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

Zellio2009 said:
Well, not to advertise, but this is my lcd:

http://www.hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1033626955&postcount=13439

Other lcds may look awful, but the lcds from 2008 look great. I don't mean to hijack this thread, but the lcd bashing came in, and while crts still look great, the fact that 2008 lcds look so good should be a good sign for all you crt users with bad backs, eh? :p

This 40" is only 60 lbs. I'm gonna predict by 2010 or even late 2009 lcds (probably with led backlights) will be as good as the crts you remember.

And btw, I had lights on when I took those pics, which I kinda had to do otherwise the iphone wouldn't make a good picture. :( The light of course makes blacks alot worse.
Click to expand...
Zellio2009 said:
No, you make it look good by having a good camera.

Try making it look good on an iphone camera some time.

I could take a picture on a 1mp pos camera and still make this tv look good.
Click to expand...
You do realize that it takes proper camera settings and, above all else, a proper camera to be able to take a photo of any display, right?

Besides, let's assume that those pictures are proper. From what I can tell, you are suffering from some severe black crush, lighter shades are too bright (lowering bright details), and the coloring on their masks is supposed to be a dark pinkish red, not orange.

For anyone who has a properly calibrated monitor, here is the reference image:
2mosa3b.png
 
It's the iphone camera. When in light it over saturates the colors.

My comforter is bright maroon, like this:

01-22-22.jpg


But when you attempt to take a picture of it in day light, you end up with this:

001-18.jpg


Here's another example. SHowing my lcds angles:

010-1.jpg


But if I move it into an extreme angle and light gets into the camera I get this:

008-1.jpg
 
Well, I answered the 'question' did I not?

It should be obvious now it's the camera and not the display :p
 
I'm looking for a list of all decent resellers of this monitor
Quality choices would appear to be Accurate IT and Unkle Vito in LA
Any first hand experience on the difference between Accurate IT B and A- stock and how they prepare their shipping boxes?
These things are brutally rare in Canada
 
Yea I would like to know as well who sells this monitor. I just started reading this thread and this monitor looks amazing. Don't like 60hz....not to great for counter-strike.
 
is there anyway to get vista 64 (or 7 which i'm actually using) to recognize the driver? i can't get any higher than 1600x1200. i would use vga (which is recognized) but that input is blurry. my bnc connection is perfect.
 
The driver is built into vista.. You have to tell it which make and model and your good. So sony and FW900 in the system properties under monitors.
 
You laugh about the theft but I live in a sketchy neighborhood
and never felt worried with my fw900. With a 30" LCD, I am very worried.
 
I love it when people see my fw900 and go "wtf is that thing, can't you afford a better monitor?"

If they only knew, but I don't waste my time trying to explain. Let the sheep be sheep.
 
shiznit said:
I love it when people see my fw900 and go "wtf is that thing, can't you afford a better monitor?"

If they only knew, but I don't waste my time trying to explain. Let the sheep be sheep.
Click to expand...

Comments, I remember, were more like:

Is that a real computer monitor (or a TV)?
This is the nicest computer monitor I have ever seen.

Alas, this was several years ago, before the dark times...before the Empire....
 
Zellio2009 said:
Here's another example. SHowing my lcds angles:

010-1.jpg
Click to expand...

Lol, deja vu. I have the same monitor and used to run the same desktop background...with steam up and running.

Being that this is the 24" CRT thread, I should send the obligatory notice. Having had the FW900 (RIP :() and now this, I can tell that red saturation and black clarity are substantially lower in comparison. (And that is after hours of tweaking to find the best overall balance) However, the LN40A550 is actually one of the better quality LCD displays I've seen. I've seen others do MUCH worse at black levels.

Being that these 40" + LCD's are becoming so cheap, I would have to imagine that more people has to consider them as a viable alternative to the 24" "monitor"
 
My F520 is retired, but still around as a backup and gets an occasional, wistful, glance...

My original FW900 is still in service at my dad's and my other one is in storage.

Was spending too much time sorting out problems, possibly more related to this condo's electrical wiring, and switched to this LNT4065F LCD. (Though LCD has had its own challenges...)

With natural sunlight in the room, the mirror black coating on the LCD creates at least an illusion of an excellent black. But this is lost at night...
 
Anyone here in the LA area willing to sell a Fw900 or the Hp version of let me know. My Sony Trinitron just went all blue on me so I need a replacement.
 
vibe said:
You laugh about the theft but I live in a sketchy neighborhood
and never felt worried with my fw900. With a 30" LCD, I am very worried.
Click to expand...

By no means am I laughing at a theft (never stated that).

Laughing at the thought of a crook with a broken back due to the fw900.
 
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
I saw those. I wanted to get 5 more to build a wall of FW900s, but it would cost me something like $900 to ship it here.
 
I finally have my 3007 at full resolution and I hate it.
I want my fw900 back :(

The thing about LCD which is killing me is the screendoor effect, I can see each pixel, even on this 0.25 30" - I don't remember the fw900 having that problem or is that wishful memory?
 
vibe said:
I finally have my 3007 at full resolution and I hate it.
I want my fw900 back :(

The thing about LCD which is killing me is the screendoor effect, I can see each pixel, even on this 0.25 30" - I don't remember the fw900 having that problem or is that wishful memory?
Click to expand...

I'll say "you'll get used to it", because I did. When I got my 2490 in early Dec all I could see was sparkles, screen door and grey blacks.

After I stopped obsessing on the things that were worse than my F520, I've begun to appreciate the overall net positive experience of a top notch LCD. (note I said "overall" positive, not unconditionally positive ;) ). On the whole, I'm really liking my 2490, but I can't seem to bring myself to sell my F520s just yet.
 
vibe said:
I finally have my 3007 at full resolution and I hate it.
I want my fw900 back :(

The thing about LCD which is killing me is the screendoor effect, I can see each pixel, even on this 0.25 30" - I don't remember the fw900 having that problem or is that wishful memory?
Click to expand...

Are you using ClearType? It works a minor miracle in smoothing out HDTV screens, which in comparison to your 30" are truly chunky...

(I know what you mean though, but I guess I also got used to it over time, kind of...)
 
With cleartype, appearently I am one of those people that is hyper-sensitive to the colored pixels it adds and I can see the fringe and blur and it bothers me, a lot. There is some documentation about this problem on wikipedia so at least I know I'm not crazy. Microsoft decided not to use the method that controls how saturated the extra pixels are (though it's available in the newest .net frameworks for special programs).

I think I am going to try to find a 23" with 1920x1200 to give me the higher DPI, but there's no IPS/MVA panel that I can find (at least reasonably priced).

If I could get another perfectly aligned FW900 to my door for $200 or less I'd do it in a heartbeat at this point (even with a 100 pound dead one sitting behind me right now that only lasted 3 years)
 
Can only suggest getting the ClearType tuner from Microsoft and seeing if any of the choices help...if any do for you...
 
I sent back the 3007 to Dell so I am back on my old P991
which is a poor-person's version of the FW900 (similar trinitron but 4:3)

It may be small but such lovely fully-formed characters so you can't see each individual dot framed by the pixel screen - deepest blacks that never end and awesome contrast even at low brightness that lets you see every subtle shade on a webpage.

I still can't believe inferior LCD has taken over. It's such a step backwards.
 
vibe said:
I still can't believe inferior LCD has taken over. It's such a step backwards.
Click to expand...

I won't disagree. If I could have a 40" 16:9 CRT (movable only by fork lift) I would take it.

That said, having to live with LCD for about 2 solid years now, I find it does suit my purpose. And it is possible to buy LCD's that don't look like crap...albeit with a number of hours spent in calibrating and tweaking for the best balance.
 
Rock&Roll said:
I won't disagree. If I could have a 40" 16:9 CRT (movable only by fork lift) I would take it.
Click to expand...
Sony KV-40XBR800, 4:3 screen, but it displayed a 4:3 image at 40" and 16:9 at 37". The biggest HD direct-view CRT, it had a resolution of 853x1080 interlaced, and even had an HDCP-compatible DVI port.

The cream of the crop was the KD-34XBR960 and KD-36XS955, 1440x1080 interlaced through HDMI. If I could get either of these I would be so frickin' happy.
 
And I thought my NEC FP2141 was big and heavy - 22" 4:3, cannot even imagine sitting in front of a 24" CRT.
 
Anyway, has anybody pushed this monitor to its internal 400MHz clock limits? By making sure that Windows cannot identify the monitor, I used Nvidia's custom resolution feature to create a 2560x1600 resolution, and set it at 68Hz. Nvidia's drivers would not let me set it at 69 Hz, since it would require like 402-403 MHz pixel clock, and all of the modern video cards come with a 400MHz RAMDAC. It's been stuck at 400MHz since the Geforce 4 days, which had a 350MHz RAMDAC that could only do 2048x1536@80Hz instead of 85 Hz.

I've been playing Dead Space at 2560x1600@68Hz, and just looks awesome. It looks so good, but yet so bad since many of the textures up close are so low-resolution, thanks to the game being designed for PS3 and Xbox360 low-resolution graphics. Since Dead Space cannot be truly anti-aliased, jacking up the resolution is the best way to improve IQ... It was still nicely playable (45fps average) on my 8800GTX.
 
Indeed, jacking up the resolution to beyond the number of physical phosphors appeared to be a good solution for games without anti-aliasing support...

(Did this with Halo to good effect...)
 
It seems that there are actually a few more phosphors than 2560x1600, but the monitor "warbles" slightly since the cathode ray is firing horizontally at more unstable rates, to the point where it is hardly "worth it" if reading text or something like that. It's just pushing the limits of CRT tech.

There's the matter of color convergence accuracy. You could launch Nokia Monitor Test (a small freeware stand-alone program that doesnt need to be installed), click on the Convergence test and click until you see the multi-color grid full-screen test. No amount of calibration via the monitor's OSD can make the convergence perfect as the colors just do not align with each other in each single phosphor. It's just old CRT tech with aperutre grille.
 
Bo_Fox said:
It seems that there are actually a few more phosphors than 2560x1600, but the monitor "warbles" slightly since the cathode ray is firing horizontally at more unstable rates, to the point where it is hardly "worth it" if reading text or something like that. It's just pushing the limits of CRT tech.

There's the matter of color convergence accuracy. You could launch Nokia Monitor Test (a small freeware stand-alone program that doesnt need to be installed), click on the Convergence test and click until you see the multi-color grid full-screen test. No amount of calibration via the monitor's OSD can make the convergence perfect as the colors just do not align with each other in each single phosphor. It's just old CRT tech with aperutre grille.
Click to expand...

That convergence situation is exactly the same with LCD. There are red, green and blue phosphors - each pixel is not shown in its final resultant colour. That "old CRT tech" is still the same, except my F520 CRT (0.22mm) has a much finer phosphor pitch than the "screen door" pitch on my 2490 (0.27mm plus inter-subpixel black space). I'm used to it now though.

Convergence and geometry ARE CRT problems though. A good thorough round of WinDAS dynamic convergence will do wonders, as will a flyback transformer focus adjustment.
 
Bo_Fox said:
It seems that there are actually a few more phosphors than 2560x1600, but the monitor "warbles" slightly since the cathode ray is firing horizontally at more unstable rates, to the point where it is hardly "worth it" if reading text or something like that. It's just pushing the limits of CRT tech.

There's the matter of color convergence accuracy. You could launch Nokia Monitor Test (a small freeware stand-alone program that doesnt need to be installed), click on the Convergence test and click until you see the multi-color grid full-screen test. No amount of calibration via the monitor's OSD can make the convergence perfect as the colors just do not align with each other in each single phosphor. It's just old CRT tech with aperutre grille.
Click to expand...

Physical pixels or stripes about 1928 across maybe...though the pitch varies from .23 to .27, center to edge, so that is just an estimate...

Vertical resolution limited by the precision of the guns or what have you, there being no mask or grill in the way, except for the two horizontal supports...

(For text, always ran 1600 by 1024, at 100 Hz, to allow for a margin of error, and thus get a bit sharper text and such...)

I remember trying 2560x1600, one time, just to see if it could display anything and being once again impressed by that great monitor....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top