Anyone here still using CRT?

J

JoeUser

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
3,919
Just wondering is all.

I came back to my Dell/Sony Trinitron P1110 (22" 2048x1536@75hz) after a long hiatus of trying to find the perfect LCD. Actually didn't use it for so long I forgot how gorgeous it is...truly wondering now why I even bothered with putting in the closet (I guess I just wanted newer tech and had "The Itch"). 2048x1536 is a sight to behold (no need for AA at this res!) and the ability to still be able to run widescreen up to 1200p is a plus when gaming.

Either way just curious if any [H]ard members are still using one. I've decided that unless I need something bigger (which I don't) or until OLED comes around I'm sticking with this one.

IPS has glow and bad contrast when I owned one and MVA has good contrast but the viewing angles put me off. Not to mention backlight bleed with most LCD's. With the CRT though I get the best of all worlds...deep black contrast, perfect colors, high refresh rate, etc...only problem is size and weight, but I never move it so it's a non-issue.

Also helps that I bought mine a little over a year ago brand new and even then didn't use it much (maybe a few months max)...so mines basically brand new with ZERO signs of use.

Anyways...I guess CRT was too [H]ard for most members! :p Like I said, now that I've got it back up and running again and have it calibrated I have no desire to go LCD again!

CRT really is the best display tech once you get over the bulk...in my opinion of course.
 
I'm still using my FW-900, but I find myself playing less games these days and mostly reading or surfing..........so I may just retire it and grab a nice LCD .......as good as this thing is for fast paced games, it cant touch a quality LCD in terms of crisp clear text
 
I still have my FW900 too, but I found the best compromise between desk space, back pain, & picture quality to be my Catleap 2B.
 
If you had asked this question a week ago I would have said yes but I got my Dell s2240m last Monday. It's a nice upgrade from the CRT I was using but then I was using a cheap 17" shadow mask tech CRT rather than the nicer aperture grill tech that trinitron tube monitors use. I had a couple refurburbished 19" Mitsubishi diamondtron 930sb monitors several years ago. They were WONDERFUL. Unfortunately they were apparently heavily used cause one of them only lasted about 9 months and the second one about 6 months after I got it. 1600x1200 @ 85hz was WAY better than 1280x960 @ 72 hz on my latest CRT.

I am loving my new LCD but that may be because I am coming from years of using a way less than fantastic CRT. I keep hearing about the deficiencies of IPS panels but this thing looks nice to me. One positive about my 'ole Samsung samtron 76v...it does keep going and going and going like the energizer rabbit from those energizer battery commercials. I think I got this thing around 2002 and I still have it as a back up 'just in case' I ever have to rma the LCD monitor for some reason.
 
Yes, I'm using a GDM-F520 CRT that I got NOS in 2005.

I do find LCD superior for text display. However, I still find my CRT to be very good in that area.

And I have not been able to give up the dynamic range, black levels, and other favorable qualities of such an emissive display.

As I have tried other displays over the years, my F520 turned 4 years in terms of usage in November. I've heard the rule of thumb is a lifespan of 3 to 5 years for a CRT while still retaining full performance, which I do worry about. Though I am heartened by accounts of other CRTS going on with good pictures for much longer than that. And my original FW900 (which finished life at my dad's) lasted over nine years and still looked quite good to the end I think. And I imagine the built-in "image restoration" function is quite helpful in extending the life of the latter CRTs...
 
I would still be using an FW900 but it quit working in 2010 (lasted 8 years from build date).

I have dual 23" 1080P LCD's now, They're not bad but would prefer the FW900 overall especially with all the gaming I do. A CRT's ability to maintain detail during motion is still unmatched by anything else, Plasma comes the closest.
 
I continued using CRTs until a couple years ago, but I was bothered by how dim they were, even in a dark room. I switched to VA LCD. I'm not sure why anyone needs great viewing angles from a monitor -- I'm always sitting in the exact same spot, with the monitor directly in front of me. So that isn't a problem.
 
MechanicalMan said:
I continued using CRTs until a couple years ago, but I was bothered by how dim they were, even in a dark room. I switched to VA LCD. I'm not sure why anyone needs great viewing angles from a monitor -- I'm always sitting in the exact same spot, with the monitor directly in front of me. So that isn't a problem.
Click to expand...
Many people have multi monitor setups, so some of them have to look at their monitors on an angle.

Also, I still put AA on at 2560x1600. You still notice the difference at that size IMO.
 
CRT's will always hold a special place in my heart, but having used them for the majority of my early life, I mostly blame them for my chronic case of stigmatism. Modern monitors may have alot of shortcomings, but they sure are easier on the eyes.
 
Last edited:
I still have a Starlogic 1772ED, it was the last CRT available from Office Depot in 2006 or so. I just wasn't ready to settle for an LCD back then, due to the input lag and lack of adjustable resolutions. It runs at 1024x768 for desktop use, and I have some scaling tricks set up to make widescreen games look right at 1280x720, but that just means I can get away with running games at lower resolutions with all the effects and no lag.

I also have a SyncMaster 730B, which I only use for web browsing, writing documents, and monitoring a Minecraft server, and I find it perfect for that. I like the fact that it doesn't reflect light in the room back in my eyes, which some of those "glossy" screens do.

I don't really have desks or workspaces that are wide enough to accommodate a widescreen monitor easily (especially the 24 and 27 inch models they're pushing if you want decent quality now), so I've had to make do. I wish they'd continue to make smaller monitors with good quality, for those of us who don't have big desks. Some of us have space constraints...
 
FW900 is the pinnacle of CRT technology. It can do 16:10 resolutions up to 2304x1440@80hz or 1920x1200@85 hertz easily.

75 hertz on your monitor can still be painful for some people. It depends from person to person.

The reason people detest CRT is usually cause they used some VERY old model that can't even do 75 hertz, and got headaches due to the low refresh rate...

There is famous thread on the fw900 in this forum. It has 640 or so pages of answers..

Plenty people still use CRT, especially for gaming. And thats not just old fossiles that never heard of flat panels. I still use my fw900 for gaming because it STILL has best pixel density of all monitors (well, almost), the better black levels, the absence of any motion blur, the fact that it can do any resolution at any refresh rate without showing a smeared image etc etc. If you want to play old games with lower resolution CRT is the way to go.. But new games like skyrim on 2304x1440 look gorgeous and very smooth too.

Its kind of funny, but it took the graphic card manufacturers YEARS (after they stopped making fw900) to make a video card that could actually use all the power of an fw900 at max FPS per refresh rate.

the best CRT monitor models still hold many advantages over LCD, wether its TN or IPS panels.

Check the fw900 thread in this forum if you want to know more... Cause i could go on for long time still here.
 
Last edited:
I wish I could get a FW900! I'll tell ya that much!

For now though, my Dell is working perfectly. Like I said above its practically brand new and although its 4:3 I can still use it for widescreen gaming though 2048x1536 is GORGEOUS and 4:3 is not bad at all. I understand the importance of 16:9/16:10 but even in shooters and what not 4:3 is not limiting or anything.

Either way...still want a FW900 and would easily trade my current monitor in for one. Only problem with them is that they're old and usually pretty worn (impossible to find a A/A+ condition one now).
 
Exposure to LCD monitors (especially one with low frequency PWM backlight) for too long can also cause eye problems.

I have an old Dell P991 Trinitron at home and I feel much more comfortable watching it, than the HP L1950g TN panel at work. The problem with my CRT is that colors are not that rich anymore and it is not that sharp (a little bit blurry to be honest) at 1600x1200 85hz.
 
This thread made me dig up an old post from when I 1st got my CRT's when I was heavy into competitive gaming. Sadly now the massive CRT's are just sitting in my garage collecting dust due to me recently upgrading to a 27" Samsung 750D 120hz LED last year...

"I just picked up two of the best CRT's ever made!!!

They are Sony GDM-F500R FD Trinitron's. The 22mm dot pitch is freaking amazing. I've never seen image quality this good before.

They retailed for $1800 each a few years ago. Nowadays there's a few on ebay going for about $1000 each...

ebay link

I got the hookup on them, this kid works at an architectural design company and they had these laying around. He took a couple from storage and gave them to me for ONLY $60.

COD4 is incrediable now, I'm playing with a 170hz refresh rate and it's ultra smooth. It's crazy how fluid the gameplay is....

cod4refreshbq8.jpg


Why the odd resolution in COD4 though you are probably thinking?

two reasons:

A. The lower 16:9 resolution allows me keep my fps closer to the refresh rate of 170hz.

B. In COD4, 16:9 actually gives you a much wider field of view. Also if you use 16:9 with the ~ /cg_fov 85 command that even widens it more allowing you see really far to the left and right which prevents you from getting flanked.

The downside of using a 16:9 resolution on a standard format CRT is that you have 1" black bars on the top and bottom of the screen. It actually doesn't bother me, but it may to some people.

I may try 1600x900 @ 120hz and also do ~ /cg_fov 85 and see how I like that setup. But for right now the 170hz refresh rate has the best feel to it in smoothness when making quick snap shot movements. "
 
My little brother is still using Dell 21" Triniton CRT (can't remember the exact model) instead of his 24" TN-crap :D

It's actually quite nice that you can drive that monitor 200hz @ 1280x960 res and 120hz @ 1600x1200 :p

The best part is that I bought 3 of those monitors for 10€ each about 4 years ago.
 
I was using crt until springtime this year. My first monitor was Samsung 757NF and then same series 959NF monitor and I was very happy using them. Not as pro as those big monsters, but enough good for me. Reason for upgrade to Dell U2412M was for going too weak brightness at direct sunlight, energy consumption and big space taken on desktop. But I would not have problems using crt monitor if I had to.
 
Crosshairs said:
I'm still using my FW-900, but I find myself playing less games these days and mostly reading or surfing..........so I may just retire it and grab a nice LCD .......as good as this thing is for fast paced games, it cant touch a quality LCD in terms of crisp clear text
Click to expand...


Text is searingly clear on mine.

I don't know why i keep bothering to research lcd's other than i know one day i will have to probably buy one. It pains me that after all this time they still haven't gotten any better really. I figured by now they would have perfected them. But to me they are the same rubbish they always were. Very small incremental upgrades to response times - if that, 16:9 mass market steaming piles of shit. Some look good when displaying a static picture - or rather they look "ok" but other than that they blow.

I would like to back up that statement by the very fact that these sub forums and elsewhere on the net have a lot of people discussing, toiling over and blowing tons of money every 6 months hoping for "something better", and then doing it all over again...and again...and again...

If the monitor was worth a crap in the first place they'd be done and on to enjoying them.
 
Last edited:
Now that this old bumped-up thread is here, it's important to mention a few new relevant information that adds extra choice ("Do I buy a heavy CRT, or can one of the new 120Hz LCD's be good enough?). In the last half year, a LightBoost tweak was discovered to work for motion blur elimination during 2D usage (without needing a 3D Vision Kit).

Some people are now using LightBoost as a CRT replacement, especially if they like the lack of motion blur. See tesimonials from former CRT users. Note that some LightBoost monitors have terrible out-of-box picture quality, but has CRT-quality motion, due to the strobe backlight. These are among the only LCD monitors on the market with virtually zero motion blur -- complete elimination of motion blur. A good article is TFT Central: Motion Blur Reduction Backlights who found that LightBoost greatly outperforms all past scanning backlights that they have ever tested. Even 1ms 60Hz LCD's still had 16.7ms of sample-and-hold motion blur, LightBoost elimintes sample-and-hold by using a stroboscopic backlight that bypasses pixel persistence. The backlight is turned off while waiting for pixel transitions, between refreshes, unseen by human eye. The backlight is flashed only on fully refreshed frames. The strobe flash can be shorter than the pixel persistence. Thus, response time is now dictated by the short backlight flash, instead of by the pixel persistence. The pixel persistence barrier has been successfully shattered. See high speed video.

l88bastard said:
I still have my FW900 too, but I found the best compromise between desk space, back pain, & picture quality to be my Catleap 2B.
Click to expand...
Update -- l88bastard is now using a triple LightBoost setup.
Photo of l88bastard's triple-monitor LightBoost setup.


KG-Prime90 said:
Very small incremental upgrades to response times - if that
Click to expand...
Wrong. This is now successfully Blur Busted by LightBoost.

blurbusterslogo-300x232.png


LightBoost recently gave LCD a major upgrade in effective response time to the human eye (using the MPRT measurement metric: Motion Picture Response Time -- the metric that matters to the human eye). During frames rates matching refresh rates (120fps@120Hz), the motion on an optimized LightBoost display (OSD=10%) is 12x clearer fast motion than an ordinary 60Hz LCD during PixPerAn tests, and is 6x clearer than an ordinary 120Hz LCD. Where you got 12 pixels of motion blur on a 60Hz LCD, you now only get 1 pixel of motion blur on a LightBoost LCD. During normal usage, there's less than 1 pixel of motion blur (invisible to human eye) - fast 180 degree flicks in FPS shooters, turning with zero motion blur. Fast horizontal pans as perfectly sharp as stationary images. CRT crystal clear motion. PixPerAn readability test score of 30 -- never before achieved on LCD -- until LightBoost arrived.

Granted, LightBoost has generally poor colors (compared to non-LightBoost), though on certain better LightBoost monitors this can be tweaked via a colorimeter.
But this is the holy grail LCD for people who must eliminate motion blur -- for people (like me) who are very sensitive to motion blur above all else -- for FPS gameplay.
Obviously, you must get 120fps@120Hz for the full startling motion blur reduction (LightBoost doesn't really help 60fps gaming).

Not everyone likes LightBoost, but to say LCD's haven't caught up in CRT-quality *motion*, hasn't been paying attention to LightBoost. (LightBoost HOWTO)
 
Last edited:
I have a new mint Sony FW-900 in the box that I paid I think $1600 shipped on closeout when the monitor was going out of fashion. I used it for about 2 months before I jumped on my first LCD. I bought it after I read an article about how John Carmack loved the monitor. Before that I had a Sony 21" 520GS crt and I loved that monitor as well. I also had a few Nokia 21" CRT's as well, 440xi? I can't remember been nearly 10 years.
 
Mark Rejhon said:
Now that this old bumped-up thread is here,..
Click to expand...


Oh damn, i necro'd and got this guy....my bad.


Some people are now using LightBoost as a CRT replacement, ....blah blah, yes yes

Mark Rejhon said:
Update -- l88bastard is now using a triple LightBoost setup.
Photo of l88bastard's triple-monitor LightBoost setup.
Click to expand...


Oh Update weeeee...

Oh man, What a Bastard!


Mark Rejhon said:
Wrong. This is now successfully Blur Busted by LightBoost.
Click to expand...

Wrong, What? Light what? Never heard of it.

Mark Rejhon said:
Granted, LightBoost has generally poor colors (compared to non-LightBoost), though on certain better LightBoost monitors this can be tweaked ..
Click to expand...

erm Yeah

Mark Rejhon said:
Not everyone likes LightBoost, but to say LCD's haven't caught up in CRT-quality *motion*, hasn't been paying attention to LightBoost. (LightBoost HOWTO)
Click to expand...

Light What? What was that called again?

Dude, your posts read like an Advert. I've seen you post the same info over and over, here, there, everywhere.

Too bad you have to be using a shitty TN. And as far as the technology - it was not implemented for that purpose, but some regular person figured it out. The point is why don't the manufacturers figure some shit out and stop pumping out crap. I know why though, cause people buy it, and so that's all they get.

For those who have to use LCD's or want to, and hate the motion blur enough to go through the trouble that is a great thing though for sure.
 
Last edited:
SixFootDuo said:
I have a new mint Sony FW-900 in the box that I paid I think $1600 shipped on closeout when the monitor was going out of fashion. I used it for about 2 months before I jumped on my first LCD. I bought it after I read an article about how John Carmack loved the monitor. Before that I had a Sony 21" 520GS crt and I loved that monitor as well. I also had a few Nokia 21" CRT's as well, 440xi? I can't remember been nearly 10 years.
Click to expand...

I'd pay 1600 for a new mint FW-900 in an instant.
The one i'm sitting in front of now cost me 200 bucks, and it's condition is grade A easy. My other one in the corner that died a few weeks back lasted 7 years and was a refurb i payed 700+ for. Worth every penny i got out of it. Beautiful sharp picture till the end. It was sad, but in about 5 minutes i had this beast up on the desk and fired it up for the first time in 7 years. Perfection. Now i need another backup. So where you live? Anywhere close to North America? :p
 
lol shipping would be insane, Im guessing $200. If you are local to Kansas City you could come over and check it out. Im negotiable on the price. Would rather deal locally.

I also have a few massive 4:3 21" LCD's min condition but they are about 7 years old, maybe 8 since its 2013 already
 
KG-Prime90 said:
I'd pay 1600 for a new mint FW-900 in an instant.
The one i'm sitting in front of now cost me 200 bucks, and it's condition is grade A easy. My other one in the corner that died a few weeks back lasted 7 years and was a refurb i payed 700+ for. Worth every penny i got out of it. Beautiful sharp picture till the end. It was sad, but in about 5 minutes i had this beast up on the desk and fired it up for the first time in 7 years. Perfection. Now i need another backup. So where you live? Anywhere close to North America? :p
Click to expand...

I've had the chance to buy a mint FW900 but I passed. Spending $1300 on a new CRT just felt wrong to me. I know its got fantastic PQ but its bulk , pain in the ass to calibrate nature and connection issues just felt like more effort than its worth.

I think if however I was a photographer or something with graphic design I would have sprang for it and not looked back. But for the every day user it's far to expensive just to get one you know won't die on you simply because its been around for so long.

Oh well. Maybe I can convince myself one day again.
 
Mine burned out a couple years ago. Between the ungodly weight and the heat it gave off, it really became a hassle to use.

I miss the deep blacks, though.
 
very happy with my fw900 - got a couple spares, one of which is not working. I got the one I'm using for $300 and it's been in a closet for 10 years and only had a couple weeks usage on it before I bought it a month or two ago.

I also have an IBM p275 and a sony g400 (also trinitron).

I've never used an LCD except at my lab.
 
KG-Prime90 said:
I'd pay 1600 for a new mint FW-900 in an instant.
The one i'm sitting in front of now cost me 200 bucks, and it's condition is grade A easy. My other one in the corner that died a few weeks back lasted 7 years and was a refurb i payed 700+ for. Worth every penny i got out of it. Beautiful sharp picture till the end. It was sad, but in about 5 minutes i had this beast up on the desk and fired it up for the first time in 7 years. Perfection. Now i need another backup. So where you live? Anywhere close to North America? :p
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah your racist FW900 crushes blacks and coloreds like nobodies business...blah blah blah. Lets be real tea, if they made a 40" Fw900 that put out 120hz at 1920p I would be all over that 4 ton display. But they dont, now dont take me wrong I love my fw900 but my old eyes need more screen real estate when im owning noobs in the sims 3 and barbies extreme pussy-cat horse pony fisting advenure. So for me my portrait LIGHTBOOST setup is tits and the fw900 is in the closet and get this, neither of us are wrong....cause they are both great display choices....you just have succulent baby midget eyes that can handle less inches :)
 
Last edited:
l88bastard said:
Blah blah blah your racist FW900 beats blacks and coloreds like nobodies business...blah blah blah. Lets be real tea, if they made a 40" Fw900 that put out 120hz at 1400p I would be all over that 4 ton display. But they dont, now dont take me wrong I love my fw900 but my old eyes need more screen real estate when im owning boobs in the sims 3 and barbies horse pony extreme advenure. So for me my portrait LIGHTBOOST setup is tits and the fw900 is in the closet and get this, neither of us is wrong....cause they are both great display choices.
Click to expand...
+1

I've owned CRT's for many years, as a CRT die-hard.
I totally agree with you that things like contrast / black levels / etc are lacking on LCD

I owned a CRT projector!
Here are some photos from ten years ago:
Yes, I even learned to calibrate it (convergence, astig, keystone, bow, etc)
Model: NEC XG135; MSRP $23,995 -- I bought it on bargain at $8,000 in year 1999.
My Old Website: http://www.marky.com/hometheater
That's 1080p in 1999, everyone!





Again, see, I was a CRT die-hard too.
But it seems I'm far more picky about motion blur than contrast/black levels/etc.
I even learned how to calibrate it. Opened it up myself too, to maintain it, in fact. Also did geometry, convergence, astigmatism, focus, trapezoid, bow, parallogram, you name it -- I was a CRT calibration expert in the league of ISF calibration. (Although I did not get ISF certified, I outperformed many ISF technicians). Yes, I calibrated my CRT to full ISF standards, colorimeter, equipment, and all!

But yes, I totally agree with you about contrast/black levels/etc are lacking on LCD. Definitely text/convergence/focus is better on an LCD. But, there is irreconcilable proof: the LCD motion blur has finally been successfully conquered. Even TFT Central says LightBoost outperforms all past scanning backlights ever tested. I totally agree with you that contrast / black levels / etc levels are lacking on LCD compared to CRT. Again, you don't have to sell your CRT. There simply are, however, choices.

Mint W900's are getting hard to find. They're not being made anymore. Consider dying flyback transformers and capacitors. Even a TN panel outperforms a worn-out GDM-W900. Dim fuzzy picture with ugly grey levels, problems with convergence (e.g. red separating from green and blue). Mint FW-900's are starting to be harder to find. So you gotta give credit where due, if you are giving up on CRT. Not everyone is a CRT repairman (and if you are, you're already buying parts from curtpalme.com or other sources), so the world has choices. You can go to craigslist and kijiji and ebay to buy CRT's, but eventually, the supply is going to dry up.

Gamers like us must convince manufacturers to fix more and more LCD and OLED flaws so future panels are good enough to replace CRT. (e.g. Blue-Phase LCD's capable of 1000Hz, or strobe-driven OLED's, or resurrection of FED, etc.) Until then, we must milk existing LCD to its maximum potential, to show the manufacturers the way.

Yes, some of my posts definitely 'look' like advertisements (no disagreement), but many have profusely thanked me for raising awareness. LightBoost for 2D is less than half a year old, and needs to be better utilized/publicized by manufacturers, and this is partially a grassroots campaign to make the world more aware that manufacturers have a perfect opportunity to solve some LCD shortcomings. (Baby steps such as getting ASUS representative to acknowledge LightBoost in the NewEgg YouTube video, and the profile is raising slowly -- Ars Technica just mentioned it too. And 30,000 views on my high-speed video proof that it's not impossible to fix a specific LCD defect). Now almost a quarter of NewEgg VG248QE reviews and Amazon VG248QE reviews mention LightBoost, so people are already discovering it through other people, by themselves. So it's apparently a major selling feature; pushing sales; which makes manufacturers more likely to fix future LCD flaws. People now understand I'm doing the world a good service when viewed from this perspective.

Both CRT and LightBoost are great choices -- so I totally agree with l88tbastard.

I'm on your side, buddy!
 
Last edited:
Still using a 19" viewsonic from 2005. Wish I had sprung for the 21" version but I really didn't expect LCD tech to take so fucking long to get to the stage where it might be comparable to CRT image quality. I am pining for a larger wide screen display but every time I look at what is available I just return to my CRT in disgust.

Just waiting for affordable OLEDs with a decent refresh rates and a dpi of around 200. Can't believe the IBM T221 was released over a decade ago but no one has bothered to replicate the technology in current LCDs.
 
No Doubt Mark - i guess when i've seen your posts so many times i was just ribbing you a bit. For sure it is a good thing when we make a loud noise ( the only way really things get done ).


At the moment the only lcd i think that might be worth buying if i really had to would be the Eizo EV2436W, but it's matte. But 24" is plenty big enough for me.
24" 1920x1200 gloss - but no we can't have that can we. Thought all crazy about getting one a removing the coating, and mounting glass or some kind of clear plastic adhesive over it. If it was even semi glossy i would have bought one already for backup. Am kind of pipe dreaming Eizo will release the next 24" EV with a semi gloss at least.


Thing is, every once in a while a certain monitor might be a step above the rest, then it's gone, and coveted, and for whatever bizzare reason the next models they make don't stand up to the last, and you get this lull in between the "good" ones. Makes me feel like i better get one of the good ones before they're gone, "just in case". But then i keep thinking, nah, something new, a better tech is got to come along soon so i hold out.

And as you mentioned it yeah i probably would rather go projector than lcd.
That's a cool setup you have.
 
atwix said:
FW900 is the pinnacle of CRT technology. It can do 16:10 resolutions up to 2304x1440@80hz or 1920x1200@85 hertz easily.

75 hertz on your monitor can still be painful for some people. It depends from person to person.

The reason people detest CRT is usually cause they used some VERY old model that can't even do 75 hertz, and got headaches due to the low refresh rate...

There is famous thread on the fw900 in this forum. It has 640 or so pages of answers..

Plenty people still use CRT, especially for gaming. And thats not just old fossiles that never heard of flat panels. I still use my fw900 for gaming because it STILL has best pixel density of all monitors (well, almost), the better black levels, the absence of any motion blur, the fact that it can do any resolution at any refresh rate without showing a smeared image etc etc. If you want to play old games with lower resolution CRT is the way to go.. But new games like skyrim on 2304x1440 look gorgeous and very smooth too.

Its kind of funny, but it took the graphic card manufacturers YEARS (after they stopped making fw900) to make a video card that could actually use all the power of an fw900 at max FPS per refresh rate.

the best CRT monitor models still hold many advantages over LCD, wether its TN or IPS panels.

Check the fw900 thread in this forum if you want to know more... Cause i could go on for long time still here.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you completely, lol but maybe not because of what you think. CRTs were excellent even really cheap ones for almost a decade strait, most people had problems with CRTs because they didn't freaking know what refresh rates were or how to use them.

For as long as I can remember if I walked into ANY computer in ANY business or residence with the one exception being in engineering departments running CAD etc.... They were never, ever set up at all. I mean these guys do nothing they just turn it on. The real miracle and why LCDs were said to be better is because most people who never configured a CRT were looking at distorted images, at 60hz and the lowest resolution IE 600x800, even on big ones. This is why MS and others pushed for more forced digital in monitors by vista, they knew most people were never going to setup their display right and it had to be automated. Even with LCDs I would find people running at non native resolutions.

I currently have 2 FW900s and 2 21 inch CRTs. They are great, but light boost is going to be the technology that finally allows most people to move beyond them. A lot of things like black levels have become very good in recent times on certain panels. I have a Samsung series 7 gamer with a 120hz TN panel that does really well in many respects. Even deeper blacks then the 27 inch IPS next to it.
 
When LCD's came out they were a giant step back. It's almost like the camera market back in the 00's when people were dropping DSLR's in favour of VGA mobile phone cameras. I remember when the internet was filled with horny teenage girls taking self shots and you couldn't tell if it was her face or her ass. VGA camera phone night club photography.......fuck yeah!

If somebody was making CRT today with newer advance technology, I would definitely buy instead of IPS/TN. Also how many years and money making scheme will it require for finally LCD with decent colors and 120hz? Ok, how about none native resolution?
 
Kokain said:
When LCD's came out they were a giant step back. It's almost like the camera market back in the 00's when people were dropping DSLR's in favour of VGA mobile phone cameras. I remember when the internet was filled with horny teenage girls taking self shots and you couldn't tell if it was her face or her ass. VGA camera phone night club photography.......fuck yeah!

If somebody was making CRT today with newer advance technology, I would definitely buy instead of IPS/TN. Also how many years and money making scheme will it require for finally LCD with decent colors and 120hz? Ok, how about none native resolution?
Click to expand...

Yet there is concern for the reliability of monitors.
Sorry, I'm still in the LCD camp. Maybe it's because I was young and stupid though I remember CRT's being a massive pain.
LCD's weren't close to the quality of CRT on release. Now in my eyes they are better.
I think they should continue to better LCD tech.

Also,
Horny teenage girls using DSLRs aren't much better...I have such a "kinda like" - "mostly hate" relationship with Deviantart.:p
 
Well as soon as LCDs get decent they will just switch us over to disposable OLEDs. The market always finds a way to milk us dry. You gotta figure the average consumer buys laptops and mobile phones now, they don't even get a choice as to which LCD they get nor do they know anything about it. Just I heard display X was better. That's one of the reasons I bought a lightboost LCD, because honestly I don't know if they will even be making them in a couple years because consumers don't know about it. I hope we can get some good light boosted IPS monitors soon, but CRTs were canned long before LCDs were even remotely acceptable. So I have no faith in the industry.
 
Kokain said:
If somebody was making CRT today with newer advance technology, I would definitely buy instead of IPS/TN. Also how many years and money making scheme will it require for finally LCD with decent colors and 120hz? Ok, how about none native resolution?
Click to expand...
I think we're stuck with discrete-pixel displays, no matter what kind of flat panel comes in the future.

Non-native resolution may actually become moot with future "Retina" displays, since reducing resolution a bit will no longer result in very noticeable degradation because pixels become too small to see. Running a slightly lower resolution on a 4K 24" monitor for example. And you can apply CRT shadowmask emulation filters (e.g. MAME HLSL). There are still cons, mind you...

Example: We'll probably eventually get silly numbers such as 600dpi, so low-quality scaling will just still be more than 300dpi, and still look Retina at all non-native resolutions. Replace "600" with any insane number, sufficiently high enough that scaling down isn't a noticeable degradation.

Even at lower DPI's, it's starting to get noticeable -- with a good scaler (and proper scalers can be made zero-input-lag if they really bothered; if they stuck to single-scanline buffering for scaling, instead of full-screen buffering.), displaying 2560x1440 on a 4K 24" monitor doesn't look noticeably terrible. Far better than displaying 1024x768 on a 1080p monitor.

We'll just have to wait-out Moore's Law (and equivalents) working in our favour in terms of display resolution, GPU power, refresh rates, etc. Then eventually, non-native resolutions becomes a moot issue within our lifetimes. We can wish FED into existence until the cows go home, but our best hope is to milk the most promising technologies (and unfortunately that includes LCD too -- look at IGZO and Blue-Phase scientific breakthroughs being reported in journals such as SID.org's display industry magazine. Or google They've found a way to do microsecond pixel response times in a future LCDs. Google "Blue-phase LCD" -- yes, 10 to 100 microsecond pixel persistence LCD -- Fast enough for 1000fps@1000Hz LCD's of the future (Flicker-free CRT clear motion, with no interpolation. Sample-and-hold with 1 millisecond samples have practically no visible motion blur).. This is easier to do than active-matrix OLED's which cannot be driven at 1000fps@1000Hz due to the slowness of the active-matrix transitors. (That's why IPS is slower than TN). Solutions such as simultaneous driving of each OLED row (e.g. massive multicore IC embedded into the edge of the display) may permit the 1000fps@1000Hz OLED within a few years or a few decades, but this isn't a sure-fire bet on the horse race, alas.

Unfortunately, we don't know what tech will win out in the 2020's -- could very well be OLED -- but one thing for sure -- manufacturers aren't giving up on the LCD horse easily. OLED may very well win the race, but LCD has have had science lab breakthroughs that keeps coming. A few years ago, I never expected 10 microsecond response LCD's. But it's proven possible in the science lab. Apparently easier to drive at higher frequencies than an AMOLED. You can even do field-sequential color (like DLP, using an RGB backlight) with a blue-phase LCD -- that's how ultrafast these LCD's are. (e.g. 960Hz LCD with 320Hz per R,G,B flashed in sequence, using R/G/B backlight LED's). It may take ten years -- but look at how long OLED is taking to come to market and some of them have more flaws than plasma/better LCD's. The betting stations haven't closed yet.

Regardless of OLED or future improved ultrafast LCD's, we must show the manufacturers the way -- and show demand for the image quality attributes we need.
I even honestly have no idea what will step up to CRT's plate in the 2020's. I'm thinking OLED will win out, but I'm always impressed at what LCD makers still has up their sleeve, and capabilities that LCD already has that manufacturers aren't fully taking advantage of.
 
Last edited:
JayJapanB said:
I think you made the right decision.

Seems like a pain for colour work as well. Though I haven't had a good CRT.
Click to expand...

It was the standard for "color work" and many other image and color critical mediums, in fact i bought it from a company that did just that.

I looked around the room to see what they were now using instead and they were all large Apple displays, which i could understand, for production they needed the real estate.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top