• 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.

Crt's extinct

100% agreed, also get them with a higher refresh rate. 75Hz or 85Hz would be fine.
 
yes!!!!!!

I just picked up a 21 inch nec from 1999 that calibrated fine at 80% brightness for $20.
Im set for a few more years.
 
Yeah , I mean - crt's seem to run games alot better. your not limited to the 60hz.

Dont misunderstand me people- this thread is not about crt's are better then lcd's- but shouldnt manufactures produce high quality crt's - isnt there a market for this technology still?
 
Especially since oled and backlight led will cost an arm a leg anyway- and these seem to be a couple years off at least anyway.
 
Yes, even though I am in the market for a new LCD.... CRT owns... I wouldn't mind a 50% slimmer CRT in widescreen format about 26"....
 
CRTs are just way too expensive to manufacture, transport, store and use too much space in business enviroment. Just think about how much more profit LCDs make. Next to no production costs, easy to transport, won't get damaged easily, sexy looking (casual users buy easier). you can sell a new one every year, and so on. I think manufacturing costs with huge screens like fw900 really got out of hand, and so did the msrp. If they would still make them, I would't be ready to pay 2000$ for one.

I'm afraid there will never be lcds capable of more than 60hz. Digital display connector standards don't even really support more.
 
I look at the sag in my computer desk from the 19" monitor that sat on it for years. As nice as it was, I don't miss the bulk.
 
novemberrain said:
CRTs are just way too expensive to manufacture, transport, store and use too much space in business enviroment. Just think about how much more profit LCDs make. Next to no production costs, easy to transport, won't get damaged easily, sexy looking (casual users buy easier). you can sell a new one every year, and so on. I think manufacturing costs with huge screens like fw900 really got out of hand, and so did the msrp. If they would still make them, I would't be ready to pay 2000$ for one.

I'm afraid there will never be lcds capable of more than 60hz. Digital display connector standards don't even really support more.
Click to expand...
You have many good points there my friend. But I dont think they would cost $2000 any more if manufactures still made some for the nich market. Back in the day, that monitor was considered top of the heap when lcd was at its infancy. But thats the thing lcd monitors dont go over 60hz and and sometimes have the dreaded motion blur-(not as bad anymore). They dont do blacks to well either. Again, not to bring up the dreaded lcd vs crt- but its just a wonder to me that no monitor manufacturer makes them anymore- even if it would be just for a nich market of enthusiast that are heavy into graphics and true color reproduction.
 
In this petro dollar fueled day and age no.. CRT's are a mark of technology during a time when people weren't concerned with the power usage of there appliances in there house. CRT's do have some native advantages but so do LCD's and really its time has come and gone. CRT's also use more things like mercury and lead ..something we need to move away from with all the advances we have.
 
novemberrain said:
I'm afraid there will never be lcds capable of more than 60hz. Digital display connector standards don't even really support more.
Click to expand...

Current digital display connector standards don't support more, but DisplayPort really ramps up the data rate over DVI/HDMI so we could potentially see more than 60hz on smaller screens in the future.
 
If I could have got a 24" Widescreen CRT with a good amount of inputs I would not have just bought this BenQ G2400W.

It honestly saddened me to unseat my Mistubishi DiamondPro 930SB, and in a few ways I miss it. But it didn't have the inputs, and it wasn't widescreen, and I just got sick of waiting for something better to come along.

Not a big fan of LCD's (they tend to give me headaches), but I'm slowly getting used to this one.
 
Why won't you guys let the magnanimous CRT bow out of history gracefully? Just let it go.......let it go..
 
Brashen said:
Why won't you guys let the magnanimous CRT bow out of history gracefully? Just let it go.......let it go..
Click to expand...

because nothing better is out there.
Even the $2k+ lcds blow on color when compared to even a midrange crt.
When a 26" lcd with 120hz refresh has the color accuracy of a midrange crt and costs under $300 then I will consider one.
I have looked at all the high end lcd's and none of them can match my Sony trinitron 17".
This 21 is about 95% as good as the Sony and better than the best lcd.
The only thing I would replace it with is a 21" trinitron.
 
lifanus said:
not many wide gamut choices for crt...
Click to expand...
True. And there are many wide gamut choices for lcd. They are all ....

Don't get me wrong. I'm a positive believer that LCDs (OLEDs or WHY) will one day be just as good as, and probably better than, these (wide gamut or not) CRTs. They "just" have to find the right materials and manufacturing process. Image alchemy ?
But :
Mitsubishi Diamondtron RDF225WG 22" CRT Monitor : Quoted 97.6% of Adobe RGB and 2048x1536 resolution.
I believe that this was the first CRT with close to Adobe RGB gamut. At least that is what they claimed. And it was introduced somewhere Q1 2004. Correct me if I'm wrong. I wanted one of those, but when I saw the US$ price it felt like being hit by a freight train : US$5000.
The fact that it was introduced in 2004 (roughly 20 years after the first colour crt) should give you a hint that gamut range is not the determining factor for near accurate color reproduction.

After all I'm glad that it was so expensive. Instead I bought 2 x HP p1230 CRTs s(tandard)RGB for EUR 550 each.
I still use them daily, most of the time @ 2 x 1600x1200 (or sometimes @ 2 x 2048x1536 to zoom out).

I think that HP is getting closer than all others to a solid CRT replacement with the DreamColor LP2480ZX, and it's reasonably affordable. It's just not 30". Going from 2 x 1600x1200 to 2 x 1920x1200 is not very tempting. I wish that they would get their act together and produce a 30" version that is just as good or even better.
Change the actual gamut of the monitor by pressing a button at the front, then load a corresponding profile. Bring it on!
But I can faintly hear that freight train again.
BTW, main stream 30-bit color is still far off. You can get a suitable graphics card with DP, suitable DP cables, 1 or 2 LP2480zx with DP connector and true 30-bit internals. But then you find out that Photoshop only has 8-bit per pixel of everything (24-bits). That's why, at the moment, the LP2480zx is a better fit for video, broadcast, and film editing. In those fields they have their own specialised video/film editing cards, that come with 10-bit per pixel plug-ins and filters for Photoshop (and others). So for example they bring a frame into Photoshop in true 30-bit, edit in true 30-bit with the lp2480zx and the plug-ins and filters that came with the video editing card, and then save the frame in 30-bit.
True, you could hookup the LP2480zx through DVI-D, but there are cheaper options for a 24-bit pipeline.

Brashen said:
Why won't you guys let the magnanimous CRT bow out of history gracefully? Just let it go.......let it go..
Click to expand...
A good CRT is like a professional boxer who once reigned as the undisputed champion of the world. He makes at least one comeback. He will look chubbier, weigh heavier, and move slower than his younger opponents, but his experience and hand speed will put some colour on those eyes. Deeper black (and blue). :cool::p
 
Jeffredo said:
I look at the sag in my computer desk from the 19" monitor that sat on it for years. As nice as it was, I don't miss the bulk.
Click to expand...

huh I have had my massive 22" monitor on this cheap walmart desk for years and there is no dent
 
I still have a 19" LG CRT on another computer setup and you will have to take it from my cold dead hands before I give it up. I like widescreen better for games though so have an LCD too.
 
Bullfrog2099 said:
Anyone else agree that we need more high quality crt displays to be manufactured again?
Click to expand...


I certainly do. I understand why they have not, higher profit margins on LCD, but I wish they still made them. But only in the 20" to 30" range. For a PC monitor, I, for one will never need larger, or want smaller.
Throw in DVI, Display port, HDMI, and RGBs connectors, as well as the traditional VGA and I would buy.
Why not make them HDCP compliant as well. Not that, that really matters to a PC user, since there will always be a way around it.
 
Thats why you go for a multi monitor set- keep that old crt and get an lcd with widescreen.
I'm still rockin the mitsubishi diamond pro 2070sb. Nice monitor- although I think its alittle darker now then when it was brandnew. But when you turn on superbright mode - you would be hard pressed to tell the difference.
 
I only wish they would make them again.I say that i would never go back but if they could make them half as 4-8 inches thick i would in a heartbeat. I had a g520 that was nice. Personally i like the samsung 793df it had a 500 cdm2 (yes it was a crt) and it had a .20 mm dot pitch. thats right a .20 it was only 17 inch but was a freaking awesome tube. I wish i wouldn't have sold it before i bought my g520. I got it to calibrate a better
 
novemberrain said:
I'm afraid there will never be lcds capable of more than 60hz. Digital display connector standards don't even really support more.
Click to expand...
Incorrect on both points. DVI can handle high resolutions and high refresh rates, as can newer LCD technologies.

Viewsonic is releasing a 120hz LCD soon. Here's some information on it:
http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/08/25/viewsonics-120hz-lcd-prototype-is-a-gamers-dream-come-true/

And Nvidia pimping it for use with shutter glasses (which need to have at least a 120Hz refresh rate to work correctly):
http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1219662403036.html
 
Unknown-One said:
Incorrect on both points. DVI can handle high resolutions and high refresh rates, as can newer LCD technologies.

Viewsonic is releasing a 120hz LCD soon. Here's some information on it:
http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/08/25/viewsonics-120hz-lcd-prototype-is-a-gamers-dream-come-true/
Click to expand...

Thats awesome info on the viewsonic display! I better start saving money.It makes me wonder however. Take a look at DVI connector sppecifications http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface

1680x1050@120hz is very close to 2560x1600@60, so at least dual-link is needed. I don't know if dvi allows to decrease color depth so that less bandwidth is needed. Digital interfaces simply run out of bandwidth when refresh rates start to rise. Even display port can't handle (= was not designed for) higher refresh rates.

(I'm not saying VGA has high bandwidth, but at least it works with any combination, even 2560x1600@60hz or even more.)

I really hope that Viewsonic 120hz is real 120hz, not just extra frames like other higher than 60hz displays so far. It really sounds like it is real 120hz display, becausee i can't see how stereo goggles would benefit from it if it's not.

One important thing is, that today's games are designed with maximum of 60fps in mind, so achieving high fps with high res is really getting difficult. I often play css at 1280x800@140, and really have problems to keep even 100fps steady (C2D 3.5ghz)
 
I'd like to be able to buy decent high end CRT's, I've not used my 2048x1536 Iiyama 19" in a while but the quality, even in comparison to my S-IPS panel is brilliant, better blacks, better colour, higher dot pitch (yes even better than a 2560x1600 screen) and runs at 85hz at max res or around 120hz at lower res like 1600x1200, and for the uber gamers out there try about 240hz at the tiny resolutions of 1024x768 (from memory)
 
I still have a 21" crt on a secondary computer. It gets moved around a lot. It's a bitch. Great picture, but way too heavy, and takes up too much space. I love my benq 22" lcd. it's great for games too.
 
No such thing as too small resolution (when you're talking about small dot pitch) you get more quality per area.

If you can't read text then simply up the font DPI/size.
 
Frostex said:
If you can't read text then simply up the font DPI/size
Click to expand...
Works great if your OS renders its GUI using vectors, looks like crap on Windows/OSX/Most Linux Desktops because they're bitmap based.

Increased pixel density also means more strain on your graphics card (when gaming) with no increase in the physical size of the monitor. I would much rather play Crysis at 1280x720 on a 30" monitor than 2560x1600, simply because it means I can get by with a 9600GT instead of GTX280 SLI.
 
Now that I have an LCD, I can play videogames for hours on end without killing my eyes or turning my room into an oven.

Those slim CRTs that poked their heads up near the end of the technology's life would be nice to see again, but not the old clunkers.
 
i've read that there were some reliability issues with those slimfit tubes. are you referring to the models that samsung offered?

a friend of mine had a 27 or 30 inch samsung that was used for xbox 360 only and it began to fail after about 15 months of use
 
HA, you must be a really huge geek to ask for a return of the CRT's. why would you want that huge hunk of junk? just for some additional colors and views? not a big deal.
 
iGrooCk said:
HA, you must be a really huge geek to ask for a return of the CRT's. why would you want that huge hunk of junk? just for some additional colors and views? not a big deal.
Click to expand...
I pull my desk 8-10 inches from the wall, set my monitor back a bit. . . and I never miss the space.

The reasons we don't have any high-end CRTs anymore is because the casual consumer is so (to my mind, bizarrely) fixated on "thin and light" for objects that they will almost never move in order to save space they would never miss if they were willing to just set their old CRTs back a bit on their desks.

As for just "some additional colors". . . it's not about more colors. It's about the quality of the colors and the depth of blacks, shadows, and vibrancy.

If the average consumer was actually able to see a CRT picture next to even the best LCD picture side-by-side, they'd pick the CRT picture every time. All things being equal (CRT isn't defective, is well-tuned/calibrated, and room lighting isn't too biased towards either side).

Or, to be as blithe and dismissive as you apparently like to be: "You must be a huge geek if you want to give up superior image quality for just a few inches of desk space and the ability to carry it around your house for no apparent reason."
 
Having said all that. Considering some are willing to pay $1100-1200 for the higher end 24" NEC LCDs with IPS panels, etc that still never approach the black levels of a CRT. . .

I'd be willing to spend as much as $1600-2000 on a 24-26" modernized widescreen CRT. Can you imagine the image quality of the FW900 when it was actually new rather than these used and abused ones we have to nurse back to health? Not to mention that they might be able to work HDMI, display port, and other modern connectivity into the mix. Inky blacks, pure CRT color, non-native resolutions, super-fine dot pitch. . . one can only dream. Because it's 99.9% sure never to happen. :(
 
also get them with a higher refresh rate. 75Hz or 85Hz would be fine.
Click to expand...
??? Used 10 years old pro CRT models usually get to 100Hz in their standard resolution. (And more than 200Hz at 640x480 ;) )

I'm afraid there will never be lcds capable of more than 60hz. Digital display connector standards don't even really support more.
Click to expand...
We see more and more TVs going at higher than 60Hz. The connectors can support more, as long as you're not using them to their bandwidth's limit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top