![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
That hidden truth is called people's preferences.
Diamond Pro 930SB,
You can get the same results with most CRTs after hardware calibration.
Sure. This is your work or you have a link to the actual test?
An LCD monitor calibration result (tftcentral.co.uk):
How a rational person responds: That's a valid point. But not terribly relevant for a lot of people who do not value this criteria. Most people who would value a CRT won't care about portrait mode. Nor will they mind no height adjustment. Nor will they mind the weight once it is set on their desk and placed so that the back of the monitor is hanging off the back, thereby giving as much real estate in front of the monitor as the average LCD.#1 Design and Mechanics
It goes without saying: nothing looks more awkward than a CRT behemoth on your desk.
CRT provide neither height adjustment nor portrait mode.
How a rational person would address this: This is also a valid point. But again, not really a big criteria for those who would otherwise be happy with a CRT for other reasons.
How a rational person responds: That's a bit hyperbolic. And not altogether true. Many high-end CRTs had quite advanced controls. The FW900 has full RGB gain and bias controls as well as the more generic color temperature sliders. As well as three different types of color adjustment controls. In short, it grants the ability to fully adjust (and even successfully calibrate -- as I recently did with a Spyder 3) color to taste.
How a rational person responds: This seems to willfully and disingenuously conflate color/brightness uniformity with the ubiquitous issue of backlight bleeding on LCDs. Yes, those test results do show some uniformity issues on CRTs. But also not there is no LCD listed there as a "control". . . all that shows is that CRTs are not perfect. It does nothing to show how a CRT compares to an LCD. You don't seem to mention backlight bleeding in any other portion of this overly long manifesto of LCD universal superiority. Was this your attempt at making us believe that CRTs have such an egregious problem as well?It's a mistake to think that CRT screens have even brightness distribution just because they are CRT. This mistake comes from the lack of info and poor memory. Any of CRT and LCD may have uniformity issues.
Test images from behardware.com:
This is a perfect example of how you illogically find one exception to a rule and then extrapolate out dubious, unsupportable conclusions. CRTs cannot have dead pixels. There is no such thing on a CRT. They can have dust/dirt contamination (as can LCDs along with their actual dead pixels) or blockages in the shadow mask or aperature grill, but "dead pixels" as understood on an LCD cannot exist on a CRT. You finding one person on the internet describing a flaw on a CRT as "dead pixels" does not magically change the nature of the universe and make them possible on a CRT.
It should tell you something that we never heard anything about CRTs needing to come up with such a technology. It should tell you that your point above wasn't terribly valid.
A valid point. That point being that the very highest end panels for LCDs can do what any price-level CRT could accomplish. Is this not a wash?LCD monitors can offer same viewing angles as CRTs:
I believe Mathesar already addressed this. But I'm honestly not all that concerned with color calibration. My FW900 has always looked great to me and my dabbling with a Spyder 3 confirmed for me that my FW900 is still able to get its whitepoint perfectly set to 6500 (though I prefer it higher). So, I sent it back.6.1 Color Quality
Thanks to behardware.com, this is an example of comparison of above average CRT and above average LCD. LCD provides better color quality in this case. This sort of performance depends on the model, not the technology. Nowadays LCDs are capable of dE=0.2 or less and don't yield CRT even a grain in color quality.
I don't need to wait. It seems it's a CRT in sub-optimal environment and an LCD in its optimal environment. Shocking that the LCD would look better in this fixed arrangement, no?What is what here ( CRT or LCD)?
See the answer at the end of this chapter.
If you want to be this pedantic, fine. No display can do 100.00% true black. But the CRT comes much closer than any other display technology.
Or. . . a dark and moody game or movie. What you're saying here flies in the face of what every reputable home theater and display review magazine, website, and pundit routinely state and demonstrate. . . that CRTs render a more pleasing image to the eye regardless of what numbers you're able to massage to twist reality.
This would all be so much more compelling if all the movies and games we watched were set on giant black and white checkerboards!The lie about CRT black level and CR is the use of Dynamic Range instead of Display contrast. Display contrast is what we actually see on the screen. For CRTs Dynamic range and Display Contrast differ dramatically.
Due to CRT flare, white from bright details bleeds onto dark details. The smaller dark details are, the more bleed, the more greyish black, the less CR. So 15000:1 for CRT is absolutely abstract number that has nothing common with real CR on real images.
Note: reference resources compare CRTs of their best times with prehistoric LCD at their early stage of development.
Black level and CR measurements from a research on displaymate.com:
CRT contrast ratio collapses from 17600:1 on unreal full black screen down to 419:1 on more realistic test pattern, and then further down to nothing (75:1) on more "busy" pattern.
Below is a sumulation of how similar test pattern would look on CRT (Note: low quality monitors may not show the difference between the full screens. PVA/MVA users please see from an angle):
Now you are not surprise to know the answer (What is What?).
A quote from behardware.com professional review (CRT Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 930SB at its best next to a rudimentary TN LCD):
Let's note the part where it says that CRTs "categorically" provide better/deeper blacks. An LCD only begins to approach LCD black levels when ambient lighting conditions mask an LCD's inherent inability to represent black properly. Yet, somehow, in this topsy-turvy world, the poster here market this as a feature to be praised.
Valid point. But not a criteria I (nor most others) care much about. And it should be pointed out that you have posted several times that wide color gamut is actually something to be avoided for most users. Yet no mention of this here where it's useful to your argument(s). Strange, that.
Okay, this just gets downright funny now.LCDs offer hardware (12-bit LUT) calibration providing reference quality grey scale rendition and variety of calibration options.
Below: a movie scene on Sony FW900 CRT (from this thread) and about the same frame (1-2 frames apart) on LCD. The image from sony FW900 CRT thread has loss of dark details (reflection on the side of the car, car wheels, shop entrance..)
Note: PVA/MVA users please look from an angle.
So did many CRTs. Whoopity F'in Doo.
I love that. . . you essentially say: CRTs are better. But it's worth "zero." Except when it isn't. Biased much?
Odd. Since My monitor does 1920x1200. What does the average 24" LCD do? (that's a rhetorical question)
Well, as long as you're being fair and open-minded about the priorities of people other than yourself. At this point, do you really expect anyone to take what follows seriously? Why would anyone think that you're treating the issues fairly after reading that at the outset of this portion of your manifesto?
If I were you, I'd write something like: You fail. Or "flop". . . or something equally dismissive. Instead, I'll just state flatly that you re incorrect here to dismiss CRTs since they actually have more flexibility than LCDs. CRTs can adjust their raster to accomodate any aspect ratio. It's a shame you apparently didn't know this. Or it's even more shameful if you did know this but actually still managed to just say "Sorry about CRTs" and ignore this capability.
Wow, a valid point. Too bad you can't seem to make these without sounding like a total ass.
Again, with the contrast ratio and deeper blacks in an office environment. Once again (not so) cleverly trying to disguise the fact that where most people truly want contrast ratio and deep blacks (gaming and cinema), an LCD will look less good than a CRT in a properly lit room. These are your own facts, merely presented in a fashion you will undoubtedly find unappealing. So you will attack me rather than them.
It's fair to say that you're beating a dead horse there since I don't know anyone who actually disputes that text on an LCD is generally preferable to text on a CRT. It's just a shame that you can't state facts and evidence like this more often without sounding like a jerk and also throwing in a bunch of biased nonsense and half-truths all around the valid information.
Now you know why text on CRT looks that bad - flare effect.
Now the photo of interpolated text on LCD (recommended 1920x1200 and 1680x1050 interpolated to the full screen):
It's fair to say that interpolated text on LCD is still better than "standard" on CRT!
Oh joy! So we can have non-native resolutions without interpolation just like on a CRT. . . except we have to make it smaller and waste most of our screen size. . . ummm. . . unlike a CRT. Thanks for that "feature!" Funny how you don't mention how CRTs are superior in this regard. You just keep moving right along. . .It's not necessary to interpolate lower resolution on LCD.
LCD scalar can be used to get lower resolution image on higher resolution screen dot-to-dot without interpolation:
Using LCD screen menu, 1680x1050 image can be interpolated to any degree between 1680x1050 and 1920x1200 or even larger.
Oh well. . . if you say so it must be true! And look at all the reasoning and evidence you provide. . .
See above.
Hmmm, guess what: "All CRT advantages work here" as well. That you have so disingenuously obfuscated them above I hope is not lost on people.
Well, that and all the other inherent benefits to a CRT (black level, contrast, etc.)
. . . as do all CRT advantages that you refuse to acknowledge or disingenuously obfuscate.
. . . as do all CRT advantages that you refuse to acknowledge or disingenuously obfuscate.
. . . as do all CRT advantages that you refuse to acknowledge or disingenuously obfuscate.
I think the pattern here has been demonstrated.
. . . well, as stated above, I suppose that's true if, oddly, your "practical use" consists of watching black and white checkerboard patterns.
Careful, you come dangerously close to telling the truth here and accepting inconvenient facts. But alas, your use of the word "potential" and "only situation" leaves you just short of stating something respectably honest.
99.9% of folks watching Blu-Ray in their home theaters won't be calibrating whatever display device they use. Of the tiny portion that do, I highly doubt they would find the calibration method they are able to use insufficient. I found the results of the Spyder 3 to be quite good and I was able to get things dialed in perfectly according to the calibration software.
I would like 24p. I know my CRT-based 53" RPTV HDTV won't support it. So this point may indeed be valid. I wonder, however, if a computer could be fooled into playing back Blu-Ray at 96Hz which would accomplish the same thing and allow for 24p playback (this is the technique some LCDs and Plasmas are already taking to achieve "film" playback).
There's a lot of absolutes in those statements that don't belong. Not everyone feels less eyestrain with LCDs. Depsite you arrogantly stating that CRTs have "zero" ergonomics, some actually prefer them for eye comfort reasons (brightness, etc.). What "feels" better to someone is ergonomic for them. Not all CRTs are equally reflective. As usual. . . the list goes on and on. But since you actually start mentioning things like remote controls for monitors. . . I think we're done here.
Ooooo! What does it say? That from time to time businesses get new equipment? Tell me, what did that picture say in the mid 80s when those same piles existed but were being replaced by new CRTs? What would that pile say if it were a stack of newspapers? Bicycles? How about donuts!?!This picture says everything.
If the buyer would give you a chance to test out the CRT (ask him to have it warmed up for you) when you arrive, I'd definitely consider $275 a good price for a FW900 that doesn't have any issues.
Thank you very much, but one [H] member already bough it for 200.
There goes my dreams.