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

spacediver said:
Here's a teaser for the white point balance guide - just the introduction.
Click to expand...

Very interesting explanation there, especially in the last paragraph -- you're saying it's not possible to have deep blacks with vibrant R G B channels? Are you talking about the MAX_CONTRAST portion of the adjustment?

I suppose it all comes down a comprise.
 
No, it's entirely possible to have deep blacks while having a high peak white. And deep blacks will actually ensure good color saturation in the primaries. When I said "The procedure also allows you to adjust minimum luminance", I was referring to the WPB procedure as a whole, not the peak luminance part of the procedure. You adjust the min luminance right at the beginning of the procedure. I'll edit the draft to make it clearer.
 
1.Guys is there a difference between FW900 and F520? except the Ratio 16:10?
2.same way of calibrating?
 
jbltecnicspro said:
Vito, on the first pass in WinDAS - in 6500K (sorry, I didn't record the 9300K), when it asked me to set the max drive level so that Y = 105 cd/m2, I only had to slide it up to 58.

At slider = 58, Y = 105.8 cd/m2. :) I may not sell this thing after all...
Click to expand...

Very nice - on my best unit (which might have under a year of usage), this is the first pass info for 9300K and 6500K. I wonder if the G2 voltage setting interacts with this though. If you set the G2 slider really low, does that mean you have to increase drive voltage higher to overcome the low G2 setting? Should be easy enough to figure out - I'll check, next time I do a WPB procedure.

29prbra.png


2s7hngi.png
 
So yea i fixed my ground loop and helped a lot but screen still didnt seem 100%.
Come to find out my cheap Logitech speakers were throwing off some interference the power cord was close to speaker wires and cord for volume rocker wire.

So turning off at the volume rocker and unplugging from computer the screen is absolutely perfect text is really sharp now and all my colors are really vivid i can actually see aperture grill detail where before even after fixing ground loop still had slight soft look that also make text under certain circumstances seem out of focus..

Example peoples sigs on this forum were hard to read almost blotchy looking and now perfect.

So yea i moved wires as far way from power and put some ferrite i had on both wires and now fixed.
Unreal how the slightest bit of inference can throw off this monitor

Also got my windas cable but TBH the screen is perfect so no need for it but still good to know i have for when i need to make adjustments.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
So after a good month of using the Sony Artisan, I can safely say that my preference has been drawn in the sand. What it lacks in sharpness (it's a bit softer than my F520 and maybe even than the FW900), it more than makes up for in color reproduction. It really is something to behold. The blacks are blacker than any monitor I've ever used, and the colors are vivid yet accurate. Viewing flickr on this baby is breath-taking to say the least. Games are awesome too.

That's not to say that the other Trinitrons suck (they don't). But I've grown quite fond of the Artisan's ability to churn out beautiful colors.
 
pcalltheway3 said:
Also anyone using nvidia and want boost in IQ use modded Quadro drivers. Quadro have always been known to have better IQ/colors ..ect and tried them with this monitor and 780s and really noticeable over standard gforce driver with no lost in performance.

these are latest
http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=390968
Click to expand...

thanks, but can anyone explain why quadro drivers are better?? is it something manifest in 3d games or are the colors actually better even for desktop usage?
 
flod said:
thanks, but can anyone explain why quadro drivers are better?? is it something manifest in 3d games or are the colors actually better even for desktop usage?
Click to expand...
All around IQ even desktop one noticeable difference is digital vibrance on quadro are not as saturated as geforce driver all around image looks slightly crisp/cleaner

On my LCD TN panel didn't really notice anything but i do on this

Quadro are professional cards they focus more on IQ than on geforce where they have to make tradeoff for gaming performance.
 
Last edited:
pcalltheway3 said:
All around IQ even desktop one noticeable difference is digital vibrance on quadro are not as saturated as geforce driver all around image looks slightly crisp/cleaner
Click to expand...

Anyone interested in accurate colors disables digital vibrance, so this wouldn't really be a consideration. I do, however, look forward to the day when Nvidia adds support for 10 bit framebuffer over opengl through its non quadro line.
 
jbltecnicspro said:
So after a good month of using the Sony Artisan, I can safely say that my preference has been drawn in the sand. What it lacks in sharpness (it's a bit softer than my F520 and maybe even than the FW900), it more than makes up for in color reproduction. It really is something to behold. The blacks are blacker than any monitor I've ever used, and the colors are vivid yet accurate.
Click to expand...

Can you do an experiment? Turn off all the lights, and display a pure black screen (make sure the entire screen is pure black). What does your DTP-94 read for luminance on your FW900 and on your F520?
 
spacediver said:
Can you do an experiment? Turn off all the lights, and display a pure black screen (make sure the entire screen is pure black). What does your DTP-94 read for luminance on your FW900 and on your F520?
Click to expand...

That's a good one. It may take me awhile, so stay on me (all monitors have to be warmed at least an hour before I take a reading).
 
take your time :)

If they're deep enough, you won't be able to get a reading. On my FW900, the blacks are so deep even my i1 display pro can't read it.

If it's pitch black in my room, I can see a very faint glow, but that's about it.

The one thing that the FW900 isn't great at, however, is halation. Put a white patch on a black screen and the glow spreads quite significantly. The F520 is better than the FW900 in this regard, and I imagine the artisan is at least as good as the F520.
 
another way to test black levels is to turn off all lights, make sure it's as close to pitch black as possible (if it's not dark outside and u have windows, make sure u have very thick curtains, but probably better to wait till night time), fill the screen with a pure black image, and hold up a black object against the screen (like a smartphone, or a black tshirt or something).

On anything but a high end OLED, you'll be able to see the object, but the degree to which it's visible indicates how good your black levels are. With mine, I can make out objects, but their outlines are very faint and it's not immediately clear. The objects look like a vague shadow.
 
spacediver said:
another way to test black levels is to turn off all lights, make sure it's as close to pitch black as possible (if it's not dark outside and u have windows, make sure u have very thick curtains, but probably better to wait till night time), fill the screen with a pure black image, and hold up a black object against the screen (like a smartphone, or a black tshirt or something).

On anything but a high end OLED, you'll be able to see the object, but the degree to which it's visible indicates how good your black levels are. With mine, I can make out objects, but their outlines are very faint and it's not immediately clear. The objects look like a vague shadow.
Click to expand...

Damn, that sounds amazing. Can't wait to calibrate my unit; it's been years since it had really deep blacks like the way you described!
 
saprer said:
1.Guys is there a difference between FW900 and F520? except the Ratio 16:10?
2.same way of calibrating?
Click to expand...

Yes. F520 has superior uniformity (pitch, luminance) and the FW900 is substantially bigger. Both have gorgeous pictures and the difference is ultimately a bit apples and oranges...

And the FW900 is not 16:10 or 1.6, but closer to 1.56.

(Other differences as well as folks have mentioned.)
 
spacediver said:
another way to test black levels is to turn off all lights, make sure it's as close to pitch black as possible (if it's not dark outside and u have windows, make sure u have very thick curtains, but probably better to wait till night time), fill the screen with a pure black image, and hold up a black object against the screen (like a smartphone, or a black tshirt or something).
Click to expand...


hm.. I could still detect an extremely faint glow on mine even with brightness and biases all at 0.

with my eye-calibrated settings, a pure black image shows a easily visible glow, roughly about as bright as a black image on my iphone 5 with brightness turned all the way down. comparing a white image on my phone to some grey images on the monitor, i estimate the contrast ratio for my settings to be ~10000:1
 
just remembered you need to dark adapt for a few min before doing these tests :p

much easier to see the glow when your eyes are adapted to the dark. When I first turn off lights, I couldn't even see my hand in front of the screen when it contained a full black image. After 3-5 min I could fairly easily count the fingers on my hand.
 
flod said:
hm.. I could still detect an extremely faint glow on mine even with brightness and biases all at 0.

with my eye-calibrated settings, a pure black image shows a easily visible glow, roughly about as bright as a black image on my iphone 5 with brightness turned all the way down. comparing a white image on my phone to some grey images on the monitor, i estimate the contrast ratio for my settings to be ~10000:1
Click to expand...

Even when you turn off the CRT, it will still glow in the dark for a good few minutes. It's impossible to get a perfectly black screen even on a CRT. On my FW900 with all the settings at zero I could still see my hands moving in front of the screen, in a pitch black room.
 
aye, and in practice this isn't that big of an issue. The desaturation of the primaries is negligible with that tiny amount of luminance, and the blacks appear fine and inky with a bias light and with real content.
 
spacediver said:
Anyone interested in accurate colors disables digital vibrance, so this wouldn't really be a consideration. I do, however, look forward to the day when Nvidia adds support for 10 bit framebuffer over opengl through its non quadro line.
Click to expand...

You dont use digital vibrace to get better IQ TBH dont know why i mentioned just ignore that.'
It happens at the driver level with no tweaking its just a better driver than gforce when it comes to IQ looks little crisper and yes i think colors look better/cleaner *without digital vibrance*

Its not huge different but i still there.
 
Last edited:
SH1 said:
Yes. F520 has superior uniformity (pitch, luminance) and the FW900 is substantially bigger. Both have gorgeous pictures and the difference is ultimately a bit apples and oranges...

And the FW900 is not 16:10 or 1.6, but closer to 1.56.

(Other differences as well as folks have mentioned.)
Click to expand...

soo in the end the FW900 is only bigger nothin more?
f520 is better in pitch etc expect for its ratio?
and is the way of calibrating the same?
i opened mine and its inner is way different than a FW900
 
saprer said:
soo in the end the FW900 is only bigger nothin more?
f520 is better in pitch etc expect for its ratio?
and is the way of calibrating the same?
i opened mine and its inner is way different than a FW900
Click to expand...

No, FW900 and F520 are completely different animals.
GDM-FW900:
Pitch = 0.23mm (center) - 0.27mm (edges) - This means it's a round tube
22.5 inches viewable
Uses the SMTPE-C (BVM) phosphors
G1W Chassis

GDM-F520
Pitch = 0.22mm (center and edges) - This means it's a flat tube
Not sure what phosphors it uses, but the primaries are different than the GDM-FW900
19.8 inches viewable
CR1 Chassis

Many people will state that the GDM-FW900 is just a bigger F520. And that's not true at all. The GDM-FW900 doesn't use a wider, bigger F520 tube. Their designs seem to be fundamentally different.

In my personal experience:

1. GDM-F520 is sharper than the GDM-FW900
2. GDM-FW900 has better geometry than the GDM-F520
3. GDM-F520 has less phosphor trailing than the GDM-FW900 (could be a subjective - placebo difference).

You buy the FW900 for Widescreen. You buy the F520 for that extra crispness. You buy the Artisan for photo work (more convenient, prettier colors, better blacks). All three will still rock your world. :D
 
Giving away my Dell P991 19": and another 17" at the rummage sale next week.

Walking down stairs with a 19" CRT monitor is the worse =)
 
jbltecnicspro said:
No, FW900 and F520 are completely different animals.
GDM-FW900:
Pitch = 0.23mm (center) - 0.27mm (edges) - This means it's a round tube
22.5 inches viewable
Uses the SMTPE-C (BVM) phosphors
G1W Chassis

GDM-F520
Pitch = 0.22mm (center and edges) - This means it's a flat tube
Not sure what phosphors it uses, but the primaries are different than the GDM-FW900
19.8 inches viewable
CR1 Chassis

Many people will state that the GDM-FW900 is just a bigger F520. And that's not true at all. The GDM-FW900 doesn't use a wider, bigger F520 tube. Their designs seem to be fundamentally different.

In my personal experience:

1. GDM-F520 is sharper than the GDM-FW900
2. GDM-FW900 has better geometry than the GDM-F520
3. GDM-F520 has less phosphor trailing than the GDM-FW900 (could be a subjective - placebo difference).

You buy the FW900 for Widescreen. You buy the F520 for that extra crispness. You buy the Artisan for photo work (more convenient, prettier colors, better blacks). All three will still rock your world. :D
Click to expand...


that is a nice explantation thx :D
can somone post some pics on a calibrated F520 or FW900 side by side vs a 120hz TN like vg248QE
i ever wanted to see this cause my F520 needs calibration and i dunno how
 
hehe :)

I imagine the phosphors are the same. Two things that could influence the readings are the black level, and the type of glass used for the faceplate.
 
pcalltheway3 said:
It happens at the driver level with no tweaking its just a better driver than gforce when it comes to IQ looks little crisper and yes i think colors look better/cleaner *without digital vibrance*

Its not huge different but i still there.
Click to expand...

I honestly can't imagine how a difference could manifest, but I'll remain open minded. Are you certain this isn't a placebo effect?

What kind of content are you noticing this increased IQ with?
 
flod said:
damn. Looks like it has a perfect antiglare coating too. If only I could have seen the future a few weeks ago and waited to buy this one.

question for more experienced owners: what does the "antiglare" coating actually do? Is it just a grey piece of plastic?
Click to expand...

It actually makes sure that the screen is visible during times of excessive light; also prevents your screen from becoming a distracting mirror of sorts.
 
hard to tell if the AG coating is on that one, it might be removed actually. As Kermie said, it reduces glare from light sources. However, removing the coating provides a much cleaner image, and glare/reflection isn't an issue in a light controlled environment (or u can use a monitor hood).
 
I was actually going to buy a crystal glare filter that reduced glare without darkening the image but I sold the monitor before I could. Wanted to keep it but my dad pressured me with the fact that the power would be expensive.

Darn power bills!
 
I understand what it does but I'm curious as to how it works/what type of material it is (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-reflective_coating#Types)

From what I can tell, the glare of the monitor comes from specular reflections at the surface and from some diffuse reflection off the phosphors and/or aperture grill beneath the surface.

From this picture: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v504/F12Bwth2/GDM-FW900/IMG_7947.jpg

I'm guessing that the film is just some grey plastic.... which is effective for reducing the diffuse reflections because it absorbs both the light going towards and away from the diffuse surface
 
the wiki page says it's a polyurethane sheet that is meant to scatter reflections. I imagine it works to turn incoming light into diffuse reflections.
 
that would be what the matte films on some lcd monitors do. From the pictures the trinitron films don't seem to be doing that but I guess I can't be sure without having the film myself.
 
Kermie said:
I was actually going to buy a crystal glare filter that reduced glare without darkening the image but I sold the monitor before I could. Wanted to keep it but my dad pressured me with the fact that the power would be expensive.

Darn power bills!
Click to expand...

Wait, what? That makes no sense. Are you running your screen 24/7? Power consumption should be minimal. Example - I use my monitors mostly during the weekend (job, life, etc. make it so that I can't use them during the week). I've personally never seen my power bills fluctuate due to my monitor usage.

EDIT - but do tell about the crystal anti glare.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top