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

[SH1]

Oh yes agree, but I don't really have any photography or video workflow these days. Not at the moment anyway.

CRTs have a great picture for games. And being able to lower the resolution with their true multi-scan aspect helps with newer titles.

An F520 also makes a sweet little television. (Temporary since last week until I get my TV situation sorted.)

 

[spacediver]

There's no perfect display device

Oled is reasonable burn-in proof as long as it stays around 100nits, If you can keep all your desktop use within that, it's OK as a monitor.

FALD has halo'n anytime you push above 300 nits, it gets glow'y.

CRT has alot more problems really, it's great for the games in terms of motion clarity, but nearly every other aspect of modern videography is compromised, Especially color.

When you mention color, are you referring to the limited color gamut of CRTs relative to wide gamut workflows? Or something else?

 

[Mike_Harbor]

When you mention color, are you referring to the limited color gamut of CRTs relative to wide gamut workflows? Or something else?

The gamut of CRTs is actually quite large.

However, because of light pollution, that gamut is never fully actualized.

When you have Just a tiny Dot of RED on the screen and nothing else, it looks pretty red. If you then add ANY other element, that red will turn brownish or pinkish (depending on the dominant color of additional elements). This is due to errant activation of nearby phosphors and internal refraction. When the color purity goes down in this manner, the intended color looks "Less" saturated.

The net effect is that the CRT looks significantly less saturated/ Vivid in medium to bright scenes compared to a vanilla LCDs of the same gamut volume...

I say all this not to Knock our beloved CRT, but we have to be objective about it and respect the facts of the technology rather than descend into Fanboism like the majority of the vinyl people.

Crts are Good, they are retro, they have limits, we love them all the same.

 

[jbltecnicspro]

I say all this not to Knock our beloved CRT, but we have to be objective about it and respect the facts of the technology rather than descend into Fanboism like the majority of the vinyl people.

Crts are Good, they are retro, they have limits, we love them all the same.

Tell that to the folks over at r/crtgaming.

I appreciate your objectivity. I love my CRT's but agree that there are much better display techs out there. The one area where CRT really hits hard though is motion clarity. We still haven't been able to figure out how to squeeze that out of quality displays without some kind of huge compromise. LG's CX screens got very close but at 60hz, you're capped at 60 nits of brightness.

 

[Mike_Harbor]

We know how to do it, it's just cost prohibitive at the moment.

Microled is something Millionaires can buy and can be driven to provide nearly the motion clarity of CRT.

In the long run, Average consumer will be buying Quantum Nanorod Led, Gallium Nitride (GaN). It will work similar to Quantum Oled, but it's inorganic and will push higher brightness with less burnin.

 

[spacediver]

The gamut of CRTs is actually quite large.

However, because of light pollution, that gamut is never fully actualized.

When you have Just a tiny Dot of RED on the screen and nothing else, it looks pretty red. If you then add ANY other element, that red will turn brownish or pinkish (depending on the dominant color of additional elements). This is due to errant activation of nearby phosphors and internal refraction. When the color purity goes down in this manner, the intended color looks "Less" saturated.

The net effect is that the CRT looks significantly less saturated/ Vivid in medium to bright scenes compared to a vanilla LCDs of the same gamut volume...

I say all this not to Knock our beloved CRT, but we have to be objective about it and respect the facts of the technology rather than descend into Fanboism like the majority of the vinyl people.

Crts are Good, they are retro, they have limits, we love them all the same.

My understanding is that the gamut of CRTs is quite limited: the BVM's phosphors were in line with BT.601, which is slightly diff from 709 (if memory serves, one of the primaries is slightly less saturated than the corresponding 709 primary).

Yes, color purity will be affected by bleeding with neighbouring phosphors, but if you have a patch of color that is large enough, wouldn't this bleeding be mitigated (except at the edge of the color patch)?

Related to this, the spatial integration of luminance/color information between neighbouring "pixels" is one of the strengths of a CRT in some contexts. It renders a smoother (albeit lower fidelity) image, which can pay aesthetic dividends in some photographic and videographic contexts.

 

[jbltecnicspro]

My understanding is that the gamut of CRTs is quite limited: the BVM's phosphors were in line with BT.601, which is slightly diff from 709 (if memory serves, one of the primaries is slightly less saturated than the corresponding 709 primary).

Yes, color purity will be affected by bleeding with neighbouring phosphors, but if you have a patch of color that is large enough, wouldn't this bleeding be mitigated (except at the edge of the color patch)?

Related to this, the spatial integration of luminance/color information between neighbouring "pixels" is one of the strengths of a CRT in some contexts. It renders a smoother (albeit lower fidelity) image, which can pay aesthetic dividends in some photographic and videographic contexts.

Green is the one that’s under saturated I think. It’s a little more “yellow” on 601.

 

[spacediver]

Green is the one that’s under saturated I think. It’s a little more “yellow” on 601.

yea, just looked up a couple plots - the green and red are both shifted in hue and saturation, and overall gamut is smaller in 601.

 

[Mike_Harbor]

The Physical gamut is independent of any standard.

Most later CRTs can do ~95-99% coverage of <rec 709>

Real world, we see rec601 slightly smaller than most CRTs and rec709 slightly bigger.

But on medium and bright scenes, the CRT would look much more drab compared to an LCD with roughly the same gamut due to light pollution.

Remember gamut volume is 3 dimensional, so if you look at those 2d triangle plots, it's not always obvious how much coverage you get. Considering that CRTs top out much earlier for full-field brightness, LCDs doing 200-300nit physically has a much larger gamut volume. It won't produce deep blacks, so the bottom of that volume is missing, but it's still a way bigger blob.

 

[spacediver]

The Physical gamut is independent of any standard.

Most later CRTs can do ~95-99% coverage of <rec 709>

Real world, we see rec601 slightly smaller than most CRTs and rec709 slightly bigger.

But on medium and bright scenes, the CRT would look much more drab compared to an LCD with roughly the same gamut due to light pollution.

Remember gamut volume is 3 dimensional, so if you look at those 2d triangle plots, it's not always obvious how much coverage you get. Considering that CRTs top out much earlier for full-field brightness, LCDs doing 200-300nit physically has a much larger gamut volume. It won't produce deep blacks, so the bottom of that volume is missing, but it's still a way bigger blob.

I'm not convinced that that color purity is affected by light pollution from nearby phosphors (whether due to electron backscatter or internal reflections). I've taken several chromaticity (and spectral, using a spectroradiometer) measurements of primary color patches, and the readings are right at the corners of the physical gamut of these phosphors.

Your point about gamut being 3D is well taken, though. I also believe (though it's been a while) that higher luminance makes colors seem more saturated, so the perceptual saturation of a color may be lower with lower luminances, even though the chromaticity is identical.

 

[XoR_]

European versions of PVM monitors intended for PAL standard used EBU phosphors and its almost perfect match to Rec.709 gamut. Green is ever so little more saturated on EBU but otherwise its Rec.709
I would really like to have something like SONY GDM-FW900 but that had image that looked like SONY PVM 14M2E because the latter is just much much better. Better and perfectly accurate colors and much better contrast ratio with darker screen and lees haloing/flaring or other nonsense.

Back when I had Radeon HD7950 I used to correct gamut on FW900 with EDID trick. Colors were better with this correction but of course monitor could not reproduce colors outside its gamut and gamut correction made some colors less saturated. Everything inside what monitor could reproduce looked more accurate. Reference being calibrated HP 2480zx. I consider this HP much better monitor for watching anything. Exceptionally good monitor, especially for 2010. New IPS panels such as LG 27GP950 I got last year are even better though. What I like this RGB-LED HP though is that it flickers. It is different flickering than CRT but produces its own unique sensation and also all this flickering causes videos to look arguably sharper. I am always amazed at how every other monitor I watch the same stuff on blurs everything including FW900. I am not even sure how it works and what black magic is this

 

[SH1]

Haven't noticed any drabness on my CRTs during brighter scenes. I remember coming back from work using LCDs. And seeing the same websites at home on my CRT and being struck by how much more vivid they looked.

This all assumes lower ambient lighting. I've got an F520 temporarily set up for television still and it looks spectacular brighter stuff included. But only at night...

 

[Mike_Harbor]

I'm not convinced that that color purity is affected by light pollution from nearby phosphors (whether due to electron backscatter or internal reflections). I've taken several chromaticity (and spectral, using a spectroradiometer) measurements of primary color patches, and the readings are right at the corners of the physical gamut of these phosphors.

Corner ? Look at the reading, it will move inward in the direction of the errant light.

You don't need a spectro to verify this. Have the monitor draw a small red box, Then have it draw a small red box next to a Big white box. Cover the white box with something so you're not looking at it, look at the red box, flip back and forth, you'll see it turn brown (less red/saturated).

 

[Mike_Harbor]

Haven't noticed any drabness on my CRTs during brighter scenes. I remember coming back from work using LCDs. And seeing the same websites at home on my CRT and being struck by how much more vivid they looked.

memory is not reliable, side by side it a 99% srgb lcd , on bright scenes crts look dull/washed out even with full on 3dlut correction.

If the LCD looks dull/ worse, which can happen, it's either a worn backlight, lower gamut, or extremely poor gamma tracking, all 3 are common.

Red is again a great test, CRT reds just arn't very red. Especially bright scene.

 

[spacediver]

Corner ? Look at the reading, it will move inward in the direction of the errant light.

You don't need a spectro to verify this. Have the monitor draw a small red box, Then have it draw a small red box next to a Big white box. Cover the white box with something so you're not looking at it, look at the red box, flip back and forth, you'll see it turn brown (less red/saturated).

By corner, meant the corners of the gamut as visualized on the CIE 1931 color space chromaticity diagram, which represent the chromaticity of the primaries of the relevant color space (in this case, Rec 709).

And yes, if you have a white box next to a red box, there is going to be significant desaturation near the boundary.

 

[SH1]

Memory was fine. And the difference was not subtle. Was IPS displays at work though, which are not the vividness champions I suppose.

And yes LCD has displaced CRT in professional workflows and for cause. Wider gamut, etc.

However, in terms of what's nicer to look at, CRT for me. I've seen LCD vs CRT run concurrently and the blurriness of the former. However, it was never really about that for me anyway. It was about being able to see the backlight shine through even in supposedly higher contrast LCDs that ruins it for me. CRT should not be considered retro or obsolete when the succeeding technology was never worth the title. It was a sidewise move favoring cost and form factor over image quality. Not until now anyway when OLED and I guess later MicroLED finally gives us emissive display enthusiasts somewhere to go.

(LCD does become much more interesting to me with FALD however.)

 

[Mike_Harbor]

And yes, if you have a white box next to a red box, there is going to be significant desaturation near the boundary.

It's not just the boundary, it's the whole red box. There is an overall glow across the whole screen.

In bright scenes, Everything is affected by this desaturation effect, which is what's responsible for the "drabness" that I describe.

It was about being able to see the backlight shine through even in supposedly higher contrast LCDs that ruins it for me. CRT should not be considered retro or obsolete when the succeeding technology was never worth the title. It was a sidewise move favoring cost and form factor over image quality.

(LCD does become much more interesting to me with FALD however.)

We have to be really careful when we're talking about Backlight glow, because CRT does well in very dark/sparse scenes where 10,000:1 contrast can be achieved, but with anything approaching 20-30% output, it's going to dip into the low 1000s and 100s.

Meanwhile desktop lcds maintain their static contrast in bright scenes, 5000-8000:1 for VA-tv panels. The CRT glow is far worse than LCD's backlight glow in the majority real use cases.

Even the worst LCDs from the transition days had higher static contrast ~400-700:1 . The reason they looked awful early days was due to poor tuning, and mismatched content.

If the artist manipulated their work for CRT, it's going to look bad on LCD, because when LCD tries to follow an srgb curve, the manufacturer may decide on some sort of black point correction, this lifts the gamma beyond even SRGB, so the LCD looked lower contrast than it was capable of.

So, it's difficult to compare experiences across time.

CRT is superior in dark scene and motion clarity, it's worse in pretty much everything else.

 

[SH1]

Well, the LCD TV panels can be much better than monitor ones. Combine with FALD and I think they look pretty great actually.

However, when you have CRT, where the F520 for example can do 15,000 to 1 on/off, you're just swimming in a much larger pond than LCD without FALD. Yeah, ANSI is much superior during bright scenes on LCD, but CRT still looks good though. I took a picture of the closing credits of a movie the other day on the F520, which had some white images laid out like an ANSI test. I looked at the picture on my phone and noted yeah it looked kind of bad, but during actually watching it my eyes didn't notice it. Whereas I do totally notice the difference in dark scenes. I've heard some comments in the past suggesting the human eye and the CRT are just a better match this way. Analog reactions and such.

Anyway, LCD can be good, but to my eyes it needs FALD to get there. (I had an early FALD TV as a monitor for a bit. I returned it, because it had a defect and I thought at the time the tech was only going to get better. But then someone noticed a patent for edge lit technology and posted it here or somewhere. Ominous as it turned out. And the dream died for a while...)

 

[jbltecnicspro]

I like Panasonic’s development of a dual panel lcd. It’s like S-video meets LCD implementation. Basically have one panel underneath control the light output while the second panel on top controls the color. Supposedly they could get near-OLED contrast levels with no haloing seen by FALD and brightness that reaches 1000 nits.

Only problem is that the input lag - or is it pixel transition? Is worthless. Much slower than monitors today. Thus the only market for it is in the professional editing world. Still, kinda cool to see them come up with it. Basically, for HDR editing you can have your cake and eat it too. Full color gamut and brightness with no risk of OLED burn-in. But it’s too slow to be used for anything else… for now.

Edit: I think Sony and Eizo offer these screens for sale.

 

[Mike_Harbor]

I like Panasonic’s development of a dual panel lcd.

Hisense has a mass market LMCL 75" tv. Their flagship U9DG.

Right now it's still not perfect, as they have some pink tint issue off axis and poor motion handling, but it's already miles ahead of any vanilla single layer FALD solution.

I looked at the picture on my phone and noted yeah it looked kind of bad, but during actually watching it my eyes didn't notice it. Whereas I do totally notice the difference in dark scenes. I've heard some comments in the past suggesting the human eye and the CRT are just a better match this way. Analog reactions and such.

The human eye has dynamic contrast, IF the content is made to take advantage of that, it can look pretty "decent", such as theater projection material. Theaters have at best ~500:1 ansi if the audience wore black. Which is actually still higher than CRTs, haha.

Point is, because modern media is made for higher peak brightness, gamut and static contrast displays, CRTs are at a disadvantage in what they can do with this material..

 

[jbltecnicspro]

Wow. Hisense of all manufacturers is taking the first step. Impressive. 75 inches of screen quality that my old CRT projector couldn’t do. Unfortunately, Rtings doesn’t review the BFI quality so for all I know the 60hz option could actually be decent for game consoles.

 

[Mike_Harbor]

LMCL is undoubtedly the best near term solution before Samsung's quantum nanotube, and later microled.

With TVs the challenge is power consumption regulation, but on monitors, they may be able to give you a full 1000nit device, albeit it'll be 300watts continuous.

 

[spacediver]

It's not just the boundary, it's the whole red box. There is an overall glow across the whole screen.

In bright scenes, Everything is affected by this desaturation effect, which is what's responsible for the "drabness" that I describe.

I can objectively test your hypothesis by taking some measurements to see the area of desaturation. Might have time to do it this wknd.

 

[jbltecnicspro]

Finally got the monitor today - Viewsonic XG-2431. First impressions are... mixed to be honest. There's a bit of cross talk at the top and bottom edges of the screen, even at 60hz. For some reason I was under the impression that this would be a crosstalk-less monitor at lower refreshes so that's a little disappointing.

But then again, it's great to be able to see CRT-level clarity on Spyro the Dragon on an LCD. Even if there's crosstalk, it's easy to ignore. I'm going to tweak this screen a bit. I got it from Amazon, which has a pretty generous return policy, so I'm definitely keeping the box. I'm running a custom blur mode that maxes at 80 nits of white in a dark room. It straddles the line between clarity and brightness well enough that I'm satisfied. Also - I think I've gotten used to the plasma screen a bit, which is not as clear as this screen (nor is it as clear as CRT)... But... the plasma doesn't have cross-talk.

So yeah... jury's still out as to how I feel on this one. I mean - what should I expect for $320? No other monitor on the market yet goes down to 60hz for single strobe so there's something to be said for that right? I calibrated the colors. Very easy to do. Monitor is delta E < 1 across the board on white balance. The color gamut also adheres to Rec 709 (sRGB) so colors look nice and accurate. Really, other than the cross-talk (which I think can be tweaked out - also I just got it today, so may take some time to warm up/work out?) and the obvious lack of contrast in the IPS screen, I think the screen looks fine. Final calibration ended up being:

Contrast: 850:1
Gamma: 2.20 (spot on actually)
Delta E average of 0.8 or something. I don't think a single point of the 10-point grayscale went above 1.

If you have a CRT that functions fine I wouldn't jump ship. But if you're like me and you had to give up your CRT's then you have something that comes closer than most for a reasonable price. The only better thing I can think of getting at this point is an LG CX screen, but at 48 inches on the lowest end, I would be struggling to find a spot for it. So yeah... color me underwhelmed. I may end up returning this if I can't get the crosstalk tweaked out.

 

[ElBartoME]

Hi btw. It's been a while since I've been here. Ever since my FW900 died.
I have a temporary G500 that is at around 70-80% of its original luminosity, and, I found a LaCie electron 22 blue IV on sale today.
There are 3 FW900's on sale on ebay kleinanzeige here in Germany, but, they're expensive, and since I can run 16:9 resolutions on a 4:3 screen, at higher refresh rates, at a lower price, I'm looking for a 4:3.

The owner is selling it for 375 euros, disputable. I asked for 300. Does anyone have any experience with this monitor ?

You don't happen to have the dead FW900 anymore? Are you located in Germany?

 

[Mike_Harbor]

Contrast: 850:1
Gamma: 2.20 (spot on actually)
Delta E average of 0.8 or something. I don't think a single point of the 10-point grayscale went above 1.

It may be possible to get better contrast in other color modes.
Check the blurbuster forum on that monitor, blur chief knows everything about it.
I've gotten some newer ips (not the monitor you're talking about) up to 1400:1 @ d65.

 

[jbltecnicspro]

It may be possible to get better contrast in other color modes.
Check the blurbuster forum on that monitor, blur chief knows everything about it.
I've gotten some newer ips (not the monitor you're talking about) up to 1400:1 @ d65.

I may play with the contrast setting a little bit. Just realized I didn't adjust that. I potentially squeeze out some more brightness from it. I have been following the thread since its inception (because 60hz strobing and 24 inches) and I don't recall anyone breaking the 1000:1 ceiling.

 

[anohako]

Hey y'all, I'm driving 24hrs roundtrip to buy an FW900 from another devotee this weekend. This will be my first new CRT monitor in a while, coming from a Dell P1110 I nabbed in 2007. It looks great in photos and videos, and the current owner has never touched it with WinDAS (although I'm comfortable with it already from my P1110). Since it's such a long trip crammed into a short weekend, I won't have much time to verify that it's in the shape I'm expecting. I'm up to date on the last hundred pages or so of this thread, but aside from the obvious stuff like watching the warmup and checking the colors, geometry, and caps, are there any special or particular things I should do or look out for? I know some folks wouldn't be comfortable with a turnaround like this, but I've wanted this model since the early 2000s and I'm finally able to stretch for it.

 

[Mike_Harbor]

the obvious stuff like watching the warmup and checking the colors, geometry, and caps, are there any special or particular things I should do or look out for?

Unless it blows up right away, it's always a crap shoot.

If I was buying one at a very-high-price, I would want to test it at least 12 hours straight. I've had units where they're fine when they're cool, but when it gets warm, they start to become unstable, this could be flickering, or fuzziness, distortion, anything.

You're not going to be able to dig into the internals, which is part of the problem, you can ASSUME it needs a recap though, because they all do at this point.

Turn up the gamma/contrast all the way maximizing peak output, and check for stability in what the time frame allows.

 

[anohako]

Unless it blows up right away, it's always a crap shoot.

If I was buying one at a very-high-price, I would want to test it at least 12 hours straight. I've had units where they're fine when they're cool, but when it gets warm, they start to become unstable, this could be flickering, or fuzziness, distortion, anything.

You're not going to be able to dig into the internals, which is part of the problem, you can ASSUME it needs a recap though, because they all do at this point.

Turn up the gamma/contrast all the way maximizing peak output, and check for stability in what the time frame allows.

Thanks for the advice. The current owner claims to have recapped it within the last year, and I do plan to at least open it up and scan the caps and soldering job. I'm willing to walk away and just have wasted the time and gas if I'm not comfortable with it. If the sale does go through, I'll share the price once I've taken possession.

 

[jbltecnicspro]

Thanks for the advice. The current owner claims to have recapped it within the last year, and I do plan to at least open it up and scan the caps and soldering job. I'm willing to walk away and just have wasted the time and gas if I'm not comfortable with it. If the sale does go through, I'll share the price once I've taken possession.

Good luck!

 

[SH1]

"...but I've wanted this model since the early 2000s and I'm finally able to stretch for it."

Ideally this is money you're ok losing if that's how it happens to turn out. That it's not a financial stretch.

I love these monitors, but if my wide screen dies, there's the new OLEDs coming from LG and Samsung for example...

 

[Petrasescu_Lucian]

"...but I've wanted this model since the early 2000s and I'm finally able to stretch for it."

Ideally this is money you're ok losing if that's how it happens to turn out. That it's not a financial stretch.

I love these monitors, but if my wide screen dies, there's the new OLEDs coming from LG and Samsung for example...

Yes, the only reason to keep them is they're untouchable when it comes to input lag and (lack of) motion blur.
I love my Dell P1130, Sony GDM-F520 and GDM-FW900 but I only use them for games. In all other aspects besides motion and their innate flexibility in displaying custom resolutions and timings they are obsolete technology.
It's so frustrating, year after year, to see these new oleds or qd-oleds or whatever, walk the same path and do nothing in regards to motion and persistance blur.
"Reviewers" are oblivious to this aspect and the usual buyer is either too young or too dumb to know the difference...anyway, I don't think we'll see something equal to a CRT in terms of motion resolution anytime soon

 

[Mike_Harbor]

(lack of) motion blur.

"Reviewers" are oblivious to this aspect and the usual buyer is either too young or too dumb to know the difference...anyway, I don't think we'll see something equal to a CRT in terms of motion resolution anytime soon

CRTs do have motion blur in the phosphor trails, it's just "less visually obvious" than the persistence on other technologies.

OLED can already achieve the motion clarity of CRTs, it just can't do it while being bright enough for everyday use.

MicroLED is already as good as CRTs in terms of motion clarity, but only available for Millionaire$.

p00r peeps like us, have to wait for Samsung's Qned, (distinct from LG's qned, which is just ips).

LMCL is also a possibility but it's tough to synchronize the dual lcd panels for motion clarity.

Some argue fast-IPS blurbuster monitor that jbltecnicspro just bought is already pretty darn close.

Some hurdles left on fast-IPS is fps matching refreshrate, and strobe crosstalk at 240hz. it already has near perfect strobe at 120-144hz

​

 

[jbltecnicspro]

CRTs do have motion blur in the phosphor trails, it's just "less visually obvious" than the persistence on other technologies.

OLED can already achieve the motion clarity of CRTs, it just can't do it while being bright enough for everyday use.

MicroLED is already as good as CRTs in terms of motion clarity, but only available for Millionaire$.

p00r peeps like us, have to wait for Samsung's Qned, (distinct from LG's qned, which is just ips).

LMCL is also a possibility but it's tough to synchronize the dual lcd panels for motion clarity.

Some argue fast-IPS blurbuster monitor that jbltecnicspro just bought is already pretty darn close.

Some hurdles left on fast-IPS is fps matching refreshrate, and strobe crosstalk at 240hz. it already has near perfect strobe at 120-144hz

​

Yeah, just did a round of UT2004 on the screen with strobing at 120hz and damned if it's close enough not to care. I think I've found my screen gentlemen. If I still had my F520 and FW900 then I wouldn't even care. But here I am.

 

[Mike_Harbor]

Yeah, just did a round of UT2004 on the screen with strobing at 120hz and damned if it's close enough not to care. I think I've found my screen gentlemen. If I still had my F520 and FW900 then I wouldn't even care. But here I am.

I only played with the blurbuster briefly at a buddy's house, but I had the same gut reaction as you. Motion is very very clear.

It also has much higher static contrast than a CRT would on those medium/bright scenes, so it looks saturated vs the paler colors when my fw900 is set to 80-100nits. I would use my fw900 set to ~20nit peak to retain the colors better, and that was ok for night use, but again not practical.

I've put off buying one right now waiting for a wide gamut version, which they could easily build, so as soon as that's available I'd pull the trigger.

 

[jbltecnicspro]

I only played with the blurbuster briefly at a buddy's house, but I had the same gut reaction as you. Motion is very very clear.

It also has much higher static contrast than a CRT would on those medium/bright scenes, so it looks saturated vs the paler colors when my fw900 is set to 80-100nits. I would use my fw900 set to ~20nit peak to retain the colors better, and that was ok for night use, but again not practical.

I've put off buying one right now waiting for a wide gamut version, which they could easily build, so as soon as that's available I'd pull the trigger.

I would love it if they made a large version of this. Then I wouldn’t have gotten my plasma screen. Speaking of which, it would be nice it blurbusters forums tracked televisions. Rtings doesn’t really dive into motion clarity to the depths I would like. They only check the feature boxes and that’s it. Really a shame.

Other than my knowledge of the LG OLEDs (which - let’s be honest - we only really know about them because of PC users), I don’t know of any other TV which handles 60hz without double-strobe. I’m sure they’re out there but no one is tracking them.

 

[Mike_Harbor]

I believe the reason they don't track TVs is because the majority are either OLED or VA-panels designed for HDR movies, where contrast is tantamount. Neither caters to motion clarity specifically.

Motion clarity is also a small subset of the gaming community that's "Woke". Our irrational love for CRTs made us IMMUNE to the Bullshit that g4m3r companies like Asus and Acer sells, gtfo 360hz tub of vaseline smeared on my screen.

 

[3dfan]

Finally got the monitor today - Viewsonic XG-2431. First impressions are... mixed to be honest. There's a bit of cross talk at the top and bottom edges of the screen, even at 60hz. For some reason I was under the impression that this would be a crosstalk-less monitor at lower refreshes so that's a little disappointing.

But then again, it's great to be able to see CRT-level clarity on Spyro the Dragon on an LCD. Even if there's crosstalk, it's easy to ignore. I'm going to tweak this screen a bit. I got it from Amazon, which has a pretty generous return policy, so I'm definitely keeping the box. I'm running a custom blur mode that maxes at 80 nits of white in a dark room. It straddles the line between clarity and brightness well enough that I'm satisfied. Also - I think I've gotten used to the plasma screen a bit, which is not as clear as this screen (nor is it as clear as CRT)... But... the plasma doesn't have cross-talk.

So yeah... jury's still out as to how I feel on this one. I mean - what should I expect for $320? No other monitor on the market yet goes down to 60hz for single strobe so there's something to be said for that right? I calibrated the colors. Very easy to do. Monitor is delta E < 1 across the board on white balance. The color gamut also adheres to Rec 709 (sRGB) so colors look nice and accurate. Really, other than the cross-talk (which I think can be tweaked out - also I just got it today, so may take some time to warm up/work out?) and the obvious lack of contrast in the IPS screen, I think the screen looks fine. Final calibration ended up being:

Contrast: 850:1
Gamma: 2.20 (spot on actually)
Delta E average of 0.8 or something. I don't think a single point of the 10-point grayscale went above 1.

If you have a CRT that functions fine I wouldn't jump ship. But if you're like me and you had to give up your CRT's then you have something that comes closer than most for a reasonable price. The only better thing I can think of getting at this point is an LG CX screen, but at 48 inches on the lowest end, I would be struggling to find a spot for it. So yeah... color me underwhelmed. I may end up returning this if I can't get the crosstalk tweaked out.

thanks for sharing your experience on that monitor. if you can, i would like to ask you to test:

with the best strobing mode matching crt motion quality i think its called pure XP ultra mode:
how strong is the perseption of the flickering at 60hz compared to your crt ?
how much brightness it loses at 60hz compared to your crt ? i read you wrote 80 nits, but did that blur mode you used matched the crt motion clarity? was it pure xp at "ultra"?

 

[jbltecnicspro]

thanks for sharing your experience on that monitor. if you can, i would like to ask you to test:

with the best strobing mode matching crt motion quality i think its called pure XP ultra mode:
how strong is the perseption of the flickering at 60hz compared to your crt ?
how much brightness it loses at 60hz compared to your crt ? i read you wrote 80 nits, but did that blur mode you used matched the crt motion clarity? was it pure xp at "ultra"?

I’ll give it a shot. It’s clearly dimmer than the CRT in ultra. Flicker isn’t too bad. It’s a little more intense because of the binary on/off of the backlight. And at 60hz it’s a little much for the desktop. That said, even in the desktop it’s tolerable. In games you barely notice it.

The 80 nit setting is a custom motion blur setting I have. It’s basically in between Ultra and the next brightest setting. I’ll compare ultra to my Viewsonic CRT. The “in-between” mode I have - I feel it’s either matching my CRT’s quality or close enough to forget it and just game.