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

flod

Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2014
Messages
948
I don't want to get into physics and optics

sorry but i do

the film does two things that affects what we see: transmit light straight forwards, and scatter light in a diffuse manner like how lcd monitor's antiglare

a clean film will scatter very little light, probably not a noticeable amount. in other words, if you shine a laser pointer through the film, you'll see a sharp dot on the other side.

now about its transmittance... this is the more important thing for us. IF the transmittance spectrum is such that the chromaticities of the primaries (i.e. the gamut) are unaffected, THEN the colors of a crt with and without the film will appear identical. once example of this would be if the film were a perfect neutral density filter.

now in practice, the film's transmittance spectrum probably isn't perfect and does affect the primaries. but does that matter? if the shift in the chromaticity of the primaries is small enough, yes there is still a shift but it doesn't matter at ALL. it doesn't matter if you want to call this an erroneous reading if the reading is off by an imperceptible amount

from my measurements, the differences in primaries between my g520p with film and my fw900 without does not appear to be significant, though i haven't plugged the numbers into a dE calculator yet. but regardless i don't believe it matters as whatever tiny difference between the primaries is quite a bit less than the difference of either monitor to any standard gamut (i think bt601 is the closest)

and no i dont have any "laboratory grade" instruments but that's not important because even my cheap dtp94 is precise enough to measure changes of under 1 dE. it doesn't matter if my 1 feet ruler is actually only 11.8 inches if i'm trying to see whether my left hand or right hand is longer.

if you can measure the difference between displays with and without the film, that's great, but if you just state that repeatedly without tell us quantitatively how much of a difference it makes, then it's completely meaningless information. if you measure my two hands and tell me that my right hand is longer, how am i supposed to interpret that? for all i know, it could be longer by half a millimeter, in which case its completely irrelevant, or longer by a centimeter
 

LAGRUNAUER

Gawd
Joined
Dec 7, 2006
Messages
745
By guns, I meant the voltage driving the cathode of each gun, which is essentially what you are doing when you adjust the sliders in WinDAS when meeting the chromaticity targets.

Similarly, when you make adjustments to the videoLUT, you are changing the resulting cathode voltage for any given input video level.



Not sure what you mean by "erroneous" readings. Higher delta E's don't mean the readings are less accurate or erroneous. A reading of delta E of 10 could be extremely accurate. Likewise, a reading of delta E of 0 could be extremely inaccurate. And, assuming your instrument is very accurate, a reading of delta E of 10 doesn't mean the reading is erroneous. It means that the chromaticity of the light you are measuring differs from the target chromaticity by a delta E of 10.

This is, of course, assuming we're discussing delta E with respect to our calibration targets, and aren't discussing delta E in the context of inter-instrument agreement (where you measure two instruments reading the same light source and compare their readings to each other in units of delta E).


We are not talking about the same thing... When I reference "altering voltages"... I am referring to internal components, which have a set range (please refer to the service manual)...

UV!
 

LAGRUNAUER

Gawd
Joined
Dec 7, 2006
Messages
745
sorry but i do

the film does two things that affects what we see: transmit light straight forwards, and scatter light in a diffuse manner like how lcd monitor's antiglare

a clean film will scatter very little light, probably not a noticeable amount. in other words, if you shine a laser pointer through the film, you'll see a sharp dot on the other side.

now about its transmittance... this is the more important thing for us. IF the transmittance spectrum is such that the chromaticities of the primaries (i.e. the gamut) are unaffected, THEN the colors of a crt with and without the film will appear identical. once example of this would be if the film were a perfect neutral density filter.

now in practice, the film's transmittance spectrum probably isn't perfect and does affect the primaries. but does that matter? if the shift in the chromaticity of the primaries is small enough, yes there is still a shift but it doesn't matter at ALL. it doesn't matter if you want to call this an erroneous reading if the reading is off by an imperceptible amount

from my measurements, the differences in primaries between my g520p with film and my fw900 without does not appear to be significant, though i haven't plugged the numbers into a dE calculator yet. but regardless i don't believe it matters as whatever tiny difference between the primaries is quite a bit less than the difference of either monitor to any standard gamut (i think bt601 is the closest)

and no i dont have any "laboratory grade" instruments but that's not important because even my cheap dtp94 is precise enough to measure changes of under 1 dE. it doesn't matter if my 1 feet ruler is actually only 11.8 inches if i'm trying to see whether my left hand or right hand is longer.

if you can measure the difference between displays with and without the film, that's great, but if you just state that repeatedly without tell us quantitatively how much of a difference it makes, then it's completely meaningless information. if you measure my two hands and tell me that my right hand is longer, how am i supposed to interpret that? for all i know, it could be longer by half a millimeter, in which case its completely irrelevant, or longer by a centimeter

Taking measurements with a DTP-94 which may be out of calibration, and a CS-200 Spectroradiometer is like comparing rocks to diamonds... What may be "accurate" and "precise" to you... it may not be in the real world... and without a reference instrument to compare your results, it is like you said "meaningless"...

UV!
 

flod

Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2014
Messages
948
i'll just leave this here for anyone interested in actual numbers, whether or not they're meaningless

dFXoDEA.png


my measurement PRECISION (NOT ACCURACY) for each x and y value is < 0.0003. i looked at ~20 free measures in hcfr to determine this. moving the dtp94 around results in x,y varying by about 0.002, due to slightly non uniform purity

spacediver's data from here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/139-d...-pro-vs-unprofiled-dtp-94-sony-gdm-fw900.html
i believe his is without a film.

here's a de2000 calculator:
http://colormine.org/delta-e-calculator/cie2000
use Yxy. for Y, my display measured 19.7 for red, 53.7 for green, and 7.2 for blue
 
Last edited:

spacediver

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
2,674
thanks, that's pretty cool.

Vito, you keep referring to better delta E's without coating. Are you talking about the white point balance measurements? (i.e. the stuff you do in WinDAS)
 

flod

Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2014
Messages
948
when i use windas the limitation to the dE is the coarseness of the steps, especially in the cutoff min and max steps. i'm sure anyone who's done the wpb procedure several times will agree with this. but when i get lucky i can acheive a dE < 1 for every single step.
of course i have an uncalibrated dtp94 so my measurements of dE are meaningless :rolleyes:
 

flod

Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2014
Messages
948
for anyone curious: here's a picture of my g520p with film and my fw900 without.
the film on fw900s could be lighter or darker though...
http://i.imgur.com/7c0gYtJ.jpg
oh this picture was taken by an iphone, not a laboratory grade instrument, so clearly this picture doesnt tell you anything. the iphone is probably out of calibration and the tone curve is completely nonlinear! for all we know the g520p on the left could actually be brighter! /s
 

cdoublejj

Gawd
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
565
sorry but i do

the film does two things that affects what we see: transmit light straight forwards, and scatter light in a diffuse manner like how lcd monitor's antiglare

a clean film will scatter very little light, probably not a noticeable amount. in other words, if you shine a laser pointer through the film, you'll see a sharp dot on the other side.

now about its transmittance... this is the more important thing for us. IF the transmittance spectrum is such that the chromaticities of the primaries (i.e. the gamut) are unaffected, THEN the colors of a crt with and without the film will appear identical. once example of this would be if the film were a perfect neutral density filter.

now in practice, the film's transmittance spectrum probably isn't perfect and does affect the primaries. but does that matter? if the shift in the chromaticity of the primaries is small enough, yes there is still a shift but it doesn't matter at ALL. it doesn't matter if you want to call this an erroneous reading if the reading is off by an imperceptible amount

from my measurements, the differences in primaries between my g520p with film and my fw900 without does not appear to be significant, though i haven't plugged the numbers into a dE calculator yet. but regardless i don't believe it matters as whatever tiny difference between the primaries is quite a bit less than the difference of either monitor to any standard gamut (i think bt601 is the closest)

and no i dont have any "laboratory grade" instruments but that's not important because even my cheap dtp94 is precise enough to measure changes of under 1 dE. it doesn't matter if my 1 feet ruler is actually only 11.8 inches if i'm trying to see whether my left hand or right hand is longer.

if you can measure the difference between displays with and without the film, that's great, but if you just state that repeatedly without tell us quantitatively how much of a difference it makes, then it's completely meaningless information. if you measure my two hands and tell me that my right hand is longer, how am i supposed to interpret that? for all i know, it could be longer by half a millimeter, in which case its completely irrelevant, or longer by a centimeter

i wish these forums had a +REP button. I like how you explain the why and concepts of these things in your posts.
 

igsux3

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 23, 2014
Messages
108
In case anyone is interested I found a way to use Nvidia DSR with 96 hz

(which is 3840x2400@96hz after upsampling)

W44cf4v.png
 

wabbitseason

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
1,511
i'll just leave this here for anyone interested in actual numbers, whether or not they're meaningless

dFXoDEA.png


my measurement PRECISION (NOT ACCURACY) for each x and y value is < 0.0003. i looked at ~20 free measures in hcfr to determine this. moving the dtp94 around results in x,y varying by about 0.002, due to slightly non uniform purity

spacediver's data from here: http://www.avsforum.com/forum/139-d...-pro-vs-unprofiled-dtp-94-sony-gdm-fw900.html
i believe his is without a film.

here's a de2000 calculator:
http://colormine.org/delta-e-calculator/cie2000
use Yxy. for Y, my display measured 19.7 for red, 53.7 for green, and 7.2 for blue


I would tend to trust Flod in this dispute. Why? Because he talks like a scientist/engineer, using unambigious specific language supported by data. Not bullshit, like some of what I've read in here.
 

spacediver

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
2,674
I had a cool FW900 dream a few days ago. Was at this train station or something far away from home, and in some old abandoned corner, people had thrown away old electronics. There were like 3 or 4 FW900s! I saw this younger guy looking them over and deciding if he wanted one. I also noticed the manufacturing date on one of them was August 2005! (this was significant, since in reality, I believe the latest units were produced some time in 2004). They also looked a bit different. I think one of them was foldable somehow, and had these tiny latches to keep it in a folded position. And the screen was covered with what looked like microscopic bubble wrap.

Anyway, I offered the kid a deal: I'd help him carry a unit for himself to his car, if he gave me a ride home (I wouldn't be able to carry a unit for myself on the train). Dream kinda ended then :)
 

dmonkey

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2004
Messages
1,552
I had a cool FW900 dream a few days ago. Was at this train station or something far away from home, and in some old abandoned corner, people had thrown away old electronics. There were like 3 or 4 FW900s! I saw this younger guy looking them over and deciding if he wanted one. I also noticed the manufacturing date on one of them was August 2005! (this was significant, since in reality, I believe the latest units were produced some time in 2004). They also looked a bit different. I think one of them was foldable somehow, and had these tiny latches to keep it in a folded position. And the screen was covered with what looked like microscopic bubble wrap.

Anyway, I offered the kid a deal: I'd help him carry a unit for himself to his car, if he gave me a ride home (I wouldn't be able to carry a unit for myself on the train). Dream kinda ended then :)

I had one the other day. Can't remember it anymore now, but it was along the same lines. Awesome, found an FW900! Then I wake up. lol.
 

flod

Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2014
Messages
948
whats the highest resolution the fw900 can do via component?
well pixel clock is limited by your graphics card's dac, (vertical lines) * (refresh rate) must not be greater than the hsync limit which is 121khz on the fw900 i believe, and you dont want anything <60hz otherwise too mcuh flicker

too lazy to calculate but i think the last time i tried, i got limited by the 400mhz cap on my nvidia card.

but because of the focus of the electron beam is and the spacing of the aperture grill, you don't get much more actual resolution above 1920x1200
 

androsforever

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
112
In case anyone is interested I found a way to use Nvidia DSR with 96 hz

(which is 3840x2400@96hz after upsampling)

W44cf4v.png

Just wondering as I am not sure how CRT technology works on the FW900: would an upsampled 3840x2400 from 1200p look the same as 3840x2400 without upsampling it on this monitor (since CRTs don't use fixed pixels like LCD's I wonder what the outcome would be).
 

spacediver

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
2,674
FW900 doesn't support 3840x2400, and even if you could get the electronics to send such a signal, it would look awful.

But if you upsampled, say, a 960x600 image to 1920x1200, and compared it to that same image in its native 1920x1200, the native would probably look better. Remember, when you upsample, you're making guesses as to those missing details, through the process of interpolation. If the image consisted of very simple shapes - say a circle - then upsampling would likely look identical to the native higher resolution image.

But this is the case for any display tech.
 

flod

Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2014
Messages
948
Just wondering as I am not sure how CRT technology works on the FW900: would an upsampled 3840x2400 from 1200p look the same as 3840x2400 without upsampling it on this monitor (since CRTs don't use fixed pixels like LCD's I wonder what the outcome would be).

it'd look blurrier, but for those numbers, only marginally because the fw900 can't resolve much beyond around 1500 vertical lines
 

cdoublejj

Gawd
Joined
Apr 12, 2013
Messages
565
well pixel clock is limited by your graphics card's dac, (vertical lines) * (refresh rate) must not be greater than the hsync limit which is 121khz on the fw900 i believe, and you dont want anything <60hz otherwise too mcuh flicker

too lazy to calculate but i think the last time i tried, i got limited by the 400mhz cap on my nvidia card.

but because of the focus of the electron beam is and the spacing of the aperture grill, you don't get much more actual resolution above 1920x1200

So it's not a limit of the Component connection, it's either a limit of the monitor or the source.
 

spacediver

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
2,674
I'm pretty sure the component cable has a bandwidth limit, but not sure whether it's related to cable diameter or the connecting ends.
 

flod

Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2014
Messages
948
i think the bandwidth limit is related to the cable's electrical characteristics (which is related to the material and the geometry)

but i think it's well above any reasonably resolution
 

Enhanced Interrogator

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
1,212
Well, the PS3 can output RGB with sync-on-green, but it won't go over 480p for some lame reason.

So the best way too hook up a PS3 to the FW900 is to use an HD Fury adapter. Converts HDMI to RGBHV with no lag. Supports HD resolutions and it looks gorgeous. The base model is only $80, and totally worth it.

If you were willing to shell out $500 for the 3D model you could even play 3D PS3 games on your FW900.
 

Baxter299

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 21, 2006
Messages
159
finally removed my antiglare film yesterday
been thinking about it for years
taking the case off was easy
took all of 25 minutes the film came right off!
oh my it looks so much better
text is finally clear
colors are bright
the glares not bad
blacks are just as black
my vote is
wish I did it years ago
the anti glare film i took off
is damn ugly like cheap sunglasses

not great pics ,stuck anti glare film
to inside of my wind shield


note the darker with /and lighter without

last on top of my dryer shows how dark it is





 
Last edited:

Enhanced Interrogator

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
1,212
Found a neat trick for CRT's and games capped at 30fps (or half whatever your refresh rate is).

If you're playing a game and you're in a situation where you need to cap at 30 fps because of a weak CPU, but you have a little extra headroom in your GPU (like me with Far Cry 4), then you can try hitting higher resolutions by interlacing! Instead of displaying every frame twice, you're displaying half a frame each refresh, so you're basically getting the same results (30 unique frames over 60 refreshes).

I'm currently using a resolution of 2304x1728i, which at a progressive resolution my monitor couldn't hit. But since the game is 30fps (on my system), I'm not really losing any visual information, and everything looks incredibly sharp!

I set this up with Custom Resolution Utility by the way, really a great program for any CRT user.
 
Last edited:

igsux3

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 23, 2014
Messages
108
finally removed my antiglare film yesterday
been thinking about it for years
taking the case off was easy
took all of 25 minutes the film came right off!
oh my it looks so much better
text is finally clear
colors are bright
the glares not bad
blacks are just as black
my vote is
wish I did it years ago
the anti glare film i took off
is damn ugly like cheap sunglasses

not great pics ,stuck anti glare film
to inside of my wind shield


note the darker with /and lighter without

last on top of my dryer shows how dark it is






Do you have more photos? I really wonder if there is any anti glare/ no anti glare comparison as I am also thinking of removing it. Even though my particular monitor is really sharp and bright when I compared it to other FW900's it still could be better...
 

spacediver

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
2,674
if you don't mind waiting for 2-3 weeks I'll have some pretty solid data comparing anti glare vs no anti glare.
 
Top