![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Anyone here still using CRT?
- Thread starter JoeUser
- Start date
I use both lcd and crt. LCD for general use, crt for high def movies and gaming, though not all gaming just for gaming at max graphics/color etc, with the option to crank 1024x768@ 160hz for fast paced stuff, though i generally just stick to the LCD@120hz for that.
2048x1536@85hz is soooo nice.
2048x1536@85hz is soooo nice.
TN panels :/
I don't regret the move from a fast 120hz TN to IPS.
I don't play many online games and do more digital painting though.
That's the interesting thing about high end screens. There is no best solution, objectively.
Falkentyne
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2000
- Messages
- 1,868
VERY acceptable compromise. And with how LIGHT LCD's are (thus making swapping around easy), there's really no reason why someone can't have two, in case they want to switch from gaming to normal photography or image editing or general usage....
Oh and using a LB monitor instead of a FW900 saves a lot of money on that electric blil, too...
Oh, compared to CRT, hell yeah.
I also love my VESA arm which couldn't be done with a CRT. Means my monitor takes up effectively no desk real-estate.
Oh here we go again with the electricity bullshit counter argument. Just to piss you off....
http://i.imgur.com/iMxwz8E.jpg
\o/
http://i.imgur.com/iMxwz8E.jpg
\o/
Which would you choose?
I just can't bring myself to like it. Lcd has done well.
lcd
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8247/8453823745_8d7125eaed_b.jpg
crt
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/3217/newmonitor13fj.jpg
If I let anything take up that much space it would be a full hd Cintiq.
Mark Rejhon
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,395
It bear worth noting that 120Hz LB versus non-LB are two different animals:
SkyViper's reaction to 120Hz versus LightBoost
For motion-blur sensitive people like this and me, it makes regular 120Hz quite boring for these people during games in comparison, since regular 120Hz LCD only reduces motion blur by half.
Such dramatic testimonials is the reason why manufacturers needs to focus on backlight-based motion blur elimination technologies more often in LCD computer monitors. Not everyone likes it, but some of us really do. For motion-blur sensitive people and hard-core FPS players, the CRT motion effect in a flat panel is still quite too rare.
That said, I know not everyone is more sensitive to motion blur, than to color...
Last edited:
Yeah, atm the colour shift makes me sicker than motion blur.
I agree though and I hope lightboost becomes a new standard in high end gaming monitors.
Mark Rejhon
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,395
Or other brand names that exercise the principle of using precise synchronized backlight scanning/flashing to eliminate motion blur. (tantamount to introducing CRT flicker, so this feature should be able to be turned on/off easily in one step). Doesn't necessarily have to be nVidia's trademark (LightBoost). Certain Samsung monitors also have a strobe backlight.
Torr Samaho
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 103
i posted several times about getting motion sicknesss due to blurry images, plain 120 hz were not sharp enough. lightboost has indeed eliminated this completely.
lightboost what? nothing special actually. backlight is strobed instead of being on all the time. my screen is always in strobed mode, there´s almost no difference to normal operation except that silly blur being gone.
everything would be perfect if TN monitors had better colors (as only TN are fast enough for use with strobed backlight), and i prefer them semi glossy. this benq xl2411t i´m using looks rather washed out.
as for the fw900, i could have bought a barely used one at 85 $, but sadly it´s a bit bulky and power hungry for my taste.
lightboost what? nothing special actually. backlight is strobed instead of being on all the time. my screen is always in strobed mode, there´s almost no difference to normal operation except that silly blur being gone.
everything would be perfect if TN monitors had better colors (as only TN are fast enough for use with strobed backlight), and i prefer them semi glossy. this benq xl2411t i´m using looks rather washed out.
as for the fw900, i could have bought a barely used one at 85 $, but sadly it´s a bit bulky and power hungry for my taste.
That's too bad...it would have been worth reinforcing your desk for to say the least...and a lot of folks on this board would have loved to have had that opportunity.
Within reason, image quality is all that matters...
spacediver
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2013
- Messages
- 2,715
nice to see you posting here Torr - I saw over at esreality that you modded a wingman. I've used a wingman since 1997 (well first I used logitech mouseman 96 which was virtually identical), and a few weeks ago installed a deathadder 3.5g sensor into the shell, with the help of a friend. Anyway, not to get off topic but props to you for being one of the pioneers 
Godmachine
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2003
- Messages
- 10,472
This is my problem as well. Motion blur is a critical thing for any kind of gaming , no doubt there but having to deal with color shift and more makes it a trade off experience. Its still great but I prefer my 120hz 1440p monitor over lightboost until I see lightboost with a high end panel in which case I'll drop my 1440p monitor like a stack of bricks.
jcvjcvjcvjcv
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2007
- Messages
- 703
Seems I'm not the only European stocking up. Although I'm getting the Halogen bulbs. They are going to be banned in 2016.
I also have some access to old stock from my grandfather. He replaced the bulbs in traffic lights and was allowed to keep the bulbs. Those really don't give much light for enormous amount of heat, lol. Meaning bulbs from the early '80s and older.
Torr Samaho
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 103
nice to see you posting here Torr - I saw over at esreality that you modded a wingman. I've used a wingman since 1997 (well first I used logitech mouseman 96 which was virtually identical), and a few weeks ago installed a deathadder 3.5g sensor into the shell, with the help of a friend. Anyway, not to get off topic but props to you for being one of the pioneers
you're julios then, i presume
wingman uses a deathadder 1800 dpi sensor and is still going strong, most comfortable mouse i've ever used. i'll add some pics in the m&kb forum, not to derail this thread.
as for the fw900, i would have liked getting one. my desk is sturdy enough, but that crt is about 55 cm deep, and i need desk space for resting my forearms, plus there should be some space behind the crt, as it exhausts hot air which will leave its mark on the wall over time. secondly, electric power got rather expensive in germany. most importantly however, i found that offer by the time mark posted his lightboost info, so i switched from my aging 5870 to a 670 and exchanged my s27a750d for the xl2411t.
i have posted that the samsung with its regular 120 hz was still a bit blurry, resulting in nausea after some time (although markedly better than 60 hz).
the lightboosted benq has solved the blur problem indeed, i can confirm that.
the wingman is a fingertip mouse, i make a lot of quick turns in shooters, which amplifies motion blur, so a fast display is necessary.
however, its colors are clearly poorer than the samsung's, and the matte film also reduces the crt-like sharpness. not to mention the overlord ips i also have. unfortunately, the overlord @ 120 hz is just about 40% faster than regular 60 hz, i'll keep it for working on my secondary pc and game on the benq, until faster and preferably semi-glossy lightboost capable models come out.
yeah, the fw900 is still one great display. it's a shame research on sed / fed displays was abandoned in favor of lcd. i guess every serious gamer would have been using them, had they become available at around the price of lcd's.
spacediver
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2013
- Messages
- 2,715
yep julios here
Here's a video demonstrating the way I hold and control the mouse:
http://vimeo.com/40911615
Yes, I'm hoping to keep my crts in good shape until something equivalent/better is available.
Here's a video demonstrating the way I hold and control the mouse:
http://vimeo.com/40911615
Yes, I'm hoping to keep my crts in good shape until something equivalent/better is available.
Mark Rejhon
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,395
I must say that the newer LED light bulbs are getting better and cheaper. For example, the newer CREE brand 40-watt and 60-watt replacements are quite warm-looking for LED, look far more like actual incandescent bulbs (glass; not plastic!), with a nice incandescent style glow (CRI>90), consume less than 1/6th as much as incandescent for the same light, and they cost only $10 during some sales. In fact, I just replaced a 60-watt outdoor incandescent General Electric bulb, with a CREE 40-watt LED replacement (6-watt actual), and it actually emitted MORE light! (I think the 60 watter was just getting smoked up a little, but I was surprised that I cut electricity by 90% *and* GAINED LIGHT!!!)
The new 2013 models have an energy efficiency factor of approximately ~6 to 7x the light of incandescent (CFL surpassing) -- unlike the 2011 models of only about ~4x the light of incandescent (CFL matching).
The LED problem is that there are so many low-quality bulbs (yuck, yuck, and yuck again). There have been bad experiences with the rush of first-LED bulbs. But there are many LED bulbs that totally blow away even the best CFL's. Some models now even have a reddening-simulator when dimmed too! (not many, though) By 2016, most brand-name LED bulbs should be high quality and reasonably inexpensive. Goodbye LED crapbulbs, hello delicious LED bulbs falling to about $5 to 8 by 2016 that emit too much light that you return to the store & get a lower watter (finally).
We now have 14-watt LED floodlights that emit more light than a 100 watt floodlight (example blogger story -- It was too bright. They replaced it with a lower watter. Couldn't tell the difference from halogen.) Finally, LED is matching & exceeding advertised claims, after years of underwhelm and dissapointment. You still gotta be careful which brands you buy. A lot of LED with bad light.
Incandescents have their place, though.
I for one, welcome our LED bulb overlords.
Last edited:
jcvjcvjcvjcv
Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2007
- Messages
- 703
I don't, because they come by decree from the EU. Meaning there's someone with a badge and gun forcing people away from incan bulbs.
Just a reality check: My most-used Halogen light bulb consumes 53 Watt, used a few hours per day; that's only a small dot of the total electricity use.
Also, LED's might appear 'warm'; they still aren't. They are not constant-spectrum, like incan bulbs. The 'red' spike might be bigger on some models, but it's still not incan. All kind of things look ugly under LED light.
My entire apartment uses the same Philips "Ecoclassic" Halogen bulbs. (53W in the living room and bed room, 105W in the kitchen) The hood above the cooktop uses halogen, the lights below the upper kitchen cabinets are halogen; it's all nice and equal. The only place food looks rotten in my apartment is within the fridge. That fridge is the newest A+++ from Bosch and has LED light, unfortunately. I'm very happen with that fridge, but that LED light is just a shame, although it makes sense there. And if I want to look rotten myself, I can always turn on the CFL above the mirror in the bathroom, lol.
The biggest nonsense is LED light in extraction hoods for in the kitchen. How insane is that...
And then there is the effect on health of these non-constant spectrum light sources. Perhaps the whole craze with CFL and LED lighting has something to do with a huge portion of the population taking anti-depressants.
As for one big energy saver: I'm for turning off all the street lights at night. But that will probably never happen since some women will complain.
And as a hobby photographer: all those newer light sources will give you plain ugly photo's. When there are CFLs involved you either need pure CFL light without any other light source or just turn down your ISO value and use your flash to the max to make the CFL light irrelevant.
Don't forget that the whole craze about saving x percent of energy with banning incan bulbs is just nonsense. Not every existing bulb was incan, only a small part of the energy just for lighting is used in households and even that is a drop in the bucket.
But hey, deception is popular. Just like "this power plant produces electricity for 2 million households" without ever mentioning that households only use ~30% of the total.
I also have some modded flashllights; big MagLite's with other bulbs. Those P7 LED are nice and give a lot of light for the energy you feed them, giving a long runtime on battery, but the color is just plain ugly compared to an identical MagLite I modded with a Welch Allyn 1185 halogen bulb. Although that only last like 40 minutes on a 9 AA load compared to the P7's 3 hours runtime on 3 D cells.
Just a reality check: My most-used Halogen light bulb consumes 53 Watt, used a few hours per day; that's only a small dot of the total electricity use.
Also, LED's might appear 'warm'; they still aren't. They are not constant-spectrum, like incan bulbs. The 'red' spike might be bigger on some models, but it's still not incan. All kind of things look ugly under LED light.
My entire apartment uses the same Philips "Ecoclassic" Halogen bulbs. (53W in the living room and bed room, 105W in the kitchen) The hood above the cooktop uses halogen, the lights below the upper kitchen cabinets are halogen; it's all nice and equal. The only place food looks rotten in my apartment is within the fridge. That fridge is the newest A+++ from Bosch and has LED light, unfortunately. I'm very happen with that fridge, but that LED light is just a shame, although it makes sense there. And if I want to look rotten myself, I can always turn on the CFL above the mirror in the bathroom, lol.
The biggest nonsense is LED light in extraction hoods for in the kitchen. How insane is that...
And then there is the effect on health of these non-constant spectrum light sources. Perhaps the whole craze with CFL and LED lighting has something to do with a huge portion of the population taking anti-depressants.
As for one big energy saver: I'm for turning off all the street lights at night. But that will probably never happen since some women will complain.
And as a hobby photographer: all those newer light sources will give you plain ugly photo's. When there are CFLs involved you either need pure CFL light without any other light source or just turn down your ISO value and use your flash to the max to make the CFL light irrelevant.
Don't forget that the whole craze about saving x percent of energy with banning incan bulbs is just nonsense. Not every existing bulb was incan, only a small part of the energy just for lighting is used in households and even that is a drop in the bucket.
But hey, deception is popular. Just like "this power plant produces electricity for 2 million households" without ever mentioning that households only use ~30% of the total.
I also have some modded flashllights; big MagLite's with other bulbs. Those P7 LED are nice and give a lot of light for the energy you feed them, giving a long runtime on battery, but the color is just plain ugly compared to an identical MagLite I modded with a Welch Allyn 1185 halogen bulb. Although that only last like 40 minutes on a 9 AA load compared to the P7's 3 hours runtime on 3 D cells.
Last edited:
Comixbooks
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 22,015
I have a stockpile of 70+ 60 watts bulbs if the government ever takes them away a year or two from now.
Mark Rejhon
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2004
- Messages
- 1,395
Fair enough.
---
Now, for the fridge bulbs. I'm betting your fridge are probably using neutral white CRI 70 LED's. Most people think that looks fancy. I don't. Sometimes appliance makers just see LED as the new big thing and just slap in some LED's. Your fridge maker has no experience on making LED make food look good (there are better LED's that make food look natural). For the CRI 93 and better bulbs, steaks look naturally deep red, lettuce look nicely natural green and not dead, And colors aren't artificial looking like for R/G/B bulbs.
The amount of light make a more major effect on depression than the LED spectrum makeup (better than CFL). I seem to have better moods under the better quality LED bulbs than under CFL bulbs, but then again, if it's winter, there's a certain warmth about the incandescents that can't be beat. Definitely scientific study is needed for non-constant spectrum, as that could be a valid concern. Using the same wattage in LED (6x brighter, or lights on 6x as much, etc.) can potentially make you less depressed than the same wattage in incandescent. I really noticed the differences in my improved moods when I added more light and let more light stay turned on, even if they were just LED. Getting more depressed in a dark-lit house versus leaving LED bulbs on 24/7. (I keep my house lit a lot more now, even though less power is used). There are various multiple factors that need scientific study, and possible comparatives (amount of light > spectrum make up .... versus amount of light < spectrum makeup). That said, I realize I am not going to get my Vitamin D this way; I'll go outdoors for that. But no disagreement in that very in-depth scientific study (not paid for by a bulb maker) would be useful. Especially people who always stay indoors and never go outside.
The non-constant color spectrum may be a valid nit. But new LED studio lighting coming (google "LED photography studio lights") -- for the CRI 95 models, the color quality is finally good enough to look indistinguishable from tungsten studio lighting for most uses. Photographers (I'm sure not all of them, but more than plenty of them), who formerly complained, are surprised that they're good enough or almost good enough for them, or can't tell the difference for the type of photography done. Some say sacrilege, and some are now LED winners. CRI's in the 95 range have been achieved with some models.
The problem is many manufacturers are going to cheap out on color quality. Choose cheaper and poorer quality LED's with lower CRI. That is the part I hate the most.
Even if you're anti-LED, you'd better be glad they're replacing CFL, at least. The department stores that now replace their showroom from CFL to LED, have better looking product. (If they're paying attention to getting the best LED bulbs.).
I keep a bunch of incandescents too.
I'm sure that incandescents are here to stay, and you should still be able to import them if necessary (unless importing them has been made illegal)
So, now I think I steered this thread off topic. Let's go back on topic of displays!
Last edited:
breal1
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2012
- Messages
- 101
Oh heck no! Back in the day, I was a huge fan-boy of Sony Trinitron monitors.
My Sony CRT has been sitting in my bedroom for over a year now, collecting dust. I retired it after I bought a Dell IPS monitor (for work).
For graphics, I find that my Sony CRT is as good, if not better than any of my other monitors (IPS, VA and TN).
The problem is size. LCD monitors are available for low prices in sizes of 23" and 24" these days. When you add in the electricity cost of running a CRT monitor, running a CRT is almost a luxury. I also found that while graphics look great on the Sony CRT, text was blurred, compared to my LCD monitors.
For graphics, I find that my Sony CRT is as good, if not better than any of my other monitors (IPS, VA and TN).
The problem is size. LCD monitors are available for low prices in sizes of 23" and 24" these days. When you add in the electricity cost of running a CRT monitor, running a CRT is almost a luxury. I also found that while graphics look great on the Sony CRT, text was blurred, compared to my LCD monitors.