I grabbed a Dell P1110 for $15. Deals are out there but they are getting very hard to find.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
24" Widescreen CRT (FW900) From Ebay arrived,Comments.
- Thread starter mathesar
- Start date
cesarioFL71
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2021
- Messages
- 445
I know right......
By "never opened" he clearly means never opened for servicing.
Y'all are rationalizing to avoid this purchase. And why is that?
You have a car? A home? Leverage your assets and make this purchase!
You earned this. You deserve this. Claim your prize!
Y'all are rationalizing to avoid this purchase. And why is that?
You have a car? A home? Leverage your assets and make this purchase!
You earned this. You deserve this. Claim your prize!
Prince Valiant
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 3, 2023
- Messages
- 419
That's how I got one of mine. Think I paid $10 or $15 for another.
Is that you, eBay, want me to spend moreBy "never opened" he clearly means never opened for servicing.
Y'all are rationalizing to avoid this purchase. And why is that?
You have a car? A home? Leverage your assets and make this purchase!
You earned this. You deserve this. Claim your prize!
?
GoldenTiger
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2004
- Messages
- 30,266
Reverse mortgage application submitted to AIG. Hope it's up long enough for me to snag it!By "never opened" he clearly means never opened for servicing.
Y'all are rationalizing to avoid this purchase. And why is that?
You have a car? A home? Leverage your assets and make this purchase!
You earned this. You deserve this. Claim your prize!
cesarioFL71
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2021
- Messages
- 445
Lol.
Congratulations Sir! This is simply outstanding!
Because it isn't about him or her or them, it's about you. Your life. The only one you've got. And with this purchase you have finally seized the reins!
(Ok...more seriously on this FW900, man even supposed light usage probably ain't so light over a span of 22 freaking years. If it were truly NOS, I do get those rich folks snagging those up for crazy prices. The FW900's got almost maximum Trinitron goodness in that unique widescreen shape. It's a masterpiece. Would probably still be my daily driver if my screen wasn't for work now too. Though I think the LG CX/C1 are also special screens. And if you want a, sadly, unique combination of rolling scan and OLED, they're still out there. And easier to get than a screen that hasn't been sold in regular retail since 2004...)
Hi everyone. This is my first post here but I was encouraged by someone to post about my issue here. In July, I got a VGA CRT Monitor, an ADI E55+ according to the drivers. However, no matter what I do, I can't get a proper signal from it. My PC has an RTX 2060 which obviously means no native VGA input. No problem, I got a Tendak HDMI to VGA converter. That didn't do anything. It just always showed "preset mode 1024x768" whenever I turned it on, then went to black. So after a while of messing with some resolution settings such as active signal mode and disabling other resolutions, I was able to get it to recognize other resolutions such as 640x480 for example, yet, it still just showed the "preset mode" screen, and then goes to black. At this point, I was dumbfounded. Some people told me to get a Displayport to VGA cable, I got one by cableleader that has good reviews, and,. nothing. Exact same issue. At this point, I have no idea what my problem is. The seller did not indicate there was any issue with the VGA cable itself. I could try getting an old GPU like a GT 710 to test with, but if that doesn't work, I don't think I have the know how on removing the VGA cable from the monitor itself and replacing it, as it's wired in. What am I doing wrong? Keep in mind, I have very little experience with these kinds of monitors or VGA in the first place. And if this happens to be the wrong thread for this, please let me know where I should post this. It's stressed me out to no end.
pendragon1
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2000
- Messages
- 56,297
yes you should start a thread of your own. this thread is model specific.
ps: dig up an old card with vga. and welcome to [H].
my first suggestion:
Keep a normal lcd monitor on the side, hook your RTX 2060 through HDMI to it, then use the DisplayPort out with the DP to VGA adapter to your CRT, having both monitors hooked to the same gpu and powered on at the same time, then use your LCD monitor to create the new resolutions for your CRT.
On the nVidia control panel go to resolutions, custom, and create 640x480 60hz Progressive with CVT Standard Timings on your normal lcd monitor, then try to mirror it to your 2nd display (your CRT Adi e55+) and see if you get a picture.
I had to try a bunch of different adapters until I found one that worked, a bunch of them only did widescreen resolutions, it was incredibly annoying. Tripp Lite makes VGA to DP adapters, I can't remember what model number mine is, but it's been working like a charm.
I tried this before. It didn't get me anywhere.
cesarioFL71
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2021
- Messages
- 445
ViewSonic G810 21" NIB
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1866382189...LVfgvehGDMaNt5N7TPA7Aebg==|tkp:Bk9SR4D-kcStZA
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1866382189...LVfgvehGDMaNt5N7TPA7Aebg==|tkp:Bk9SR4D-kcStZA
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
pendragon1
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2000
- Messages
- 56,297
post it in the ebay thread
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
XoR_
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2016
- Messages
- 1,679
Having recently though a lot about human vision and colors I did remember how after removing AG coating on my FW900 colors become much less vibrant while before they were much more so and in ways I didn't see on other Trinitrons.
So first humble reminder: DO NOT REMOVE AG COATING ON SONY GDM-FW900 and if its scratched then just deal with it. Unless AG filter is completely ruined as to make using monitor impossible. In this case there is nothing else than can be done but otherwise don't go nilly willy breaking amazing monitor by removing AG because you read some posts from idiots recommending it. And of course we can assume good-will but that one guy who was selling broken FW900's and advertised service of removing AG who always said image looks much better was just dishonest - and of course it was immediately suspicious and I should not ignore that.
Anyways...
I do remember someone raised this topic from this angle - though imho unnecessarily only focusing on accuracy like it was what matters here: is there any filter that blocks light that stimulate rods? Or in other words filters out light frequencies from greenish-cyan to cyan.
I don't at all care about similarity to original filter or any of its other (e.g. electrical) qualities. If its just blocking cyan and image is darker only because of that then I'll take it. Currently used polarizer does good job with contrast ratio but it doesn't filter cyan at all and rather colors are identical as without it. It does remove glare but I'd take something that reflects light even more than raw glass if it fixed colors. I don't like raw SMPTE-C colors - they don't to my eyes look vibrant... enough.
Also one more thing: rods being stimulated that is irritating in elevated black levels. Never was bothered by RGB-LED IPS even though its black level compared to FW900 is trash. I could watch videos on this RGB-LED monitor for literal years and not be bothered by its black level and the moment I turn my FW900 on I would be bothered by its faint glow. Light spectrum matters people! Of course most people compare FW900 even filter-less with trash LCDs which are even worse in area of light spectrum and then on top of that have terrible black level so in this case obviously even without original AG FW900 will look much better. Compared to RGB-LED... no, FW900 superior black level in comparison to much more elevated RGB-LED black level looks not so enticing.
And while RGB-LED is maybe niche tech but even more consumer oriented displays have better colors and low enough rod stimulation for black look less irritating, not to mention other Trinitron CRTs just have better colors and I an not bothered by black level not being perfect. Dell P1110 looks like it has the same phopshors but it just looks much better. IBM P275 has still the same phosphors and its colors look even better. FW900 from what I remember had very nice vibrant colors while AG was still on. Not quite the level of awesomeness of certain Diamondtron IIyama I have or Pioneer Kuro plasma but I do remember colors were somewhat comparable. I peeled all these vibrant colors along with AG filter and then was confused what happened... now especially realizing the source of the issue I want to fix it. Can this be fixed?
So first humble reminder: DO NOT REMOVE AG COATING ON SONY GDM-FW900 and if its scratched then just deal with it. Unless AG filter is completely ruined as to make using monitor impossible. In this case there is nothing else than can be done but otherwise don't go nilly willy breaking amazing monitor by removing AG because you read some posts from idiots recommending it. And of course we can assume good-will but that one guy who was selling broken FW900's and advertised service of removing AG who always said image looks much better was just dishonest - and of course it was immediately suspicious and I should not ignore that.
Anyways...
I do remember someone raised this topic from this angle - though imho unnecessarily only focusing on accuracy like it was what matters here: is there any filter that blocks light that stimulate rods? Or in other words filters out light frequencies from greenish-cyan to cyan.
I don't at all care about similarity to original filter or any of its other (e.g. electrical) qualities. If its just blocking cyan and image is darker only because of that then I'll take it. Currently used polarizer does good job with contrast ratio but it doesn't filter cyan at all and rather colors are identical as without it. It does remove glare but I'd take something that reflects light even more than raw glass if it fixed colors. I don't like raw SMPTE-C colors - they don't to my eyes look vibrant... enough.
Also one more thing: rods being stimulated that is irritating in elevated black levels. Never was bothered by RGB-LED IPS even though its black level compared to FW900 is trash. I could watch videos on this RGB-LED monitor for literal years and not be bothered by its black level and the moment I turn my FW900 on I would be bothered by its faint glow. Light spectrum matters people! Of course most people compare FW900 even filter-less with trash LCDs which are even worse in area of light spectrum and then on top of that have terrible black level so in this case obviously even without original AG FW900 will look much better. Compared to RGB-LED... no, FW900 superior black level in comparison to much more elevated RGB-LED black level looks not so enticing.
And while RGB-LED is maybe niche tech but even more consumer oriented displays have better colors and low enough rod stimulation for black look less irritating, not to mention other Trinitron CRTs just have better colors and I an not bothered by black level not being perfect. Dell P1110 looks like it has the same phopshors but it just looks much better. IBM P275 has still the same phosphors and its colors look even better. FW900 from what I remember had very nice vibrant colors while AG was still on. Not quite the level of awesomeness of certain Diamondtron IIyama I have or Pioneer Kuro plasma but I do remember colors were somewhat comparable. I peeled all these vibrant colors along with AG filter and then was confused what happened... now especially realizing the source of the issue I want to fix it. Can this be fixed?
jbltecnicspro
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2006
- Messages
- 9,763
^^^ Agree with this on all accounts. I did that to my FW900 and in the end, wished I didn't.
spacediver
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2013
- Messages
- 2,731
I don't think you can design a filter that blocks light that simulates rods without blocking light-that-would-be-important-for-seeing-many-colors (see image below). Also, rods are EXTREMELY sensitive. My graduate supervisor used to talk about how a rod could respond to a single photon of light. The only way to remove the irritating response to elevated black levels is to not have elevated black levels.
Attachments
spacediver
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2013
- Messages
- 2,731
Most likely explanation for this is that the AG coating allows deeper black levels, and deeper blacks produce perceptually more vivid colors (i.e. if you took two identical patches of red and placed one on a gray background and one on a deep black background), the one on the black background would look more vivid.
XoR_
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2016
- Messages
- 1,679
Polarizer which I put on my FW900 blocks most of the light and improves image quality by the mechanism you mentioned. Compared though to without polarizer colors are pretty much the same with it on so that is not it.
Original AG coating on FW900 had to so something to rod stimulation versus cones otherwise the colors would be the same. For displays which have vibrant colors like e.g. Pioneer Kuro it is easy to disprove black level being culprit of its brilliant colors (like many people assumed its the cause) by raising brightness until contrast ratio is pretty bad. It does make image quality worse and colors slightly less saturated but they are still vibrant/glowing in the same way.
And if digital plasma isn't convincing I do have Diamondtron Iiyama which has colors in the same ballpark and its colors also doesn't become non-vibrant by elevated black level due to raising brightness. Heck, on CRT if only thing we can be sure of is that as soon as there is lots of bright stuff on the screen the black is non-existent and by this logic they should all look washed out.
I am pretty sure you can design such filter just fine and it blocking some light that would go to cones isn't an issue when you do want to have this filter also dim the screen.
They are but amount of light we are talking about - levels that CRT output - is not that great.
Compare it to outdoors - much higher amount of light than puny CRT monitor. No good reason to believe rods would be overstimulated and effectively shut off when using CRT in a dark room.
Yeah... OLEDs... they prove that best black level is no black level
I must however say that black level of Pioneer Kuro while it does exist it is something else. CRT can hit it and even lower full screen black but not at the brightness where gamma is correct. Besides CRTs kinda loose deep blacks the moment they display something - it just works in such a way it never gets distracting - assuming black level is deep enough. On this plasma black level is for all intents and purposes deep enough. Then on top of that Kuro uses wide-gamut phosphors mixed to give standard gamut.
I found the experience with my external filter similar to the one the FW900 came with. That filter situation was kind of crap actually. Sony should have baked on a proper filter like the F520 has. Maybe they didn't because the tube was shared between different models? For example:
https://www.reddit.com/r/crtgaming/...gdmfw900_same_tube_minus_antiglare/?rdt=64637 (Pat Gravier's feedback there.)
Grab an LG CX/C1 while you still can. Or not.
(There is that 1440P 480Hz OLED coming out. However, lower resolution and ASUS is apparently not allowing HDR in BFI mode. So no BFI + HDR + RTX HDR killer combo I guess. And it's matte. At least out of the gate...)
https://www.reddit.com/r/crtgaming/...gdmfw900_same_tube_minus_antiglare/?rdt=64637 (Pat Gravier's feedback there.)
Grab an LG CX/C1 while you still can. Or not.
(There is that 1440P 480Hz OLED coming out. However, lower resolution and ASUS is apparently not allowing HDR in BFI mode. So no BFI + HDR + RTX HDR killer combo I guess. And it's matte. At least out of the gate...)
Last edited:
spacediver
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2013
- Messages
- 2,731
I think you're going down the wrong rabbit hole with rod stimulation idea.
Look at the frequency response curves I shared earlier. The dashed line is the rod cell response curve. Notice that anything between 400 and 600 nm wavelengths will elicit a rod response.
And because rods are so damn sensitive, this response will be robust enough to produce perceptually noticeable effects even with very low light levels. The magnitudes shown here (y axis) are normalized relative to each receptor type. So even though the peaks of the curves are all at 100, the unnormalized responses would show that rods respond with much greater strength relative to cones (I think they're around 100x more sensitive).
So if you wanted to filter out rod responses, you'd have to ensure that your viewing environment didn't contain any light with wavelengths between 400 and 600 nm. In other words, you would not be able to see much color at all.
Attachments
XoR_
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2016
- Messages
- 1,679
Where then is all the difference between colors between all the displays coming from?
Wide-gamut emulating sRGB and sRGB monitors not having actually the same colors is known phenomena.
Also other people do seem to see these same differences - not only me.
To me all displays I have seen, including strange case of peeling off some vibrancy of FW900, supports this 4D gamut theory.
What about where all the important for color vision cones are - In the fovea?
Not sure about your eyes but mine (and everyone else's...) cannot in pitch dark room see anything if I don't shift eyes slightly to the side.
Maybe there is ~100 times less rods in fovea giving ~100 times less sensitivity therefore roughly matching sensitivity of cones?
spacediver
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2013
- Messages
- 2,731
As mentioned earlier in this thread, this is probably due to observer metamerism - the fact that not everyone has identical color matching functions. And as mentioned earlier, having 4d gamut would probably help reduce this metamerism.
But I don't think rods have anything to do with this story.
The distribution of cones is much greater than rods in the fovea, and vice versa for the periphery (image below taken from https://www.yorku.ca/eye/retdist.htm)
Yes, that's because you are favoring your rods. But you seem to already understand this.
Last edited:
XoR_
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2016
- Messages
- 1,679
If it is just differences in cones then I should be able to pick RGB values close to gray on any one monitor and find exactly the same color on other monitor. This is not what I am able to do and why there needs to be missing color component.
And what that color component is is very visible comparing monitor that has lots of it to those displays with have little of it. Former displays have obvious color cast that cannot be calibrated away.
What is the color of this color cast?
Well, white, obviously
Not enough white and colors won't glow but too much of it and they won't glow either. Observer metamerism can at most explain why some people don't see drastic differences with AG on and off - cause its such a small difference in cyan light spectrum it is possible some people might either see colors glowing with and without or not see any glowing with or without AG filter. I have average eyesight and on about edge of what AG filter did to FW900 light spectrum for some colors to stop glowing without AG filter.
Yes and there is also difference how image on different monitors look off-center. If you kinda try to see something outside where your eyes focus at then on some displays you will see a darkening and on others even brightening of the image compared to looking at these colors straight. I don't mean typical viewing angle issues.
Of course this is what makes it possible to have mediocre black level and not be bothered by it. When I look at an object on RGB-LED IPS I don't perceive black because it darkens. I saw the same thing on most wide-gamut displays*. And now imagine Pioneer Kuro has this effect of darkening off-angle even if its black level is CRT-like to being with
On the other hand on WOLED panel I see off-center image to glow very bright and this looks nice but actually causes an issue which I immediately noticed after getting the monitor which is that black is so perfect so it... sticks out. It doesn't look pretty to have such a sharp transition from rods being blasted to not being stimulated at all. LG engineers being idiots they are didn't figure out to use RGB subpixels as much as possible and instead engage W subpixel as soon as they can.
On CRT we never have such issues but there ANSI contrast is... what it is. IPS with even more rod stimulation - yeah but black level isn't that black so this isn't visible. Bad engineering on LG part with WOLED I tell ya!
QD-OLED should be on the other end of the spectrum though. In the mean time I need to just adjust where I allow myself to look with this WOLED panel I have and image looks ok
Of course not only this causes that particular issue but also OLED subpixels have this bright flash when they go from black to non-black so we then have what is called near-black chrominance overshoot. It would still happen when RGB subpixels were used and when W subpixel is engaged but for near-black this effect would be vastly reduced because even all RGB subpixels all at once would produce less light than W subpixel alone. Also at the higher brightness levels this flashing of W subpixels would not be as noticeable - not to mention it would then be something that could be corrected for by just dimming RGB subpixels accordingly for fixed amount of time. Then having less rod light at lower end of the spectrum would also mitigate sharp difference between what we see off-angle. Also dark scenes typically have light with not that much rod light to bein with so image would look more natural. Again: LG engineers are total morons - if not being able to even nail HDR calibration and needing multiple passes of firmware upgrades and still not fixing anything. (note: this specific effect shows in SDR and is unrelated to fckup that is this monitor's HDR implementation)
And this being FW900 topic best to move this discussion elsewhere - for FW900 it relevance is only in decission of removing AG filter. I say JUST DON'T even if its scratched and that is all I wanted to communicate. Also ask if someone found good replacement. For now my FW900 has SMPTE-C colors as they came out of chemistry lab. That doesn't make it look terrible on average but I certainly do have better displays, CRT and non-CRT. In fact the closest to FW900 current looks is certain AOC 17 inch color CRT monitor from late 90's with round tube which aspiration to have most bland and generic looking colors possible and actually not that far away from my work laptop's IPS panel - same uninspiring colors. FW900 is still better than that but yeah, not that much better as I would like. Especially if for e.g. main gaming monitor I use LG 27GP950 which has amazing colors - not even because they glow like on Pioneer plasma but are just extremely well balanced and life-like looking. More so than EBU phosphor on old PAL TV sets. Those were a bit better with outdoors scenes. SMPTE-C are better for sunny daylight looks - like very sunny.
Anyways... there is a lot of aspects of image that my crazy "rod light" theory does explain very well. Some subtle, some not so subtle.
On the other hand just difference in responses of cones doesn't explain all that much really. Certainly not why I cannot color-match even single color between two monitors if they immediately differ in how much 'row white' they show. We simply need 4 subpixels. FW900 ain't getting that anytime soon. Maybe with color wheel... but if I had transparent filter that can block rod light I'd just stick it on the tube and called it a day - it has nothing to do with how realistic colors look. Artificial look here is usually much better.
spacediver
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2013
- Messages
- 2,731
If it is just differences in cones then I should be able to pick RGB values close to gray on any one monitor and find exactly the same color on other monitor. This is not what I am able to do and why there needs to be missing color component.
And what that color component is is very visible comparing monitor that has lots of it to those displays with have little of it. Former displays have obvious color cast that cannot be calibrated away.
What is the color of this color cast?
Well, white, obviously
Not enough white and colors won't glow but too much of it and they won't glow either. Observer metamerism can at most explain why some people don't see drastic differences with AG on and off - cause its such a small difference in cyan light spectrum it is possible some people might either see colors glowing with and without or not see any glowing with or without AG filter. I have average eyesight and on about edge of what AG filter did to FW900 light spectrum for some colors to stop glowing without AG filter.
I'm finding it very difficult to follow your thoughts. Can you explain clearly and concisely exactly how you think rods play into this story. I'm also curious to understand how you think you could create a filter that would stop the rods being stimulated.
XoR_
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2016
- Messages
- 1,679
Have you see any differences between colors between displays? E.g. typical standard gamut vs wide gamut?
There are cases where none colors cannot be matched visually including it being impossible to display the same white.
It is known phenomena that color TVs cannot be made to look like B&W TVs.
It did perplex some people, especially those which did have access to bias and gain controls - this already cannot be explained without 4th color component. Go to wide-gamut and it gets much more extreme.
That said not everyone might be affected the same way.
If you cannot understand it then maybe your eyes don't use rods in the same way?
From what I can tell people can tell the differences - they just not always care but even 'don't know don't care' people seeing good examples of glowing colors are like "wow... what is that TV?" like is the case with Pioneer Kuro in times where those people have OLED screens and should not be at all amazed like everyone always has been seeing Pioneer plasmas
That is material engineering issue. All you need to do is block certain frequencies of light from green-cyan to cyan. How do you make reg, green and blue color filters? I don't have any idea but I am pretty sure you can make filter that has almost any light blocking/passing characteristics you want.
Best filter I could come up with is having filter that passes slightly more blue (but only blue - not cyan-blue) and one which passes more yellow but otherwise they are transparent to all colors - then put them in order and that should block more cyan light than blue, green and red cause then its blocked twice and rgb only once. From there do the white balance and you'll have display that should stimulate rods less. I imply this alone would make colors more vibrant. It would also affect gamut slightly giving more separation between blue and green but even correcting for this colors would be more vibrant with less white color cast typical for too much rod stimulation.
If my filters were passing only slightly more light of given colors than the rest I would probably arrive at greenish looking color of the filter... kinda not unlike original AG filter
Actually I think it might be worth a shot to just look for such color filters. I would need to put one on front making screen surface more blueish (because I would obviously prefer blue on the outside) and I would get more reflections (polarizer is amazing at stopping them) but if my theory is right (which it is) this should be a nice upgrade. In any case if I do decide to do that I'll keep you guys informed about the results.
----
And so far from all the thinking I did about colors the purchasing outcome is that I ordered MSI MAG 271QPX - 27 inch 1440p QD-OLED
I would not want WOLED as I have one and therefore what WOLED can do color-wise I know including its flaws but also its strong points (some colors do look absolutely amazing on it!) - and having two monitors with identical colors is pretty pointless. QD-OLED should look like RGB-LED but being OLED should have perfect black level, zero response times and being gaming monitor no lag and 360Hz should be pretty sizable upgrade over HP DreamColor LP2480zx
(note: I should also mention better viewing angles but these were never an issue on LP2480zx with its A-TW filter - though QD-OLED should have better viewing angles still)And then I will be able to compare it to WOLED (LG 48GQ900) and have better picture if I should throw real money on 65" QD-OLED next year or when I will decide to get it - maybe the same day I receive the MSI
spacediver
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2013
- Messages
- 2,731
I've never said that a 4th (or 5th, 6th, etc.) color component isn't important. I (and others in this thread) have said multiple times that adding more dimensions (beyond the tristimulus displays) would help with color matching across observers.
But what the does rods have anything to do with this? I've asked you this multiple times and you haven't answered it! Do you think rods are the 4th component or something?
That is material engineering issue. All you need to do is block certain frequencies of light from green-cyan to cyan. How do you make reg, green and blue color filters? I don't have any idea but I am pretty sure you can make filter that has almost any light blocking/passing characteristics you want.
Best filter I could come up with is having filter that passes slightly more blue (but only blue - not cyan-blue) and one which passes more yellow but otherwise they are transparent to all colors - then put them in order and that should block more cyan light than blue, green and red cause then its blocked twice and rgb only once. From there do the white balance and you'll have display that should stimulate rods less. I imply this alone would make colors more vibrant. It would also affect gamut slightly giving more separation between blue and green but even correcting for this colors would be more vibrant with less white color cast typical for too much rod stimulation.
If my filters were passing only slightly more light of given colors than the rest I would probably arrive at greenish looking color of the filter... kinda not unlike original AG filter
Again, look at the frequency response curves. If you want to filter out light that stimulates rods, you need to filter out everything from 400 nm to 600 nm. This is almost certainly achievable.
But there is a huge amount of overlap with the other curves. If you filter out 400 nm to 600 nm, you'll essentially be removing all the green photoreceptor response, and significant chunks of the blue and red responses. You'll be left with a huge spectral gap and you will not be able to see much color!
If you actually implemented such a filter, you'd have a display that simulates what it's like to have dichromatic vision, but even worse, because you're removing much of the response to blue and red.
In other words, you'll be able to see less color than a color blind person.
Enhanced Interrogator
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2013
- Messages
- 1,441
I just want to know if I can remove the anti-glare on my Diamondtron as long as I just use it at night. I know during the day it will get blown out by ambient light, so I won't use it then
XoR_
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2016
- Messages
- 1,679
Why do you want to remove it?
How much filter helps with contrast you can assess by first looking at screen and how dark it is and then peeling very small amount of the corner which is behind bezel and putting it against white paper and looking through it - you will be able then to assess how much this filter helps before going with the full irreversible procedure.
Tubes have different looks to them - not sure if its due to phosphor having different colors (which is imho the case) or glass on most tubes is darkened and on FW900 it is not (which should also reduce such effects) but I can definitely say not all tubes use AG filters like FW900 does. Heck, FW900 must be 'special' compared to all CRTs I have because it shows ridiculous amount of inner-glass reflections and this was the case with original AG and even polarizer which helps a lot with reflections but still this effect is visible more than elsewhere - think halo around mouse cursor on black background.
On FW900 with or without AG tube was quite bright but definitely without light management was very hard. I used it in pitch black room and didn't even turn LCD next to it because it would visibly affect contrast. Think making sure I wear dark/black clothes vs white as it would be detrimental to perceived contrast ratio. Very hard to use ambient light to visually boost contrast ratio.
Also 4:3 Trinitrons I have or have used have darker screen surface than FW900 + polarizer. E.g. Dell P1110 has much brighter picture but darker surface than FW900 with polarizer. Polarizer cut FW900 luminance more than a half and made it much dimmer - I think this Dell just cannot have this dark AG so if I removed it it wouldn't be as bad as FW900 without its AG was.
Diamontrons - completely not sure.
I do have one (Iiyama LM704UT) and its screen surface isn't very dark but not terrible either. I have not noticed anything like inner glass reflections like on FW900 (not to degree to immediately notice it and be bothered by these effects) and it doesn't look like using any darkening filter either - though if it has some film or not - not sure as I have not checked it. For Diamondtrons it has very light color of the tube judging from photos where some Diamondtrons have very very dark tubes. It can get really really bright as it has this feature that can boost light output to crazy levels - still less bright than FW900 without AG.
If my Diamondtron doesn't use any filter and yours does and makes screen much darker and without it it would be the color of my Diamondtron then it is still sufficiently dark tube to not worry too much about lighting conditions and certainly usable in dark room - not even pitch black room.
But is it almost black, your tube I mean and is my Iiyama really not using darkening filter and are phosphors the same... really hard for me to say.
What I will say is that if the reason to remove AG is light scratch that isn't in the very center of the image it might just be better to leave it be. Alternatively you could try putting transparent plastic film on top - if you use something like sugar water it might help fill in gap caused by scratch making it much less visible - of course it depends on the condition of the scratch. It is something you can check with even small plastic film before going for the costs of sourcing sufficiently big film. Chances are this would be enough and you wouldn't need to risk being dissatisfied with performance afterwards - and keep in mind other than darkening of the tube these filters can affect perceived colors. This was the case with my FW900 - I immediately regretted removing AG and especially since scratch on the AG looked like rather clean scratch which should be something that could be worked around.
XoR_
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2016
- Messages
- 1,679
I did at one time affect sensitivity of my rods and am still recovering and it did make the same exact difference to colors as I observe between displays.
Scotopic vision being affected but not photopic vision suggests rods were hit hard and cones not all all. I did not observe issues with eyesight acuity in good lighting condition or changes in perceived hue and saturation.
It was exactly reverse direction of change to how things looked on FW900 after removing AG compared to before - somehow less drastic but colors on FW900 especially immediately after the 'incident' were nicer as were colors of the world overall nicer. No reason to believe sensitivity curves of my cones changed in this case and if anything not in the way they moved or changed shape.
You don't need to filter all light. Even FW900 AG coating didn't ever look like changing much.
The tonal differences are in ratios of stimulation and not it being there at all or not.
RGB-LED display is also stimulating rods quite a lot but somehow it has different colors than typical display.
There also needs to be specific ratios of stimulation of rods vs cones for colors to glow and therefore to show much difference visually. Between already too much and even more - less difference than between threshold of glowing when in one case its passed and on the other case not.
I can confirm people do see these differences if they are big enough.
If that was only cones and nothing else - then no amount of differences between sensitivity between people would lead to effect that you cannot make gray or white look the same. You are just pushing the issue to obvious "more frequency bands covered the better" which even Newton seeing rainbow would be able to tell you without having any idea how human vision worked. Not sure if he did discover that he can recreate rainbow by mixing reg, green and blue but I am pretty sure that he would say you only need red green and blue colors to recreate all visible colors if he did appropriate tests. This is where we are at and it mostly works - just not to explain all tonal differences between what we can see in reality - differently looking displays are part of the reality of our color perception and this color perception absolutely require fourth parameter if we are to explain all colors.
We don't need 5th color component to color match white between displays. We wuld need infinite amount of subpixels (or just spectrum displays) if we were to cover whole gamut - but you don't need theory of 4D gamut for that. Our current color theory already knows you need spectral displays.
What it also states is that colors made by mixing different color components should be the same. If I had more cyan looking green vs. more yellow looking green the resulting colors picked from the intersecting gamuts should be the same. They are not - hence the theory doesn't hold the way it should.
The theory if it was 100% accurate and only differences were between people and between people and these sensitivity curves we see on diagrams then I should be still able to display the same gray on all displays as long as I can display colors which are more green, more cyan, more blue, more magenta, more red and more yellow than gray.
I cannot display the same gray on displays where I can display all the mentioned colors including gray - hence we need 4th color.
I'd agree with leaving it on. Even at night you'd still get reflection back to the screen from yourself in front of it. (Assuming it even is something that could be removed and not a baked on coating.)
Prince Valiant
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 3, 2023
- Messages
- 419
Agreed, leave coatings alone. I removed the coating (damaged) from my XBR960 and the anti-static was part of it. It's still usable but, in hindsight I should have tested more thoroughly to see how noticeable the damaged area was in use.
Even if it were a good idea (it isn't IMO), all the Diamondtron I've seen have the AR layer directly baked on the glass, it is not a film you can remove easily.
XoR_
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2016
- Messages
- 1,679
Yeah, with no AG on Fw900 it immediately became dust magnet. Not that some CRTs are not. It itself never bothered me - having this electrostatic field around the tube is part of CRT experience.
Interestingly polarizer did help with that and I am not even exactly sure how... maybe charges can go through adhesive or something?
I just ended initial tests of QD-OLED. It is an issue that exists on these panels too unfortunately.
Plasmas have it, CRTs have it... not apparently best OLED tech also have it.
The best OLED tech because is it to my eyes at least vastly superior despite picking light from outside.
What I realized when doing initial tests is how much it reminds me of IBM P275.
And this specific monitor I was comparing FW900 against and was severely disappointed FW900 doesn't have the same exact look to its image quality.
I am pretty certain IBM used vastly superior color filter - one which pushed that pesky invisible rod light to much lower levels than FW900 had even with its AG.
FW900 with polarizer has the contrast ratio but still doesn't look anywhere close and why I find it suspicious. Still much better for given brightness level (though reduced with polarizer - cut by more than a half) due to not having to worry about ambient light and such. Then again seeing IBM P275 (which I have access to as I gave it to my father) it looks like it has the same exact colors but somehow looks totally different and the same exact effects with rising black level don't at all bother me on that monitor while on FW900 they bother me a lot. I is (the IBM P275) in my eyes vastly superior CRT with better than most CRTs colors - except maybe Iiyama LM704UT which nailed glowing looks which is something else and more comparable to Pioneer Kuro and something I think is on the same spectrum as difference between FW900 and P275. In fact when FW900 had its AG filter it was exactly this look to colors which this Iiyama has. So imho it is the same spectrum - and with filter we should be able to tune looks of the image.
Anyhoo, I guess I'll need to acquire spectrometer because talk is cheap but without spending money on the talk I won't be able to convinc anyone
Worst case scenario I'll spend money and convince myself otherwise but I find it very unlikely. I am certain I am right about rods - too much evidence for it and zero evidence so far on the contrary.
Enhanced Interrogator
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2013
- Messages
- 1,441
Sorry, I should have clarified.
It has a noticeable scratch in the antiglare directly in the middle of the screen. Creating a rainbow effect visible on flat colors (like a blue sky, etc)
If I can manage the issues of removing the antiglare just by playing it in the dark, I would happily do that.
spacediver
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2013
- Messages
- 2,731
I'm going to respectfully bow out of this conversation. Good luck in your studies!