In 2017, What computer monitor can beat the GDM-FW900?

MrDuul

n00b
Joined
May 16, 2017
Messages
13
I am a video editor and color corrector looking for accurate color as well as a amazing screen to view screenplays and in general all work monitor.

Gaming is not so much a priority however it would be nice to have that 120hz refresh rate.

From my research the GDM-FW900 is still top dog after so many years.

Perhaps when OLED monitors become more common with a 120hz refresh rate will we see the CRT DETHRONED?

I would like to know of any monitors that can compare with the GDM-FW900?
 
FW900 is not even sRGB
WB3wxJsl.jpg


FW900 have tons of inner glass reflections. Eg. put eg. red object and it will have red halo around it. It is really bad for color accuracy. For video editing done in the past these flaring (and other) effects were very desirable to have because intended viewing devices were also CRT. Today absolutely no one should care for CRT and its many quirks as everyone have LCD or other high ANSI contrast ratio devices with zero flaring/haloing effects.

Then FW900 require you to have ridiculously perfect lighting conditions. LCD looks the same in almost any lighting conditions you can have in your room/office.

If you want color accurate display with great viewing angles then get Eizo CX240 or at least something from this category: professional wide-gamut IPS monitors with gamut emulation. There is also Dell OLED if you want incredible contrast ratio as well. Not sure how accurate it is though.

The only real use for CRT today is fast paced FPS games because of strobed high Hz and zero input lag.
 
I am a video editor and color corrector looking for accurate color as well as a amazing screen to view screenplays and in general all work monitor.

Gaming is not so much a priority however it would be nice to have that 120hz refresh rate.

If this is really your priority surely you would want something like an Eizo ColorEdge or one of the Sony OLED mastering monitors, or even the Dell UP3017Q... not sure why you'd care about ancient CRT tech given that, as stated above, it's long past its prime in terms of color accuracy as well as quality representation of material in a format that will be used by actual viewers of the material.
 
Thanks for the responses. Yes I am probably going to go for the Dell OLED.
 
Is SED Monitors didn't go the way of the Dinosaur I would be using one of those instead of LCD.
They are like the BetaMax from the 80s except they never really came out.
 
$28,600?
Way too expensive. Even if it was most perfect OLED without any burn-in and perfect calibration and whatnot
 
If you want a $5k pro monitor, wait for the Eizo CG3145, coming out late 2017.
It's using a new IPS-type panel with an additonal layer of light modulating cells and will have a million:1 static contrast and 1000cd/m² HDR support.
It's gonna wipe the floor with their previous pro monitors and also those medical and mastering displays that cost 10k+.
 
CRTs give the best combo of image characteristics. Yes, you can get various LCD that can beat most individual aspects of CRTs but none can fully compare.

For example: my CRT (Nokia 445Pro) = 960x720@340Hz AND 1280x960*240Hz AND 2560x1536@140Hz AND 2560x1920@120Hz AND 3840x2880@85Hz, 150,000:1 contrast, good color gamut, infinite color depth, unlimited viewing angles, zero processing lag, strobed motion blur elimination, no backlight bleed, 3D support.

Whereas no LCD compares with all those characteristics, some can beat individual ones. Some support larger color gamuts, some have variable refresh rates, some operate at 1920x1080@240Hz. However, no LCD combines good or better contrast, color quality, processing speed, motion clarity, backlight uniformity, viewing angles and resolutoin/refresh rate.
 
CRTs give the best combo of image characteristics.

This isn't an LCD vs CRT thread, it's a thread about monitors for a specific purpose(color correction, video editing and viewing), and it's already been explained above in excruciating detail why old CRTs aren't appropriate displays for a professional video editor and color corrector.
 
rabidz7 said:
CRTs give the best combo of image characteristics. Yes, you can get various LCD that can beat most individual aspects of CRTs but none can fully compare.
this is absolutely true but only for usage scenarios such as playing games and watching videos. For desktop usage CRT are pathetic and harmful to eyes

For example: my CRT (Nokia 445Pro) = 960x720@340Hz AND 1280x960*240Hz AND 2560x1536@140Hz AND 2560x1920@120Hz AND 3840x2880@85Hz,
those are interlaced resolutions, they look ugly and are especially terrible for motion and some way past actual capability of tube to resolve details which make these screen modes completely meaningless. Progressive modes have high enough numbers in them to prove the point the same, look awesome and represent actual usage scenarios

150,000:1 contrast,
what should I even compare this number with?
comparing contrast ratio between different types of LCD panels is misleading, let alone any LCD to low ANSI contrast ratio display such as CRT

throwing meaningless numbers all over the place because they look good not thinking about their actual meaning and applicability and ignoring all the flaws in fanboy style of conduct is not very charismatic. It makes you kind of an underfoot figure =)
 
FW-900 uses SMPTE-C colorspace and not SRGB. It's a great monitor and is awesome for a variety of content, but as others have mentioned, times are changing. Newer color gamuts and standards will be coming out (and already are out) and the FW-900 is no longer desirable as a video monitor, if what you're looking to do is master in the latest and greatest.
 
The only real use for CRT today is fast paced FPS games because of strobed high Hz and zero input lag.

I disagree. Lots of content is still mastered in sRGB, and since the FW-900 is close enough, this one downside to its image is negligible. Everything else though - deep blacks, great motion clarity, and lets not forget the natural analog-look that can only come from an emissive display. CRT's are still excellent displays. They're truly the last display technology that could do everything well. Today's display technology pigeon-holes you into different categories. Do you like accurate colors? Okay - you can have them, but you'll have shit contrast. Do you like good contrast? Okay, you can have that too but be prepared for shitty viewing angles. Do you want ultra-fast gaming response? Okay, you can have that but ditch the good colors and contrast. Or - do you want all three? Okay well, we don't make those monitors yet (OLED), and even if we did, we still prefer to use sample-and-hold so you'll have to make due with poor motion clarity.

The only real faults of CRT are that they're big and heavy. And that's all ergonomics and not with the display quality itself. Oh sure, it doesn't have the best ANSI contrast in the world and yeah, it can be a little soft for ultra-high resolutions. And of course, widescreen CRT monitors were limited to maybe a handful of models. So little that you only need one hand to count them in their entirety. But this is probably due to the fact that we killed off their development in the early 2000's. Had CRT continued to move along and progress, we would have seen some really cool stuff. One cool thing that high-end projectors had that monitors did not have, were eletromagnetically focused tubes. This allows for all kinds of cool stuff - like being able to adjust the CRT beam spot focus in various zones of the screen, along with the astigmatism of the beam itself. Again - these options were only on the stupid-expensive CRT projectors of the day, but I have no doubt that they would have eventually trickled down to the masses.

Anyways - sorry for the rant, but for someone to just dismiss this display as only good for fast-paced FPS games is ignorant and dismissive.
 
I disagree. Lots of content is still mastered in sRGB, and since the FW-900 is close enough, this one downside to its image is negligible.

The idea that "close enough" to sRGB on an ancient CRT that is almost certainly not even performing to its own original specs is a good idea for professional color correction and video editing is exactly why I feel the need to continue to remind people this thread isn't about generic CRT vs LCD superiority, it's about a specific monitor for a specific purpose.

Yes, FW-900s are great, everyone loves them, but no one in their right mind should use one for this purpose.
 
The idea that "close enough" to sRGB on an ancient CRT that is almost certainly not even performing to its own original specs is a good idea for professional color correction and video editing is exactly why I feel the need to continue to remind people this thread isn't about generic CRT vs LCD superiority, it's about a specific monitor for a specific purpose.

Yes, FW-900s are great, everyone loves them, but no one in their right mind should use one for this purpose.

If you read my original response to the thread, I said exactly that. No one should be using these screens anymore for video mastering as the industry has simply moved on.
 
"In 2017, What computer monitor can beat the GDM-FW900?" As a general purpose monitor that can do everything, best I can tell it's 2017 and there's still no proper successor to this magnificent beast.

OP, if you're coming from CRT, I don't think you'll be happy with any current LCD monitor. You'll find LCD's inability to make black and shallow dynamic range too upsetting. (If you obsess over such stuff as I do and can dim your ambient lighting anyway.)

For your specific purpose of video editing, I believe I read that the LG OLEDs can be calibrated to reference quality and might be a viable alternative for professional use. And some believe that the screen might be robust enough for everyday computer work. Some things to follow up on and see if they are actually true. In any case, their picture quality would meet your "amazing" requirement.

Sony professional OLED screens would be a more obvious choice for your usage, except I don't know if they are robust enough to meet your "general work monitor" requirement.

I'm hoping to build a 4K machine next year around one of the LG OLED panel based products. Hoping that they will finally have a 120 Hz interface to match their 120 Hz panel by then...
 
Back
Top