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

here we go again... :p

this may be silly, but since we always talk about how "default"/"standard" settings should be used (e.g. resolutions, osd settings), isn't the "default"/"standard" configuration of the monitor with the antiglare?

also
http://www.ebay.com/itm/181914457026
 
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
I will be getting ColorMunki Photo spectrometer and with it I will be able to finally measure FW900 with and without polarizer by making charts such as this:
CRTspectrum.jpg

and measure true RGBW chromatic points with and without polarizer

such device is perfect to profile displays but not so much to calibrate them, especially CRTs that have really low black level luminance. For that I will be using Spyder3 for which I will make correction matrices for each display separately assuring proper results.

With it image quality will be as good as can be. Though I must say I do not expect big improvement compared to how I use them now where all displays already have almost identical colors and natural looking white-point which is identical on all displays

Besides having ability to have all displays gamut corrected and not having spectrometer to measure real gamut would be quite a waste :)
 
I have hooked up my newly acquired BNC connectors to my FW900. Under Nvidia control panel the monitor is not displaying FW900 or its capable resolutions are not showing up even though it is working fine. How do you get it to be recognized as the FW900 as it does when connected via VGA?
 
bramabul5353 said:
I have hooked up my newly acquired BNC connectors to my FW900. Under Nvidia control panel the monitor is not displaying FW900 or its capable resolutions are not showing up even though it is working fine. How do you get it to be recognized as the FW900 as it does when connected via VGA?
Click to expand...
you need to add I2C EEPROM chip and program EDID to it

you can use Arduino for programming like I did
if you are interested I can provide sketch that program EDID to i2c chip :)
 
XoR said:
you need to add I2C EEPROM chip and program EDID to it

you can use Arduino for programming like I did
if you are interested I can provide sketch that program EDID to i2c chip :)
Click to expand...

with mine I just used CRU to set custom resolutions and nvidia used them. YMMV I guess.
 
spacediver said:
master noran, you don't happen to live in Toronto, do you? :)
Click to expand...

Sure do

lilbthebasedgod said:
Where did you pick up three?!

I haven't heard anything about refreshrates and resolution effects on longevity.
Click to expand...

Got them on Kijiji (our craigslist) payed $100 ea, dude was cool as hell and even threw in a dell 21" and lacie 22 blue.

I guess i'll just run the highest res, I read somewhere that 1200p was the recommended res though even if it's not the highest it will do.
 
yea i actually emailed that seller, but he said he already had an offer :)

Congrats.

I'd recommend 1920x1200 for best picture quality, though I quake @ 960x600@ 160hz.

If you're interested in a 1on1 calibration walkthrough, PM me. If I have the time, I'll do it for free if you're in the neighbourhood.
 
Congrats on the FW900s. I'd run 1920x1200 at 96 or 2048x1280 at 90 for quality. 2560x1600@72 for high-res, 1152x720@160 for high-FPS.

On another note, I found someone to repair my Gateway VX1120 (Mits 2060U rebrand). Blown flyback and HOT. Replacement parts are ordered.
 
I created resolution to maximum vertical frequency xls document which contains data between 1440x900 to 2560x1600. You can download it here:

http://1drv.ms/1NB8OC0

you can of course go lower like 1280x800 @ 140hz or 960x600@ 160hz.

Theoretically Horizontal frequency should be 121 000 hz, but practically it goes around 121 700. You can change it manually in xls document. I left it at 121 500hz.

My lead resolution is 1920x1200 @ 96hz. Many say that you shouldn't go that high, but for me 85hz flickering causes too much eye strain.

Download CRU from here:

http://www.monitortests.com/forum/Thread-Custom-Resolution-Utility-CRU

and add custom resolutions to your taste.

My 1920x1200@96hz setting made with GTF formula:

Screenshot%202015-11-17%2015.13.35.png
 
Unrelated to the FW900, what are the finer pitched Shadow Mask tubes like? I found one fairly close by that has a .20mm Shadow Mask dot pitch and a fast top refresh rate. I'm thinking of picking it up.
 
I don't have much experience with Shadow Mask CRTs, but a 0.20 dot pitch is impressive (especially when this is measured horizontally, as is the case in this one).

If you do end up picking it up, it'd be great to hear your thoughts on how they compare.
 
spacediver said:
I don't have much experience with Shadow Mask CRTs, but a 0.20 dot pitch is impressive (especially when this is measured horizontally, as is the case in this one).

If you do end up picking it up, it'd be great to hear your thoughts on how they compare.
Click to expand...

Alright, I will.

The smallest dot pitch I've seen is .19, so its not THE smallest. But its pretty small.
 
spacediver said:
Geometry and convergence on the other hand. My goodness that can take a while, although to be honest it's not something I've practiced much (still waiting on your full guide jbl!)
Click to expand...

I could also really use a guide for fixing geometry, mine's pretty skewiff at the moment.
 
spacediver said:
yea i actually emailed that seller, but he said he already had an offer :)

Congrats.

I'd recommend 1920x1200 for best picture quality, though I quake @ 960x600@ 160hz.

If you're interested in a 1on1 calibration walkthrough, PM me. If I have the time, I'll do it for free if you're in the neighbourhood.
Click to expand...

Pm sent

rabidz7 said:
Congrats on the FW900s. I'd run 1920x1200 at 96 or 2048x1280 at 90 for quality. 2560x1600@72 for high-res, 1152x720@160 for high-FPS.

On another note, I found someone to repair my Gateway VX1120 (Mits 2060U rebrand). Blown flyback and HOT. Replacement parts are ordered.
Click to expand...

1200p is looking pretty darn good, on one of them anyway

XoR said:
100$ for FW900 in 2015
and three of them

wish it was near me...
Click to expand...

Yeah I got lucky for sure
 
I guess i'll just run the highest res, I read somewhere that 1200p was the recommended res though even if it's not the highest it will do.
Click to expand...
the "standard" resolution for fw900 is 1920x1200@85hz
it's also the setting that windas calls "prime" and what windas tells you to set when doing most of the adjustments.

generally it's believed that pushing refreshrate and horizontal scan rate (approximately refresh rate * vertical res) will cause the monitor to wear more quickly. however no one has any solid numbers on, for instance, how much worse running 1920x1200@96hz is than 1920x1200@85hz.

given the analog nature of these things, it's reasonable to assume that pushing the resolutions and rates a little amount past the "standard" settings does not increase wear significantly. for instance using 86hz instead of 85hz isn't a big difference. but no one knows whether this is true near the limits of the monitor's horizontal scan rates or refresh rates.
 
lilbthebasedgod said:
Unrelated to the FW900, what are the finer pitched Shadow Mask tubes like? I found one fairly close by that has a .20mm Shadow Mask dot pitch and a fast top refresh rate. I'm thinking of picking it up.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of a 0.20mm shadow mask monitor before. Please let us know the brand and model...

Thanks,

UV!
 
also, I believe the 5 megapixel medical imaging CRTs had dot pitches of as low as 0.16 mm (and maybe lower). Being monochrome, this was easier to do: with a color CRT, pitch is measured across individual subpixels, so the subpixel pitch is quite a bit smaller than the full pixel pitch. A monochrome CRT doesn't need subpixels, so the individual pixels can be as tightly packed as the subpixels are in a color CRT.

And, come to think of it, the 0.2 mm dot pitch cited above was measured horizontally, which means that the actual distance between the pixels are larger by a factor of the cosine of the angle between them (it's a shadow mask). My previous post was wrong to say it's impressive when measured horizontally. It would be impressive if measured diagonally.

See my post here, and the discussion around it.
 
LAGRUNAUER said:
I've never heard of a 0.20mm shadow mask monitor before. Please let us know the brand and model...

Thanks,

UV!
Click to expand...

There were a few, actually. The last Samsung monitors had it, and there was a Viewsonic monitor that also had a .20mm dot pitch shadow mask. That's all I can come up with off the top of my head.
 
So fw900 wasn't the Pinnacle of CRT technology?

0.19mm shadow mask monitor sounds like it is better?

One thing about fw900 that Always annoyed me is that the maximum (realistic) resolution is 1920x1200, because at higher resolutions the dot pitch starts interfering..

Or not?
 
atwix said:
So fw900 wasn't the Pinnacle of CRT technology?
Click to expand...
ofcourse not
there are monitors with better parameters like better dot pitch, better horizontal and vertical frequency, better AG coating, better tubes, etc. Specifically Diamondtrons are often considered better than Trinitrons and even Sony had better tubes than FW900. Imho IBM P275 which is rebranded G520 have better colors due to better coating and it can hit 130KHz/170Hz vs 121KHz/160Hz of FW900

But FW900 is large (22.5 inch viewable) and 16:10 widescreen which make it undoubtedly the best CRT for games
 
atwix said:
So fw900 wasn't the Pinnacle of CRT technology?

0.19mm shadow mask monitor sounds like it is better?

One thing about fw900 that Always annoyed me is that the maximum (realistic) resolution is 1920x1200, because at higher resolutions the dot pitch starts interfering..

Or not?
Click to expand...

First off, the dot pitch of a shadow mask is not measured the same way as it is in an aperture grille, as I explained earlier.

Second, it's a shadow mask, so image quality is not going to be as good as an aperture grille.

In terms of image quality, the GDM F520 and Artisan are probably the best, but they are smaller than the FW900.

Diamondtrons are neat, but they do not have the same dot pitch as the high end GDMs.

XoR said:
Imho IBM P275 which is rebranded G520 have better colors due to better coating
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean by "better colors". I can say without any doubt that the picture quality on an FW900 is far superior to an IBM P275 (I own both), or any other G520 (I've worked with quite a few).
 
The FW900 is 230 um in the centre. One of the things I'm planning to do with my equipment is to measure how rapidly this changes to 270 as a function of horizontal position.
 
Everyone here citing dot pitch as the defining aspect in CRT's need to remember that it's only one aspect of the monitor.
 
yea no shit, there is, for example, the quality of the optics which focuses the beam. You can have the tiniest dot pitch and have a blurry and/or large pixel due to poor optics.
 
spacediver said:
yea no shit, there is, for example, the quality of the optics which focuses the beam. You can have the tiniest dot pitch and have a blurry and/or large pixel due to poor optics.
Click to expand...

And I wasn't referring specifically to you. :). I was referring to the comments about the FW-900 not being the pinnacle simply because its dot pitch is a little higher than the Samsung's. In the end, the final measurements of performance will dictate the better display.

The FW-900 is a superb display and measurements easily show this.
 
aye, just did a bit of reading. Mask pitch will be smaller than dot pitch, as the separation of the beams will be slightly larger by the time they traverse the distance between the mask and the phosphor layer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top