rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,704
Nice I would love to see the fedex guy that can toss an FW900 like that.
I wonder if that guy was fired.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
24" Widescreen CRT (FW900) From Ebay arrived,Comments.
- Thread starter mathesar
- Start date
Nice I would love to see the fedex guy that can toss an FW900 like that.
I wonder if that guy was fired.
Sadly, I've done all of that and more ad nauseum. I think it may be a 6990 and/or recent driver issue. I am using 8.94.
Hmm, using my GTX580 and the latest beta driver and BNC cables, this FW900 I have here seems to be able to display some high resolution/refresh rate combo's that I thought would be out of scan range.
From past reading I thought the highest Hz for 1920x1200 was 95-96Hz, this one can do 113Hz. It only goes out of range at 114Hz.
It can also do the max advertised resolution of 2304x1440 at 100Hz and goes out of scan range at 103Hz. Can all FW900's do this? Or is it because I am using real high quality BNC cables (Belkin professional)?
I have varified outside nVidia control panel the resolution and Hz. Even the on screen display shows the high Hz.
I didn't know the FW900 could go this high. I am currently using a perfect 1.564:1 resolution of 2190x1400 @105Hz and everything is clear and smooth. It goes out of range at 108Hz so I backed it off a few.
Thoughts?
From past reading I thought the highest Hz for 1920x1200 was 95-96Hz, this one can do 113Hz. It only goes out of range at 114Hz.
It can also do the max advertised resolution of 2304x1440 at 100Hz and goes out of scan range at 103Hz. Can all FW900's do this? Or is it because I am using real high quality BNC cables (Belkin professional)?
I have varified outside nVidia control panel the resolution and Hz. Even the on screen display shows the high Hz.
I didn't know the FW900 could go this high. I am currently using a perfect 1.564:1 resolution of 2190x1400 @105Hz and everything is clear and smooth. It goes out of range at 108Hz so I backed it off a few.
Thoughts?
defiant007
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,497
Man I wish I they still made FW900's 
Its going to be a sad day when my Viewsonic 19" G90F+ bites the dust.
Its going to be a sad day when my Viewsonic 19" G90F+ bites the dust.
Last edited:
LAGRUNAUER
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 745
The GDM-FW900 has specific timings at a specific resolutions... I've posted all of them in a past entry on this forum... I do not recommend forcing the monitor to go out of specs specially on resolutions and refresh rates, although the monitor can sync, you'll risk damage beyond repair and/or diminish the life of the tube. A rule of thumb... The higher the resolution is... The lower the refresh rate will be... At a low resolution, you can achieve high refresh rates to the maximum sweep of the capabilities of the monitor as it was design to sustain them, but a high resolutions which use more internal resources, you will not achieve the maximum refresh rate (up to 160 Hz)... It is not advisable to force the monitor to achieve high refresh rates at high resolutions and then let it out of scanning range... This is a NO-NO... It is like running an engine at a high speed at high RPMs... The engine could do that but it will not sustain it without blowing up... The same analogy goes for the GDM-FW900 and all the GDM and CPD line of monitors... Lastly.... You play... You pay...
Hope this helps...
Sincerely,
Unkle Vito!
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,296
I was playing around with my fw900 on my 6990. I'm not sure if the tube died after a stretch of being unused and moving around who knows. .. I can't get a picture on it at all, not even out of range messages or anything other than a subtle flutter near the bottom edge when it turns on.. I did get a chance to play around with some settings in windows7 however so I wanted to mention them in case it helps vega or others.
.
I'm not sure if you tried this, but I went into device manager (start -> run devmgmt.msc) and right clicked the monitor and hit "properties". I chose "update driver" --> "browse my computer for driver software". I chose "-->Let Me Pick.." .. then I UN-checked "show compatible hardware", scrolled down to "Sony", and the option "Sony GDM-FW900 (EDID Override)" showed up, which I chose. If I were to choose the next manufacturer down , "Sony Corporation" instead of "sony", the option to choose "SONY GDM-FW900" shows up too.
.
I still don't have a picture and suspect my monitor/tube is shot, but I'll still try a few things and switch back over to vga again. I also haven't tried the dvi pin-pull trick though I figured I would at least have a picture without doing that if the monitor isn't damaged.
.
To be clear, my monitor shows up in catalyst control center and I can assign it resolutions up to 2048x1536 with a drop down that goes from 60hz to 200hz using the EDID override driver and I also unchecked "Use Extended Display Identification Data (EDID) or driver defaults". This checkbox option appears in the "My VGA displays" heading on the main left side menu in CCCenter. I haven't bothered trying the regular driver shown under the "sony" option yet since I have nothing visible on screen anyway. I just thought this might provide some more options to play with in case anyone overlooked them.
.
I'm not sure if you tried this, but I went into device manager (start -> run devmgmt.msc) and right clicked the monitor and hit "properties". I chose "update driver" --> "browse my computer for driver software". I chose "-->Let Me Pick.." .. then I UN-checked "show compatible hardware", scrolled down to "Sony", and the option "Sony GDM-FW900 (EDID Override)" showed up, which I chose. If I were to choose the next manufacturer down , "Sony Corporation" instead of "sony", the option to choose "SONY GDM-FW900" shows up too.
.
I still don't have a picture and suspect my monitor/tube is shot, but I'll still try a few things and switch back over to vga again. I also haven't tried the dvi pin-pull trick though I figured I would at least have a picture without doing that if the monitor isn't damaged.
.
To be clear, my monitor shows up in catalyst control center and I can assign it resolutions up to 2048x1536 with a drop down that goes from 60hz to 200hz using the EDID override driver and I also unchecked "Use Extended Display Identification Data (EDID) or driver defaults". This checkbox option appears in the "My VGA displays" heading on the main left side menu in CCCenter. I haven't bothered trying the regular driver shown under the "sony" option yet since I have nothing visible on screen anyway. I just thought this might provide some more options to play with in case anyone overlooked them.
I can get the FW900 working with 6990 only at 1920x1200@85Hz. I get the limit of 2048x1536 just like you. With custom .inf's and everything it will just not do 2304x1440 no matter what I do. I've been waiting for my 7970's to come in tomorrow to give it a whirl.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,296
well I was hoping to get 1080p at near 100hz if possible to test with 60hz side lcds in eyefinity but my monitor might be damaged.
if I could I'd try to get the rest working like you did and report back any sucess but I dont even have a picture on it
if I could I'd try to get the rest working like you did and report back any sucess but I dont even have a picture on it
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,296
It got moved around a few times, never dropped or anything like that but could have rocked it around a little in moving and placing. It was starting to bloom a bit last time I used it as I recall (not as crisp). It also might have been "on" when I plugged it in , plugging plug into socket could have arced when plugging it in while monitor was in "on position".. who knows. It does the static-y turn on noise when I turn it on, and I can hear it switch over "click" ing when I switch some settings but never shows a display image/desktop. I can see the screen flutter with barely discernible, faint light "wisps" when I activate the monitor in my drivers but there is no real image displayed. I'll try it out a different pc for the hell of it sometime but I'm done playing around with it for now.
.
I like my 27" samsung 120hz input monitor I sprung for when they had that $399.99 sale. Its still not blur free but its outside of any lcd I've seen, with a crt-like feel and really only blurs more noticeably at the fastest parts of my FoV arcs. It seems to tighten the image back up immediately at any slower part of a FoV sweeping arc, and performs well on flick-arcs (even if blurring at the fastest point) and generally much less of a smear-flood impact to my viewport overall. Its much less eye wrenching on extreme detail texture games than the 10.xx - 12ms response time ips I had been using, and of course the size and cripsness is nice vs the crt. I still would have liked to test out eyefinity with the crt in the middle of two 60hz led backlit 21.5" lcds to compare, but its looking like my decision has been made for me.
.
I like my 27" samsung 120hz input monitor I sprung for when they had that $399.99 sale. Its still not blur free but its outside of any lcd I've seen, with a crt-like feel and really only blurs more noticeably at the fastest parts of my FoV arcs. It seems to tighten the image back up immediately at any slower part of a FoV sweeping arc, and performs well on flick-arcs (even if blurring at the fastest point) and generally much less of a smear-flood impact to my viewport overall. Its much less eye wrenching on extreme detail texture games than the 10.xx - 12ms response time ips I had been using, and of course the size and cripsness is nice vs the crt. I still would have liked to test out eyefinity with the crt in the middle of two 60hz led backlit 21.5" lcds to compare, but its looking like my decision has been made for me.
Last edited:
Ya, the Samsung 120Hz line compares really well. I think it is the peak of LCD performance right now. It is about 80% as fast as the FW900 (subjective of course). The Samsung is also bright enough you can use it in a lit room, the FW900 you have to use in almost complete darkness to get a passable image.
ZeosPantera
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 476
Remove the anti-glare and calibrate. This monitor can blind you.
Here is some comparison shots between my 3x 120Hz setup and my Sony FW900. The FW900 is running 1920x1200 over very high quality Belkin studio professional BNC-5 cables. FW900 is setup with Unkle Vito's recommended 50 brightness, 100 contrast, 9300K (this monitor was calibrated by him). Graphics card is a AMD 7970. Comments are below the applicable screen shot (view original size for best view):
Here you can see the LCD setup has a "crisper" picture versus the CRT which appears to be "softened".
From a subjective standpoint, the Samsung's also appeared to have a better contrast.
Camera's are notorious for not capturing black images properly from displays. Subjectively in real life, the back lights on both setups were similar and surprisingly the CRT didn't offer much benefit here.
Here the camera captured a realistic portrayal of the white differences. The FW900 had a blue-gray tint to it while the LED back lit Samsung's had brilliant, pure whites.
The camera was very poor at picking up reds properly. In real life this image is scorching bright red. The FW900 had a pink'ish look to it while the Samsung's were stunning red.
Green's were pretty good on the FW900, but the Samsung's just had more "pop".
Blue's for both were surprisingly almost a perfect match. The blue's for both screens were much darker and intense than portrayed here.
Both had a nice picture with this image.
Here in a completely dark room you can see the Samsung's really over-driving the image. The FW900 work's quite well in a dark room. Here also you can see the TN viewing angle limitation on the left screen. That is because the camera has been shifted left to capture the middle point of both screens. If you sit in the middle of the Eyefinity setup, 90% of the viewing angle problems disappear. One caveat though is you must sit in the middle, not for someone who likes to sit on the couch and watch TV at crazy angles!
Here in the black room you can see both make nice images, with the Samsung's appearing to be over-driving some while the FW900 not handling the blacks/contrast as well.
From pitch black room to a back light. As you can see, this is where the Samsung's really have an awesome image. The FW900 wasn't too affected by the back light and still looked pretty good. In this shot you can also see a bit of the natural blurriness of the CRT.
And now with all the interior room lights on (it is dark outside). The LCD's still hold up really well with all the extra lighting. Here you can see the FW900 starting to look washed out. In fact, this is one of my largest gripes with using it. Ambient light really affects the picture in a really bad way. In my room here during the daytime, I have blinds to cover all of the windows. They are just normal blinds to block direct sunlight, they are not "black-out" blinds. Unfortunately there are seven large windows in this room. Even with all of them with closed blinds, the ambient light is enough to completely wash out the FW900 picture. The Samsung's still work pretty good.
I will try and get a picture tomorrow of the FW900 in the room lit by non-direct, ambient light diffused through shades.
One thing the FW900 does (in a dark room), is provide a pretty nice picture that is super smooth. Although it does seem somewhat "blurry" compared to a LCD image, the blurriness has it's own like-able quality. Maybe it is because you don't need as much AA?
I went from a 6990 not being able to get 2304x1440 and I still cannot with the new 7970 cards and new drivers. It's like the driver has something built in that does not allow that resolution, no matter what .inf's say. I'd love to get that resolution as games look really good! Getting that resolution is so easy on my GTX580, but it doesn't have enough horsepower like my 2x 7970's to run that.
So are there still AMD users out there that are able to get 2304x1440 somehow? If so, what exactly did you do? I have tried BNC cables, VGA cables, removed EIDI pins, many different .inf's off this thread, created my own .inf's, registry edits, power-strip. Nothing seems to work! The AMD driver keeps telling me my max resolution is 2048x1536 crappy 4:3.
It is nice though having the best monitors from each technology IMO.
Here you can see the LCD setup has a "crisper" picture versus the CRT which appears to be "softened".
From a subjective standpoint, the Samsung's also appeared to have a better contrast.
Camera's are notorious for not capturing black images properly from displays. Subjectively in real life, the back lights on both setups were similar and surprisingly the CRT didn't offer much benefit here.
Here the camera captured a realistic portrayal of the white differences. The FW900 had a blue-gray tint to it while the LED back lit Samsung's had brilliant, pure whites.
The camera was very poor at picking up reds properly. In real life this image is scorching bright red. The FW900 had a pink'ish look to it while the Samsung's were stunning red.
Green's were pretty good on the FW900, but the Samsung's just had more "pop".
Blue's for both were surprisingly almost a perfect match. The blue's for both screens were much darker and intense than portrayed here.
Both had a nice picture with this image.
Here in a completely dark room you can see the Samsung's really over-driving the image. The FW900 work's quite well in a dark room. Here also you can see the TN viewing angle limitation on the left screen. That is because the camera has been shifted left to capture the middle point of both screens. If you sit in the middle of the Eyefinity setup, 90% of the viewing angle problems disappear. One caveat though is you must sit in the middle, not for someone who likes to sit on the couch and watch TV at crazy angles!
Here in the black room you can see both make nice images, with the Samsung's appearing to be over-driving some while the FW900 not handling the blacks/contrast as well.
From pitch black room to a back light. As you can see, this is where the Samsung's really have an awesome image. The FW900 wasn't too affected by the back light and still looked pretty good. In this shot you can also see a bit of the natural blurriness of the CRT.
And now with all the interior room lights on (it is dark outside). The LCD's still hold up really well with all the extra lighting. Here you can see the FW900 starting to look washed out. In fact, this is one of my largest gripes with using it. Ambient light really affects the picture in a really bad way. In my room here during the daytime, I have blinds to cover all of the windows. They are just normal blinds to block direct sunlight, they are not "black-out" blinds. Unfortunately there are seven large windows in this room. Even with all of them with closed blinds, the ambient light is enough to completely wash out the FW900 picture. The Samsung's still work pretty good.
I will try and get a picture tomorrow of the FW900 in the room lit by non-direct, ambient light diffused through shades.
One thing the FW900 does (in a dark room), is provide a pretty nice picture that is super smooth. Although it does seem somewhat "blurry" compared to a LCD image, the blurriness has it's own like-able quality. Maybe it is because you don't need as much AA?
I went from a 6990 not being able to get 2304x1440 and I still cannot with the new 7970 cards and new drivers. It's like the driver has something built in that does not allow that resolution, no matter what .inf's say. I'd love to get that resolution as games look really good! Getting that resolution is so easy on my GTX580, but it doesn't have enough horsepower like my 2x 7970's to run that.
So are there still AMD users out there that are able to get 2304x1440 somehow? If so, what exactly did you do? I have tried BNC cables, VGA cables, removed EIDI pins, many different .inf's off this thread, created my own .inf's, registry edits, power-strip. Nothing seems to work! The AMD driver keeps telling me my max resolution is 2048x1536 crappy 4:3.
It is nice though having the best monitors from each technology IMO.
Last edited:
Bummrus[H]a
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 179
Actually iirc remember some AMD users were stuck with 2304x1440! No matter what resolution you'd pick, it was 2304x1440.
I'm currently having this problem with Batman:AC. I finished Batman AA this past week and it played great at 1920x1200 with my unlocked 6950, but I'm trying to setup AC now and it's stuck in 2304x1440.
Grrr...
Do your LCD's have a dynamic contrast function enabled? That's the only way I can think of LCD's getting so dark and bright.
I know from my experience with the FW900 and LCD's, there is no comparison what so ever in contrast and black level (except for maybe a nice *VA).
I've measured 0.01 cd/m2 for black level and 148 cd/m2 for whites, which is extremely bright in a dark room. Measurements taken with a DTP94 and argyll+dispcalgui. My FW900's even have better blacks than the SAMOLED panel on my phone!
I wonder if the monitor got bumped a bit too much when it was shipped? Do you have a calibration device to measure it?
Also it sounds like you dislike 9300k. If you want more warmth in your picture, try 6500k or something inbetween those 2. That'll help bring out the reds.
*
I just turned off the DX11 features and it now runs in 1920x1200! I guess I'm stuck with DX9.
*
Curiouser and curiouser! If i pick any resolution below 2304x1440 when running in DX11 mode, the game windowboxes the image!
I ran the bench at "1920x1200" which the monitor reported as 2304x1440 with the image windowboxed, and then reran the bench at 2304x1440 proper, i got nearly identical results except for the maximum framerate.
Only the maximum FPS was noticeably different at nearly double the frames.
I'll try 1680x1050 and see what happens...
I'm currently having this problem with Batman:AC. I finished Batman AA this past week and it played great at 1920x1200 with my unlocked 6950, but I'm trying to setup AC now and it's stuck in 2304x1440.
Grrr...
Do your LCD's have a dynamic contrast function enabled? That's the only way I can think of LCD's getting so dark and bright.
I know from my experience with the FW900 and LCD's, there is no comparison what so ever in contrast and black level (except for maybe a nice *VA).
I've measured 0.01 cd/m2 for black level and 148 cd/m2 for whites, which is extremely bright in a dark room. Measurements taken with a DTP94 and argyll+dispcalgui. My FW900's even have better blacks than the SAMOLED panel on my phone!
I wonder if the monitor got bumped a bit too much when it was shipped? Do you have a calibration device to measure it?
Also it sounds like you dislike 9300k. If you want more warmth in your picture, try 6500k or something inbetween those 2. That'll help bring out the reds.
*
I just turned off the DX11 features and it now runs in 1920x1200! I guess I'm stuck with DX9.
*
Curiouser and curiouser! If i pick any resolution below 2304x1440 when running in DX11 mode, the game windowboxes the image!
I ran the bench at "1920x1200" which the monitor reported as 2304x1440 with the image windowboxed, and then reran the bench at 2304x1440 proper, i got nearly identical results except for the maximum framerate.
Only the maximum FPS was noticeably different at nearly double the frames.
I'll try 1680x1050 and see what happens...
Last edited:
Bummrus[H]a;1038264890 said:Actually iirc remember some AMD users were stuck with 2304x1440! No matter what resolution you'd pick, it was 2304x1440.
I'm currently having this problem with Batman:AC. I finished Batman AA this past week and it played great at 1920x1200 with my unlocked 6950, but I'm trying to setup AC now and it's stuck in 2304x1440.
Grrr...
Do your LCD's have a dynamic contrast function enabled? That's the only way I can think of LCD's getting so dark and bright.
I know from my experience with the FW900 and LCD's, there is no comparison what so ever in contrast and black level (except for maybe a nice *VA).
I've measured 0.01 cd/m2 for black level and 148 cd/m2 for whites, which is extremely bright in a dark room. Measurements taken with a DTP94 and argyll+dispcalgui. My FW900's even have better blacks than the SAMOLED panel on my phone!
I wonder if the monitor got bumped a bit too much when it was shipped? Do you have a calibration device to measure it?
Also it sounds like you dislike 9300k. If you want more warmth in your picture, try 6500k or something inbetween those 2. That'll help bring out the reds.
*
I just turned off the DX11 features and it now runs in 1920x1200! I guess I'm stuck with DX9.
I'd like to be stuck at 2304x1440. That is a nice resolution for gaming. How did you get it to work? I don't understand what I am doing wrong not to be able to get that resolution.
Yes, I do believe these LCD's have dynamic contrast and also something that is called "Magic Color". Whatever it is, it looks pretty good.
If I use the FW900 for gaming at night in a black room, I turn the brightness now to 20-30 and the blacks and contrast are much better. But I work at night and do a lot of my computer use during the day. That is where the FW900 get's all washed out. In a lit room does yours also? (mine has the anti-glare removed).
I will take some pictures tomorrow to show you what I mean. As for 9300k, that gets the whites as best as possible even though they are still blueish/grayish. Lower color temp just turns everything tan and nasty.
I do have a Spyder 3 Elite, I haven't tried that yet. Not sure if it works on CRTs.
PS: tell me how to get 2304x1440.
Bummrus[H]a
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 179
LOL! I wish i new the ancient chinese secret to make it work.
I remember having a bitch of a time getting the FW900 to play nice with the 6950 when I first got the card. After a couple of weeks I gave up and went VGA, but it looked like ass.
I kept watching the thread and searching for info. I tried alot of things to get it to work.
In the end I think it was wiping the drivers and every trace of AMD stuff, pulling the EDID pins, using the EDID disabling inf I reposted, manually adding the resolutions to the registry and making sure EDID was unckecked in CCC.
Also i'm not sure if it makes any difference but i'm using a BNC to VGA cable which is connected to a VGA to DVI adapter. I've never tried a true BNC -> DVI cable.
I tried powerstrip to no avail, but I do use it for color correction, as you can save and load the gamma tables from calibration with a colorimeter.
After removing the AR coating I have to agree, yes sadly it sucks in a decently lit enviroment.
I've hung dropcloth behind the curtains to block out most of the suns light, and at night i use a lamp which allows me to lower it's output to minimize reflections. But if i'm watching a movie or really into a game, the lights go out.
I remember having a bitch of a time getting the FW900 to play nice with the 6950 when I first got the card. After a couple of weeks I gave up and went VGA, but it looked like ass.
I kept watching the thread and searching for info. I tried alot of things to get it to work.
In the end I think it was wiping the drivers and every trace of AMD stuff, pulling the EDID pins, using the EDID disabling inf I reposted, manually adding the resolutions to the registry and making sure EDID was unckecked in CCC.
Also i'm not sure if it makes any difference but i'm using a BNC to VGA cable which is connected to a VGA to DVI adapter. I've never tried a true BNC -> DVI cable.
I tried powerstrip to no avail, but I do use it for color correction, as you can save and load the gamma tables from calibration with a colorimeter.
After removing the AR coating I have to agree, yes sadly it sucks in a decently lit enviroment.
I've hung dropcloth behind the curtains to block out most of the suns light, and at night i use a lamp which allows me to lower it's output to minimize reflections. But if i'm watching a movie or really into a game, the lights go out.
Bummrus[H]a
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 179
Sound familiar? lulz!
Seems like this file is what did the trick for me.
I reposted the file since the link was dead. - http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1038220910&postcount=7756
Bummrus[H]a;1036651945 said:I'm having a rotten time trying to get a 6950 to play nice with the Beast.
Windows 7 64, 6950 (Cat 10.12a RC3), FW900 BNC->VGA w/VGA->DVI adapter. (I need the VGA input on the monitor for my PS3->HDFury)
I've edited the inf files. I've edited the registry. I've installed the 64bit modded FW900 drivers. I've pulled the EDID pins. I've disabled EDID. I've run driver sweeper multiple times. I've reinstalled the drivers.
I've even tried swapping ports on the card, but that's useless as only one is DVI-I, the other is DVI-D.
2304x1440 max res and 160Hz max refresh show up in CCC where i've disabled EDID. But i can't select them for the monitor. Infact i can't select any refresh rate over 60Hz and even then only up to 1600x1200.
1680x1050 and 1920x1080 are selectable but capped at 30Hz interlaced!
I don't know what else to try.
Seems like this file is what did the trick for me.
Bummrus[H]a said:
I reposted the file since the link was dead. - http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1038220910&postcount=7756
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,296
nice photo essay .. thanks for taking the time to take those and post it.
ZeosPantera
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 476
Yeah essay I'm going to say 50 brightness 100 contrast is not what I would ever set the monitor too. Even if uncle vito said so. Shipping no matter how careful can throw things off.
Nothing beats a nice set of calibration images and your eyes just to see if it looks OK..
Don't want to see the FW900 get whooped by some samsungs that easily. I also recommend turning off all that magic color crap on the sammy's.
Nothing beats a nice set of calibration images and your eyes just to see if it looks OK..
Don't want to see the FW900 get whooped by some samsungs that easily. I also recommend turning off all that magic color crap on the sammy's.
Bummrus[H]a;1038265069 said:
Ah, I've actually used your post to remove my pins and install the same .inf. It doesn;t help though.
Did you do the AMD/CCC registry edits also? Those never seem to affect my select-able resolutions. I'll give those images a shot. Zeos, how bad does your FW900 wash out with ambient lighting? What brightness/contrast and color temp do you run at? Vito factory calibrated this unit here so it should have a good baseline. I've found that in a dark room 100 contrast and 20-25 brightness works pretty well. I'd like the picture to destroy LCD but in almost every category the Samsung's are winning. The FW900 win's with smoothness and resolution for given screen size but that is about it.
Also, why turn off some of the Samsung's features? That is what makes it such a good LCD.
What do you think could have happened during shipping? Gun's out of alignment? Focus need re-adjusting?
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,704
Which samsung monitors are those, as in model number?
Bummrus[H]a
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 179
Ah, I've actually used your post to remove my pins and install the same .inf. It doesn;t help though.
Indeed I did. They didn't help me either until i pulled the edid pins, disabled edid in the ccc and used the inf which also disabled edid. After that I added the resolutions to the registry again and it worked. I also remember I had to delete a few older registry entries which contained resolution data from previous driver installs.
LAGRUNAUER
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 745
Ah, I've actually used your post to remove my pins and install the same .inf. It doesn;t help though.
I'll give those images a shot. Zeos, how bad does your FW900 wash out with ambient lighting? What brightness/contrast and color temp do you run at? Vito factory calibrated this unit here so it should have a good baseline. I've found that in a dark room 100 contrast and 20-25 brightness works pretty well. I'd like the picture to destroy LCD but in almost every category the Samsung's are winning. The FW900 win's with smoothness and resolution for given screen size but that is about it.
Also, why turn off some of the Samsung's features? That is what makes it such a good LCD.
What do you think could have happened during shipping? Gun's out of alignment? Focus need re-adjusting?
I stated to you many times that you cannot compare an LCD image to a CRT image because the LCD has luminance that is 3-4 times higher than of a CRT, and it saturates the colors giving you the impression of rich colors. If your eyes are used to an LCD and its high brightness and sharpness, then the CRT is not suitable for your eyes.
Now, if you stick a calibrator, reproduce backgrounds and patterns from a digital pattern generator (not from the computer), and run measurements on the calibrated CRT that I sent you at 85 cd/m2 (provided that you have not change any of the initial settings, reset the EEPROM, and done other experiments on the unit), you'll find out that the Delta Es on the monitor are within 0.005% of all reference points as I stated on the calibration reports which you have. Also, if you set the white point of the CRT at D93 (cold - bluish), the white backgrounds will have that bluish resemblance you are experiencing. Now my question to you is... which ICC profile are you loading for the GDM-FW900? If you are loading the generic which comes with Windows, ALL your colors will be way off.
The monitor you received was color calibrated with our laboratory grade equipment, it was Sony factory calibrates and adjusted, and it tested 99.8% of all Sony factory settings and parameters, and we have defensible data to support these results which were sent to you in the invoice.
You are entitled to your own personal opinions and I do respect that, but I strongly recommend for you to compare apples to apples, and comparing an LCD to a CRT the way you are doing is totally misleading and definitely not the correct way to do it.
Hope this helps...
Sincerely,
Unkle Vito!
LAGRUNAUER
Gawd
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2006
- Messages
- 745
Yeah essay I'm going to say 50 brightness 100 contrast is not what I would ever set the monitor too. Even if uncle vito said so. Shipping no matter how careful can throw things off.
Nothing beats a nice set of calibration images and your eyes just to see if it looks OK..
Don't want to see the FW900 get whooped by some samsungs that easily. I also recommend turning off all that magic color crap on the sammy's.
Internal damage suffered by a CRT, specially heavy units during transportation can happen due to the boxes being dropped into the floor. Guns misalignments, magnetization of the tubes due to blows, unsettling/rattling of internal sensitive components (FBT, pots, fuses, cables, boards, etc.), among others, are rare but not uncommon.
The brightness/contrast settings suggested to my clients are the Sony factory recommended, but ultimately the final settings and image adjustment are set according to the lightning (incident and/or direct) of their working environments, on how they would be using the monitors, and/or if there will be a hood around the monitor; and some specific guidelines addressing some of these issues are always sent to the customers both via email and with the unit to be closely followed.
Ultimately, image control setting and adjustments on a CRT and/or an LCD is done at the client's discretion... How clients perceive and/or like colors and levels of blacks & gradations on various displayed images at various levels of brightness and contrast are solely their personal choices and preferences.
Lastly, Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...
Hope this helps...
Sincerely,
Unkle Vito!
S23A750D
Bummrus[H]a;1038265664 said:
I will give that a try seeing as I am now on a fresh Win 7 install.
Vito, displays will always be compared. When searching for the ultimate display type, they all have to be compared against each other. Then you find the one that has the most benefit over all of the others. Just like when OLED comes out it will be compared against LCD and Plasma and to a much slighter extent, CRT. Computer displays all do the same thing, display a computer image, if anything in the world would be compared to each other it would be computer displays.
I am aware that LCD's are brighter and crisper. I wouldn't doubt that using a colorimeter the
FW900 would produce more "accurate" colors under low lighting. My largest gripe is how very very sensitive the screen is to any ambient lighting which makes it difficult to use properly when you cannot turn your room into a cave during the daytime. The screen would look fine if it did not wash out. That is just a CRT limitation and I will have to decide if it is worth living with.
As I have said before, I have no doubt about your calibration results. I am sure they are great. All of the photo's besides the last one were shot in a dark/dim environment that favors the FW900 more than the Samsung's, with the proper .icc loaded and the recommended monitor settings. With a direct side-by-side comparison I don't know how it could possibly get any more fair. If a fancy OLED screen comes out tomorrow I'd do the same. I wouldn't put some sort of "protected" status on the LCD's not to compare them, just because they are a different display technology. Unless you are referring to the camera "liking" the LCD's better versus the CRT just because they are brighter and more saturated. Which does have a little bit of truth, hence why I also provided subjective thoughts on the imaged in real life.
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,704
Vega have you dont anything with the bezel on the samsungs? Or maybe it is just the over exposure from the image? It looks like you have almost no bezel the images I see online for that monitor have a thin bezel but not that thin.
elvn
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 5, 2006
- Messages
- 5,296
he removed the plastic bezel housing as I recall.. or used a grinder on them.
Bummrus[H]a
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2007
- Messages
- 179
I think the problem isn't that they're being compared, but the way they're being compared.
The LCD's are set up to show maximum contrast and saturation without any regard to usability or accuracy, where as the FW900 is calibrated to be extremely accurate under certain conditions.
The settings of your FW900 are for professionals doing work where they need an accurate image on any screen at every stage of the pipeline.
Sadly these settings don't have the beautiful image most people expect! There is a very large trade off of saturation and contrast for accuracy.
If you calibrate the LCD's to similar conditions for maximum accuracy, or throw calibration out the window and alter the FW900's settings for maximum contrast and saturation, the FW900 would fair much better in a side to side comparison like that.
But ultimately, due to the LCD's having insane light output compared to the CRT, they will always have more 'pop' and 'wow factor'.
IMO, CRT doesn't seem to be the display for you. You want a vivid image with scorching whites, excellent detail and fast motion response.
CRT can do that, but only in the dark and only after your eyes have adjusted to the much lower levels of light.
And since you want to game in the day, that pretty much kills the CRT right there.
I love the FW900 and think it's one of the best displays ever created, but it's not for everyone.
I think those samsung panels are the best displays for you ATM. They have a nice image, they're fast and they sure look pretty on that desk. Start saving up for OLED.
defiant007
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,497
I know this is the FW900 thread, and don't mean to derail it, but this seems to be the best place to post a CRT question given this seems to be where the CRT enthusiasts hang out.
It looks like I might have an opportunity to grab a used 21" Dell Trinitron P1130 for around $130. Now this would be a decent upgrade from my current 19" CRT, but is this particular CRT recognized as being one of the better ones available prior to LCDs?
Cheers
It looks like I might have an opportunity to grab a used 21" Dell Trinitron P1130 for around $130. Now this would be a decent upgrade from my current 19" CRT, but is this particular CRT recognized as being one of the better ones available prior to LCDs?
Cheers
Bummrus[H]a;1038268401 said:I think the problem isn't that they're being compared, but the way they're being compared.
The LCD's are set up to show maximum contrast and saturation without any regard to usability or accuracy, where as the FW900 is calibrated to be extremely accurate under certain conditions.
The settings of your FW900 are for professionals doing work where they need an accurate image on any screen at every stage of the pipeline.
Sadly these settings don't have the beautiful image most people expect! There is a very large trade off of saturation and contrast for accuracy.
If you calibrate the LCD's to similar conditions for maximum accuracy, or throw calibration out the window and alter the FW900's settings for maximum contrast and saturation, the FW900 would fair much better in a side to side comparison like that.
But ultimately, due to the LCD's having insane light output compared to the CRT, they will always have more 'pop' and 'wow factor'.
IMO, CRT doesn't seem to be the display for you. You want a vivid image with scorching whites, excellent detail and fast motion response.
CRT can do that, but only in the dark and only after your eyes have adjusted to the much lower levels of light.
And since you want to game in the day, that pretty much kills the CRT right there.
I love the FW900 and think it's one of the best displays ever created, but it's not for everyone.
I think those samsung panels are the best displays for you ATM. They have a nice image, they're fast and they sure look pretty on that desk. Start saving up for OLED.
Excellent post, you seem to have hit the nail on the head. I don't do any Photoshop'ing, video editing or anything that requires accurate colors. My setup is pretty much just used for gaming and web surfing, both things that fair a bit better with "pop" than "accuracy", at least for me.
Don't get me wrong, in a dark room the FW900 has a nice picture. And gaming at 2304x1440 is super smooth and incredibly quick and accurate. It's just not being able to use it during daylight hours that really is a bummer.
Besides a monitor hood which I only think will help a tiny bit, anything else that can be done? What about screen coatings, or do those just make it harder for the limited CRT light that there is even harder to see?
l88bastard
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2009
- Messages
- 3,712
Ninja Edit: Vega has pointed out that that is a standard marketing line...so perhaps this is not the smoking gun.
XFX FX797ATNFC Radeon HD 7970 Video Card
If you're craving high-speed, action-thrilling, High Definition images, then the XFX FX797ATNFC Radeon HD 7970 Video Card is the right component for you. The HD 7970 GPU offers to impress you with 1080p visual pleasure, producing up to a 2560 x 1600 digital resolution and up to a 2048 x 1536 analog resolution. Experience seamless presentations with your games, movies, and computer applications with its 3GB of DDR5 384-bit video memory.
XFX Radeon HD 7970 3GB GDDR5 PCIe 3.0 Video Card
Interface Type: PCI Express 3.0
Interface Speed: x16
Connector(s): 1 x HDMI
2 x Mini DisplayPort
1 x Dual-Link DVI-I
Multiple Monitors Support: Yes
Chipset: AMD Radeon
Lifestyle: Enthusiast
GPU Series: Radeon HD 7000
Maximum Resolution: 2560 x 1600
GPU/VPU: Radeon HD 7970
Maximum Digital Resolution: 2560 x 1600
Maximum Analog Resolution: 2048 x 1536
XFX FX797ATNFC Radeon HD 7970 Video Card
If you're craving high-speed, action-thrilling, High Definition images, then the XFX FX797ATNFC Radeon HD 7970 Video Card is the right component for you. The HD 7970 GPU offers to impress you with 1080p visual pleasure, producing up to a 2560 x 1600 digital resolution and up to a 2048 x 1536 analog resolution. Experience seamless presentations with your games, movies, and computer applications with its 3GB of DDR5 384-bit video memory.
XFX Radeon HD 7970 3GB GDDR5 PCIe 3.0 Video Card
Interface Type: PCI Express 3.0
Interface Speed: x16
Connector(s): 1 x HDMI
2 x Mini DisplayPort
1 x Dual-Link DVI-I
Multiple Monitors Support: Yes
Chipset: AMD Radeon
Lifestyle: Enthusiast
GPU Series: Radeon HD 7000
Maximum Resolution: 2560 x 1600
GPU/VPU: Radeon HD 7970
Maximum Digital Resolution: 2560 x 1600
Maximum Analog Resolution: 2048 x 1536
Last edited:
suiken_2mieu
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2010
- Messages
- 2,911
And specs are specs. ATI 4870 could only do 2560x1600 on paper, I went 5040x1050 off a TH2go. Which is a bigger resolution?
Man, I just ran that program with the fasts side scrolling yellow guy in the little car to check for response time differences between the Samsung's and the FW900. The FW900 blew the Samsung's out of the water!
The text in the little balloon over the fast moving car was clear as day on the FW900 but was completely blurry and unreadable on the 120Hz Samsung. Maybe that is why the FW900 feel's so good in BF3.
Maybe I should look into one of these:
The text in the little balloon over the fast moving car was clear as day on the FW900 but was completely blurry and unreadable on the 120Hz Samsung. Maybe that is why the FW900 feel's so good in BF3.
Maybe I should look into one of these:
Last edited:
this photo is a joke, right?
Camera's are notorious for not capturing black images properly from displays. Subjectively in real life, the back lights on both setups were similar and surprisingly the CRT didn't offer much benefit here.
or you truly believe monitor from 2001 would have almost 400 page thread if it had such terrible blacks?
Good crt but the price is too high. Check out Craigslist and you'll eventually come across a good deal for a 21" crt for under $40. I've seen people give them away for free.
There are very few crt models that command a high price. The FW900 is one I would pay big bucks for as it is a very good crt (big & widescreen) and hard to find.
this photo is a joke, right?
or you truly believe monitor from 2001 would have almost 400 page thread if it had such terrible blacks?
What is a joke about it? There is noticeable luminosity in a dark setting with the brightness set to 50. When I turn it down to around ~20, the luminosity disappears and all is well.
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...
defiant007
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2006
- Messages
- 3,497
Unfortunately I am in Australia where there is not much of a market for used CRTs, I think most of them are probably already in land fills or have been recycled. This is the first decent one I have come across which seems to still be in good condition.