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

jbltecnicspro said:
Most of my friends are either good friends and they're lying to me :)D) or they really do love the image quality. Actually, my brother in law was kidding around with me and making fun of me for using these old CRT's still. My buddy jumped in and said "have you seen the picture quality on these things? They kick the crap out of LCD." Well said, well said... :cool:
Click to expand...
Indeed.

I got tired of explaining my signature on various gaming and hardware forums. People would see my "Sony FW900 CRT - Best monitor ever!" and guffaw. Usually someone would hop in to say: "Actually, Hurin is right. His monitor may be old. But it's a lot better than whatever LCD pos you guys are using." :D
 
yea, check out the 4chan comments on a thread made today about the FW900. Such ignorance.

edit, link is banned, but u can just relpace the ++++++ with 4-c-h-a-n.org (no dashes)
 
Last edited:
I had an FW900 for a while and used to be really into projector tech. The G90 used to be the holy grail of projectors. My friend had an HD CRT TV up through 2009.

I threw mine out when it developed problems. CRT's are flawed in that while they produce nice blacks there's not really enough brightness for anything but extremely light-controlled rooms. I only used the FW900 in a windowless room. For me, it lost out to most half-decent LCDs in those scenarios.

And then there's the resolution. FW900 and G90 support close to 1440p BUT they don't really resolve that many pixels - CRTs soften the image which is what gives that film look. It's great for games and movies but you lose out on clarity. Anything about 1080p and you're pushing it on the G90. 1920x1200 is probably the sweet spot for the FW900.

I'm surprised this thread is still here and people still going BEST MONITOR EVER. You're missing out at this point unless you live in a basement or a cave. It's personal preference though and if you enjoy it, that's what matters but don't turn it into some weird superiority complex. Your monitor is not your identity :p
 
agreed that at resolutions above 1920x1200, the FW900 starts to show its limitations, but I've never encountered a problem. I watch HD content (720p or 1080p), and gaming looks fabulous at 1920x1200, so I have absolutely no pressing need for more resolution. I quake at 960x600 (so I can get 160hz), and it still looks fine.

I also have no issues using my CRT in my room, even when lights are on. When I'm watching movies or shows, I only have my bias light on, but I have no problems browsing the web, writing emails, programming, writing papers, reading papers, watching youtube, when my lights are on, and I don't even have the antiglare on my main unit.

That said, if I had a sunny window that was shining directly onto the screen, that would certainly present a problem. Luckily, I don't :)

And all that said, I still stand by the claim that this is the best gaming monitor on the planet, since it provides excellent contrast and colors with virtually no input lag. You can't find that combination anywhere else right now.
 
^yup the only thing that can replace crt is an oled + 200w heater enclosed in a fw900 sized box
/s
 
Baxter299 said:
http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sby/ele/4853726237.html


morgan hill northern cali
Click to expand...

it's been listed for a few months; i'll probably get it if when i get rid of my existing fw900...

InternationalHat said:
CRT's are flawed in that while they produce nice blacks there's not really enough brightness for anything but extremely light-controlled rooms.
Click to expand...

idk if i'm weird or what but at both my apartment and my office i find anything >100 cd/m2 to be uncomfortably bright.
 
Last edited:
current quantum dots are just being used for the backlight of lcd displays, which doesn't really do anything but allow for a wider gamut.

there is research in emmisive quantom dot displays though... which will be an interesting alternative to oleds
 
Yeah, for one, couldn't they theoretically make QD screens with >10k resolutions? That would basically make them better than CRT's when it comes to supporting different resolutions.
 
spacediver said:
agreed that at resolutions above 1920x1200, the FW900 starts to show its limitations, but I've never encountered a problem. I watch HD content (720p or 1080p), and gaming looks fabulous at 1920x1200, so I have absolutely no pressing need for more resolution. I quake at 960x600 (so I can get 160hz), and it still looks fine.

I also have no issues using my CRT in my room, even when lights are on. When I'm watching movies or shows, I only have my bias light on, but I have no problems browsing the web, writing emails, programming, writing papers, reading papers, watching youtube, when my lights are on, and I don't even have the antiglare on my main unit.

That said, if I had a sunny window that was shining directly onto the screen, that would certainly present a problem. Luckily, I don't :)

And all that said, I still stand by the claim that this is the best gaming monitor on the planet, since it provides excellent contrast and colors with virtually no input lag. You can't find that combination anywhere else right now.
Click to expand...

What kind of bias light setup do you have going?
 
just a simple led lamp that I shine on the wall behind my CRT. Not ideal, but it does a good job of relieving eye strain compared to lights completely off.
 
InternationalHat said:
I had an FW900 for a while and used to be really into projector tech. The G90 used to be the holy grail of projectors. My friend had an HD CRT TV up through 2009.

I threw mine out when it developed problems. CRT's are flawed in that while they produce nice blacks there's not really enough brightness for anything but extremely light-controlled rooms. I only used the FW900 in a windowless room. For me, it lost out to most half-decent LCDs in those scenarios.

And then there's the resolution. FW900 and G90 support close to 1440p BUT they don't really resolve that many pixels - CRTs soften the image which is what gives that film look. It's great for games and movies but you lose out on clarity. Anything about 1080p and you're pushing it on the G90. 1920x1200 is probably the sweet spot for the FW900.

I'm surprised this thread is still here and people still going BEST MONITOR EVER. You're missing out at this point unless you live in a basement or a cave. It's personal preference though and if you enjoy it, that's what matters but don't turn it into some weird superiority complex. Your monitor is not your identity :p
Click to expand...

In a world where most other monitors can't do black or much in the way of dynamic range, there just isn't that much competition for the title...sadly....
 
spacediver said:
wonder if this is for real:

$3000 for what may be a new artisan. They have other crts for sale too.
Click to expand...

I have a couple of zero (0) hours Artisan that were upgraded with the Sony Artisan Upgrade kits (tubes plus D-boards). A while back, I bought a container full of these parts from a broker what was liquidatiing one of the Sony warehouses, sold most of the units (priced at $1,249.95 plus shipping) and kept two of them, plus a Sony rebranded Dell CRT, all unused.

At $3,000.00 for an Artisan is way too much, in my opinion... I don't even price the new GDM-FW900 units (when I get them) that high...

UV!
 
Meeho said:
But they are not there yet.
Click to expand...

so if based on that, you say that crts have superior motion resolution/clarity than oleds, i could just as well say that lcds have superior refresh rate capability than oleds

(which is obviously silly)
 
both perspectives have truth:

on the one hand, OLEDs seem to hold some good potential for a tech that can outperform CRTs (assuming strobing can be done without incurring an input lag cost), but on the other, they're not there yet :)
 
flod said:
so if based on that, you say that crts have superior motion resolution/clarity than oleds, i could just as well say that lcds have superior refresh rate capability than oleds

(which is obviously silly)
Click to expand...

Bottom line... Tell all the CRT haters... You can't beat the glass... No technology can (up 'till now)!

Plain and simple...

UV!
 
flod said:
so if based on that, you say that crts have superior motion resolution/clarity than oleds, i could just as well say that lcds have superior refresh rate capability than oleds

(which is obviously silly)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with that, but the simple fact is that OLEDs are currently working as sample-and-hold devices and are poor at displaying motion (compared to CRT/plasma). They also have less accurate colors. This is based on TVs, though, I am not sure if they've managed to make monitors impulse driven or implement a form of BFI.
 
Meeho said:
I'm not sure what you are trying to say with that, but the simple fact is that OLEDs are currently working as sample-and-hold devices and are poor at displaying motion (compared to CRT/plasma). They also have less accurate colors. This is based on TVs, though, I am not sure if they've managed to make monitors impulse driven or implement a form of BFI.
Click to expand...

No, there are strobed OLEDs with extremely accurate colors. See my thread here for an example (duty cycle is 7.5 ms, so would still have modest motion blur, but it's not sample and hold).
 
It's good that they are bringing them to market, but even that example shows they have more work to do to bring motion handling to CRT levels.
 
Will stick with CRT until OLED image retention issues and threat of burn-in are resolved.

Sure hope they are. Saw LG, has issues, especially with pixel density, but picture is nevertheless just stunning...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top