived contrast ratio?

 

[igsux3]

ze zdjęć fajnie Ci to wyszło!!!111
Kupię tą folię i założę jak będę miał u siebie FW900
Niestety dopóki nie kupię swojego mieszkania nie widzę sensu rozbijania monitora po stancjach, szkoda monitora i kręgosłupa, i muszę się ratować 4:3 Dell-em =(
a obecnie założony polaryzator posłuży do ochrony ekranu przy transporcie

Dzięki, ja jakoś żyję chociaż raz na jakiś czas się przeprowadzam i 3 kineskopy ze sobą wiozę 2x FW900 i raz P1130.

my main point here was that there are 4:3 monitors with either better looking screens
this I can confirm with my own experience, eg. Dell P1110, have much darker screens, even darker than FW900 + polarizer and contrast is also better

Same feeling, my Dell P1130 has much better built in coating than FW900 has ever had with any foil.

- you may buy some crap with a substrate of standard quality while optical quality is required for such application (as we just discovered with Igsux3, and that may explain the low price)
your conclusion from Igsux3 post is simply wrong
image become blurry not due to 'substrate of standard quality' coating but higher emission needed to achieve 85cd/m2
can't you see that if you increase monitor contrast near maximum emission it becomes blurry?

That's correct. I have one one FW900 with polarizing foil and another with original AG coating side by side.

Polarizing foil:
- better, smoother appearance
- better sharpness
- darker

Original AG:
- better antiglare, they seem much more dispersed
- high transmittance
- delicate

FW900 with polarizing foil is perfectly sharp at around 55-60 cd/m2 and I like this image much more than the one with original AG. Looks crisper, more contrasty and smoother. It behaves worse in well lit room and at 85 cd/m2 image is just blurry compared to original AG. Must admit that it looks amazing at 85, just blurry due to overdrive.

Goal for now is to find polarizing foil with higher transmittance / transparency, so it would be not as dark and would allow to achieve 85 cd/m2 with perfect sharpness. When it happens I will get rid of original AG on second monitor with no regret at all.

So arguably better image quality at the cost of a 150%+ brightness to reach the same display setting ? And you call that a fair trade-off ?



Here we go ... Not a problem to overdrive the screen but ... it causes problems.

There ARE different qualities of plastic film in polarizers, for displays, windows, or just to protect devices. Do your research.
Igsux3 told it, his polarizer is darker than the original coating, while it has a specification of 64% "transparency" (or whatever it can be), with the original AR film at 66% transmittance. So, that 64% can't be transmittance. So it must be what it is called, "transparency". Which means ONLY 64% of the light getting through does it straight, that is 36% of light going through with a deviation. That causes unclear display, and that's just a film quality not suitable for a screen.

That's incorrect. As mentioned few paragraphs earlier, FW900 with polarizing foil is perfectly clear at lower brightness. You could try to calibrate your FW900 with original AG to say 180cd/m2 and you would see that it would become blurry. Or you could just go to OSD -> Color -> Expert and move RGB Gains all the way to 100%. Even with original AG it would become more blurry.

For your information, a polarizer film in the current state of technology has nothing to do on a CRT. Sony couldn't use that, not because of a so called penny saving policy but because of TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS. How do you achieve the required 60-70% transmittance with a kind of film stuck at 40% transmittance ? And I'm not relying on a conspiracy theory, I have the papers published by the guys who designed the AR films !
Polarizers are fine on LCD screens because most LCDs have massively excessive brightness and this is not a problem to have a lower transmittance, CRTs are capped in brightness.


Xor, seriously, it's not a king of the topic game. You're happy with your setup, fine. But stop telling nonsense to defend it at all costs.


And please, stop mixing antireflection and antiglare, everytime I read antiglare here I murder a kitten.
An AR film does just what it means, prevent reflections. That's what we have on CRTs. An antiglare film diffuses the reflected light so that the reflected image isn't coherent anymore, but it still reflects as much light as without a film.

I'd say that polarizing foil is tad better than normal foil just because it cuts of some polarized light. In my previous apartment I had glassy wardrobe behind my back and polarizing foil cut out like 80% of the reflections. Polarizing or not, lowering the black point is damn worth it, because FW900 without any kind of darkening is just barely usable in non-perfectly-dark room.

I might skip coating Igsux3 used and go for state of the art (of what is easily available): http://www.polarizingsheet.com/circular-polarizer-500x1000mm.php

Let us know how it worked, I would buy leftover if result was satisfactionary

It is very cheap polarizer and no one expect very high quality from it but to assume it is causing image to be 'blurry' is too far fetched conclusion, especially that Igsux3 said image is blurry only at higher contrast setting which is expected. Raise any CRT to near its maximum emission and it will be much blurrier.

These are my thoughts exactly.

For FW900 it might be true but not so much for smaller screens which have very dark coatings. They could use polarizer but used cheaper technology instead. And who said it is not possible to make thinner polarizer with higher transmittance sacrificing perfect polarization? It would still be technically superior because polarizers have many desirable light properties and in this case perfect polarization is not required.

Polarizing or not, I find AG to be somewhat different (like probably AG coat). Original AG produces much more diffused reflections and thus easier for the eyes.


If someone know any foil with similar transmittance to original AG I would be more than happy to try it out.

 

[Blutrache]

spacediver I'm about to buy a used monaco dtp94, any software recomendations?

 

[igsux3]

spacediver I'm about to buy a used monaco dtp94, any software recomendations?

All you need is free HCFR for reading values and free DisplayCAL if you want to tweak profile (which I highly recommend).

 

[spacediver]

Blutrache, in the WPB guide, instructions on what software to use (and how to use it) is included.

 

[Blutrache]

Do I leave it at 6500k? Or automatic?
Edit:
I've used the ancient program that comes with the dtp94 (Monaco optix 2.0) and I got this results;
Target 6500K
Black luminance: 0.21 cd/m2
White luminance: 122.47 cd/m2
Thing is, I'm in a room with probably too much ambient light, could affect the calibration? There's no gap between the screen and the colorimeter, but maybe some light passes through.
The blacks are ok but not as dark as I was used to, I've read some way lower values on the black luminance, what are your values?
Later on I'll try the software you guys mentioned, thanks for the guide (although I'm not using a fw900 and a separate pc)

 

[spacediver]

Do I leave it at 6500k? Or automatic?

I have no idea what that screenshot you just posted is from, so I can't advise you on what to do.

The blacks are ok but not as dark as I was used to, I've read some way lower values on the black luminance, what are your values?

After a hardware calibration, my black levels measured at around 0.0006 cd/m2

The blacks are ok but not as dark as I was used to, I've read some way lower values on the black luminance, what are your values?
I've used the ancient program that comes with the dtp94 (Monaco optix 2.0) and I got this results;
Target 6500K
Black luminance: 0.21 cd/m2
White luminance: 122.47 cd/m2

I really recommend reading the guide before proceeding. Even if you don't actually carry out the instructions, reading through the guide will give you an understanding of what's going on, and I sense you are lacking that understanding. The guide isn't simply a step by step instruction. It attempts to provide a basic education around the theory and method.

 

[Blutrache]

The capture is the amd control panel.

I really recommend reading the guide before proceeding. Even if you don't actually carry out the instructions, reading through the guide will give you an understanding of what's going on, and I sense you are lacking that understanding. The guide isn't simply a step by step instruction. It attempts to provide a basic education around the theory and method.

I will, right now I have only used the software that came with the optic xr, basic stuff.

my black levels measured at around 0.0006 cd/m2

That's great! What are your white levels?

 

[spacediver]

white level after a WPB adjustment is around 85-87 cd/m2

 

[paradox4040]

How is W900 doing next to FW900. There is a W900 for sale nearby for just 15 EU but the unti seems to have been repaired (washed out sticker on the side). Some pic's of the monitor - http://imgur.com/a/IoDTk

 

[Blutrache]

How is W900 doing next to FW900. There is a W900 for sale nearby for just 15 EU but the unti seems to have been repaired (washed out sticker on the side). Some pic's of the monitor - http://imgur.com/a/IoDTk

For that price is a no brainer, it has no flatscreen and limited by "only" 96khz horizontal freq but still one of the few widescreen crts ever made.

 

[Derupter]

Some new about the adapter.
After the bad news from Simon Cox i contacted Delock to see if they were interested to make an adapter with the ANX6212.
I chose Delock because it is the only one that indicates the name of the chipset in its adapters,they follow reference design and make good quality adapters.
They contected Analogix and answered me that there is a chipset with the same specs of the ANX6212 but optimized for dongle,this chipset is the ANX9847.
After two months of emails today i got the confirmation that they are working on the adapter with the ANX9847
They even took into consideration a my request to increase the internal core supply voltage through the LDO register settings
They have to discuss this with the manufacturer
So stay tuned for more news

 

[spacediver]

you're a hero, thanks for this

 

[XoR_]

~300MHz capable DP or HDMI to VGA adapter would be quite popular among CRT lovers. I would buy one, even if for heck of having it one just in case they were discontinued ;P

 

[Blutrache]

I hope that in case of actual production, the price isn't too high (like 100$ or more).

 

[christpunchers]

I'm looking to buy a GTX 1080 TI. I wondering with the FW900, is it possible to "downscale" higher resolutions (1440p) onto the monitor (running at 1920x1200) during games

 

[Vorlonesque]

I would buy multiple of those adapters just to have spares for my GDM 5411. I would also buy a 1080 Ti or whatever was the nicest card (right now I'm running a 980Ti because it's a solid option if you need VGA).