• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Crowdbuying CRTs...

LCD's are slowly dealing with their long term issues but I can not see CRT's being made just as a crowdsourcing effort. The cost and the expertise needed would negate that immediately.

CRT's are dead. Only the ones in circulation are keeping the story moving along. Like it or not OLED's even with their current pitfalls are as close as you'll get.
 
there is something odd with this thread, keeps cycling pages 2 and 3. maybe a side effect of the fruitless debate and trolling:D
 
flod said:
11ms is not insignificant for certain types of games

the 800$ acer xb270hu is the only high-hz monitor which combines good colors+viewing angles with low lag, though we should be seeing more similar monitors this year. still the sequential contrast ratio is nowhere close to the levels crts are capable of as it is an ips.
Click to expand...

But you must admit, these things are getting better every year. Some day you're going to have to be willing to say "good enough," and switch to some flat panel technology (whatever wins in X years from now).

Do you think you would be able to do that? I did, although it took me an extremely long while.
 
defaultluser said:
But you must admit, these things are getting better every year. Some day you're going to have to be willing to say "good enough," and switch to some flat panel technology (whatever wins in X years from now).

Do you think you would be able to do that? I did, although it took me an extremely long while.
Click to expand...

LCD will never be good enough as it is inherently flawed. OLED has a chance, but it could suffer the same fate plasma did. It seems to be the new hype word, though, so that should work in its favor regarding manufacturers' backup.
 
defaultluser said:
But you must admit, these things are getting better every year. Some day you're going to have to be willing to say "good enough," and switch to some flat panel technology (whatever wins in X years from now).

Do you think you would be able to do that? I did, although it took me an extremely long while.
Click to expand...

yes they're getting better but lcd technology is intrinisically limited, for instance, in contrast ratio. i'm hoping that when my crt dies, oled displays will have become mainstream, but if not then i'll just use my lcd for a while
 
Good quality large CRTs were very expensive when they were at peak of CRT production. What would a similar unit cost today? Several thousand $ if there is anyone left capable of making it?
 
flod said:
yes they're getting better but lcd technology is intrinisically limited, for instance, in contrast ratio. i'm hoping that when my crt dies, oled displays will have become mainstream, but if not then i'll just use my lcd for a while
Click to expand...

You could solve that by having each pixel illuminated by its own light source.

But if you can do that cheap enough you might as well just switch to using that lightsource as the pixel itself like an OLED.
 
Unreal said:
I still dont understand why people love the FW900 forum . Can they or have they ever owned a nice IPS LED monitor. I left the CRT market in 2007 when i acquired a 26" NEC 2690wuxi and never looked back.
Click to expand...
I have one of the best IPS LED monitors ever and I still love my FW900
There is just nothing comparable to FW900 for games. OCable IPSes do not strobe and have way too high pixel response times for that.

CRT is just fastest thing ever. 0ms input lag + strobing + I can play at lower resolutions without much quality loss if my dated GPU can't keep up. Not to mention great colors, viewing angles and good blacks at night.
 
Meeho said:
Unfortunately, OLEDs are comparable to LCDs when it comes to motion. Until that improves, they are so-so compared to plasma.
Click to expand...
Let's go a bit further into how panels function, and how they are driven, to explain why this is incorrect.

LCDs are light-modulators. They do not emit any light, they modulate the amount of light they allow to pass through them. LCDs do not switch instantly, they take some time for the Liquid Crystals themselves to move into the correct position to have the desired polarisation shift to block the desired amount of light.
Most LCDs are driven at 'full persistence' and with a 'global refresh' (or a few discrete segments of rolling refresh). 'Full persistence' means that every pixel is constantly illuminated. this is often (somewhat incorrectly) referred to as 'sample and hold'. At each refresh, each pixel in tandem will switch to it;s new value, then stay illuminated at that value for the entire frame.
By pulsing the backlight (e.g. Lightboost) you can reduce the persistence time. The problem is that you need to wait for the LCDs to switch before pulsing the backlight, and different transistions take different amounts of time. By waiting long enough for all pixels to have switched fully, there is a significant delay between scanout and the time the backlight is pulsed. Also, because LCDs are light modulators, you need a very overpowered backlight to produce the same total light output, as you effectively need to produce the same amount of photons in a very short time rather than spread over a whole frame.

CRTs emit light from a phosphor coating. each 'pixel' (not fixed, but made up of a group of phosphor triads) is scanned very briefly by a modulated electron beam. this causes the phosphor to glow brightly for a brief time, with the glow rapidly fading. the image is 'scanned out' continuously across and down the display, and by the time the scanout reaches the bottom of the display the phosphors at the top have ceased to emit any light. this is often referred to as 'low persistence' and a 'rolling refresh'.

OLEDs also emit light directly. They can be driven in the same way as LCDs (full persistence, global refresh), but they can also be driven in the same way as CRTs (low persistence, rolling refresh), or even a hydrid of both (low persistence, global refresh). The final driving mode is the one used for VR HMDs to reduce blurring artefacts due to the Vestibular Ocular Reflex during head rotation.

SED is almost identical to OLED in driving mode. The only real difference between OLED and SED is that OLED stimulates an organic phosphor by passing electrons through it from local electrodes (phosphor between electrodes)), whereas SED stimulates an inorganic phosphor with electrons fired from a local electron emitter (pair of electrons behind phosphor. Apart from the phosphor chemical composition, the position of the electrodes, and the electrode driving voltage, the two are very similar.

Plasma is a bit different. The phosphors are stimulated by ultraviolet light from an electrical discharge rather than by electrons themselves. Because the discharge is fairly 'fixed' in intensity (there is a minimum amount of energy you need to dump in in order to produce the discharge, and a maximum you can dump in before you damage the cell), you cannot vary the brightness of the phosphor by varying its driving intensity. Instead, brightness is modulated by pulse modulation: a dense string of pulses gives a 'bright' pixel, and a sparse string of pulses gives a 'dim' pixel. The actual arrangement of pulses depends on the driving circuitry. this may be anything from a fixed pulse frequency and varying pulse-train length ('bright' pixels are stimulated for longer than 'dim' pixels), varying pulse frequency, or a fixed frequency and a coded modulation (e.g. grey coding). this means motion clarity in Plasma is best described as 'a bit odd'; the flicker frequency is much higher than the eye can generally respond to even with very fast saccades across the display, but neither is the illumination constant light a full persistence display, but neither again is it 'low persistence' like a CRT or OLED (or SED).
 
yup

oleds have the potential to have better motion quality than crts. just need sub millisecond persistence and a rolling scan. the only difficulty is that the instantaneous luminance needs to be very high in order to acheive a reasonable time-averaged luminance

and with the right electronics it should be possible to acheive <2ms input lag.

these + rolling scan would allow oled displays to completely match crts in responsiveness and motion clarity
 
EdZ said:
Let's go a bit further into how panels function, and how they are driven, to explain why this is incorrect.

OLEDs also emit light directly. They can be driven in the same way as LCDs (full persistence, global refresh), but they can also be driven in the same way as CRTs (low persistence, rolling refresh), or even a hydrid of both (low persistence, global refresh). The final driving mode is the one used for VR HMDs to reduce blurring artefacts due to the Vestibular Ocular Reflex during head rotation.
Click to expand...

How was my statement incorrect? Currently, OLEDs are driven like LCDs and until that improves, they have advantage in contrast and black level vs plasma, but a huge drawback regarding motion resolution which is on the level of LCDs. Until that improves, they are so-so vs plasma.
 
Having a global refresh rather than rolling would improve motion clarity above CRTs. A rolling scan will result in moving objects (or stationary objects when your eye is in motion) 'learning' depending in direction of movement or viewing. Charles Poynton has an excellent guide to motion portrayal, though covering it from a film/TV perspective (so includes the camera as well as the display).

In theory you could 'race the beam', rendering each line immediately before display to compensate for moving objects as the display scans out, but this is not a rendering technique that is suitable for modern cards (for a 1920x1080 monitor, you would effectively be trying to render a 1920x1 frame at well over 100,000 fps, while also updating the geometry at 100,000+ fps).
 
Meeho said:
How was my statement incorrect? Currently, OLEDs are driven like LCDs and until that improves, they have advantage in contrast and black level vs plasma, but a huge drawback regarding motion resolution which is on the level of LCDs. Until that improves, they are so-so vs plasma.
Click to expand...
Low-persistence OLED panels are being used right now (e.g. the DK2, Note 4, Galaxy S6), and in plenty of upcoming devices. There is little to stop large panels being driven in low-persistance mode, as full-persistence driving is not an inherent property of OLEDs.
 
EdZ said:
Low-persistence OLED panels are being used right now (e.g. the DK2, Note 4, Galaxy S6), and in plenty of upcoming devices. There is little to stop large panels being driven in low-persistance mode, as full-persistence driving is not an inherent property of OLEDs.
Click to expand...

There aren't any currently, hence "until that changes".
 
I don't really think "input lag" is a fair criticism of LCDs anymore. If you care about that, there are many models under 10ms and a few under 5ms(Asus ROG, Acer XB270HU, BenQ XL2720Z, a few others). This is imperceptible even by the best of the best.

"The maker of GGPO (an online fighting game networking protocol), ran tests with pro-level, tournament winning fighting game players. The results showed many of them could not discern any difference between 0 and 2 frames of lag." http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lcd-flat-panel-displays/1184342-guide-understanding-input-lag.html -- If 32ms is imperceptible, you better believe <10ms is a joke.
 
Sancus said:
"The maker of GGPO (an online fighting game networking protocol), ran tests with pro-level, tournament winning fighting game players. The results showed many of them could not discern any difference between 0 and 2 frames of lag." http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lcd-flat-panel-displays/1184342-guide-understanding-input-lag.html -- If 32ms is imperceptible, you better believe <10ms is a joke.
Click to expand...

I think the data from flod's input lag AB test challenge this. Many are able to perceive well below 32 ms.
 
[Raspy old man voice] "Back in my day displays were better!!!" *shakes cane from rocking chair*
 
With displays like the ROG Swift the added input lag is from signal transmission which would be the same on a CRT if you were using a digital signal. You also have the delay from the pixel transition times but that is pretty much negligible. If new CRTs were still in production they would likely be using digital signals now too.


And people can definitely perceive 32 ms of input lag. And even if input lag is below perceivable levels it is still important for it to be lower because it compounds with input lag from other sources and becomes perceivable.

It is also extremely important in competitive gaming because if your opponent has a 20 ms advantage over you in input lag and you have a 200 ms reaction time you have to be over 10% faster than them to win the encounter. You would be losing a lot of battles you would otherwise win.
 
I am very picky about input lag and I find fiends Lightboost Benq monitor at 120Hz to be adequate in input lag and motion clarity to the point it feels pretty much like CRT.

Unfortunatelly picture quality is atrocious.
And LCDs with good picture quality are not even close to motion clarity of CRTs or strobed TNs. OCable Korean IPSes are quite slow, have no proper RTC and no strobing. They are only good at input lag but otherwise as smudgy as any IPS.

There is however hope for LCDs. I strongly believe IPS can be improved to the point that 120Hz + strobing they have 'good enough' motion clarity meaning that nothing better will be necessary. CRTs and high refresh rate strobed TNs are in this category, they aren't even close to perfection but when you game at >100Hz v-synced on those then nothing more in motion clarity and input lag is necessary.

I bet next year or two will bring such monitor(s) into market. And even if that happens there will still be FW900 lovers out there. Why? Because it is 24" wide screen CRT and like abt vacuum tube technology there will be those who love it :D
 
XoR said:
I strongly believe IPS can be improved to the point that 120Hz + strobing they have 'good enough' motion clarity meaning that nothing better will be necessary.
Click to expand...

the acer xb270hu is already there imo.
 
sharknice said:
And people can definitely perceive 32 ms of input lag. And even if input lag is below perceivable levels it is still important for it to be lower because it compounds with input lag from other sources and becomes perceivable.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that awareness thresholds are possibly (I suspect, very likely) higher than performance thresholds.

That is, a given amount of input lag may affect actual performance without the player being consciously aware of the difference.
 
flod said:
well lag in mouse motion is easier to feel

i think i read somewhere that 2ms of lag was detctable on a large touchscreen
Click to expand...

yep, I believe input lag becomes more noticeable with faster movements. If your finger (or cursor) is moving across the screen at a speed of 5 metres per second (say it is painting a line), a 2 millisecond delay is equivalent to a whole centimetre between the position of the finger and the edge of the line being painted (I think I have this right).
 
spacediver said:
I think the data from flod's input lag AB test challenge this. Many are able to perceive well below 32 ms.
Click to expand...

Yeah that could be, but I'm really skeptical of a self-reported forum test, assuming the test is built right(a couple problems were reported in that thread). Even then, the point of my citation was that <10ms monitors are sufficient, and that thread appears to support that assertion as well. For the guy who claims to be able to pass the test at 8ms, there's even options for him in the <5ms models. :p

I don't think you can make much of an argument that the 2.75-4ms monitors in TFTCentral's list have meaningful input lag.
 
Sancus said:
I don't really think "input lag" is a fair criticism of LCDs anymore. If you care about that, there are many models under 10ms and a few under 5ms(Asus ROG, Acer XB270HU, BenQ XL2720Z, a few others). This is imperceptible even by the best of the best.

"The maker of GGPO (an online fighting game networking protocol), ran tests with pro-level, tournament winning fighting game players. The results showed many of them could not discern any difference between 0 and 2 frames of lag." http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-lcd-flat-panel-displays/1184342-guide-understanding-input-lag.html -- If 32ms is imperceptible, you better believe <10ms is a joke.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GGPO#Games_using_GGPO

Not a conclusive research. Limited controller and game type test.


Sancus said:
I don't think you can make much of an argument that the 2.75-4ms monitors in TFTCentral's list have meaningful input lag.
Click to expand...

But most, if not all, of them are TN. TN, VA, IPS each have their big pluses and minuses, but so far none was able to combine the best of all.



XoR said:
There is however hope for LCDs. I strongly believe IPS can be improved to the point that 120Hz + strobing they have 'good enough' motion clarity meaning that nothing better will be necessary. CRTs and high refresh rate strobed TNs are in this category, they aren't even close to perfection but when you game at >100Hz v-synced on those then nothing more in motion clarity and input lag is necessary.
Click to expand...

They have to solve fast enough strobing and PQ quality degradation problem. Even if they manage, you're still left with abysmal contrast. I hope they turn their efforts to OLED.
 
Last edited:
Nice post EdZ.

EdZ said:
By pulsing the backlight (e.g. Lightboost) you can reduce the persistence time. The problem is that you need to wait for the LCDs to switch before pulsing the backlight, and different transistions take different amounts of time. By waiting long enough for all pixels to have switched fully, there is a significant delay between scanout and the time the backlight is pulsed.
Click to expand...

Some displays have a scanning backlight, rather than a strobed backlight.


EdZ said:
CRTs emit light from a phosphor coating. each 'pixel' (not fixed, but made up of a group of phosphor triads) is scanned very briefly by a modulated electron beam. this causes the phosphor to glow brightly for a brief time, with the glow rapidly fading. the image is 'scanned out' continuously across and down the display, and by the time the scanout reaches the bottom of the display the phosphors at the top have ceased to emit any light.
Click to expand...

just a minor quibble, with the phosphors in modern color CRTs, the phosphors take quite a bit more time before they are fully "dark". The initial decay is extremely rapid, but there is a prolonged afterglow that can last seconds depending upon the phosphor and beam current. This afterglow can be visible in many conditions.
 
soupcxan said:
Lol CRT fanboys will never die.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why it's so hard for some people to grasp that CRT is still a very good display. Do most people look at the ergonomics of them (or the lack thereof), or see the aged case design and just dismiss them outright? Have people just gone blind?

Frankly, and I know I'm going to get into trouble with this comment - CRT fanboys exist because we're still waiting on a computer display to be better than them.

EDIT: And even if something came along like OLED monitors, there's still going to be a specific use for CRT's that OLED can't do - multiple resolutions/modes. Scaling just doesn't look right to me, and it never has. But you can bet that when they do have an OLED monitor that can do scanning like a CRT (or something else to compensate for the motion clarity), along with near-zero input lag. I'll be ALL on it.
 
Are you talking about the same CRTs that were:
  • Monsterously huge and deep
  • Sucked up power
  • Often doubled as space heaters, yet our cats loved laying on them
  • Gave you a hernia whenever you picked one up
  • Had to be shielded for harmful X-rays
  • Had two dozen controls such as horizontal position, horizontal size, vertical position, vertical size, pincushion, trapezoid, pin balance, parallelogram, tilt, moirre, color temperature, and the all-important degauss.
Now, tell me why CRTs are better than modern LCDs again? I think I'll stick with the 27" LED-LCD monitor that I have on my desk which I can lift... with one hand.
 
Last edited:
ZLoth said:
Are you talking about the same CRTs that were:
  • Monsterously huge and deep
  • Sucked up power
  • Often doubled as space heaters, yet our cats loved laying on them
  • Gave you a hernia whenever you picked one up
  • Had to be shielded for harmful X-rays
  • Had two dozen controls such as horizontal position, horizontal size, vertical position, vertical size, pincushion, trapezoid, pin balance, parallelogram, tilt, moirre, color temperature, and the all-important degauss.
Now, tell me why CRTs are better than modern LCDs again? I think I'll stick with the 27" LED-LCD monitor that I have on my desk which I can lift... with one hand.
Click to expand...

Every thing you list is ergonomically-related and convenience-related. We're talking about displays here - something you view. And in image quality, CRT is still superior.
 
jbltecnicspro said:
I don't understand why it's so hard for some people to grasp that CRT is still a very good display. Do most people look at the ergonomics of them (or the lack thereof), or see the aged case design and just dismiss them outright? Have people just gone blind?
Click to expand...
After using CRTs for years, maybe.

CRT tech had it's day, and aside from the scaling has no functional benefit in 2015, and even scaling is kind of grasping at straws. The ocean of difference between a CRT and an LCD is not something you just "well there's some use for CRT still."

For fun I googled my old Viewsonic P815 21" monitor. lol.
WEIGHT Net 27.5Kg (60.6 lbs.)
Click to expand...

My current HP ZR2740w..
Product Dimensions: 2.7 x 25.4 x 15.4 inches ; 23.2 pounds
Click to expand...

Sheesh.
 
SuperSubZero said:
After using CRTs for years, maybe.

CRT tech had it's day, and aside from the scaling has no functional benefit in 2015, and even scaling is kind of grasping at straws. The ocean of difference between a CRT and an LCD is not something you just "well there's some use for CRT still."

For fun I googled my old Viewsonic P815 21" monitor. lol.


My current HP ZR2740w..


Sheesh.
Click to expand...

I still don't get what you're trying to say. The only ocean of difference is in the size and weight factor. And of course power consumption and heat, which aren't even all that bad. You say that people have gone blind from using CRT's for years? How so exactly?

The quote you're referring to from me was in comparison to OLED, not LCD. You say that CRT has no functional benefit in 2015. Define functional? The function of a display is to produce images - something that CRT is better than LCD at doing.

Again - I have no problems with pointing out CRT's "largness" factor. That's immaterial to me. I don't move my monitors around that much and having it sit stationary in my gaming area means I don't care if it weighs 93 lbs. What I DO care about is the quality of the picture that I'm looking at, and thus far, it provides a superior experience to me.
 
flod said:
the acer xb270hu is already there imo.
Click to expand...
I just saw review of it and I love it. I have everything I would like IPS gaming monitor to have.

Not really reason for me to change my FW900 but enough for anyone who is very picky about image quality and input lag, motion clarity, etc to not complain for lack of good gaming LCDs anymore :)
 
XoR said:
I just saw review of it and I love it. I have everything I would like IPS gaming monitor to have.

Not really reason for me to change my FW900 but enough for anyone who is very picky about image quality and input lag, motion clarity, etc to not complain for lack of good gaming LCDs anymore :)
Click to expand...

Knowing this monitor exists is good enough for me to be happy. At least I know should anything happen to my 900, then I can always get one of these.
 
spacediver said:
just a minor quibble, with the phosphors in modern color CRTs, the phosphors take quite a bit more time before they are fully "dark". The initial decay is extremely rapid, but there is a prolonged afterglow that can last seconds depending upon the phosphor and beam current. This afterglow can be visible in many conditions.
Click to expand...
True, in fact the phosphor decay curve is different between the phosphor chemistries used in CRTs with different scan rates. Scan a CRT designed for slow scan rates (e.g. an SDTV) at high resolutions or high refresh rates, and it will be unusually dim, and possibly even have some ghosting. Scan a CRT designed for high scan rates at low resolutions/refresh rates and it will flicker noticeably.
This is one of the reasons why some people could tolerate 60Hz CRTs perfectly well, and others could not stand something that flickered so badly and drove theor monitors at 75Hz or above: It's not so much that 60Hz is too low a scan rate, it's that 60Hz is too low a scan rate for certain monitors.
Manufacturers had a production line for tubes designed for high end monitors that could do high resolutions at high refresh rates, and used phosphors tuned for rapid response and fast decay. When tubes failed validation for these high-end monitors, rather than just tossing them away they were used in lower end monitors with less versatile driving electronics, and you ended up with flickering displays.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top