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

So what DVI to BNC cable is suggested these days? I'd like to be sure I'm getting the absolute best possible connection. I'd prefer ordering from a reputable seller in the US so I don't have to deal with those sketchy bootleg China vendors off eBay.
 
Don't see higher quality new CRTs much these days, even 4:3 ones:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-BOX-21-...2134?pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item20bcd1fe06

(No familiarity with the seller. Just can't stop myself from looking for new Trinitron listings once in a while. If I knew 10 years ago, that it would be 2011 and we'd still have no SED, OLED, and no new high end CRTs made for years, I would have probably planned and purchased quite differently. And been less frustrated. But who could have thought back then that such a key category of computer gear would end up so stagnant...)
 
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
SH1 said:
Don't see higher quality new CRTs much these days, even 4:3 ones:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-BOX-21-...2134?pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item20bcd1fe06

(No familiarity with the seller. Just can't stop myself from looking for new Trinitron listings once in a while. If I knew 10 years ago, that it would be 2011 and we'd still have no SED, OLED, and no new high end CRTs made for years, I would have probably planned and purchased quite differently. And been less frustrated. But who could have thought back then that such a key category of computer gear would end up so stagnant...)
Click to expand...

Heh, and when I say similar things, I get called elitist, perfectionist, obsessed or what not... simply because I refuse to accept the garbage being sold nowadays as an improvement.

The qualities of a display are perfectly objective and equal for all display tech. A display is either good and meets all the necessary characteristics, or it doesn't... no such thing as a "gaming"/"text" display or otherwise.

-Accurate color reproduction across the grayscale, hardware color calibration (bias/gain)
-0.00 cd/m^2 black level
-Sustainable white luminance of at least 120 cd/m^2 and upwards
-No picture quality degradation regardless of viewing angle
-No burn-in or image retention of any kind
-0 input lag
-Nanosecond response times (CRT-like)
-No trailing/blurring/ghosting/flaring (simultaneous contrast equal or close to sequential)
-Refresh rates 240 Hz and upwards
-8 years minimum lifespan with no loss in image quality
-Resolution flexibility
-Good amount of choice in harshness (or lack of) anti-glare coatings

I think I covered most of the important aspects. Everything else is optional, manufacturers. Get us here and from there you can work on increasing color gamut to get us close to life-like saturation. Thanks.


:D
 
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
SH1 said:
Don't see higher quality new CRTs much these days, even 4:3 ones:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-BOX-21-...2134?pt=Computer_Monitors&hash=item20bcd1fe06

(No familiarity with the seller. Just can't stop myself from looking for new Trinitron listings once in a while. If I knew 10 years ago, that it would be 2011 and we'd still have no SED, OLED, and no new high end CRTs made for years, I would have probably planned and purchased quite differently. And been less frustrated. But who could have thought back then that such a key category of computer gear would end up so stagnant...)
Click to expand...

The G520P had awesome image quality but its lifespan was the shortest out of all Sony CRT's Ive owned (bought it brand new on Newegg) it lasted around 3 1/2 years before failing, About 3 months before it died it had a problem with a red tint overpowering the image during warmup and it would slowly go away as it warmed up.

Not saying all G520P's will do this but it was a bummer and made me curious about the quality of internal parts being used.

G520P had a few minor advantages over the FW900 such as a brighter overall image (mainly due to 4:3 image, less work for the electron gun you can see the same effect on the FW900 if you select a 4:3 resolution), a uniform dot pitch across the screen and I also liked the various brightness modes accessible on the front panel via the Picture effect button.
 
Last edited:
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Anyone still selling these? I don't see ebay warehouse sellers anymore. Just curious. Mine is still kicking afaik. I might integrate it back into my monitor array eventually with a desk mod, beneath my main monitor and closer at x1440 80hz for vids and games on occasion.
 
mathesar said:
The G520P had awesome image quality but its lifespan was the shortest out of all Sony CRT's Ive owned (bought it brand new on Newegg) it lasted around 3 1/2 years before failing, About 3 months before it died it had a problem with a red tint overpowering the image during warmup and it would slowly go away as it warmed up.
Click to expand...
I have (but my dad is using it, not me) IBM P275 that is G520 rebrand with different casing (my is black) and DVI-A connector instead 5xBNC. It's running issue-free for 5 years and I bought it used so it's running even longer :) My dad uses (2 years now) it in hostile environment: freezing cold in winter and rather big humidity and still it's good :D

Damn good monitors those are. Image quality is even better than FW900 as it have less flaring and phosphor trailing so it's more "contrasty". To bad Sony stopped CRT development and didn't make newer 24" CRTs :mad:
 
What's the going rate for a FW900 these days? Would $200 for one with a minor scratch on the anti-glare coating sound okay?

I have another option to get two mint condition G520 for $40

Which one should I go for?

Thank you
 
Shad0w99 said:
What's the going rate for a FW900 these days? Would $200 for one with a minor scratch on the anti-glare coating sound okay?

I have another option to get two mint condition G520 for $40

Which one should I go for?
Click to expand...

The answer to that query is simply YES and all of them. (no I am not kidding)

Yesterday I had to use my brothers computer. He just got an LED backlit Samsung 23" 1080P.. I had calibrated it a few weeks ago to the best of my (and its) ability.

I could not stand it.. 10 minutes on reddit with a background color changed to gray and all I saw was the tremendous variation in the gray's brightness from one end to the middle to the other end.. I found myself trying to twist it Up and Down to get the viewing angle correct and to tone down the insane polarization effect.. Nothing.. NOTHING on earth could get me to switch to that.. 10 minutes of hell.
 
TWO mint condition G520's for $40?? I'd probably go for those if you can stand 4:3. I really love having widescreen but the G520's are known to be brighter with less flaring and for that good of a deal I would hop on it. I got my FW900 for $100 and it was quite dirty, so I'd say $200 for one in good shape with minor use is decent.

They are both modern Trinitron displays, and therefore are both going to be top performers regardless of what you get. They are sharp for what they are, have super deep black levels, great color (mine has a slightly weak red gun but G and B are more vivid than my IPS LCD,) and both have super fine dot pitches.

In my somewhat educated end-user opinion, it comes down to this: Would you rather have a brighter picture with less flaring, or would you rather have widescreen?
 
Buy the FW900 and remove the anti glare. Detailed step by step photo Instructions are in this thread...somewhere. Many say removing the anti glare coating improves picture quality anyway.

Then for backups get the G520s. That way if something goes wrong with the FW900 you have something other than a funky LCD to use while it is getting repaired.
 
XoR said:
I have (but my dad is using it, not me) IBM P275 that is G520 rebrand with different casing (my is black) and DVI-A connector instead 5xBNC. It's running issue-free for 5 years and I bought it used so it's running even longer :) My dad uses (2 years now) it in hostile environment: freezing cold in winter and rather big humidity and still it's good :D

Damn good monitors those are. Image quality is even better than FW900 as it have less flaring and phosphor trailing so it's more "contrasty". To bad Sony stopped CRT development and didn't make newer 24" CRTs :mad:
Click to expand...

Thats good to know after buying the FW900 I took the G520P to my moms and let her use it but after it failed I ended up buying her an LCD.

I was searching online for possible causes of failure based on symptoms and it may of just been a cold solder joint but I never had it looked at.

Come to think of it I've had unfortunate luck with Sony CRT lifespans, G400, G520P, FW900, 32HS510 CRT HDTV, 34XBR960 CRT HDTV - Of all of those listed the only one still working today is the 34XBR960 (6 years old now), the rest failed with the FW900 lasting the longest (8 years based on manufacture date).

It would be great if they still made NEW crts but Ive pretty much given up on buying used at this point which is why I ended up with 2 LCDs on my desk.
 
Shad0w99 said:
What's the going rate for a FW900 these days? Would $200 for one with a minor scratch on the anti-glare coating sound okay?

I have another option to get two mint condition G520 for $40

Which one should I go for?
Click to expand...

I have a FW900 that I use to watch 1080p movies on and leave it off the rest of the time. Its not as sharp as my Dell P1130 CRT, so I use that for everything else. Don't know if the sharpness is inherently different or if its due to different durations of use, as my understanding is sharpness (and brightness) deteriorates with use. I got another P1130 as a backup and its not as sharp (or bright) as the first.
 
Hyomil said:
Don't know if the sharpness is inherently different or if its due to different durations of use, as my understanding is sharpness (and brightness) deteriorates with use.
Click to expand...

The sharpness may need to be adjusted. There are two pots you can get to through the top. You wont even need to remove the cover if your screwdriver is small enough and you can see them..

Here is a picture of where they are. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v504/F12Bwth2/GDM-FW900/IMG_7961a.jpg
 
Not mine, but it looks like someone decided to do CRT Eyefinity the right way

100_0654.jpg


So much want! ...if only the bezels were thinner.
 
I've read a lot of the recent pages in this thread and I quite honestly think all the people raging about LCD screens are absolutely insane. I mean, seriously, as strongly as you think that all LCDs are garbage spew forged in hell by Satan himself to ruin your computing experience, I think you should be restrained in a small room under constant observation to figure out what is wrong with you so you don't infect the rest of us. I used CRTs for nearly 2 decades and I will never go back. :eek:

edit: Does anyone seriously not care about the moire and poor edge calibration in the OP pictures? Those are things that should have permanently disappeared YEARS ago, yet you people keep it alive! :eek: :eek:
 
Last edited:
requiem99 said:
I've read a lot of the recent pages in this thread and I quite honestly think all the people raging about LCD screens are absolutely insane. I mean, seriously, as strongly as you think that all LCDs are garbage spew forged in hell by Satan himself to ruin your computing experience, I think you should be restrained in a small room under constant observation to figure out what is wrong with you so you don't infect the rest of us. I used CRTs for nearly 2 decades and I will never go back. :eek:

edit: Does anyone seriously not care about the moire and poor edge calibration in the OP pictures? Those are things that should have permanently disappeared YEARS ago, yet you people keep it alive! :eek: :eek:
Click to expand...

I've read a lot of the recent threads in this forum and I quite honestly think all the people raging about LCD screens are absolutely insane. I mean, seriously, as strongly as you think that all CRT's are garbage spew forged in hell by Satan himself and that the LCD's you're using are actually better, I think you should be restrained in a small room under constant observation to figure out what is wrong with you so you don't infect the few of us remaining who are sane. I used LCD's for 4 years and I will never go back.

Does anyone seriously not care about the backlight bleed, poor black level, viewing angles, response times, input lag, IPS glow, gamma shift, dithering, in almost all of the monitor threads? Those are things that never existed YEARS ago, yet you people brought it to life.

;)

As you can see, it goes both ways. I don't come into LCD threads to bash every single monitor there is out there, I see no purpose in anyone else coming here to do the same to us. Just because you do not enjoy some technology does not mean no one else is allowed to.
 
Many people here own both CRTs and LCDs as I do, and we know that there are issues with CRTs. But the problem is LCDs gave up some of the most important features of a display just to get thin. And to people like us that was not worth it given they added a TON of negatives to do that. Why is that so unreasonable? If all I did was screw around on face book then I would be plenty happy with an LCD because it would require no tweaking to get perfect geometry. But for alot of other things we do like photoshop, gaming, movies and so on LCD drawbacks become obvious. If you cannot accept this as rational then you need to check your self into your small room.
 
LCD's are great, but for people with sensitive eyes, response time, sample and hold blur, are not acceptable for gaming.

I PC game on a 2011 Panasonic plasma.
 
requiem99 said:
I've read a lot of the recent pages in this thread and I quite honestly think all the people raging about LCD screens are absolutely insane. I mean, seriously, as strongly as you think that all LCDs are garbage spew forged in hell by Satan himself to ruin your computing experience, I think you should be restrained in a small room under constant observation to figure out what is wrong with you so you don't infect the rest of us. I used CRTs for nearly 2 decades and I will never go back. :eek:

edit: Does anyone seriously not care about the moire and poor edge calibration in the OP pictures? Those are things that should have permanently disappeared YEARS ago, yet you people keep it alive! :eek: :eek:
Click to expand...

Take a reaction time test on a crt then on an LCD. Unless you did extremely good research on that LCD, gg right there. Plenty of other downsides.

I had eyefinity going on my FW900 with 2 LCDs (fw900 at 85hz and the LCDs at 60hz) and it worked great on my old computer but on my new computer I can't get it to work. Really pissing me off as my 2 LCDs are doing nothing now.
 
Inu said:
LCD's are great, but for people with sensitive eyes, response time, sample and hold blur, are not acceptable for gaming.

I PC game on a 2011 Panasonic plasma.
Click to expand...

Ive been gaming on a 50" Kuro plasma for 3 1/2 years and its definitely nicer than any LCD ive seen or owned, It became the preferred TV in this house even over my Sony 34XBR960 CRT.
 
Unknown-One said:
Not mine, but it looks like someone decided to do CRT Eyefinity the right way

100_0654.jpg


So much want! ...if only the bezels were thinner.
Click to expand...

that is so full of win...talk about the bezels hahah can the immersion distract you from paying attention to those borders?
 
requiem99 said:
I used CRTs for nearly 2 decades and I will never go back.
Click to expand...

May be a troll but one question req.. Which ones? What did you use in your 20 years?

Some 15" gateways? Maybe an IBM or two?

This .. this monitor, this PARTICULAR monitor and thread are not about a good crt.. It is about the best crt. You can't say what the best car ever was.. you cant judge firearms or beautiful women.. But this.. The CRT is over and at the top of the pile in 2004 was this GDM-FW900.

You want the reason I bought my first? I saw a man using it on TV. He was in charge of all the visual effect for the movie 300. It is a professional monitor in the same way that the new $36,000 Eizo 4K monitor is a professional monitor. Very few lcd's come close and no matter how close.. they still aren't there.
 
requiem99 said:
edit: Does anyone seriously not care about the moire and poor edge calibration in the OP pictures? Those are things that should have permanently disappeared YEARS ago, yet you people keep it alive! :eek: :eek:
Click to expand...

Moire is a common side effect that occurs when taking off screen shots with a digital camera, You wouldn't see any moire when viewing the monitor in person.

I'm not even sure what you meant by "edge calibration"
 
Even if you compare the FW900 to whatever LCD you can't say it's categorically better. LCDs are certainly sharper for one, yet CRTs have their aforementioned strengths as well.

As with any long-running "which is better" discussion, it really only comes down to how the individual person values the strengths and weaknesses each display technology offers.

Luckily modern video cards have more than one output so you can have the best of both worlds >:] (hehe now I kinda want a FW900, or at least to see one)
 
netchris said:
Even if you compare the FW900 to whatever LCD you can't say it's categorically better. LCDs are certainly sharper for one, yet CRTs have their aforementioned strengths as well.

As with any long-running "which is better" discussion, it really only comes down to how the individual person values the strengths and weaknesses each display technology offers.

Luckily modern video cards have more than one output so you can have the best of both worlds >:] (hehe now I kinda want a FW900, or at least to see one)
Click to expand...

Well. I've had one for years (recently got it sRGB compatible) and I can tell you that while it may not be as super sharp as the LCD, it is comparatively sharp to the point where you can still see the details. Besides, I don't like the really sharp images LCD's produce.If anything if I could set the sharpness setting on a low setting then I would, because the high sharpness settings just adds unneeded details and ruins the text.

Even though I've got it to where I want it to be, I still want to do some more stuff with it. I've discovered that my "perfect condition" monitor has some minor scratches on it, and the anti-glare film is scratched beyond belief. As such, I'm planning on polishing out the scratches and replacing the anti-glare film with one from Photodon. I don't know if I can find a cheap way to polish the glass and I don't know if it'll work but those scratches can be distracting and I don't really want to overlay the new anti-glare over the scratches.

Anyway, it provides similar colors, it provides super deep blacks (not without a bit of light behind it, in fact I had to turn my color bias down significantly to get the deep blacks.) and it provides a good refresh rate with room to spare (if you want to do 3D in the future.) I swear, they should of made more of these things, I mean the only thing that can compare is OLED but that has burn-in issues and they cost a huge fortune right now. I mean what am I going to do if this thing dies; I'll be tied up between a Planar monitor and an Eizo C-PVA monitor.
 
I'd be careful with the anti-glare from Photodon. I tried samples of 3 of their different coatings, and only the Crystal Clear was useable with a CRT (it provides no anti-glare properties, simply a clear sheet). The MXH and MXT versions turned the screen into a nice mosaic.

As the CRT faceplate is much thicker and further from the light-source than on an LCD, these films will not work on them.
 
mathesar said:
I'm not even sure what you meant by "edge calibration"
Click to expand...

He probably means corner/edge convergence. In the OP's last screenshot (COD2) there is a red line on the left edge of the screen. Thankfully with WinDAS this isn't a problem anymore. He might also be referring to poor geometry commonly found on CRTs owned by regular people, to which I respond with: http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037674940&postcount=7434

All I need to say is there is a reason this thread has still been going strong since 2005. :)
 
requiem99 said:
I used CRTs for nearly 2 decades and I will never go back.
Click to expand...
using FW900 is not about going back but it's about actually going forward :)

It wouldn't be desirable to throw away LCD away and use FW900 for everyday text based usage like web because good as fw900 is, eyestrain from it is much more intense than from good LCDs and as eye health is top priority LCD is a must have!

But it is impossible to buy LCD that would come close to CRT performance in black level and motion handling so instead of waiting for OLEDs I suggest to get FW900 and make LCD+CRT setup :) Why would anyone bother with black level and motion performance of LCD having FW900 next to it for games/movies? Or lack of ultimate sharpness and geometry is also no issue as LCD is used for internet and work in that setup and CRT is just for games, movies and viewing photos (high res photos look sweet @ 2304x1440 :D)

So it's all win situation as one get best monitor for games and movies ever made and at the same time isn't forced to use it for anything else if don't want to do so :cool:
 
There are just too many subjective variables to say one is definitively better than the other for many of the aforementioned use cases.

FW900 has awesome contrast, yet so many LCDs murder it in ANSI contrast. Which one makes more of a difference? Probably depends on the content? Probably depends on the viewer?

LCDs are nice and sharp, yet CRTs are more responsive with no chance of input lag. Maybe some people don't notice soft edges? Maybe some ppl don't notice a little input lag?

etc..

PS @sourceringer i believe this truly is the most epic thread on the forum >:-]
 
sourceringer said:
He probably means corner/edge convergence. In the OP's last screenshot (COD2) there is a red line on the left edge of the screen. Thankfully with WinDAS this isn't a problem anymore. He might also be referring to poor geometry commonly found on CRTs owned by regular people, to which I respond with: http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037674940&postcount=7434

All I need to say is there is a reason this thread has still been going strong since 2005. :)
Click to expand...

You were already responding to the OP (me) I used WinDAS to adjust the G2 & Convergence awhile after I took the pics in the OP, but the monitor was already in pretty darn good shape when I first took it out of the box, especially the geometry which was by far the best ive witnessed on a CRT.

It was definitely the best CRT Ive owned but I didn't have any backup monitors when it died and ended up buying an LCD in town the same day, I then later bought another LCD online after doing some more research.

I do kind of miss being able to play games @ 85hz and higher on the CRT, even my fast TN panel based LCD can't compete with a CRT's ability to maintain details during motion.

But when it comes to watching movies my C-PVA (Samsung 2333T) produces a pretty impressive image for an LCD, Especially because of the deep black levels (even in a dark room) the only major downside to C-PVA is motion handling with gaming.
 
netchris said:
There are just too many subjective variables to say one is definitively better than the other for many of the aforementioned use cases.

FW900 has awesome contrast, yet so many LCDs murder it in ANSI contrast. Which one makes more of a difference? Probably depends on the content? Probably depends on the viewer?

LCDs are nice and sharp, yet CRTs are more responsive with no chance of input lag. Maybe some people don't notice soft edges? Maybe some ppl don't notice a little input lag?

etc..

PS @sourceringer i believe this truly is the most epic thread on the forum >:-]
Click to expand...


ehh it really just comes down to application, assuming your eyes meet certain health standards. objectively, different monitors are better suited for different uses.

as said a million times before, LCD is great for text/web. it produces text cleaner than a CRT, there is less eye strain, the monitor uses less power, color accuracy doesnt matter here, etc.

video and gaming goes to CRT due to color accuracy, motion performance, minimal input lag, black level performance, viewing angle (all objectively measured), and overall presentation.

now, of course, you could say you prefer input lag, or you hate the color black, or proper color accuracy is distracting to you... but c'mon. thats just hiding behind the subjective blanket and i dont buy it.


ive owned CRTs, plasmas and LCDs... and i settled on the fw900. now, one day i might not be able to resist the pioneer kuro, but until that day, its the fw900.
 
LCDs certainly have their uses. It's just a shame there are no longer higher performance options available for those of us obsessed with display tech...

(I'd darken tube TV's to get better blacks and contrast, even when I was a little kid...)

Also a shame the excellent Kuro was discontinued...
 
SH1 said:
LCDs certainly have their uses. It's just a shame there are no longer higher performance options available for those of us obsessed with display tech...

(I'd darken tube TV's to get better blacks and contrast, even when I was a little kid...)

Also a shame the excellent Kuro was discontinued...
Click to expand...

Good to hear I'm not the only one that was picky from the get go, I used to compare black levels between CRT models before LCDs were even around lol.

Having owned my Kuro for nearly 4 years now it's obvious to me Pioneer was very passionate about making the best display they possibly could without cutting any corners, they used their own parts (Nothing was outsourced) unfortunately they were expensive to make and not enough people were buying them.. But It's the first non-CRT that truly blew me away even with my FW900 sitting right next to it ,It actually made the FW900 look kinda dim in comparison but the FW900 still had the edge in overall color accuracy, at least on my non-elite Kuro model. (Elite models had a lot more fine tuning adjustments)

IMO a Kuro's combination of very high ANSI contrast AND deep black level is what gives them such an impressive Wow factor when viewing.
 
quantum112 said:
I'd be careful with the anti-glare from Photodon. I tried samples of 3 of their different coatings, and only the Crystal Clear was useable with a CRT (it provides no anti-glare properties, simply a clear sheet). The MXH and MXT versions turned the screen into a nice mosaic.

As the CRT faceplate is much thicker and further from the light-source than on an LCD, these films will not work on them.
Click to expand...

I'm aware. I actually read your post about the anti-glare and I'm going with the crystal clear one seeing as how I'm tired of seeing sandy whites and I want the full color accuracy on this thing.

BTW, nice job writing that post; it's really detailed and really informative.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top