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

Hike

n00b
Joined
Apr 1, 2020
Messages
25
In recent years:
- we lost analog/VGA outputs from GPU's and have to also get digital-analog converters which have worse quality, lower bandwidth and are only 8-bit
- gaming LCD improved at lot, got Variable Refresh Rate technology (G-Sync/Freesync) and IPS panels became available
- FW900 became even older and thus more prone to breaking down (dried capacitors, tired components, etc.)
- FW900 price skyrocketed
- FW900 availability became virtually non-available

400$ bucks would be passable if it was mind condition and you are already big CRT fan and know you really want one. If you have not used CRT at all or very long time ago and do not even remember them all that well then my recommendation would be to search for cheap 21" Trinitrons and/or 21/22" Diamodtrons and use that for a while. Then if you are still interested in getting FW900 do so. Maybe something will pop up locally.

CRT's are praised for contrast ratio, motion performance and input lag but these things like everything in existence are relative. In the past it was pretty simple, LCD's were 60Hz and most IPS also had ton's of input lag, then some TN panels were 120Hz but compared to CRT's were pretty bad. Today good gaming IPS will have great image quality and responsiveness and unlike CRT can be used for desktop. FW900 is pretty much gaming/video only monitor... imho at least.

EDIT://
I see you already have FW900 that is broken.
Then you already should know if it is worth it for you or not :)
I want to fix it, but there is no related accessories, and I ca n’t check the problem ... If there is really a Fw900 with good functions, I will pay $ 400 to buy it
 

DooLocsta

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,638
There are none except for rebrands which are just as pricey. Hence the price. A great alternative in my opinion would be a 21" CRT. The ones like Sony F520, G520, G500, F500 or rebrands by Dell are excellent. There are also 21" models by other brands like Mitsubishi. The only thing they lack (at least the Sony models) in comparision to FW900 is widescreen and sharpness (not F520 and F500), but they have better screen coating. And some of them higher refresh rates. And they cost just a fraction of the price. You can play 16:9 or 16:10 letterboxed on them if you need to.
If you can find a 21" these days I would say grab it. Craigslist $10 (+40 mile drive)

1587865438773.png


1587865415679.png
 

Starfalcon

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
274
Yeah you have something seriously wrong there, I know both of mine say the model they are on that information screen.
 

brownvim

n00b
Joined
Nov 2, 2016
Messages
28
I’m going to do a WinDAS white point balance using Spacedivers guide.

I have bought the cable and a DTP94 off eBay, just waiting on delivery.

Is there a reason why it’s so cheap in comparison to the i1display? Less accurate?
 

Yuriy83

n00b
Joined
Oct 19, 2019
Messages
24
Does anyone know how to check the power-on time of Fw900?
You can't do that unfortunately. As far as I know, the only way you can estimate that is by running a calibration process in WinDAS and seeing how close the voltages are to their maximum values (my phrasing here might be not 100% correct).

I’m going to do a WinDAS white point balance using Spacedivers guide.

I have bought the cable and a DTP94 off eBay, just waiting on delivery.

Is there a reason why it’s so cheap in comparison to the i1display? Less accurate?
It's old and was not designed for LED backlit displays. For CRTs it works fine.
 

spacediver

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
2,601
I’m going to do a WinDAS white point balance using Spacedivers guide.

I have bought the cable and a DTP94 off eBay, just waiting on delivery.

Is there a reason why it’s so cheap in comparison to the i1display? Less accurate?
It's a much older, and discontinued instrument. And it's a fine one, but cannot measure as low luminances as the i1 display pro
 

etienne51

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 20, 2015
Messages
108
Hi there. Long time no see, but I'm still around once in a while :D

I've seen in the past few days that there is another Digital to Analog adapter that could support the high bandwidth of the FW900 (and even way higher), the USB Type C one. I got one from Amazon, still waiting for the package, I guess I'll get it in a few weeks or so. I'll keep you guys posted. Who tried it already here? I now have a RTX 2070S, it's got the Type C port, so it would really be amazing to plug in my FW900 on Type C, future proof.

What's less future proof are all these FW900 with issues I see on the thread, that's sad. Hope you guys can either fix the monitor or replace the faulty parts.

About that, I was looking at the Sony PVM/BVM line of professional monitors, and I realised something that got me quite excited. Our FW900 is using the same tube that's built in the Sony BVM-D24E1WU/E/A. The only differences between the tube that's built in the BVM and the Sony are the mounting tabs, and the antiglare! In some cases, there has been BVM monitors that received a replacement tube, they put a FW900 tube inside.

Sony GDM-FW900 tube : 24TXF / M57LRX15X / 8-733-007-61
Sony BVM-D24/A24 tube : 24TX3 / M57LRX20X / 8-733-006-05

After looking at the whole range of BVM-D monitors, I saw there was an even bigger model, the Sony BVM-D32E1WU/E/A. So I had a look at the specs of the tube, and seems to be what I would call a "scaled up model" of the 24" tube. It has an aperture grille pitch of 0.32-0.36 mm which pretty much matches the increase in size of the tube.

Sony BVM-D32 tube : 32TX3 / S76LTD20X / 8-735-074-05

I didn't check too much further yet, at the electrical caracteristics of both tubes, but I will. All I know for the moment is that both tubes are running at the same anode voltage of 27kV in the BVM monitors. Both tubes are 90° deflection, 29.1 mm diameter electron gun. Anyway, it might be too soon to conclude, but it seems to me like the 32" tube could very well be useable with the FW900 electronics. Am I wrong?

That, to me, seems quite incredible! As my main monitor is a 27", and I really do not imagine using a monitor too much bigger than that as I daily driver. The 32" tube yields to a 30" or so useable diagonal, which is pretty much the absolute biggest monitor I could imagine using for a computer.
Again, my 27" monitor is a 2560x1440 resolution, and the 32" tube could display that resolution (or rather 2560x1600 at 16:10 ratio) without any trouble at 72Hz using the FW900 chassis, at least I suppose so. Apart from the absolutely insane weight of this thing, it would really end up being the best computer CRT monitor ever.

By the way, I'm not sure if the tube in the D32 is 16:9 or 16:10 (or close) ratio like the FW900.

Oh, and one last thing... I didn't expect that... at all. Not in 2020. Was it sold?! This tube goes in the FW900 as far as I understand!

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-D24E1...T-Tube-24TX3-M57LRX20X-Rare-D24-/293426521630
 

jbltecnicspro

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,792
That guy (on eBay) is a known scalper and shiester. He probably ended the listing himself. He has now changed his eBay seller name at least a few times. It used to be TheOnlyShop2013 and something else with "AudioVideo" or something in it. The reddit CRT gaming group and Facebook group (along with the CRT Discord) all pretty much have him blacklisted.
 

Hike

n00b
Joined
Apr 1, 2020
Messages
25
Hi there. Long time no see, but I'm still around once in a while :D

I've seen in the past few days that there is another Digital to Analog adapter that could support the high bandwidth of the FW900 (and even way higher), the USB Type C one. I got one from Amazon, still waiting for the package, I guess I'll get it in a few weeks or so. I'll keep you guys posted. Who tried it already here? I now have a RTX 2070S, it's got the Type C port, so it would really be amazing to plug in my FW900 on Type C, future proof.

What's less future proof are all these FW900 with issues I see on the thread, that's sad. Hope you guys can either fix the monitor or replace the faulty parts.

About that, I was looking at the Sony PVM/BVM line of professional monitors, and I realised something that got me quite excited. Our FW900 is using the same tube that's built in the Sony BVM-D24E1WU/E/A. The only differences between the tube that's built in the BVM and the Sony are the mounting tabs, and the antiglare! In some cases, there has been BVM monitors that received a replacement tube, they put a FW900 tube inside.

Sony GDM-FW900 tube : 24TXF / M57LRX15X / 8-733-007-61
Sony BVM-D24/A24 tube : 24TX3 / M57LRX20X / 8-733-006-05

After looking at the whole range of BVM-D monitors, I saw there was an even bigger model, the Sony BVM-D32E1WU/E/A. So I had a look at the specs of the tube, and seems to be what I would call a "scaled up model" of the 24" tube. It has an aperture grille pitch of 0.32-0.36 mm which pretty much matches the increase in size of the tube.

Sony BVM-D32 tube : 32TX3 / S76LTD20X / 8-735-074-05

I didn't check too much further yet, at the electrical caracteristics of both tubes, but I will. All I know for the moment is that both tubes are running at the same anode voltage of 27kV in the BVM monitors. Both tubes are 90° deflection, 29.1 mm diameter electron gun. Anyway, it might be too soon to conclude, but it seems to me like the 32" tube could very well be useable with the FW900 electronics. Am I wrong?

That, to me, seems quite incredible! As my main monitor is a 27", and I really do not imagine using a monitor too much bigger than that as I daily driver. The 32" tube yields to a 30" or so useable diagonal, which is pretty much the absolute biggest monitor I could imagine using for a computer.
Again, my 27" monitor is a 2560x1440 resolution, and the 32" tube could display that resolution (or rather 2560x1600 at 16:10 ratio) without any trouble at 72Hz using the FW900 chassis, at least I suppose so. Apart from the absolutely insane weight of this thing, it would really end up being the best computer CRT monitor ever.

By the way, I'm not sure if the tube in the D32 is 16:9 or 16:10 (or close) ratio like the FW900.

Oh, and one last thing... I didn't expect that... at all. Not in 2020. Was it sold?! This tube goes in the FW900 as far as I understand!

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Sony-D24E1...T-Tube-24TX3-M57LRX20X-Rare-D24-/293426521630
Hello
Looking at the SERVICEMANUAL document, I found that FW900 and SONY G500 are very close in some configurations.
My CRT FW900 FBT is faulty, can it be replaced with SONY G500 FBT?
FW900 FBT No .: NX-4504 // J1D4
GDM G500FBT number: NX-4502 // J1D4
 
  • Like
Reactions: XoR_
like this

etienne51

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 20, 2015
Messages
108
I would advise you against it as this would be quite risky! If the part numbers were exactly the same, then ok. If not, it's a bit of a gamble, and this could potentially fry other compnents if not compatible. But I'm no expert either.
 

etienne51

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 20, 2015
Messages
108
Hi. I'm new here, but I've read this legendary thread back in time with over 300 pages. Delighted to be part of the community.

I own FW900 and BVM32.

I send a photo of both together. I'm happy to be here.
Oh you got both of the CRT kings. The one for PCs, and the one for other contents like retro game consoles and maybe movies and stuff. 32" sure is big!
Congratulations :D And welcome to the community! It's never too late to join us haha.

PS: Gotta get my hands on a BVM D32 one day as well hahahahaha. :ROFLMAO: I just ordered a BVM-D9H5U, my second CRT, and first BVM/PVM.
 

etienne51

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 20, 2015
Messages
108
I send a photo of both together.
I'm curious, what's the setup you've got underneath the BVM, right next to the control unit? And by the way, which control unit is that, I only know the BKM-10R and this one doesn't seem like it.
 

HRT

n00b
Joined
May 3, 2020
Messages
6
I don't know if it is possible to carry out the project you have in mind. The truth is that I also imagined the same. I thought if it would somehow be possible to resize the FW900 with the image tube of a BVM32.

Oh yeah. It is a Supergun with a Jamma PCB from Pang 3. The control is the BKM-15 because this is a BMV-A Series, and not a D series. Both are the same in specifications, but the D series is the most recommended because it allows you to synchronize more variants of different 15KHz Synchronizations than the Seria A, which is usually quite strict in this regard, and not as generous.

Changing the subject a little. I've been looking at solutions for the FW900's anti-reflective film. I removed mine because it had flaws, and although I certainly prefer the image now because I see that it allows me to see the real image quality, using it under light is very polluting in the image due to the reflections of the bare glass.

After a while thinking about which solution may be the best, I came to a conclusion that seems impressive to me. It is to use a fine glass or acrylic glare of the highest quality used in museums. This type of antirefletacte is of extraordinary quality and is used in the framing of works of art, so it respects the entire color, and reduces reflections by more than 99%.

This relationship is somewhat strange, but being practical, it seems to me the best solution I have been able to find to maximize reflections and at the same time have an image quality similar to using the FW900 in a dark environment. Apparently this anti-reflective is on both sides, so it can mitigate residual internal reflections of the electrons like those shown in the last photo, and which are the cause of the white halo around a white object on a black background in technology. CRT.


Edit: I add more photos of this idea. A photo montage of an FW900 of about what it would be like with this anti-reflective on. The idea I have in mind is to put it behind the Bezel with glass or acrylic glue, so it would work for other FW900 units, and it would be a clean and invisible installation.

After researching, there seems to be no difference between the glass or acrylic anti-reflective, as they both announce the same specifications. I personally think that I will do it in glass in the immediate future because I do not like reflections at all.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

jbltecnicspro

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
5,792
Hi. I'm new here, but I've read this legendary thread back in time with over 300 pages. Delighted to be part of the community.

I own FW900 and BVM32.

I send a photo of both together. I'm happy to be here.
Welcome to the club. I hate you. :D

I'd love to have a D32. Congratulations on owning the champion of displays (both D32 and FW900).
 

etienne51

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 20, 2015
Messages
108
Changing the subject a little. I've been looking at solutions for the FW900's anti-reflective film. I removed mine because it had flaws, and although I certainly prefer the image now because I see that it allows me to see the real image quality, using it under light is very polluting in the image due to the reflections of the bare glass.

After a while thinking about which solution may be the best, I came to a conclusion that seems impressive to me. It is to use a fine glass or acrylic glare of the highest quality used in museums. This type of antirefletacte is of extraordinary quality and is used in the framing of works of art, so it respects the entire color, and reduces reflections by more than 99%.

This relationship is somewhat strange, but being practical, it seems to me the best solution I have been able to find to maximize reflections and at the same time have an image quality similar to using the FW900 in a dark environment.
Oh, that's very interesting. I also removed my antiglare film back in 2015 when I got my FW900. It had some scratches. And just like you said, the image quality is great, but only in a dark room, or at least not much light coming from the back.

I would be curious to see how this really works with the FW900 and if it's indeed a good solution, I will definately try it myself.

I don't know if it is possible to carry out the project you have in mind. The truth is that I also imagined the same. I thought if it would somehow be possible to resize the FW900 with the image tube of a BVM32.
So I'm not the only one crazy 😂 I'm not sure either, but if one day I can get my hands on a D32 I'll give it a go.

The control is the BKM-15 because this is a BMV-A Series, and not a D series. Both are the same in specifications, but the D series is the most recommended because it allows you to synchronize more variants of different 15KHz Synchronizations than the Seria A, which is usually quite strict in this regard, and not as generous.
Ok! Yes I know the differences between the A and D series, as I was considering getting a BVM-A14F5, but chose not to because of that, and the fact that the BKM-68X (for RGB inputs) is incredibly rare and expensive, and hasn't been reverse engineered yet (unlike the 129X). Maybe later we will see that happen, and have a fix for those sync issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRT
like this

Strat_84

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
389
I don't know if it is possible to carry out the project you have in mind. The truth is that I also imagined the same. I thought if it would somehow be possible to resize the FW900 with the image tube of a BVM32.

Oh yeah. It is a Supergun with a Jamma PCB from Pang 3. The control is the BKM-15 because this is a BMV-A Series, and not a D series. Both are the same in specifications, but the D series is the most recommended because it allows you to synchronize more variants of different 15KHz Synchronizations than the Seria A, which is usually quite strict in this regard, and not as generous.

Changing the subject a little. I've been looking at solutions for the FW900's anti-reflective film. I removed mine because it had flaws, and although I certainly prefer the image now because I see that it allows me to see the real image quality, using it under light is very polluting in the image due to the reflections of the bare glass.

After a while thinking about which solution may be the best, I came to a conclusion that seems impressive to me. It is to use a fine glass or acrylic glare of the highest quality used in museums. This type of antirefletacte is of extraordinary quality and is used in the framing of works of art, so it respects the entire color, and reduces reflections by more than 99%.

This relationship is somewhat strange, but being practical, it seems to me the best solution I have been able to find to maximize reflections and at the same time have an image quality similar to using the FW900 in a dark environment. Apparently this anti-reflective is on both sides, so it can mitigate residual internal reflections of the electrons like those shown in the last photo, and which are the cause of the white halo around a white object on a black background in technology. CRT.


Edit: I add more photos of this idea. A photo montage of an FW900 of about what it would be like with this anti-reflective on. The idea I have in mind is to put it behind the Bezel with glass or acrylic glue, so it would work for other FW900 units, and it would be a clean and invisible installation.

After researching, there seems to be no difference between the glass or acrylic anti-reflective, as they both announce the same specifications. I personally think that I will do it in glass in the immediate future because I do not like reflections at all.
Beware, the front of the screen isn't perfectly flat, you won't be able to stick a rigid flat material on it.

These are also panels rated for almost 100% transmission (whereas you'd need something around 66% to mitigate the ambiant light reflecting on the phosphors and making the blacks grey), and they do not have any shielding/grounding property.

In other words, the idea was interesting but the result will probably be disappointing.
 

etienne51

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 20, 2015
Messages
108
But for those who removed the stock anti glare coating already, could this be at least a partial improvement? That's what I'm thinking. It might not be a true replacement, but it might still make things better than nothing at all. Worth a try I'd say, if it fits at least.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRT
like this

HRT

n00b
Joined
May 3, 2020
Messages
6
Well, the idea is the one I've been able to think of best. If someone knows a better one, please let me know.

Regarding the ground connection there would be nothing to do here, but equally what matters are the results. Even without mitigating the internal reflections caused by the deflections of the electrons on the screen of the FW900, it would still be a great solution, because it is practically the same as in the dark but with an environment full of light without contaminating the image quality. If you do not do it in a frame of a work of art in a museum, you will not do it with the screen of the FW900. Also without altering its image quality, unlike what happens with the original anti-glare film, and other specific film of screens or solutions tested so far for the FW900.

Personally I am going to try this solution for several reasons:
Glass or acrylic, both can be cut to size and the price is relatively low, even if it is intended for museums.

The quality of these passes scrupulous ISO color photographic tests to ensure that it respects the colors of the original work. There is no anti-reflection solution apart from this well-known one, which gives the screen its full vividness without having to adjust the RGB settings of the OSD or WinDAS. In this case it is the image of the FW900. An authentic CRT work of art respected in its factory settings avoiding premature tube wear and image without all its definition to modify RGB adjust :)

It can be glued to the Bezel of the FW900, never on the screen, making it a very easy transplant solution for all FW900 monitors with a single Bezel with glass or anti-reflective acrylic. Even if one dies, you can still use the Bezel with anti-glare on another FW900. Use specific glue to stick this anti-reflective to the Bezel's hidden back, making it a clean, aesthetically pristine solution that never breaks the aesthetics of the FW900.

The original screen of the FW900 is always protected behind, whether or not it has the factory anti-reflective film, because even this film causes some reflection or diffuse violet tone and subtracts a slight part of definition in the image of the FW900. (I do not encourage you to ever remove your original Film if it is in good condition, it is just a hypothetical example that may be possible too)


Video example of several brands of antireflection with similar characteristics for display and museum, both can be used with the same result (I do not know the distribution in each country according to make or model of antireflection):

https://www.schott.com/architecture/spanish/products/anti-reflective-glass/mirogard.html

https://www.schott.com/architecture/spanish/products/technical-glazing/conturan.html
 

spacediver

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
2,601
HRT, I just shared your post with an old forum member (flood, or flod) who knows a fair amount about optics etc.

Here's his response:

The original film on crts accomplish two things:
1. by being partially opaque, it darkens the diffuse reflections from the phosphors and hence the effective black level is reduced when there is ambient lighting.
2. reduces specular reflections by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-reflective_coating#Interference_coatings
I believe what that post refers to is glass with that sort of surface treatment already. But you can't put a piece of glass in front of a crt and expect it to do anything for the total amount of specular reflections if the original glass-air interface is still there.
The closest film solution I've found is "nushield dayvue". I may have posted about it in the thread a long time ago.

For me, honestly (1) is more important than (2) since most of the time I'm in front of a computer, I have the lights on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRT
like this

Strat_84

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
389
Well, the idea is the one I've been able to think of best. If someone knows a better one, please let me know.
The specifications of the original film are already known, I posted them some time ago (maybe 2 years ?). The problem is that the companies with that kind of manufacturing capabilities just do not want to bother dealing with individuals and small orders, otherwise a proper replacement film would already have been duplicated.

The closest makeshift job that might be achieved is to combine an ITO film with an antireflection film. But the only ITO film I could test so far had reflection problems due to the material interface between its surface and the top AR film's glue. And this isn't a top priority problem to solve on my list. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRT
like this

XoR_

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
1,041
I had FW900 without AG and reflections were the least concern for me but bad contrast ratio and lacking ability to have any light in the room. Even having other monitor displaying something caused contrast ratio to go down.

For me polarizer is the best solution and it also reduces reflections pretty dramatically. Image is much darker though and thus tube wear much higher :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRT
like this

HRT

n00b
Joined
May 3, 2020
Messages
6
More information about the anti-reflective solution I want to try. I personally go ahead as a laboratory test so you can see the results of this. If the result is as expected, I will let you know. Between all of us we have to find the most optimal anti-reflection solution for our FW900.

The really cheap because cut to the approximate measurements of the size that fits behind the Bezel, it costs around 20USD or 20 € depending on your country, perhaps even cheaper than this. It is really easy to test it. The glass that is my favorite choice over acrylic for my personal taste, is only 2mm thick, so it can be glued inside the Bezel with complete success. Afterwards, tighten Bezel screws very carefully slowly and tighten just enough to leave well supported.

I sent an e-mail to a company that seemed to me the most successful brand and model of anti-reflective glass and they answered this:

Both Artglass AR70 and Sapphire AR (electronic displays) have an anti-reflective coating on both sides of the glass.

We can also provide glass with only 1 coating side, but in that case the reflection level increases up to ~ 5% and the transmittance decreases to ~ 95%

The main difference between Artglass AR70 "the most slim=2mm" and Sapphire AR (electronic displays) is the thickness of the glass, so the best option depends on what your preferred thickness is.

When it comes to choosing a 1-sided or 2-sided coating, it depends on whether the glass will bond to the screen (1-sided) or whether there will be an air gap between the screen and the glass (2-sided)

Edit: Information of Artglass AR70 (The only one of all the brand's models that transmits +99% with -1% reflections (the minimum currently possible in the world). And the best one I know of currently in specs. FW900 needs the maximum possible image transmission of 100%, +99% is the closest similar figure that you will not have to touch RGB adjuster to take the life of the picture tube and the sharpness of the picture. Guarantee of color respect with certificate that have passed rigorous test of ISO photography):

https://www.groglass.com/product/artglass-ar-70/
 

Attachments

Last edited:

spacediver

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
2,601
Thanks for looking into this HRT!

One important thing to measure is how close to neutral density it is. A good way to do this is to measure your primaries with a colorimeter with and without the film. If the chromaticity doesn't change for all 3 primaries, then that's a great sign.

If this doesn't make any sense,let me know, I'll give you more detail if you're interested.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRT
like this

SH1

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
1,427
Did you put that Sony logo on the bottom?
Yes. It's originally the SGI branded version of the FW900. Debezeled, logoed, and filtered. (More on the filter in previous posts.)

(Wish I had known the makers of the trackball were going out of business. I would have bought a spare. With the updated rollers they really nailed it.)
 
Last edited:

Strat_84

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
389
Edit: Information of Artglass AR70 (The only one of all the brand's models that transmits +99% with -1% reflections (the minimum currently possible in the world). And the best one I know of currently in specs. FW900 needs the maximum possible image transmission of 100%, +99% is the closest similar figure that you will not have to touch RGB adjuster to take the life of the picture tube and the sharpness of the picture. Guarantee of color respect with certificate that have passed rigorous test of ISO photography):
Sorry but you are completely wrong. The screen doesn't need 100% transmittance, the original film is dark by design otherwise any ambiant light will reflect on the phosphor layer and make the dark grey.
The original filter also doesn't have the same transmittance for every color by design because the display phosphors are weaker in some wavelengths than others.

I already tried using an AR film alone (which has much better performance regarding reflections than the glass you talk about BTW, and could be stuck on the screen which is also much better than a flat glass with an interspace). That doesn't work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRT
like this

flod

Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2014
Messages
948
about this ar film stuff: i am of the opinion that a film/treatment/whatever that has high transmittance is not very useful. why?

1. in a dark room, there's no issue to begin with.
2. in a lit room, the diffuse reflections from the phosphor layer are way more annoying than the specular reflections that the film would reduce. you need a partially opaque film to darken the phosphors

by the way, i haven't checked this thread in a long time. sorry i'm too lazy to search/read, but was there any consensus on the best external dac to use with graphics cards that lack analog output?
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRT
like this

HRT

n00b
Joined
May 3, 2020
Messages
6
Thanks for helping and clarifying. This is something I want to see for myself, it is not a matter of not believing his words, but I need to see it for myself to accept it. I spent time looking for this solution and I would like to see the result with my own eyes.

My opinion in this regard is that personally the image without the original film is the most beautiful image I have ever seen on the FW900. My purpose in achieving this image also in situations of rooms with light, and not only to use the FW900 in the dark. Also for comfort and practical use.

I understand what you are saying and you are right, the original film is dark by design otherwise any ambiant light will reflect on the phosphor layer and make the dark gray. But, precisely the use of this AR70 museum glass anti-reflection in more than -1% avoids precisely that reflection in the black of the image. It makes a difference how to see FW900 in complete darkness, or as close to this as possible.

I also understand that the original filter does not have the same transmittance for each color by design either because the screen matches are weaker at some wavelengths than others. But without being objective myself, I say again here that my purpose is to have the image offered by the FW900 naked, without any matte or dark filter of any kind because it is the image that I like and most beautiful that I have never seen in the FW900 in the total absence of light in a room. My goal is to get this exact image with light in the room. Although this means not respecting the original factory settings with the original filter that is dark, and has a slight matte effect. You literally rediscovered a new image quality even better with the original filter removed in a completely dark room. But it is really awkward just being able to use it 100% with total absence of light for wonderful blacks. My main goal is to translate this image quality but in light environments as much as possible. The bare FW900 actually has high enough image intensity. There is no need to touch RGB values to take the picture tube beyond its specification and lifespan. It is only with the original movie that it subtracts intensity from the true intensity that is originally behind the FW900, hence the importance of the AR70 transmitting more than 99% of the FW900 signal naked without film darkening.

An AR filter as such alone is not enough. The synergy of different solutions is needed within a single glass such as the AR70 to achieve what we are proposing or imagining here. This AR70 caught my curiosity because it allows pristine and invisible transmission of over 99% of the image intensity, which is similar to seeing an AR filter FW900 of any kind in the dark, and this is my reason for wanting to do it. In addition, it respects the color, does not lose any definition because it is not matte, and to finish it reflects less than 1% of the light thanks to its double AR face. This would not go in a space between the screen of the FW900 and the Bezel. It would be totally glued to the screen but on the Bezel. There would be no gap between the Fw900's bare screen without a movie of any kind, and the AR 70. Everything would be fused and totally pressed after Bezel.

I'm going to go ahead to try it out. And as soon as I have it I will publish photos. If the results are not as expected, then I avoid you wasting time trying. The experiment will be with me :)
 

Strat_84

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
389
Well, you're entirely free to do what you wish, I'm just telling you to avoid wasting time and money. :)

I understand what you are saying and you are right, the original film is dark by design otherwise any ambiant light will reflect on the phosphor layer and make the dark gray. But, precisely the use of this AR70 museum glass anti-reflection in more than -1% avoids precisely that reflection in the black of the image. It makes a difference how to see FW900 in complete darkness, or as close to this as possible.
But this: No. You don't get it.

This glass isn't going to have ANY effect of the phosphor reflection, not at all. The AR treatment mitigates reflections on the front face of the glass plate, and on the back face of that plate. The issue with the phosphors is entirely different, they are behind the glass of the tube.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRT
like this

etienne51

Weaksauce
Joined
Mar 20, 2015
Messages
108
Just passing by real quick as I'm in a hurry, I'll read that through another time. But just to answer that.

by the way, i haven't checked this thread in a long time. sorry i'm too lazy to search/read, but was there any consensus on the best external dac to use with graphics cards that lack analog output?
flod, I seem to understand that a new device has been found during the past few months. It's a USB Type C adapter from the brand Vention. It doesn't seem like a lot of people have tried it yet though. I ordered one, thinking it was shipped from the US, but it came from China directly, so I have no idea when I'm gonna get it.
There are a few different versions. Some can apparently go way higher than the FW900 bandwidth and still work just fine, and others are a bit more limited. I don't know which version I got from Amazon, I will find out when I get it and let you guys know.

Some information about Vention adapters:

USB-C to VGA (Model code CGMHA) with Lontium LT8711X-B
This is the model we talked before with performance comparable to Sunix DPU3000

USB-C to HDMI(1.4) and VGA (Model code CGKHA) with ITE IT6562 + VIA VL100
This is the old version of the HDMI+VGA and can't do more than 360 MHz, DAC should be 10 bit

USB-C to HDMI(2.0) and VGA (Model code CMFHB) with Lontium LT8712X
This is the new version of the HDMI+VGA, the new Lontium chipset should have the same performance as the LT8711X-B
I didn't mention it before because it was almost unavailable out of china
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HRT
like this

HRT

n00b
Joined
May 3, 2020
Messages
6
Would you be so kind as to give me an example with a photo? I would like to see what you mean if possible?

I'll be cautious, and I'll ask for a sample of the AR70 first before buying. When I receive the test fragment I can make tests and photographs to share the results with you my friends.

I would really like to get the same image of the FW900 naked in the dark, but in a bright room. I would like to know how to achieve this.
 

flod

Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2014
Messages
948
I understand what you are saying and you are right, the original film is dark by design otherwise any ambiant light will reflect on the phosphor layer and make the dark gray. But, precisely the use of this AR70 museum glass anti-reflection in more than -1% avoids precisely that reflection in the black of the image. It makes a difference how to see FW900 in complete darkness, or as close to this as possible.
i'm not sure you get the point.

a untreated glass air interface reflects about 4% of light intensity. (see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_equations#Normal_incidence)
a good ar film or treatment bonded onto the glass can reduce that to 1%. (if not bonded, you create more interfaces and can only make this worse)
the phosphor layer reflects maybe 20% of light.

so let's do some estimates

original ar film maybe transmits 60% of light. it has a very good ar coating on top that reflects maybe 1% (if it's clean and there's no skin oil or anything on it)

so total reflectance of monitor with original film:
phosphors: 0.2 * 0.6*0.6 = 7.2%.
original film-air interface: 1%
total: 8% reflectance

monitor without any film:
phosphors: 20%
glass-air interface: 4%
total: 24% reflectance

monitor with a 99% transparent ar film:
phosphors: 0.2 * 0.99 * 0.99 = still 20%
ar treated glass-air interface: 1%
total: 21% reflectance

the point is that the ar does nothing to the gray-ness of the phosphors.

and IMO: in a dark room, a monitor with a clean unscratched film is just as good as one with the film removed (if both are calibrated to same luminance and stuff)
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRT
like this

flod

Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2014
Messages
948
here's an old post where i tried on my tablet a nushield dayvue film, which is also a high transmittance ar film
https://hardforum.com/threads/24-wi...ived-comments.952788/page-290#post-1041253510

(btw i think the original ar is darker and less reflective on the cpd-g520p than fw900. not sure since i don't have the g520p with me right now. but my fw900's reflection looks more purple than the g520p's in that post)


btw one advantage of removing the original film is that to achieve the same luminance, the guns don't need to be driven as hard. (i think this could affect sharpness. and maybe longevity. not sure)
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: HRT
like this

SH1

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 30, 2006
Messages
1,427
Saw something on Reddit a while back suggesting that the BVM that used the same or a similar tube as the FW900 didn't even have an antiglare filter. If true, that might suggest that the notion of the AR filter helping color is kind of dubious?

That said, I tried to go without a filter, but ultimately could not. With even a small amount of light in a room, black will not resolve without a filter. Not even sure if total darkness otherwise would be good enough with the monitor itself still emitting a picture being reflected back to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HRT
like this

spacediver

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
2,601
Top