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

JeffDC said:
It's a relative term, and an accurate one relative to everything under $2K available today, and even relative to the F500R which sits directly next to it. You are more than welcome to come over and compare. The 2040u does things the Sony can't, e.g. on an RGB chart of all possible values from 0,0,0 to 8,8,8, the Sony has never been able to display much above the bottom half of the chart at default monitor settings. On the 2040u all 24 boxes are or can be made visible. Etc. I'm probably overstating anecdotal experience here but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

Please pardon the ignorance, but what is that a picture of exactly and what is this test trying to prove? IE - if I can see all stripes, what does that signify?

EDIT - so it can't display 0, 0, 0 to 4, 4, 4, then? Max is 255 for each? I think I'm getting it now. Sorry - had to put two and two together there for a minute. :)
 
jbltecnicspro said:
Please pardon the ignorance, but what is that a picture of exactly and what is this test trying to prove? IE - if I can see all stripes, what does that signify?

EDIT - so it can't display 0, 0, 0 to 4, 4, 4, then? Max is 255 for each? I think I'm getting it now. Sorry - had to put two and two together there for a minute. :)
Click to expand...
Sorry, I should have put a disclaimer that virtually all flatpanel users will see close to nothing in this chart.
 
JeffDC said:
Sorry, I should have put a disclaimer that virtually all flatpanel users will see close to nothing in this chart.
Click to expand...

Interesting. GDM-F520 can display all bars. I have to control my lighting a little to see it though. But on the lowest black-level setting (Professional), I can see it. Raising the picture mode to Dynamic shows it more clear. But yes - it's visible on my monitor. Are you saying then that the difference between Diamondtron is that even with normal, low black levels, it displays plain as day? If so - I may be willing to haul my LaCie out and see how it compares.
 
JeffDC said:
Sorry, I should have put a disclaimer that virtually all flatpanel users will see close to nothing in this chart.
Click to expand...
TN maybe. IPS (U2412m) shows all 8 for each column with no issue (though when looking closely, the upper few will be 'griny' due to the use of FRC on this particular panel).
 
JeffDC said:
It's a relative term, and an accurate one relative to everything under $2K available today, and even relative to the F500R which sits directly next to it.
Click to expand...

What does this even mean? Do you even understand what gamut means?

JeffDC said:
You are more than welcome to come over and compare. The 2040u does things the Sony can't, e.g. on an RGB chart of all possible values from 0,0,0 to 8,8,8, the Sony has never been able to display much above the bottom half of the chart at default monitor settings. On the 2040u all 24 boxes are or can be made visible. Etc. I'm probably overstating anecdotal experience here but it is what it is.
Click to expand...

This has to do with gamma, not gamut. If the luminance function of your display is such that the first few levels are indistinguishable from each other, then those levels will be crushed together. It's a trival matter to adjust the videoLUT to tweak this. It may well be the case that the default factory calibrated trinitrons did indeed crush these levels together, but that's just an example of poor calibration, and has absolutely nothing to do with gamut.
 
EdZ said:
(though when looking closely, the upper few will be 'griny' due to the use of FRC on this particular panel).
Click to expand...

probably not due to FRC. I examined the image a bit more carefully, and the bars have various degrees of dithering. In other words, even for testing gamma, it's a weak test pattern.
 
Last edited:
ebu/bt601 625 lines primaries have identical red and blue as srgb/rec709
if the 2070sb has phosphors close to that, then its gamut could be a little closer to srgb than the sonies which have red+blue close to smptec/bt 601 525 line

but we'd need actual measurements to be sure.
 
spacediver said:
probably not due to FRC. I examined the image a bit more carefully, and the bars have various degrees of dithering. In other words, even for testing gamma, it's a weak test pattern.
Click to expand...
Probably from my image host converting from the file's original TIFF format, due to size. The original is a 5.4MB TIFF not a 22KB JPG or GIF. :) If I can find a way to insert it in this thread unmolested I'll do it. I use the chart in my calibration procedures, and my claims about the two monitors assume proper calibration. If you know of a better way to illustrate gamut (i.e. dynamic range, nothing to do with gamma correction or LUTs) differences please explain how.

To EdZ, I'm the world's biggest cheerleader for IPS panels, and I'm looking forward with great interest to the ones due this year that apparently will finally fix a few longstanding limitations (slow response/ghosting etc). Still concerned about input lag on them.
 
flod said:
but we'd need actual measurements to be sure.
Click to expand...

the 2070sb has been used in a number of scientific studies, some of which report chromaticity measurements of the primaries.

Here's one (source)


bfnfkj.png



Here is what those primaries look like when plotted against my old measurements of one of my FW900s (the gamut of my FW900 is probably larger now that I've lowered the black level). As you can see, the gamuts are virtually identical.


2qmkxee.png
 
flod said:
just use www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/black.php
Click to expand...
It doesn't tell me anything about individual RGB levels, which btw was the original purpose of my chart. I'm dealing with very old monitors, and to be fair/honest the Sony used to fare much better against the 2040 than it does today. It just seems to be losing way more dynamic range over time compared to the Mitsubishi.
 
welp theyre literally identical

difference between 2070sb and sony crts is far less tha difference between either of those to rec709/srgb
 
JeffDC said:
If you know of a better way to illustrate gamut (i.e. dynamic range, nothing to do with gamma correction or LUTs) differences please explain how.
Click to expand...

gamut refers to the area, in any given color space (usually the two dimensional CIE 1931 chromaticity space), that a display is capable of reproducing. See the intro to my WinDAS white point balance guide here, where I've explained the concept.

Basically, a larger gamut will mean that the primaries are more saturated. You can visually assess the gamut by loading up a pure red, green, and blue pattern, and observing how saturated the colors are. A more objective way to measure it is with an instrument that can measure chromaticity (colorimeter, or a spectroradiometer).
 
note that since in actual images colors are not as saturated as the primaries, a display with higher gamma will appear more saturated, except when looking at test patterns with only red green blue yellow magenta cyan

if the mitsubishi has a different default luminance curve/gamma from the sony crts, that could be why jeffdc thought that they have a larger gamut
 
JeffDC said:
It doesn't tell me anything about individual RGB levels, which btw was the original purpose of my chart. I'm dealing with very old monitors, and to be fair/honest the Sony used to fare much better against the 2040 than it does today. It just seems to be losing way more dynamic range over time compared to the Mitsubishi.
Click to expand...

try using the instructions in my WPB guide (including the ArgyllCMS part which adjusts the videoLUT). If necessary, set the target exponent to 2.2 instead of 2.4 in the Argyll part (especially if you're not working in a light controlled environment). Dynamic range, in the context you're talking about, is simply the luminance difference between min and max luminance (for each of the three channels, if you like). I doubt your tube has degraded to the point where it can't output even 85 cd/m2 at peak white.
 
flod said:
note that since in actual images colors are not as saturated as the primaries, a display with higher gamma will appear more saturated, except when looking at test patterns with only red green blue yellow magenta cyan
Click to expand...

very true, and with a higher G2, assuming all other steps in the WinDAS procedure are adhered to, the gamma will indeed be quite a bit lower than if would be with a lower G2. Also, a higher G2 means the primaries themselves are less saturated.
 
This thread has single-handedly inflated the market price of these displays. The majority of these used units are not worth anywhere close to the prices sellers have been asking. It's laughable, actually.
 
they're worth what people will pay for them. That's how markets work. If it took this thread to raise awareness about how much quality they offer, then so be it.

Considering that an FW900 in good condition is unquestionably the best gaming monitor on the planet right now, and incredibly rare, I don't think they're overpriced.

If I had the money, and didn't own an FW900, I'd gladly pay close to $1000 for one in good condition, considering it would last me years if I took care of it.
 
Last edited:
spacediver said:
they're worth what people will pay for them. That's how markets work. If it took this thread to raise awareness about how much quality they offer, then so be it.

Considering that an FW900 in good condition is unquestionably the best gaming monitor on the planet right now, and incredibly rare, I don't think they're overpriced.

If I had the money, and didn't own an FW900, I'd gladly pay close to $1000 for one in good condition, considering it would last me years if I took care of it.
Click to expand...

Well said SpaceDiver!
 
gr33dy said:
This thread has single-handedly inflated the market price of these displays. The majority of these used units are not worth anywhere close to the prices sellers have been asking. It's laughable, actually.
Click to expand...

you don't know what you are talking about really.
 
i think i already asked, but does anyone in sweden have a spare fw900 they are willing to sell?

Import rights are crazy.
 
atwix said:
i think i already asked, but does anyone in sweden have a spare fw900 they are willing to sell?

Import rights are crazy.
Click to expand...

I am shipping one to Sweden as we speak. Maybe the buyer may want to sell it to you, then get another unit from us.

UV!
 
I have my friend who selling one for 150 dollars. Is it worth buying it even tho I have a BenQ 24 120 hertz monitor? You think it's better than what I have and yes I do have the space for a CRT so no problems there.
 
squad said:
I have my friend who selling one for 150 dollars. Is it worth buying it even tho I have a BenQ 24 120 hertz monitor? You think it's better than what I have and yes I do have the space for a CRT so no problems there.
Click to expand...
yes
 
spacediver said:
Considering that an FW900 in good condition is unquestionably the best gaming monitor on the planet right now/QUOTE]

i think f520 is better except for the widescreen. 0.22 grill, 170 max vertical refresh, 137khz horizontal :p
Click to expand...
 
squad said:
I have my friend who selling one for 150 dollars. Is it worth buying it even tho I have a BenQ 24 120 hertz monitor? You think it's better than what I have and yes I do have the space for a CRT so no problems there.
Click to expand...
The only thing you're likely to miss is the overall size of the screen (and maybe text clarity, if your eyes aren't good). A 24" LCD is really 24" (or close). The FW900 as a CRT with a bezel loses a bit of viewable space. And with the raster shrunk to give the appropriate geometry (showing some black at the top and bottom), your viewable size will be quite a bit smaller than what you are used to seeing.

Having said that, I still miss how warm Lord of the Rings Online looked on my FW900. LCD just doesn't compare.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but the FW900, after bezel and adjustements for geometry is actually more like a 22" diagonal monitor (maybe 22.5"?).
 
Hurin said:
The only thing you're likely to miss is the overall size of the screen (and maybe text clarity, if your eyes aren't good). A 24" LCD is really 24" (or close). The FW900 as a CRT with a bezel loses a bit of viewable space. And with the raster shrunk to give the appropriate geometry (showing some black at the top and bottom), your viewable size will be quite a bit smaller than what you are used to seeing.

Having said that, I still miss how warm Lord of the Rings Online looked on my FW900. LCD just doesn't compare.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but the FW900, after bezel and adjustements for geometry is actually more like a 22" diagonal monitor (maybe 22.5"?).
Click to expand...

22" is more like it. It really is the limitation of the technology. Doesn't scale well at all, by any metric.
 
flod said:
i think f520 is better except for the widescreen. 0.22 grill, 170 max vertical refresh, 137khz horizontal :p
Click to expand...

yea the F520 beats it in image quality and scanning rate, but the extra widescreen real estate of the FW900 is no small matter.
 
flod said:
what about those hd crt tvs? i guess they wouldn't fit on desks
Click to expand...
You kid. But before I settled on my 53" CRT-based Sony RPTV fifteen years ago, I tried a 36" Sony VEGA (WEGA?). That thing was massive and weighed like 200 Lbs. =P

The RPTV was bigger, yet lighter and more compact and I could adjust it better. How about rolling one of those behind your desk? :D
 
Hurin said:
(and maybe text clarity, if your eyes aren't good)
Click to expand...

idk if i'm crazy or something, but text looks more readable on my crt than my lcd, with both at around 100ppi. it's just looks smoother and only a tiny bit blurrier
 
yea, it's a shame CRT TVs were phased out just before 1080p became more widespread. Still, 1080i ain't shabby for watching blu-ray :)
 
Someone has listed a GDM-FW900, 2000 model, eBay auction 271733024691. If you take a close look at the second photo of the unit, notice carefully that the unit has a strong blue cast. This may be a clear indication of a blown gun (confirmation testing with the CR-70 or the CR-7000 will confirm the issue). Not even image restore will fix blown guns.

Take a look at the photo and use it as a textbook indication when you look at a used unit before considering making a purchase.

Hope this help...

UV!
 
could it be that the monitor hasn't warmed up sufficiently in that picture? also the camera's color balance seems to be quite off
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top