Diamondtron CRT's

New? Wow. If I hadn't just ordered an FW900 I'd definitely jump on that. I may still . . . :D
 
Im actually selling my Iiayama 22" Diamondtron U2 Crt for about $125. Available in NYC for a pickup. Will possibly ship to continental USA.
The Diamondtrons have insane refresh rates! Mine goes up to 2048x1536 @ 85hz. I used to play q3 engine games at 1280x1024(960) @ 125hz refresh vsynced! That looked nothing short of AMAZING! For serious (pro) gamers I believe they are still THE BEST monitors on the planet.
 
Wth?! I have the FE991SB (white) and I had no idea it was worth 200 bucks new. I got this thing for free from Cisco. I want to get rid of this space hog and get the Samsung 226BW.
 
A couple listed on eBay. Apparently new and for a rather low price. (I don't know how that monitor compares to the later monitors or the particulars of this offer...)
 
are you kidding? For $360, you can buy a high end Viewsonic VP2030 w/ 20" viewable diagonal or for less than half, you can buy a 19" flat screen. Why would anyone spend that kind of money on an obsolete tech.?
 
Happy Hopping said:
are you kidding? For $360, you can buy a high end Viewsonic VP2030 w/ 20" viewable diagonal or for less than half, you can buy a 19" flat screen. Why would anyone spend that kind of money on an obsolete tech.?
Click to expand...

Why? As I stated before, serious gamers (especially the competitive ones) will definitelly buy a unit that has as high as possible refresh rates, 0ms lag, deep blacks, and great image quality... to name a few reaons. Diamondtrons are pretty darn close to that. :)
 
Great...looks like I am going to have to get one of these, then.

Its too bad that most people don't understand that Diamondtron/Trinitron tubes provide better image quality than DLP, plasma and LCD. This type of ignorance is responsible for the lack of quality displays today.
 
milan03 said:
Why? As I stated before, serious gamers (especially the competitive ones) will definitelly buy a unit that has as high as possible refresh rates, 0ms lag, deep blacks, and great image quality... to name a few reaons. Diamondtrons are pretty darn close to that. :)
Click to expand...
Yup I am going back to a CRT B/C all LCDs suck. There is something about 100 refresh rate that just rocks.
 
Happy Hopping said:
are you kidding? For $360, you can buy a high end Viewsonic VP2030 w/ 20" viewable diagonal or for less than half, you can buy a 19" flat screen. Why would anyone spend that kind of money on an obsolete tech.?
Click to expand...

Except a Diamondtron has probably easily much better image quality. Calling a CRT obsolete tech is actually rather ignorant, considering that there's few (and even then its arguable) LCDs with near its image quality, and none even close for the price. Those buying these CRT are not worried about space but instead on the look out for the best image quality. "Obsolete tech" does not always mean inferior tech.
 
Happy Hopping said:
are you kidding? For $360, you can buy a high end Viewsonic VP2030 w/ 20" viewable diagonal or for less than half, you can buy a 19" flat screen. Why would anyone spend that kind of money on an obsolete tech.?
Click to expand...

Lots of reasons, CRT's still beat LCD's in color,brightness department. The also will likely last alot longer (CRT technology has been around for a long time now) and suffer zero input lag which can make or break a serious gamer. The only downside of CRT's is the thickness, weight and power usage. Otherwise i would ditch my LCD in a heartbeat.
 
How much of a difference in image quality is there between the FE2111 and the FP2141?
 
Godmachine said:
Lots of reasons, CRT's still beat LCD's in color,brightness department. The also will likely last alot longer (CRT technology has been around for a long time now) and suffer zero input lag which can make or break a serious gamer. The only downside of CRT's is the thickness, weight and power usage. Otherwise i would ditch my LCD in a heartbeat.
Click to expand...

There are more downsides than just 'thickness, weight and power usage'.

Take a look at this article for a detailed comparison with both the pros and cons.

http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/Pub/LCD_vs_CRT_AH.pdf


-Adam
 
That article is some sick LCD marketing BS. An example of the BS:

-LCDs have uniform screen brightness
-LCDs have better screen privacy than CRTs because they cannot be clearly viewed from acute side angles
-17" LCD has the equivalent viewing area of a 19" CRT

These are Trinitron displays. They are not going to flicker, as they can have refresh rates as high as 120Hz (like a lightbulb), they are going to have near-perfect geometry and excellent sharpness. Their constrast ratios and color accuracy is unparalleled. In short, there is not a display on the market that can rival the image quality of the Trinitron CRT.
 
Reality CHeck: they don't made CRT anymore, you'll buy the left over. Noone makes this, everyone has move to something called LCD
 
Scyles said:
That article is some sick LCD marketing BS. An example of the BS:

-LCDs have uniform screen brightness
-LCDs have better screen privacy than CRTs because they cannot be clearly viewed from acute side angles
-17" LCD has the equivalent viewing area of a 19" CRT

These are Trinitron displays. They are not going to flicker, as they can have refresh rates as high as 120Hz (like a lightbulb), they are going to have near-perfect geometry and excellent sharpness. Their constrast ratios and color accuracy is unparalleled. In short, there is not a display on the market that can rival the image quality of the Trinitron CRT.
Click to expand...



I admit that some of it seems biased, but it goes to my point, that there are two sides to every coin. Saing that a Trniitron CRT has the best image quality is simply incorrect. Just because YOU say something is the best, it doesn't mean it's the best for everyone and every application even though it may be best for YOU. It depends what criteria you evaluate it on. The geometry on CRTs is not perfect, furthermore as they age, the geometry changes. On an LCD the geometry is ALWAYS perfect.


-Adam
 
Smoltz said:
I admit that some of it seems biased, but it goes to my point, that there are two sides to every coin. Saing that a Trniitron CRT has the best image quality is simply incorrect. Just because YOU say something is the best, it doesn't mean it's the best for everyone and every application even though it may be best for YOU. It depends what criteria you evaluate it on. The geometry on CRTs is not perfect, furthermore as they age, the geometry changes. On an LCD the geometry is ALWAYS perfect.

-Adam
Click to expand...

Of course there is always two sides to a coin, but pointing out issues is best not done with a clearly biased article. In fact such articles will do nothing but alienate those you show them to further and in fact just simply make you look as if you lack some judgment.

There's a number of real tangible reasons why a user might wish to stay with a CRT. Those have been pointed out already in this thread, however that is not the point of the thread. Why people feel the need to jump in such threads and say "g3t w1th t3h t1m35 gr4mp5" about CRT, or the same in say a thread about a TN Film LCD is beyond my comprehension, I simply do not understand such immaturity anymore.

So please, just drop it. Each side has their own reasons and its been discussed to death already on hundreds of threads.
 
Well said. Just look at the large gaming lans where some serious money is involved (aka Quakecon) and ask yourself why dont they use LCD's there. Also look at the serious image editing companies and ask yourself why they still keep their CRTs.

Cheers ;)
 
Skrying said:
Of course there is always two sides to a coin, but pointing out issues is best not done with a clearly biased article. In fact such articles will do nothing but alienate those you show them to further and in fact just simply make you look as if you lack some judgment.

There's a number of real tangible reasons why a user might wish to stay with a CRT. Those have been pointed out already in this thread, however that is not the point of the thread. Why people feel the need to jump in such threads and say "g3t w1th t3h t1m35 gr4mp5" about CRT, or the same in say a thread about a TN Film LCD is beyond my comprehension, I simply do not understand such immaturity anymore.

So please, just drop it. Each side has their own reasons and its been discussed to death already on hundreds of threads.
Click to expand...

The post that I was replying to was biased and your inital post was clearly biased, by stating your opinion that CRTs are better than LCDs as A FACT.

The article I linked had proper citations and was conducted independently in academia and hardly was a single persons opinion.

I agree. At the same time, I refuse to let ignorami run rampant and post their opinion as fact.

Agreed.

-Adam
 
Smoltz said:
The post that I was replying to was biased and your inital post was clearly biased, by stating your opinion that CRTs are better than LCDs as A FACT.

The article I linked had proper citations and was conducted independently in academia and hardly was a single persons opinion.

I agree. At the same time, I refuse to let ignorami run rampant and post their opinion as fact.

Agreed.

-Adam
Click to expand...

I'm affraid that my last post was nothng but the raw FACT.

Cheers.
 
I think that both display types are good for different purposes.


If you are working mainly with text, an LCD is the way to go. They are extremely easy on the eyes for that sort of thing.

If you watching movies and playing games, an LCD may still serve you well. The panel technology has reached the point where color accuracy and black level are not a big issue anymore, and where most people perceive little to no ghosting and afterglow in games.

But if you, like me, are extremely sensitive to ghosting and input lag (I personally get nausea from gaming on an LCD after about ten minutes), a aperture-grill CRT is still the best choice. Not to mention the fact that you can run multiple resolutions without interpolation. I feel that it is a technology that was killed off well before its time.

Of course, once SED and OLED come onto the scene and are perfected, both LCDs and CRTs are going to look mediocre in comparison. ;)


So, I think that the idiom "different strokes for different folks" summarizes my opinion on the different display technologies quite nicely. :)
 
Happy Hopping said:
Reality CHeck: they don't made CRT anymore, you'll buy the left over. Noone makes this, everyone has move to something called LCD
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'll just throw my FP2141SB in the garbage to move to a technology with inferior picture quality. Thanks for the heads up.
 
Smoltz said:
The post that I was replying to was biased and your inital post was clearly biased, by stating your opinion that CRTs are better than LCDs as A FACT.

The article I linked had proper citations and was conducted independently in academia and hardly was a single persons opinion.

I agree. At the same time, I refuse to let ignorami run rampant and post their opinion as fact.

Agreed.

-Adam
Click to expand...

No where did I say CRTs have better image quality than an LCD as a fact, nor do I personally believe it to be the case in a number of areas. I do not even care all that much, I'm about to purchase the new Samsung 22" TN after all, so the absolute best image quality is truly not a concern of mine. I'd ask you to reread the article you posted (just a tid bit for you though, proper citations, independent research means really little if a 5 minute glance alone can punch bullets through the article).

My first post included a "probably" in the first sentence, though you have seemed to completely ignored that word. That alone sets the context for the rest of the post, it is completely arguable if an LCD or CRT has the better image quality, though even hardcore fans of LCDs would generally be open to admit that in order to get "decent" quality from an LCD you're going to have to spend a decent amount of money for the size, I even go so far to use the phrase "those" when talking about people looking to purchase a CRT...
 
Skrying said:
No where did I say CRTs have better image quality than an LCD as a fact, nor do I personally believe it to be the case in a number of areas. I do not even care all that much, I'm about to purchase the new Samsung 22" TN after all, so the absolute best image quality is truly not a concern of mine. I'd ask you to reread the article you posted (just a tid bit for you though, proper citations, independent research means really little if a 5 minute glance alone can punch bullets through the article).

My first post included a "probably" in the first sentence, though you have seemed to completely ignored that word. That alone sets the context for the rest of the post, it is completely arguable if an LCD or CRT has the better image quality, though even hardcore fans of LCDs would generally be open to admit that in order to get "decent" quality from an LCD you're going to have to spend a decent amount of money for the size, I even go so far to use the phrase "those" when talking about people looking to purchase a CRT...
Click to expand...

I was thrown off because you were replying to my response to Scyles where he made that inital black and white claim. I apologize for the mixup.

It's all about how you define image quality though. If sharpness and geometry are your criteria, then LCD is better if Color Accuracy and dynamic range are your criteria then CRT is better. I'm not saying that image quality can only be defined two ways, but just that it's important to consider what those criteria are.

-Adam
 
anyone who think LCD's have any kind of advantage other than brightness, text and weight over CRT's is ignorant and clueless, and needs to read up.
what do you think they design games on? Or movie rendering? Or gaming compititions?
you think gamers competing for cash are going to use ANY LCD? You wont find ONE, because they just aren't very good at refresh rates, they have input lag, can have dead pixels, and even a zero MS time is slower than a CRT.
Any serious photoshop user (job type serious) uses a CRT. LCD's have a LONG way to go before they catch up, if they ever even do.
The blacks on LCD's are sub-par, the colors aren't very accurate, unless you want to spend BIG $$ on a pro LCD and then you MIGHT get the EQUAL picture quality to a CRT.

really, the arguement of LCD being better than a CRT is a joke!!
LCD's have their place in an office or for dad paying bill online, but not in the gaming world or anywhere where color is important to the viewer.
 
Dunan said:
anyone who think LCD's have any kind of advantage other than brightness, text and weight over CRT's is ignorant and clueless, and needs to read up.
what do you think they design games on? Or movie rendering? Or gaming compititions?
you think gamers competing for cash are going to use ANY LCD? You wont find ONE, because they just aren't very good at refresh rates, they have input lag, can have dead pixels, and even a zero MS time is slower than a CRT.
Any serious photoshop user (job type serious) uses a CRT. LCD's have a LONG way to go before they catch up, if they ever even do.
The blacks on LCD's are sub-par, the colors aren't very accurate, unless you want to spend BIG $$ on a pro LCD and then you MIGHT get the EQUAL picture quality to a CRT.

really, the arguement of LCD being better than a CRT is a joke!!
LCD's have their place in an office or for dad paying bill online, but not in the gaming world or anywhere where color is important to the viewer.
Click to expand...

Amen.
 
With LCD, I can put a few, say 4 x 30" in my desks that I can view, w/ CRT, I can put 2 x 19" in my desk and that's still sucked up too much space.

With LCD, we can get 30". Obviously there is no such thing as a 30" CRT.

With CRT, the AG Pitch is fake, it's sharper at the center, but blur at the edge, and the half way thru is somewhere in btwn.

W/ LCD, we now can use DVI, pure digital directly connects to the video card. w/ CRT, it's just analog.

The worst thing is, the sharpness of a Trinitron gun ( or a tri-dot gun) lost its sharpness thru ages. So I used to had an old 21" Trinitron, very blur on images due to age, now that's hard for your eyes.

I'm glad we get out of the CRT dinosaur age.
 
I cant deny there are advantages to having a LCD. But when it comes to even brightness,high constrast, refresh rates and color reproduction , a vast majority of LCD's arent up to the task. Yes you get more desktop space and a bigger screen. Yes you get extra sharp text and more inputs. I still use my CRT for gaming , mostly for FPS's for higher refresh rates. A buddie of mine still uses a CRT for photo editing because of the color reproduction, any LCD he wants to use with proper reproduction of color costs atleast 1k on up and he cant afford it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top