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

spacediver

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
2,571
I have an Xrite eye one display 2, part no 35.54.30 Rev A

Is that possible to use with windas? If so, with what operating system?
You can use any instrument with WinDAS, including your own biological eyes if you trusted them. As far as I know, the eye one display 2 is compatible with argyll and HCFR (both of which work in windows, not sure about linux or mac). Keep in mind that the instrument probably can't read as low luminances as the i1 display 3, so you might not want to lower the G2 too much when setting black level.
 

SH1

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
1,410
Finally tried a patch of the dark film from 3DLens (https://3dlens.com/linear-polarizer-film.php) we discussed earlier. Alongside a patch of the original film and the raw glass.

In one screen of a game, I could see where even the original lighter film was enough to meaningfully bring a black part of the game's image home as opposed to seeing the phosphor reflect in place of black. In another screen with a black area, I didn't perceive much difference, because of the overall image in that screen I guess.

All in all with both films it seemed kind of meh to me. Probably I'm just too used to how it looks without the film at this point. And that this room is pretty dim much of the time.

Definitely think less is more with regard to the amount of tinting. Might check out some other stuff along that theme...(And would not remove the original film unless damaged.)

Would still be interesting to me if Sony designed the similar D24 without any AR treatment. In images, it looks like it's without, but who knows.
 

Manny1_03

n00b
Joined
Aug 27, 2019
Messages
14
This is a bug in recent AMD drivers I think. It's definitely an issue with my 5700xt. Any "standard resolution" is using reduced LCD timings instead of CRT timings.

What you need to do is recreate the resolution in AMD's custom resolution tool and choose GTF or CVT timings.

You should also try using CRU to do it, just to do me the favor of finding out whether it works with your card or not. Because AMD is definitely ignoring CRU overrides with my 5700xt for some reason.
Hey, I tried CRU at 1920x1200 @70hz and it worked with no issues thanks!
 

Raptor007

n00b
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
44
Finally tried a patch of the dark film from 3DLens (https://3dlens.com/linear-polarizer-film.php) we discussed earlier. Alongside a patch of the original film and the raw glass.

In one screen of a game, I could see where even the original lighter film was enough to meaningfully bring a black part of the game's image home as opposed to seeing the phosphor reflect in place of black. In another screen with a black area, I didn't perceive much difference, because of the overall image in that screen I guess.

All in all with both films it seemed kind of meh to me. Probably I'm just too used to how it looks without the film at this point. And that this room is pretty dim much of the time.

Definitely think less is more with regard to the amount of tinting. Might check out some other stuff along that theme...(And would not remove the original film unless damaged.)

Would still be interesting to me if Sony designed the similar D24 without any AR treatment. In images, it looks like it's without, but who knows.
Thanks! This is exactly the kind of test I was hoping to hear about. Would you recommend the 3DLens film as a replacement if the original is scratched up like mine? It looks like their P620A could be cut down to the right size and stuck on.

I'd also be curious how it compares to the original with reflections in a brighter room. Maybe you could turn on a lamp behind you? :¬)
 
Last edited:

Strat_84

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
332
Thanks! This is exactly the kind of test I was hoping to hear about. Would you recommend the 3DLens film as a replacement if the original is scratched up like mine? It looks like their P620A could be cut down to the right size and stuck on.

I'd also be curious how it compares to the original with reflections in a brighter room. Maybe you could turn on a lamp behind you? :¬)
A couple of people used polarizers similar to this one and seemed to be happy with it. It is more effective at getting good black levels than the original film but keep in mind it has absolutely no EMI effect (static electricity will also build up on the surface), probably little antireflection effect either, and it will require to push the tube much harder to reach the same brightness. At such level it may become a problem sooner or later (funny to say this just after that little debate on tube aging :p).
 

spacediver

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
2,571
It is more effective at getting good black levels than the original film but keep in mind it has absolutely no EMI effect (static electricity will also build up on the surface...
This is something I'm really beginning to appreciate, now that I have the antiglare on. Not having to wipe off the dust everyday is quite nice!
 

SH1

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
1,410
Both films reflect, but agree that the 3DLens film much more than the original.

Both are effective at suppressing reflection from the phosphor making the screen more usable in a well lit room. (And with a flashlight pointed at it as well.)

That said, I don't think CRT, which carves out its big dynamic range on the black side of it, works well in a well lit room. Needs to be a dim room I think.

As to recommending the film, well, it's probably too dark for me. Actually, even with the original film, there's something there, the way it mutes the colors or something, that I don't think I like anymore. It's at the cost of the black levels though, So maybe a film, but lighter the better, to a point.
 

spacediver

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
2,571
Actually, even with the original film, there's something there, the way it mutes the colors or something, that I don't think I like anymore. It's at the cost of the black levels though, So maybe a film, but lighter the better, to a point.
Did you see my recent experiment (I had both monitors being fed identical signal via a splitter, and calibrated them simultaneously with WinDAS)? I couldn't see a difference with lights off.

One thing that did somewhat appeal to me without antiglare was that the screen looked more "glassy" with the lights on. But that was precisely because of the reflections!
 

Raptor007

n00b
Joined
Aug 22, 2004
Messages
44
A couple of people used polarizers similar to this one and seemed to be happy with it. It is more effective at getting good black levels than the original film but keep in mind it has absolutely no EMI effect (static electricity will also build up on the surface), probably little antireflection effect either, and it will require to push the tube much harder to reach the same brightness. At such level it may become a problem sooner or later (funny to say this just after that little debate on tube aging :p).
My FW900's black is a bit light already, which I've heard is something that Trinitrons drift towards with age, so a slight darkening might actually help. Hmm, I may go for this.

It would be nice to find a film with anti-static properties too, but I'm not coming up with much on that search.
 

SH1

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
1,410
Did you see my recent experiment (I had both monitors being fed identical signal via a splitter, and calibrated them simultaneously with WinDAS)? I couldn't see a difference with lights off.

One thing that did somewhat appeal to me without antiglare was that the screen looked more "glassy" with the lights on. But that was precisely because of the reflections!
Your experiment A/Bing the two monitors was far superior to me sticking patches of the original and 3DLens films on the screen.

You found the colors to be equally as vibrant with the film? (More of an issue I suppose with the darker film.)
 

spacediver

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
2,571
Your experiment A/Bing the two monitors was far superior to me sticking patches of the original and 3DLens films on the screen.

You found the colors to be equally as vibrant with the film? (More of an issue I suppose with the darker film.)
Yes, no difference in anything like that.

For some reason which I hope to understand in near future, even though I set the g2's to same level, the colors weren't identical for the first 20-30% of the luminance range, post calibration. But this probably had nothing to do with the antiglare. I'm pretty sure if I had set the black level lower, this wouldn't have been an issue.

So it wasn't as clean of an A/B test as it could have been, but I'm confident that this difference didn't interfere with my ability to compare the quality of the image. The contrast/luminance range were virtually identical, and I couldn't detect any difference. I loaded up a very high quality blu-ray rip of quantum of solace, and looked carefully at a few scenes too.

I can certainly understand that if you were to do it with side by side patch comparison on the same screen, like in your case, the colors would appear less vibrant - colors lose their vibrancy with lower luminances. And as you understand, if you were to install a film on a naked screen, you'd need to boost the luminance to compare apples to apples.
 

Strat_84

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
332
My FW900's black is a bit light already, which I've heard is something that Trinitrons drift towards with age, so a slight darkening might actually help. Hmm, I may go for this.

It would be nice to find a film with anti-static properties too, but I'm not coming up with much on that search.
If your screen is getting too bright, what you need is to use Windas to set it properly again. Using a darker film is certainly not a good way to fix that, as G2 will keep increasing with time to the point the display will become green/blury and scan lines will become visible.

If you still want to replace your film with a polarizer, I would advise you to look for either:
- a polarizer with low efficiency (meaning not all the light flux is polarized, maybe some can be found around 60-65% transmittance). But you have to be careful as this may also mean low film quality and some haze issues.
- a polarizer rated for 50% transmittance. That's the clearest polarizer that can be found, and pretty new. Few companies sell that, and I'm not sure how much it may cost though.
 

Manny1_03

n00b
Joined
Aug 27, 2019
Messages
14
Not the greatest reviews on quality but I am going to try this as well.
I agree. Try it and let me know what you think. So far I did managed to get 2560x1600 but it looks weird. There is some green lines in the blacks,but I am satisfied with 1920x1200 @70hz. When gaming.
 

flod

Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2014
Messages
936
don't bother with a polarizer unless you are sure it is a circular polarizer.a
neutral density film is better than a linear polarizer.

personally i would not remove the ag film unless it's really really scratched
 

spacediver

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
2,571
don't bother with a polarizer unless you are sure it is a circular polarizer.a
neutral density film is better than a linear polarizer.

personally i would not remove the ag film unless it's really really scratched
yea, after using this new tube with the ag for a few days, I'm beginning to get accustomed to its benefits. Would be nice if there was a good replacement though, I do have a couple scratches - thick enough that they're not rainbowing, but still noticeable.

I don't know anything about the physics of polarization/glare reduction, but why is circular better in this context?

I get why neutral density is important (you don't want to shift the primaries).
 
Last edited:

Strat_84

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
332
Some fresh informations about Delock 62967 ... I bought 4 of them for my CRTs from Reichelt.de, unpacked one and tried it:
- With a HD5850 / Catalysts 14.12 I only get up to 1280*1024@85hz resolution and can't set anything higher with CRU
- With a R9 380X / Adrenalin 18.12.3 I get resolutions up to 1600x1200@60hz, and when I try setting standard resolutions for the FW900 (like 1920*1200@85hz), the screen keeps clicking, and display remains black most of the time with some sporadic images. On the top of that the system is more or less hanging, I have to unplug the adapter for this to stop.
I'll try a few more things but digging back in the thread, I guess I've fallen victim of their shit connector and I'll have to add some cable soldering job to my long list of things to do ... :dead:
 

Strat_84

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
332
Confirmed, this is the exact same behaviour reported previously. The display is stable as long as the resolution/refresh rates are low enough to remain with HBR links, as soon as it switches to HBR2 the converter goes south.

I suppose no one has had yet a retail Delock 62967 working properly with an AMD card for now ?

edit: I tried cleaning both male and female displayport connectors with isopropylic alcohol just in case, and also tried to push the male connector with more strength into the female one. It seems to hold better, and the display was also more stable. Did anyone try to just remove the plastic cover of the DP connector of the adapter ? I'm starting to wonder if the culprit isn't as stupid as the cover covering 1 or 2 mm too much the connector itself, preventing from pushing the plug deep enough for proper contact. And maybe DP ports are a tad deeper on AMD cards than on Nvidia ones.

edit2: Bingo, I compared with the displayport plug of the Sunix adapter, the Delock is about 1.5mm shorter. So the issue must definitively be the nice crappy red and black plastic cover of the plug ... :facepalm:
 
Last edited:

SH1

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
1,410
yea, after using this new tube with the ag for a few days, I'm beginning to get accustomed to its benefits. Would be nice if there was a good replacement though, I do have a couple scratches - thick enough that they're not rainbowing, but still noticeable.

I don't know anything about the physics of polarization/glare reduction, but why is circular better in this context?

I get why neutral density is important (you don't want to shift the primaries).
I think circular was the one that has a visible seam. Didn't appear to be an option. Tried the linear one.

Even if one has to come up with their own way to mount it, this one might be interesting -- http://www.kantek.com/p-LCD24W/c-10...y-Filter---Fits-121-Widescreen-Notebooks.html
 

Strat_84

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
332
I think circular was the one that has a visible seam. Didn't appear to be an option. Tried the linear one.

Even if one has to come up with their own way to mount it, this one might be interesting -- http://www.kantek.com/p-LCD24W/c-10...y-Filter---Fits-121-Widescreen-Notebooks.html
Nope, not interesting at all, especially at such price. This is sold as an ANTIGLARE protection filter meaning the optical properties are most certainly crap. This is even more likely because there is absolutely not a single accurate reference to the said optical properties (haze, transmission, reflection levels ...), only vague promises.
 

Derupter

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 25, 2016
Messages
180
Some fresh informations about Delock 62967 ... I bought 4 of them for my CRTs from Reichelt.de, unpacked one and tried it:
- With a HD5850 / Catalysts 14.12 I only get up to 1280*1024@85hz resolution and can't set anything higher with CRU
- With a R9 380X / Adrenalin 18.12.3 I get resolutions up to 1600x1200@60hz, and when I try setting standard resolutions for the FW900 (like 1920*1200@85hz), the screen keeps clicking, and display remains black most of the time with some sporadic images. On the top of that the system is more or less hanging, I have to unplug the adapter for this to stop.
I'll try a few more things but digging back in the thread, I guess I've fallen victim of their shit connector and I'll have to add some cable soldering job to my long list of things to do ... :dead:
AMD 5850 does not support HBR2 so even if the adapter was perfect it couldn't go over 180 MHz.
With 380X is another story and if it isn't stable with HBR2 the only solution is replace the cable or at least the connector.
About AMD cards and 62967 i tested 8 different samples, some with cable and connector different from the model on sale and only the first prototype works perfect, the other samples have problems with HBR2.
I have an additional adapter between the card and the 62967 because i have only mini displayport output, this degrades the signal even more, i never tested the new modified samples with direct displayport connection but pr0ton did it and the results were not good, he replaced the cable and it worked.
I also replaced the cable on one sample and it worked, even with a shitty solder job.
With Nvidia GTX 1070 all the samples work perfectly, i can also touch and move the connector while it is running without problems on the image.
 
Last edited:

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
4,835
I've changed my AMD GPU for a 980Ti and now some resolutions output too small on the screen, even if I stretch the picture to max on the OSD menu. Any tips?
 

3dfan

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
108
that happened to me sometimes, fixed by creating those resolutions with custom resolution utility with timing CRT standard, or in nvidia control panel creating the custom resolution with the GFT standard timing and leaving the scaling metod as "aspect ratio" from the "adjust dektop size and position" section.


for those interested on polarized films to add to a fw900 which original one was removed, as a summary i added a car film one to my fw900 because i did not like how the screen looked without any on a non dark room, which mas too grayish even with monitor turned off no blacks at all, but were restored when added the mentoned film without blocking peak luminance dramatically, if interested on more info, search my user name with subject "polarizer"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this

Meeho

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
4,835
that happened to me sometimes, fixed by creating those resolutions with custom resolution utility with timing CRT standard, or in nvidia control panel creating the custom resolution with the GFT standard timing and leaving the scaling metod as "aspect ratio" from the "adjust dektop size and position" section.


for those interested on polarized films to add to a fw900 which original one was removed, as a summary i added a car film one to my fw900 because i did not like how the screen looked without any on a non dark room, which mas too grayish even with monitor turned off no blacks at all, but were restored when added the mentoned film without blocking peak luminance dramatically, if interested on more info, search my user name with subject "polarizer"
Thank you, I've tried the custom resolution before but the GFT standard was the key!

You've used a 50% car film, right? Are you still happy with it? I think I will go with that option as the greyish blacks are a bit annoying. Maybe a bit lighter, though. What do you believe would be the closest to the original? 30, 40%?
 

Strat_84

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
332
Thank you, I've tried the custom resolution before but the GFT standard was the key!

You've used a 50% car film, right? Are you still happy with it? I think I will go with that option as the greyish blacks are a bit annoying. Maybe a bit lighter, though. What do you believe would be the closest to the original? 30, 40%?
As I told many times previously, the original film has a transmittance of about 66%. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this

3dfan

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
108
i used the less dark film i was able to find, a bit darker than the original as can be noted in the picture:
https://hardforum.com/threads/24-wi...ived-comments.952788/page-356#post-1042412271

yes i am happy with it instead of using the screen without anything, but if it were posible to get and install the original, would be happier. i removed the original because of sensationalism i read about removing it and the monitor becoming even brighter, but did not like the fact that blacks were only perceivable in a dark environment, and when i like to use the monitor in dark room for dark games, also like to use it in a natural moderated light for other uses and not dark games.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Meeho
like this

SH1

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
1,410
Nope, not interesting at all, especially at such price. This is sold as an ANTIGLARE protection filter meaning the optical properties are most certainly crap. This is even more likely because there is absolutely not a single accurate reference to the said optical properties (haze, transmission, reflection levels ...), only vague promises.
That's not the actual retail price.

Amazon listing is a bit scattered, but appears to have more detail: "Antireflective coating reduces glare by 95%, improves image and enhances contrast to help prevent eyestrain and thereby reduce fatigue. (Not designed to filter out high direct glare from a light source shining directly on the monitor, such as a direct window or overhead lighting)...Optical-quality acrylic is made with a neutral light tint for true color fidelity"

Personal finding is that the tint is darker than the original, but lighter than the film from 3DLens. One side of the filter is mildly reflective. The other side is very reflective.

CONCLUSION: Fail probably. Nice tint and AR coating, but they appear to be on only one side. And the other side is like a mirror. I have the coated side facing the monitor to minimize reflection back from that. Now that it's during the day, the user side facing mirror finish is more obvious. A shame, because it's good otherwise I think.

There used to be nice AR filters for CRT coated on both sides, but I've not seen any suitable for the FW900's size and shape.

I will probably remount it coated side facing user and keep it for now. Not as good as it could have been, but still having seen it, I'm liking it significantly more than the raw glass I think.
 
Last edited:

3dfan

Weaksauce
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
108
Just confirmed that 2304x1440 @ 80 hz works on it. He can't do 10 bit test yet as he doesn't have a colorimeter yet.
if i am not wrong you were referring to this adapter, didn't you? https://www.amazon.com/Vention-Adap...dp/B07C4TP4BJ?language=en_US&tag=hardfocom-20

if so, 2304x1440 @ 80 hz is about 383 mhz pixel clock which is very promising and i guess it should handle 1920 x 1200 96hz (323 mhz pixel clock) as well.

are there anymore news about it? if posible can you please ask how stable and issue free have it been so far and what video card its being used with?
 
Last edited:

Strat_84

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
332
AMD 5850 does not support HBR2 so even if the adapter was perfect it couldn't go over 180 MHz.
With 380X is another story and if it isn't stable with HBR2 the only solution is replace the cable or at least the connector.
About AMD cards and 62967 i tested 8 different samples, some with cable and connector different from the model on sale and only the first prototype works perfect, the other samples have problems with HBR2.
I have an additional adapter between the card and the 62967 because i have only mini displayport output, this degrades the signal even more, i never tested the new modified samples with direct displayport connection but pr0ton did it and the results were not good, he replaced the cable and it worked.
I also replaced the cable on one sample and it worked, even with a shitty solder job.
With Nvidia GTX 1070 all the samples work perfectly, i can also touch and move the connector while it is running without problems on the image.
I've been digging back in the thread about these samples you received, apparently replacing the cable itself isn't really useful ? Then I'll just replace the connector, that should allow a cleaner result. I've found what should be a decent replacement on Farnell: https://fr.farnell.com/multicomp/62s020p-301n-e1-b2p/fiche-male-port-display-type-cable/dp/1686456
I was hoping it was just the cover of the adapter's DP plug messing things up, but after removing it carefully the problem is still the same. So definitively it's the connector itself having a problem with dimensions, and probably not only length.
 
Last edited:

Derupter

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 25, 2016
Messages
180
I've been digging back in the thread about these samples you received, apparently replacing the cable itself isn't really useful ? Then I'll just replace the connector, that should allow a cleaner result. I've found what should be a decent replacement on Farnell: https://fr.farnell.com/multicomp/62s020p-301n-e1-b2p/fiche-male-port-display-type-cable/dp/1686456
I was hoping it was just the cover of the adapter's DP plug messing things up, but after removing it carefully the problem is still the same. So definitively it's the connector itself having a problem with dimensions, and probably not only length.
About those samples:
Cables aren't much different exept for the last sample with AWG30, they are not bad like those usually used on most adapters but obviously not good enough for the ANX9847 chipset with most video cards.
Connectors are at least mechanically much better with a proper lock system and very solid on connection, but i have no idea about electrical performance.
The housing of the adapter is better and allows a correct connection of the VGA cable.
These samples have never entered production.
What is certain is that all those who replaced the cable have solved the problem, so the only explanation is that the materials used by the manufacturer are of poor quality or not good enough for this adapter.
Delock told them to use better stuff but the results were not different.
With a design like this all the problems would probably be solved, but they never did it.
That connector on Farnell is exactly what i wanted to try but i never did it, if it works it is definitely a better solution than replacing the entire cable.
 
Last edited:

Strat_84

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
332
So the only prototype which worked properly on every card was supposed to use the same cable/same gauge than the ones which didn't work right ? 32AWG ?
 

Derupter

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 25, 2016
Messages
180
So the only prototype which worked properly on every card was supposed to use the same cable/same gauge than the ones which didn't work right ? 32AWG ?
Yes 32AWG, aesthetically identical to the others and the connector is different from all the others, 8 samples and 4 different connectors.
Maybe that day the guy who assembled the adapter used a good cable or the connector made the difference.
 

spacediver

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
2,571
if i am not wrong you were referring to this adapter, didn't you? https://www.amazon.com/Vention-Adap...dp/B07C4TP4BJ?language=en_US&tag=hardfocom-20

if so, 2304x1440 @ 80 hz is about 383 mhz pixel clock which is very promising and i guess it should handle 1920 x 1200 96hz (323 mhz pixel clock) as well.

are there anymore news about it? if posible can you please ask how stable and issue free have it been so far and what video card its being used with?
Yep, I believe that's the one. I'll send him an email in a couple weeks and see if I can get more info. I have a feeling he's using an RTX card but not certain. But I'll definitely ask if it's been stable, and whether he's been able to do the colorimeter bit depth test yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3dfan
like this

jbltecnicspro

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,650
Happy Thanksgiving to you guys! The other day I used my PVM to do some color calibration of my projector (I basically made primaries and secondaries match the PVM displaying a SMTPE bar using RGB). Projector looks a lot better now. I know it's not fully Rec 709, but it's a whole lot better than the oversaturated mess it was before. Woot.
 

Strat_84

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
332
I received the Multicomp displayport plug and well ... It seems it's a fail. :dead:

DSC05896_light.jpg

It has a lock, dimensions seem better than the one on the Delock adapter, it has a plastic cover that can be clipped BUT it is apparently intended to use with some molding around the cables and a copper foil on the top of it, instead of a solid shielding cover. On the top of that I also need a molded part around the cable end to secure it inside the plastic cover, and I couldn't find anything fitting. Probably something molded during the assembly process and not for sale as a spare part.
For reference here is the displayport plug of the cable provided with the Sunix adapter:

DSC05897_light.jpg

Unless someone has a genius spark, I suppose connecting a displayport cable cut in half to the box of the adapter is the only practicable way to fix it.
 

SH1

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
1,410
If anyone with a debezeled FW900 is interested in mounting the Kantek Filter (https://www.amazon.com/Kantek-Anti-Glare-Monitors-Diagonally-LCD19/dp/B00P85FWG4?th=1), I did so with these:

1.jpeg 2.jpeg


Brackets assembled from:
1) 6 mm metric extruded U Nuts. (Long ones for top, regular for bottom)
2) M4 .7 50mm screws
3) Corresponding nuts and rubber bumpers

(Was all available at a local hardware store.)

I used the top most mounting hole in each corner for the brackets. (The screw in the other mounting hole in each corner continuing to hold the CRT in place.)

I removed the silver layer on top, which was just tape. Drilled out the original hangers. (Carefully to avoid damaging the filter.)

The product description is a bit of a mess and all over the place. In there, beyond the generic "antiglare" designation, it says it's an antireflective coating, which appears to be true. And has FWIW a "neutral light tint".

As you are looking through a relatively thick piece of acrylic as opposed to a thin film, stuff you are looking down at through the filter, e.g., text on the bottom part of a page, has a slight distortion or echo. I mitigated this by raising the angle of the monitor up a bit. Subjectively, overall, in my use of the screen for gaming, other media, and as a secondary screen for productivity (office apps, coding, etc.) it seems kind of great actually. To me.


(Sorry, I did not try it against the bezel with the original hangers. I suspect it might ride a little high as it barely covered the visible area without the bezel with those hangers. I like the look, but I'm not advocating debezeling. Especially if safety concerns, e.g., kids or cats have access to the room.)
 
Last edited:

SH1

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
1,410
Digital Foundry is back with more CRT coverage:

(Starting around 22:55 John Linneman mentions using the Vention USB C to VGA adapter with success.)
 
Top