FW900 question

B

BlackGuyRX

n00b
Joined
Aug 12, 2013
Messages
33
So I may finally have a shot of grabbing a FW900 for about 400 bucks. I'm building a new PC and largely plan on playing emulators and wanted a good monitor and have always heard high praise about this one. There's just one thing I need to know- How well does this thing handle custom refresh rates? I'm mostly going to be playing arcade games with wacky-ass refresh rates (55-58hz for example), and wanted to know what software or hardware to use, if it'll work with it. I was doing some research and didn't find a lot of info regarding the FW900 & MAME together. I did see a archived /vr/ post saying it wouldn't tolerate refresh rates below 59hz, but I wanted to see if he was hopefully wrong otherwise, I'll just save up for a ROG Swift monitor.
 
the FW900's refresh rate is 48 hz to 160 hz, depending on the resolution. cant say for sure if your desired 55hz - 58hz will work, but my guess is it would.

i owned a FW900 for a number of years (sold it about 2 years ago), and while the monitor isnt perfect (geometry issues, convergence issues, sharpening posts are annoying, weighs 1000 lbs, VGA interference producing ghosting, phosphorus lag, takes 30+min to fully warm up, etc.) that monitor had the best image quality of any monitor ive used. black levels are great, but the real star of the show was the color depth. uuggghhh it was so good!

ive used lots of CRTs (IBMs, viewsonics, NECs, other sonys, etc.), I don't care for LCDs, and a good number of plasmas (panasonic, sharp, and pioneer). The only thing that comes close to the FW900 in image quality is the late gen pioneer kuro plasmas and the very last gen panasonic plasmas (essentially using kuro tech). used all for gaming.

buying a FW900 is a gamble these days. theyre old, and the number of hours on the monitor affects tube brightness. calibration is often very much in need, and you can do it yourself, but without some expertise/hardware, don't expect to get everything perfect. if you have the money, patience, and a little skill, with some luck you'll really, really enjoy the monitor.

sorry for the rant. one the best monitors ive ever used.
 
This is the thread you want to post in :)

Custom refresh rates seem to work well for me. Myself, I quake at 160 hz, and use desktop at 85 hz.

Be sure to go through the WinDAS wpb guide too!
 
cinnamonandgravy said:
the FW900's refresh rate is 48 hz to 160 hz, depending on the resolution. cant say for sure if your desired 55hz - 58hz will work, but my guess is it would.

i owned a FW900 for a number of years (sold it about 2 years ago), and while the monitor isnt perfect (geometry issues, convergence issues, sharpening posts are annoying, weighs 1000 lbs, VGA interference producing ghosting, phosphorus lag, takes 30+min to fully warm up, etc.) that monitor had the best image quality of any monitor ive used. black levels are great, but the real star of the show was the color depth. uuggghhh it was so good!

ive used lots of CRTs (IBMs, viewsonics, NECs, other sonys, etc.), I don't care for LCDs, and a good number of plasmas (panasonic, sharp, and pioneer). The only thing that comes close to the FW900 in image quality is the late gen pioneer kuro plasmas and the very last gen panasonic plasmas (essentially using kuro tech). used all for gaming.

buying a FW900 is a gamble these days. theyre old, and the number of hours on the monitor affects tube brightness. calibration is often very much in need, and you can do it yourself, but without some expertise/hardware, don't expect to get everything perfect. if you have the money, patience, and a little skill, with some luck you'll really, really enjoy the monitor.

sorry for the rant. one the best monitors ive ever used.
Click to expand...

Emphasis on the last paragraph is so true. If you're lucky enough to find one without too much use, they are by far some of the best displays you can ever own. I have spent a ton of time and research into calibrating my monitor and it was definitely worth it. It takes a ton of patience, but when you get there - it's great.

For grins, I was able to lower my 2304x1440 resolution all the way down to 48hz like you stated. I couldn't go under that though. 55hz and 58hz synced no problem (my eyes!). I would never recommend 48hz on this thing though. Holy shit! Flickering galore!

So anyways OP - I have now debunked the "can't go below 59 hz" bull. Have you considered the FW900's 4:3 brethren? Any of the GDM 21-inchers are on par with it. When you get into the GDM-F520 vs Artisan vs GDM-FW900 vs GDM-(insert model number here) argument, it becomes essentially an "I prefer my Lambo to a Ferrari" type argument.
 
FW900s are great at low to mid resolutions, but it might struggle with intense interlacing. If you want really high resolutions, I'd get a Nokia 445Pro. I have one and use 1920x1440@160Hz and 2560x1920@120Hz.
 
rabidz7 said:
FW900s are great at low to mid resolutions, but it might struggle with intense interlacing. If you want really high resolutions, I'd get a Nokia 445Pro. I have one and use 1920x1440@160Hz and 2560x1920@120Hz.
Click to expand...

Yeah OP, pay no attention to this.
 
BlackGuyRX said:
So I may finally have a shot of grabbing a FW900 for about 400 bucks. I'm building a new PC and largely plan on playing emulators and wanted a good monitor and have always heard high praise about this one. There's just one thing I need to know- How well does this thing handle custom refresh rates? I'm mostly going to be playing arcade games with wacky-ass refresh rates (55-58hz for example), and wanted to know what software or hardware to use, if it'll work with it. I was doing some research and didn't find a lot of info regarding the FW900 & MAME together. I did see a archived /vr/ post saying it wouldn't tolerate refresh rates below 59hz, but I wanted to see if he was hopefully wrong otherwise, I'll just save up for a ROG Swift monitor.
Click to expand...

Don't do it. Seriously, you're better off with a 4k FreeSync/G-Sync monitor at this point even for emulation.

Every game will just run at its native refresh rate with NO customization, and it'll actually look better with a good shader at 4k than an SVGA+ CRT monitor will look.
 
spacediver said:
yea, except for the shitty framerates at 4k and black levels and viewing angles.
Click to expand...

Uhh...EMULATORS run fine at 4k. Viewing angles are fine with an IPS monitor. The blacks might not be as good, but you also don't have shitty convergence/geometry issues.
 
with care, an FW900 will have very good convergence and geometry, more than worth the tradeoff for the stellar picture quality.
 
bigbluefe said:
Don't do it. Seriously, you're better off with a 4k FreeSync/G-Sync monitor at this point even for emulation.

Every game will just run at its native refresh rate with NO customization, and it'll actually look better with a good shader at 4k than an SVGA+ CRT monitor will look.
Click to expand...
old 2d games, especially arcade ones have a lot of scrolling planes, moving objects across the screen. No g-sync/freesync will look good in this case because to have actually sharp moving objects you need flickering/strobing http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/oled-motion-blur/

any CRT will have perfectly sharp moving objects/planes picture at any refresh rate. CRT will excell in tests like found on this site: http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates. While no G-Sync monitor with ULMB will do fine too it will not do fine @50Hz, 55Hz, 60Hz, etc because strobing work at 85Hz and up on these and there is no way around it.

Also why bother with shaders when you can have real thing? :confused:

ps. In pursuit camera tests like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0jlXUpG32Y#t=55 CRT @ 55Hz would have performance of 120Hz strobed LCD.
ps2. Configuring modern strobed LCD @ 110Hz strobed and displaying 55Hz content on it won't elliminate motion blur. It have to be strobing at exactly 55Hz.

PS3. Also remember that CRT have lowest possible input lag of 0ms.
 
BlackGuyRX said:
So I may finally have a shot of grabbing a FW900 for about 400 bucks. I'm building a new PC and largely plan on playing emulators and wanted a good monitor and have always heard high praise about this one. There's just one thing I need to know- How well does this thing handle custom refresh rates? I'm mostly going to be playing arcade games with wacky-ass refresh rates (55-58hz for example), and wanted to know what software or hardware to use, if it'll work with it. I was doing some research and didn't find a lot of info regarding the FW900 & MAME together. I did see a archived /vr/ post saying it wouldn't tolerate refresh rates below 59hz, but I wanted to see if he was hopefully wrong otherwise, I'll just save up for a ROG Swift monitor.
Click to expand...
There are actually better monitors for emulators than GDM-FW900. For one you do not need 16:10 for MAME and FW900 have pretty light phosphor which make lighting conditions of room way too important.

I have FW900, IBM P275 (uses 4:3 Trinitron tube) and some good 19" Samsung flat-screen shadow mask CRT and from these FW900 would be pretty much worst one to play emulators on it. Actually best would be Samsung (which I got recently from friend for free) because:
- best anti-glare coating
- darkest screen making black seem black even in moderately lit room
- slowest phosphor decay time making modes like 50-60Hz to flicker much less than on Trinitron's
- have least visible flaring (FW900 have most)
- at brightness levels that are good for gaming have most 'CRT blur' which is actually good thing for emulators
- have actually nicest colors (gamut) which is also more similar to what like 99% CRT's used. FW900 have imho worst colors from CRT's I have.

FW900 is good if you plan on playing modern games on it, like PC, PS4, etc. but for older games you might want to grab 21" Trinitron or even 21"/22" Diamondtron tube or even go for flat shadow mask based CRT like my 19" Samsung which while is inferior at some things is actually pretty darn good monitor for emulators and is also much lighter and 'movable'. FW900 weights literally a ton :D

So summarizing: CRT yes, FW900 no, imho
 
XoR said:
old 2d games, especially arcade ones have a lot of scrolling planes, moving objects across the screen. No g-sync/freesync will look good in this case because to have actually sharp moving objects you need flickering/strobing http://www.blurbusters.com/faq/oled-motion-blur/

any CRT will have perfectly sharp moving objects/planes picture at any refresh rate. CRT will excell in tests like found on this site: http://www.testufo.com/#test=framerates. While no G-Sync monitor with ULMB will do fine too it will not do fine @50Hz, 55Hz, 60Hz, etc because strobing work at 85Hz and up on these and there is no way around it.

Also why bother with shaders when you can have real thing? :confused:

ps. In pursuit camera tests like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0jlXUpG32Y#t=55 CRT @ 55Hz would have performance of 120Hz strobed LCD.
ps2. Configuring modern strobed LCD @ 110Hz strobed and displaying 55Hz content on it won't elliminate motion blur. It have to be strobing at exactly 55Hz.

PS3. Also remember that CRT have lowest possible input lag of 0ms.
Click to expand...

Benq Z series monitors (XL2720Z, XL2420Z, XL2411Z, XL2430T) WILL strobe at 60hz to 144hz in 1 hz increment (Requires single strobe set to ON in service menu).

50hz strobing is possible with a vertical total 1360 (default VT will not strobe and may damage the backlight), and requires STROBE PHASE=018 or higher for proper motion.
(over Displayport, horizontal total must be set to 2080 @50hz, if using 1360 VT, or monitor will shut off; for some reason over DVI, HT can be set to 2200)
Note the flickering at 50hz will drive you mad. 60hz is barely tolerable.

Sadly, XL2730Z can't strobe correctly lower than 120hz.
 
XoR said:
Actually best would be Samsung (which I got recently from friend for free) because:

- slowest phosphor decay time making modes like 50-60Hz to flicker much
- have actually nicest colors (gamut) which is also more similar to what like 99% CRT's used. FW900 have imho worst colors from CRT's I have.
Click to expand...

The FW900 phosphor decay is pretty slow, you're saying the Samsung is even slower?

As for the gamut, the gamut of the FW900 should be virtually identical to other color CRTs. If I remember correctly, my IBM P275 measures the same chromaticities as my FW900s, but the overall picture quality of the FW900 looks a hell of a lot better than the P275.
 
cinnamonandgravy said:
the FW900's refresh rate is 48 hz to 160 hz, depending on the resolution. cant say for sure if your desired 55hz - 58hz will work, but my guess is it would.

i owned a FW900 for a number of years (sold it about 2 years ago), and while the monitor isnt perfect (geometry issues, convergence issues, sharpening posts are annoying, weighs 1000 lbs, VGA interference producing ghosting, phosphorus lag, takes 30+min to fully warm up, etc.) that monitor had the best image quality of any monitor ive used. black levels are great, but the real star of the show was the color depth. uuggghhh it was so good!

ive used lots of CRTs (IBMs, viewsonics, NECs, other sonys, etc.), I don't care for LCDs, and a good number of plasmas (panasonic, sharp, and pioneer). The only thing that comes close to the FW900 in image quality is the late gen pioneer kuro plasmas and the very last gen panasonic plasmas (essentially using kuro tech). used all for gaming.

buying a FW900 is a gamble these days. theyre old, and the number of hours on the monitor affects tube brightness. calibration is often very much in need, and you can do it yourself, but without some expertise/hardware, don't expect to get everything perfect. if you have the money, patience, and a little skill, with some luck you'll really, really enjoy the monitor.

sorry for the rant. one the best monitors ive ever used.
Click to expand...

This post more or less sums up my thoughts. I had two FW900's (one HP A7217A) in total and used them for a long time. One of mine outright died and I purchased a mint second one to replace its dead carcass. I enjoyed the hell out of them, but also spent a lot of time messing with them to try and perfect the image. I became intimately familiar with the focus pots and my winDAS cable that I purchased.

You can get a truly excellent picture, but it wasn't worth the downsides for me and I eventually moved on to more modern solutions. I really didn't regret the move many years ago, and the display offerings have only improved since that time. With all of that considered, my recommendation is that you skip the FW900. It is too much of a crap shoot these days on getting a good one that will last, and you will most likely have to spend a significant amount of time researching and tweaking the monitor to get the "amazing" picture everyone brags about.
 
spacediver said:
With a colorimeter and a WinDAS cable, it's pretty straightforward to get an excellent image.
Click to expand...

That appears to be a nice and fairly comprehensive walk-through you put together. Much less painful than when many of us were learning this stuff the first time around.

I still stand by my original statement though as it could be quite the process for someone who isn't intimately familiar with this type of stuff to begin with.
 
agreed - I definitely recommend getting an FW900 only if one is willing to get a colorimeter and cable and invest some effort.

but good god damn is it worth it :D
 
Fleat said:
That appears to be a nice and fairly comprehensive walk-through you put together. Much less painful than when many of us were learning this stuff the first time around.

I still stand by my original statement though as it could be quite the process for someone who isn't intimately familiar with this type of stuff to begin with.
Click to expand...

Never did log the hours I spent learning WinDAS. I had the benefit of having an old P991 Dell to practice on. At the very least, if I blew that up, it wasn't a monitor that I cared about.

But once you do learn it and (dare I say?) master it, the process is pretty quick and painless. Only part that's time consuming is the white balance adjustment. But that also depends on how spot on you want to be. Sony does offer some pretty gracious tolerances.
 
spacediver said:
agreed - I definitely recommend getting an FW900 only if one is willing to get a colorimeter and cable and invest some effort.

but good god damn is it worth it :D
Click to expand...

Hit the nail on the head. Only way you're going to get a "great" tube on your own without effort is to get a brand new one. And we know the odds of that these days. Either you buy a new one from Unkle Vito, dig one up from some warehouse, or purchase a calibrated unit from Unkle Vito, or purchase a calibrated unit from someone else.


And yeah - it's totally fucking worth it.
 
XoR said:
There are actually better monitors for emulators than GDM-FW900. For one you do not need 16:10 for MAME and FW900 have pretty light phosphor which make lighting conditions of room way too important.

I have FW900, IBM P275 (uses 4:3 Trinitron tube) and some good 19" Samsung flat-screen shadow mask CRT and from these FW900 would be pretty much worst one to play emulators on it. Actually best would be Samsung (which I got recently from friend for free) because:
- best anti-glare coating
- darkest screen making black seem black even in moderately lit room
- slowest phosphor decay time making modes like 50-60Hz to flicker much less than on Trinitron's
- have least visible flaring (FW900 have most)
- at brightness levels that are good for gaming have most 'CRT blur' which is actually good thing for emulators
- have actually nicest colors (gamut) which is also more similar to what like 99% CRT's used. FW900 have imho worst colors from CRT's I have.

FW900 is good if you plan on playing modern games on it, like PC, PS4, etc. but for older games you might want to grab 21" Trinitron or even 21"/22" Diamondtron tube or even go for flat shadow mask based CRT like my 19" Samsung which while is inferior at some things is actually pretty darn good monitor for emulators and is also much lighter and 'movable'. FW900 weights literally a ton :D

So summarizing: CRT yes, FW900 no, imho
Click to expand...

Huh. Even with crt_emudriver and the appropriate Radeon card? What's the model number of that Samsung?
 
bigbluefe said:
Don't do it. Seriously, you're better off with a 4k FreeSync/G-Sync monitor at this point even for emulation.

Every game will just run at its native refresh rate with NO customization, and it'll actually look better with a good shader at 4k than an SVGA+ CRT monitor will look.
Click to expand...

Aren't most G-Sync & FreeSync monitors complete crap in terms of quality control?
 
Falkentyne said:
Since when does it cost $100 dollars to ship a monitor?
Click to expand...
Ever since monitors weighed close to 100lbs and were made of glass, therefore requiring a fair bit of packaging to ensure they make it there in one piece? When I bought my FW900 many years back, it had to be shipped freight.
 
This one costs over $700 in shipping alone, at least to Canada.
 
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
I do not get that obsession about WinDAS and FW900.
I also do not get this praise of FW900 picture quality. It is in some aspects absolutely worst CRT I owned and I had some crappy CRTs in my life to compare to :D

Flaws of FW900 do with its ark gray screen color that have putred greenish tint to it. Even at absolutely perfect lighting conditions it still deteriorate picture quality making inner glass reflections very visible. Things like this I was never aware until FW900. I had AG on it but it was pretty bad so hoping it will help I removed it. It did not help even one bit. The same idiots recommend WinDAS as necessary tool to make FW900 image perfect. They are either sad bunch of blind idiots or mean liars :(

Except convergence and G2 voltage issue there is nothing to tweak in WinDAS and for games some convergence issues on sides of screen (middle can be tweaked via OSD) is nothing to worry about if it happen. I have bad convergence on right bottom of screen and ... who cares? If I ever used desktop on it then I would probably fix that but for games it is free chromatic abberation shader ;)

WinDAS cannot help fix gamut or gamma so it is as useful as OSD in getting it calibrated because bias and gain are also accessible from OSD. Besides if not for too bright screen color any setting would look good.

I have now my FLATRON 915FT Plus (its is LG, not Sammy :p) that I got for free next to FW900 and LG picture quality is superior. It is much darker even at 100% contrast and at the same maximum luminance much less sharp. But overall LG is just much nicer to look at and even with a lot of light in the room it have ink blacks. FW900 absolutely need perfect lighting conditions and crap itself when any bright object is shown making ridiculous halos around it. Will WinDAS fix that? Well, if anyone think it would then such person would have to be total mental retard.

FW900 is still one of the best monitors for modern wide-screen games, both for PC and console use but lets not fool ourselves, it have pretty screwed up picture quality and there are lots almost-free monitors that will perform much much better, especially for already 4:3 content like emulators.

BTW. Because this cheap LG absolutely destroys FW900 in image quality competition I do intend going on with fixing FW900 via putting actual polarizer on it which will will make it actually have CRT look I am used to and expect from CRT. Will write about it in main FW900 thread in a minute.
 
XoR said:
Flaws of FW900 do with its ark gray screen color that have putred greenish tint to it. Even at absolutely perfect lighting conditions it still deteriorate picture quality making inner glass reflections very visible.
Click to expand...

There is/was something seriously wrong with your tube if your unit did this.

XoR said:
Except convergence and G2 voltage issue there is nothing to tweak in WinDAS and for games some convergence issues on sides of screen (middle can be tweaked via OSD)
Click to expand...

Completely false. Have you ever actually performed a full white point balance in WinDAS with a colorimeter?

XoR said:
WinDAS cannot help fix gamut or gamma so it is as useful as OSD in getting it calibrated because bias and gain are also accessible from OSD. Besides if not for too bright screen color any setting would look good.
Click to expand...

The gamut does not need to be "fixed", and the gamma is indirectly adjustable if you know what you're doing, although it is much better to fine tune gamma with a 1D LUT.


Honestly, your experience with your FW900 strikes me as a case of a bad tube, or ignorance. I'm thinking more the latter.
 
XoR said:
I do not get that obsession about WinDAS and FW900.
I also do not get this praise of FW900 picture quality. It is in some aspects absolutely worst CRT I owned and I had some crappy CRTs in my life to compare to :D

Flaws of FW900 do with its ark gray screen color that have putred greenish tint to it. Even at absolutely perfect lighting conditions it still deteriorate picture quality making inner glass reflections very visible. Things like this I was never aware until FW900. I had AG on it but it was pretty bad so hoping it will help I removed it. It did not help even one bit. The same idiots recommend WinDAS as necessary tool to make FW900 image perfect. They are either sad bunch of blind idiots or mean liars :(

Except convergence and G2 voltage issue there is nothing to tweak in WinDAS and for games some convergence issues on sides of screen (middle can be tweaked via OSD) is nothing to worry about if it happen. I have bad convergence on right bottom of screen and ... who cares? If I ever used desktop on it then I would probably fix that but for games it is free chromatic abberation shader ;)

WinDAS cannot help fix gamut or gamma so it is as useful as OSD in getting it calibrated because bias and gain are also accessible from OSD. Besides if not for too bright screen color any setting would look good.

I have now my FLATRON 915FT Plus (its is LG, not Sammy :p) that I got for free next to FW900 and LG picture quality is superior. It is much darker even at 100% contrast and at the same maximum luminance much less sharp. But overall LG is just much nicer to look at and even with a lot of light in the room it have ink blacks. FW900 absolutely need perfect lighting conditions and crap itself when any bright object is shown making ridiculous halos around it. Will WinDAS fix that? Well, if anyone think it would then such person would have to be total mental retard.

FW900 is still one of the best monitors for modern wide-screen games, both for PC and console use but lets not fool ourselves, it have pretty screwed up picture quality and there are lots almost-free monitors that will perform much much better, especially for already 4:3 content like emulators.

BTW. Because this cheap LG absolutely destroys FW900 in image quality competition I do intend going on with fixing FW900 via putting actual polarizer on it which will will make it actually have CRT look I am used to and expect from CRT. Will write about it in main FW900 thread in a minute.
Click to expand...

Meh, maybe I'm taking this personal, but I don't ever think I've ever exaggerated the quality of the FW900. I've had quite a few CRT's come and go through my hands and I really think the FW900 is amazing. There's no such thing as a perfect monitor. Every screen has its flaws. Mine? I wish I kept the anti-glare and I really look forward to your post on the polarizer. If it pans out, I may be joining you. :D
 
spacediver said:
...
Click to expand...

This photo is of some FW900
NewMonitor003.jpg


just enter in google image: gdm-fw900 coating
and see how bright screen is, even with AG on

Here LG
$_86.JPG


None of those photos are mine but htey show the full story. LG absolutely destroys FW900, the most praised for its picture quality CRT monitor of all times. No WinDAS necessary, no whitepoint ballance, no nothing, just plug, set colors via eye to not be too blueish and it look stunning. Reason? Screen is actually black.

Here are my LG and SONY (NEC 2090UXi in the middle)
9PqdV6x.jpg


My tube have best sharpness performance I saw from CRT and doesn't seem to be burned out at all. It does easily >350cd/m2 and except all the issues that come from bright phosphor and no coating it is in perfect shape. Only because it is worse than some cheap FLATRON doesn't mean it is broken... well, yes, it is... compared to how it will look once I 'fix' it it is totally broken :) For now I put it on the floor and it is pending repairs. Once I am done with it should be the best FW900 out there :cool:


EDIT://
ps. photos from my tests from year ago:
fSE2ZlL.jpg


Behind those polarizers black was OLED-like, even with lights being on.
Much much darker picture though and much blurrier because of high contrast needed for it to be adequately bright.
 
Last edited:
I'll just say this and be done with it. If the SMTPE phosphors are good enough for the professionals, then they're good enough for me. If DisplayMate uses a Sony PVM as its reference monitor, which uses the same phosphors as the FW900, then it's good enough for me.
 
Monitor can have most accurate gamut, perfect gamma and all 'professional' characteristics that are measured under a probe to be totally spot on and still have pretty bad when it comes to how pictures looks on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top