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

Derupter said:
2304x1440 72Hz,my god that thing can do 340 MHz pixel clock!!
You are right awesome support,Simon Cox from Firefly Tecnology made this happen
How is the quality at such high pixel clock,differences between this and the VCOM?
Click to expand...
Exactly. Simon Cox was who call me. Awsome support
About diferences between this and VCOM, I don't see diferent image quality. But this one alow me to go from 1600x1000@100hz to 1920x1200@96hz. This is the adapter to get guys. No need for waiting for fury ones, with absurd prices.
 
Last edited:
amlett said:
Exactly. Simon Cox was who call me. Awsome support
About diferences between this and VCOM, I don't see diferent image quality. But this one alow me to go from 1600x1000@100hz to 1920x1200@96hz. This is the adapter to get guys. No need for waiting for fury ones, with absurd prices.
Click to expand...

Sometime my secondary monitor (a Samsung CRT) doesn't pass EDID correctly through the adapter,you never had such problems with your converters?
Probably is an AMD driver fault
 
Derupter said:
Sometime my secondary monitor (a Samsung CRT) doesn't pass EDID correctly through the adapter,you never had such problems with your converters?
Probably is an AMD driver fault
Click to expand...
Right now I have a 980ti. I had a 290x but that was before I got the fw900.
 
amlett said:
Hi everyone.

The analogix adapter arrived. It works. I've been able to get:
1920x1200@96hz
2304x1440@72hz

I asked analogix about the differences between the mobo chipset and the adapter one as I told you. Well, they sent me an adapter with a modified firmware different from the default they use in the external adaptors. It works perfectly. 1440 at 80hz will not be viable, but my main concern was 1200 at 96hz. After this testing, they are thinking about release it with this firmware they sent me. They'll provide me a link for getting the adapter when they release it, so I'll post it here as soon as they send it to me.

Awsome support from Analogix (FireflyTech), not only showing such interest about my quote at their website calling me, but also flashing and sending me a sample for testing.

You can see the adapter working here:
Click to expand...

THE FUCK!!!!! YESSS!!!!!
 
Awesome news about the adapter. Really Want to upgrade my graphics card to one of the new NVIDIA cards.
 
EnhancedInterrogator said:
This is great news. If they release it soon it will be the best adapter on the market.

Was 72hz the highest refresh available at 2304x1440 or were there higher available rates and they just didn't work?
Click to expand...
With the DVI-I to VGA adapter using the 400mhz DAC of the graphic card, I'm able to get 2304x1440 at 80hz. But that seems to be too much for the adapter.
 
3dfan said:
i am in the proces of the "antiglare coating recovery", i mean, i bought a self-adhesive film specially made for polarized car windows, with about 50% opacity, a bit darker than the original but was the closest thing i found similar to the original coating, and the results so far are being pretty positive,
i got the film 3 times the size of the original coating, since i have no experience on installing it, and allow me for more trials as i learn to istall it properly, and was not able to find someone to install it on a monitor display since it is originaly made for cars, right now i am on the first trial and pherhaps there are lot of bubble leftovers on the attached film on screen and i was worried that the darker film would make everything darker, now blacks are excelent again for my likes, whites arent really affected, i feel blacks even deeper due to the darker film i guess and overall image looks now pretty much like the amoled display on the smarphone which has excelent blacks, and the refection is not being a mayor issue, even during the day on a non controlled light room, however its a very long and slow task to get it done properly, so the next step with some more time is to remove this film and try again with another cut ...at least im very happy am being to "fix" this mess in a satisfying way.

i post an image of the original coating on the right and the new film on the left, so maybe others that regret removing the anti glare coating and dont want or cannot use controlled lights for their rooms may want to try this. i ddint post pictures of the monitor with the new film since on the camera it does not look good as it does live, but for me so far it is being a very positive result.



View attachment 5180
Click to expand...

I'm no expert on this, but I am pretty sure this is very BAD idea.

Installing anew coating will ruin the image further no doubt

As recommeneded in thread: if anti glare is removed, the idea is to use the monitor in perfect lighting conditions to get the most out of it.

I use mine in dimly lit room. You can even install a backlight.

But please don't mess with new coatings etc, as I predict you will get frustrated and dump the monitor on the scrap :(

If you think the image is worse off after removing the coating, then you likely need to adapt brightness/colours/gamma. Try that first.

Or delve into using windas.
 
amlett said:
Hi everyone.

The analogix adapter arrived. It works. I've been able to get:
1920x1200@96hz
2304x1440@72hz

I asked analogix about the differences between the mobo chipset and the adapter one as I told you. Well, they sent me an adapter with a modified firmware different from the default they use in the external adaptors. It works perfectly. 1440 at 80hz will not be viable, but my main concern was 1200 at 96hz. After this testing, they are thinking about release it with this firmware they sent me. They'll provide me a link for getting the adapter when they release it, so I'll post it here as soon as they send it to me.

Awsome support from Analogix (FireflyTech), not only showing such interest about my quote at their website calling me, but also flashing and sending me a sample for testing.

You can see the adapter working here:
Click to expand...

cool!. So this can do 1680x1050@100Hz right?

This is a DP to VGA converter correct?... any pictures of it or link to it on a website? also how much will it cost roughly?

thanks for sharing info :)
 
Last edited:
Yes this is a DP to VGA converter. The one they sent me is a regular one, black, no branding in it. They'll send me a link for buying it when they decide how they're going to sell it (maybe themself maybe with through other manufacturer). They have to flash the new ones with the firmware they sent me. I'll post the link as soon as they send it to me.

About 1080x1050 at 100hz there shouldnt be problem for getting it, as it does 1920x1200 at 96hz. Anyway, I'll test this evening how far it goes at 1050p, it should do mera thatn 100hz.
 
amlett said:
Yes this is a DP to VGA converter. The one they sent me is a regular one, black, no branding in it. They'll send me a link for buying it when they decide how they're going to sell it (maybe themself maybe with through other manufacturer). They have to flash the new ones with the firmware they sent me. I'll post the link as soon as they send it to me.

About 1080x1050 at 100hz there shouldnt be problem for getting it, as it does 1920x1200 at 96hz. Anyway, I'll test this evening how far it goes at 1050p, it should do mera thatn 100hz.
Click to expand...

Thanks, 1680x1050@100Hz you mean though right? :).... if it can do 120Hz even better!...but i think the FW900 might not be able to do 120Hz at 1680x1050 as it was beyond the specification of the monitor?

Looking forward to being able to use my fw900 again :)
 
amlett said:
Well, after some more testing with the analogix adapter:
1680x1050@108hz
1280x800@140hz
Click to expand...
At this point you're bumping into the horizontal scan rate limit on the monitor. Do you have a general statement on the limitations of the adapter itself? How's support for >8bpp, which should help prevent banding artifacts when running with more extreme gamma curves? Latency?

Just having an adapter that can drive the FW900 to max refresh @ 1920x1200 is exciting news! Can't wait for news on availability.
 
goat- said:
At this point you're bumping into the horizontal scan rate limit on the monitor. Do you have a general statement on the limitations of the adapter itself? How's support for >8bpp, which should help prevent banding artifacts when running with more extreme gamma curves? Latency?

Just having an adapter that can drive the FW900 to max refresh @ 1920x1200 is exciting news! Can't wait for news on availability.
Click to expand...
No difference between the adapter and running directly through DVI-I. At least I don't notice it. This are the specs of the chipset, that analogix flashed into the external adaptor, as it uses the same dac it seem (but by default with the external adaptor specs):

ANX6212 | www.analogix.com

The only thing lost seems to be 2304x1600 at 80hz, that goes down to 72hz.

eztower said:
thanks :) ....is it possible for you to do any type of input lag tests?
Click to expand...

EDIT.

I've tested the input lag with the flatpanel tool and between the 980Ti DAC and the Analogix adapter there is about 15-20ms
 
Last edited:
@amlett
Does this adapter have any kind of scaling functionality?
If not then it is highly implausible for it to have input lag as input lag = using large amount of memory = higher costs and all overall complexity of the device.

Anyhow, if it really does run image through big FIFO memory buffer and add 15-20ms input lag then such adapter sucks and it is better to use one with less bandwidth but that is instantaneous. It is not like using lower resolution one is at total loss because low resolution = easier being able to hit desired framerate.

The-Tmann said:
Don't put the coating back on
just use it in a location where there is no light behind you
I have one I've owned for 9 years and I removed the coating sheet, best thing I could have done
sharper, brighter, colors deeper
Click to expand...
brighter? yes
sharper? yes
deeper colors? NO! Quite the opposite: washed out colors, even in total pitch black room
having color and contrast ratio in mind all devices using phosphor need coating because phosphor is not black and FW900 phosphor is so bright that it will illuminate itself from light that will bounce off everything in room. Maybe having room with black walls, wearing black shirt and having proper skin color or wearing skin pain would make removing coating viable idea to have good contrast ratio but normally it is stupid idea and it is completely opposite: putting even stronger (darker) coating is needed to really have good blacks. FW900 with <50% transmittance polarizer have blacks that rival those of AMOLED and it does so even with ambient light in room.

So no, your advice of not putting coating is invalid.
 
XoR_ said:
@amlett
Does this adapter have any kind of scaling functionality?
If not then it is highly implausible for it to have input lag as input lag = using large amount of memory = higher costs and all overall complexity of the device.

Anyhow, if it really does run image through big FIFO memory buffer and add 15-20ms input lag then such adapter sucks and it is better to use one with less bandwidth but that is instantaneous. It is not like using lower resolution one is at total loss because low resolution = easier being able to hit desired framerate.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't have so much details about the adapter. The tests I did yesterday were with the flatpanel tool, and comparing camera shots using DVI-I and the analogix with a LDC I have next to the FW900, cloning the signal. As the other monitor is an Eizo Foris, the resolution was 1080p. The analogix had less distance with the Foris, those 15-20ms, than the DVI-i.

If you want me to do a diferent procedure for measuring the imput lag, just tell me. I'm traveling tomorrow, but i can do it next week.

XoR_ said:
brighter? yes
sharper? yes
deeper colors? NO! Quite the opposite: washed out colors, even in total pitch black room
having color and contrast ratio in mind all devices using phosphor need coating because phosphor is not black and FW900 phosphor is so bright that it will illuminate itself from light that will bounce off everything in room. Maybe having room with black walls, wearing black shirt and having proper skin color or wearing skin pain would make removing coating viable idea to have good contrast ratio but normally it is stupid idea and it is completely opposite: putting even stronger (darker) coating is needed to really have good blacks. FW900 with <50% transmittance polarizer have blacks that rival those of AMOLED and it does so even with ambient light in room.

So no, your advice of not putting coating is invalid.
Click to expand...

By the way, I had to take apart my coating when I got the FW900 (mine was scratched), which Polarized coating is worth it? I don't know where start to look for. I see you have a modded one in your signature.
 
XoR_ said:
brighter? yes
sharper? yes
deeper colors? NO! Quite the opposite: washed out colors, even in total pitch black room
having color and contrast ratio in mind all devices using phosphor need coating because phosphor is not black and FW900 phosphor is so bright that it will illuminate itself from light that will bounce off everything in room. Maybe having room with black walls, wearing black shirt and having proper skin color or wearing skin pain would make removing coating viable idea to have good contrast ratio but normally it is stupid idea and it is completely opposite: putting even stronger (darker) coating is needed to really have good blacks. FW900 with <50% transmittance polarizer have blacks that rival those of AMOLED and it does so even with ambient light in room.

So no, your advice of not putting coating is invalid
Click to expand...

I completelly agree with XoR here, as i wrote in my last post, while puting the coating i bought (original made to polarize windows from cars) and comparing to the amoled smartphone we have, im experimenting similar blacks results, even during the day on NON light contolled environment.

with no coating the only way i found to have decent blacks was in the night with the entire room dark, regardless of the settings i changed on the osd.

the only BAD thing so far i see here, based on my own experience is that is being really hard to install that coating whitout bubbles all over the screen, and i have 0 experience on this making it even harder, its is a very slow and long task to get it done properly and unfortunatelly the person that install it on cars uses water and some other liquids, so its not a goodl idea to do on an electronic device such this monitor, but there is no other better way for me since this fillm was the close one to the original i found after looking for it everywhere in my city. (bogota, colombia), but im pretty positive it can be installed propertly with some more research and knowledge. but aside from that, result are pretty good, good image quality good blacks again regardless of the room lighting source.


amlett said:
By the way, I had to take apart my coating when I got the FW900 (mine was scratched), which Polarized coating is worth it? I don't know where start to look for. I see you have a modded one in your signature.
Click to expand...

i would also like to know, specially how XoR_ installed it. :)

in my previous post on page 356, i took a photo on the coating im using, its a bit darker than the original, according to the seller its a 50% opacity factor, the clearest and similar to the original coating i found in my city (bogota colombia).
i bought about 3 times the size of the orginal monitor coating so i can try more times to learn and install it properly, its cost me 15 mil colombian pesos (about 5 US dollars) and i am pretty sure you can find one one your city on a place where polarizing car windows is made) and as i wrote, it makes the blacks look similar to the amoled smartphone we had) even during the day with no controlled lights and overall image looks goods, you just need to learn to proper install it to avoid bubble leftovers
 
Last edited:
amlett said:
The tests I did yesterday were with the flatpanel tool, and comparing camera shots using DVI-I and the analogix with a LDC I have next to the FW900, cloning the signal. As the other monitor is an Eizo Foris, the resolution was 1080p. The analogix had less distance with the Foris, those 15-20ms, than the DVI-i.
Click to expand...
For clarity, does this represent the two signal chains?
DisplayPort -> Analogix ANX9833 -> FW900
DVI-I -> Eizo Foris FG2421

You cloned a 1920x1080 signal across both outputs. At what refresh rate?

It's not clear if you meant the FW900 had 15-20ms more or less latency than the Foris.

I'm assuming your Foris is an FG2421. Is this true? If so, that monitor has about ~14ms worth of latency according to tftcentral.
 
goat- said:
For clarity, does this represent the two signal chains?
DisplayPort -> Analogix ANX9833 -> FW900
DVI-I -> Eizo Foris FG2421

You cloned a 1920x1080 signal across both outputs. At what refresh rate?

It's not clear if you meant the FW900 had 15-20ms more or less latency than the Foris.

I'm assuming your Foris is an FG2421. Is this true? If so, that monitor has about ~14ms worth of latency according to tftcentral.
Click to expand...
DisplayPort -> Analogix ANX9833 -> FW900
DVI-I -> FW900
DisplayPort -> Eizo Foris FG2421

1920x1080 on both cloning desktop. 120hz With storbing on FG2421 and 85hz on FW900.

the 15-20 difference is between both measures from FW900 to FG2421. So using the ANX9833, I see 15-20ms of lag added, that results in less difference between FG2421 and FW900 (beacuse the Foris gets closer). The adapter adds that lag, 15-20. At lesat as I'm testing this.
 
Interesting, if true, that could be a deal breaker for many. Maybe we can crowdsource a fund to buy one for flod to test with his input lag setup.
 
If I can help in any way using other software or procedure, just tell me. I have a sony G200 in the storage room, if it helps.
 
But can you reach it easily, not mega focused ? I have iiyama xb2783hsu and its really hard to go below 200ms on that monitor and from reviews it has 10-11ms of input lag. On my crt i can go easily below 200 and my average is 184ms on that site, so if you are getting ~175 constantly with that adapter, input lag shouldn't be very high, nowhere near 15-20ms. That picture taking with camera isnt accurate imho, on my setup it shows that crt is behind lcd, probably phone camera is bad for this test.
 
I have a 1000 fps camera and multiple CRTs. I can probably do some tests if I get my hands on one of these.
 
amlett said:
Taking pics with flash with a Samsung S7 to the clocks showed by the flatpanel tool. Three pics for each try, changing between outputs (DVI and DP) the both CRTs
.
Click to expand...
does the flatpanel thing run in exclusive fullscreen with vsync off?
do you mind posting the pics you've taken?

spacediver said:
I have a 1000 fps camera and multiple CRTs. I can probably do some tests if I get my hands on one of these.
Click to expand...
if you do get it, let me know and i'll make/modify a small program that does nothing but flash the entire screen from green to red whenever you click your mouse

amlett would it be possible for you to help spacediver get in contact with analogix to get the sample you have? or do you think he can contact them directly?
 
I can make some test with my converter with ANX9833,the only difference with the ANX6212 is the DP receiver which works at 180MHz (ANX6212 works at 360MHz)
The DAC should be the same,with different firmware probably for unlock the pixel clock limit.
I can test two CRT
What is best, high refresh low resolution or low refresh and high resolution?
 
Hi

I'm not at home until tuesday for doing other tests. Traveling this weekend.

About the flatpanel inputlag tool its a flash aplication running windowed. You can download it for checking it.

If someone can tell me other tool or procedure, i'd be glad to do it.

About contact analogix, I did it through their website, but I'll ask them if its ok give simon's email to spacediver of course.

About the response test of course I do it focused but it depends completely on each person its not an acuarte test. But yes I can do 175-180 focused with the adapter
 
Last edited:
Then there is no big input lag, if it was 15-20ms you would have really hard time going below 200ms.
 
humanbenchmark is a benchmark for humans, not displays. it's almost completely meaningless in this case
amlett said:
About the flatpanel inputlag tool its a flash aplication running windowed. You can download it for checking it.
Click to expand...
that could be an issue because windows 8 and 10 always have aero/vsync for windowed (i.e. not fullscreen exclusive) applications. and iirc, the double buffering only happens for one monitor; the other one gets the image from the framebuffer more directly/quickly. if windows is switching around things, that could confuse the results
 
But it shows in that case that flatpaneltool method he tested is wrong, so it isnt completely meaningless.
 
Oh didnt know that. What test can be done with full screen? is there any other software? using the web version of the test on full screen browser would be better?

By the way these are the best and worst value I got: 30 and 10ms.

20160714_205612.jpg
20160714_205615.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top