GDM-FW900.. not impressed

B

Boostage

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 25, 2008
Messages
327
Ok first of all I am no Videophile so this might be the problem. I had a Envision EN-910e.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5142C3E5R7L._SL500_AA280_.jpg

then upgraded to a Sony HS-95P LCD
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51TJCHF718L._SL500_AA280_.jpg

Now everything looked so much more Vibrant on the Sony LCD Compared to the 910e. it did have a SLIGHT bit of ghosting in games, but didnt bother me too much.. for the last two years I have been very pleased. but it being only 19" standard 4:3 ratio, and limited to 12x10 I needed to upgrade. well Two monitors were bought in the span 2 weeks. The Hanns-G 28" and the Sony FW900. I bought the FW900 based on reviews on here and other sites about how its better than any LCD visually and as a gamer I can appreciate this. now here are my impressions..

The FW900..
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51J2VJTNX3L._SL500_AA280_.jpg

I thought it looked very bad at first. there was a white cloud all over that made blacks and other colors looked washed out.but after reading the long thread on here. I realized it needed 45 mins to warm up. then you adjust the quality settings.. so after 1 hour I can get it it look decent. honestly my old Envision looks a bit more vibrant to me. but the Sony FW900 didn't look too bad. so anyway, This week I got a Hanns-G. well technically its the i-INC version.
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicat...asp?EdpNo=3326540&sku=H94-2801&srkey=H94-2801
http://images.tigerdirect.com/skuimages/large/iinc-if281dpb-monitor.jpg

Immediately I noticed the greens in Crysis,(grass, trees etc) looks so much more vibrant. the colors were outstanding. and overall the picture was brighter. there was just no comparison. water and even dirt seemed richer.I was thoroughly impressed. I am now considering selling the FW900. maybe I just didn't spend enough time adjusting the quality settings on it. but out the box the 28" looked ALOT better IMO.

However I'm not completly happy with this LCD now. see I bought it at my local Compusa/Tigerdirect. and a day later I noticed a dead or stuck pixel the. So I returned it and got a brand new one two days ago. and then Today another pixel issue. so I am either going to return it for a 3rd one. or just make up the difference and buy the 28" Viewsonic. anyway. before I completely give up on the fw900 could it be possible that I just didn't tweak it properly. or do I not possess the visual gift to recognize a better image?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Admin Edit - Please don't hotlink images. If you don't host 'em, don't post em. Thanks - BlindedByScience
 
It is hard to find a GDM-FW900 in good working order. When they were new from Sony they were nothing short of perfection.

Them days are gone now.

Dave
 
I'm waiting for Canon (or is it Toshiba) to bring out SED. That's when we'll get perfection back. Yay for deep blacks.
 
If by vibrant, you mean bright, LCDs are definitely brighter...

It's more at lower levels of ambient light (and night time) that CRTs overwhelming advantage in black and contrast becomes apparent.

And yeah, yours might be worn out or not yet optimally adjusted...
 
SH1 said:
If by vibrant, you mean bright, LCDs are definitely brighter...

It's more at lower levels of ambient light (and night time) that CRTs overwhelming advantage in black and contrast becomes apparent.

And yeah, yours might be worn out or not yet optimally adjusted...
Click to expand...


QFT. I think the biggest advantage that good CRTs have over LCDs is the quality of the black levels. You should be able to see a distinctive change from pitch black to dark gray to light gray etc.
 
If your using Nvidia try turning up the feature digital vibrance in your control panel to compensate for the lost Vibrance.
 
I have to assume a bad unit here. I've seen my FW900 next to four or five different LCDs. . . color and black levels have never even come close. Though, of course, if "brightness" is all that's considered, an LCD will win unless the room is darkened.
 
3Hunter7 said:
If your using Nvidia try turning up the feature digital vibrance in your control panel to compensate for the lost Vibrance.
Click to expand...

I did. can you provide good setting for both the card and monitor so i can see if it works?
 
Digital vibrance forces some of the color shades to drop out. (Per DisplayMate test patterns...)
 
I had a Sony FW900 for 4 years now and always thought that it is a great monitor for gaming.
A few weeks ago I got myself a Samsung 2693HM monitor. Immediately I realised that it is superior to the Sony in many ways.
Movies, television and other multimedia stuff look much better on the Samsung, because colors are more vibrant, there is more contrast and brightness of course, what helps especially under daylight conditions.

I even got comparable black levels but with still more contrast in dark environments, a good game to do testing here is Doom3. Of course this is with the Samsung 'Text' preset, which is darker than e.g. 'game' preset, this helps black levels but is still more vibrant than the sony. Also use a calibrating program and I recommend reducing the overall gamma a bit, what also helps black levels. ATM there is only one game I prefer playing on the sony and that is Crysis. One of the reasons is, that the lesser sharpness of the sony makes the game look almost SS antialiased, lol ..
 
BadONE said:
I had a Sony FW900 for 4 years now and always thought that it is a great monitor for gaming.
A few weeks ago I got myself a Samsung 2693HM monitor. Immediately I realised that it is superior to the Sony in many ways.
Movies, television and other multimedia stuff look much better on the Samsung, because colors are more vibrant, there is more contrast and brightness of course, what helps especially under daylight conditions.

I even got comparable black levels but with still more contrast in dark environments, a good game to do testing here is Doom3. Of course this is with the Samsung 'Text' preset, which is darker than e.g. 'game' preset, this helps black levels but is still more vibrant than the sony. Also use a calibrating program and I recommend reducing the overall gamma a bit, what also helps black levels. ATM there is only one game I prefer playing on the sony and that is Crysis. One of the reasons is, that the lesser sharpness of the sony makes the game look almost SS antialiased, lol ..
Click to expand...

Any LCD will fall apart at night or in a darkened room compared to a well calibrated CRT. Unless you've got a selectively lit LED backed model...

In a brighter environment, how dark a CRT can go is limited by reflections on its screen and it does lose some of it's advantage. (However, the huge CRT advantage in dynamic range can still be apparent...)
 
BadONE said:
I had a Sony FW900 for 4 years now and always thought that it is a great monitor for gaming.
A few weeks ago I got myself a Samsung 2693HM monitor. Immediately I realised that it is superior to the Sony in many ways.
Movies, television and other multimedia stuff look much better on the Samsung, because colors are more vibrant, there is more contrast and brightness of course, what helps especially under daylight conditions.

I even got comparable black levels but with still more contrast in dark environments, a good game to do testing here is Doom3. Of course this is with the Samsung 'Text' preset, which is darker than e.g. 'game' preset, this helps black levels but is still more vibrant than the sony. Also use a calibrating program and I recommend reducing the overall gamma a bit, what also helps black levels. ATM there is only one game I prefer playing on the sony and that is Crysis. One of the reasons is, that the lesser sharpness of the sony makes the game look almost SS antialiased, lol ..
Click to expand...
I suspect that your Sony is suffering from the overbrightness bug that ruins its black levels unless you regularly tune the G2 value via Windas and the service cable that you plug into the back.

LCDs simply cannot achieve comparable black levels to a CRT. It's just not possible due to the nature of the tecnology. If your LCD is comparable to your FW900, that says something about your FW900 having issues rather than the LCD being superior.
 
You're talking about one of the best monitors ever made.

You just got a bad one. It could have thousands upon thousands of hours on it.

You cant even compare a FW900 to a 28" HannsG.
 
Sry no i cant, i dont have the particular monitor, But i could advize a few things.

Turn down the brightness in the control panel turn up the brightness on the monitor and adjust the digital vibrance till you get to a setting thats optimal.

Also you might wanna mess with the gamma and contrast a little bit if that helps.

Maybe just maybe you can make it look new again, Good luck :)
 
Hurin said:
I suspect that your Sony is suffering from the overbrightness bug that ruins its black levels unless you regularly tune the G2 value via Windas and the service cable that you plug into the back.

LCDs simply cannot achieve comparable black levels to a CRT. It's just not possible due to the nature of the tecnology. If your LCD is comparable to your FW900, that says something about your FW900 having issues rather than the LCD being superior.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Something like Doom 3 should make this apparent. The black level detail / contrast / etc is tons better even on a bad CRT.

The LCD might seem better at first glance - the crazy brightness, overblown colors, etc. But try tossing on a dark movie or a dark game like Doom and the difference should be apparent.
 
The FW900 is great but it depends a lot on tweaking and luck. It's one of the best monitors ever built but it's not perfect of course. The black level for example is way better on one of my Medion CRTs. However few monitors come close to the natural colors of a FW900 and I don't mean vibrant. Of couse, the maximum red, blue, lime etc. have to be vibrant! Many displays 'cheat' by making lower saturations more vibrant than they should be.
 
If you haven't run the Image Restoration function, do so before making any further judgments.
 
Surly73 said:
If you haven't run the Image Restoration function, do so before making any further judgments.
Click to expand...

Im glad you mentioned this. but the last time I played with the monitor it said Image restoration was not available until warmed up. but this was after the monitor was on for 30-40 mins. do I need to wait an hour plus for it to be available?
 
Image restore only works after the monitor has been on uninterrupted for at least 20 - 30 minutes (be sure any power saving settings in windows arent causing the monitor to shutoff) Also be sure to crank up the monitors Brightness setting before running Image restore (for example if its currently set on 20 then turn it up to 50) ,the screen will be overbright but after image restore finishes the black level should be a lot better then you can adjust the brightness to your liking.

But Ive had this happen to an older Sony G400 CRT, The image restoration feature stopped working entirely and according to the manual this can happen when the CRT reaches a certain age or is worn out.. i'm not sure exactly what conditions have to be met but im assuming there's some sort of voltage test performed before allowing image restore to be ran.

EDIT: I just realised in your case its still saying the monitor has to be warmed up, in my G400's case the option would become available but choosing it did nothing, it sounds like to me you might not be waiting long enough, and double check power saving.
 
mathesar said:
Image restore only works after the monitor has been on uninterrupted for at least 20 - 30 minutes (be sure any power saving settings in windows arent causing the monitor to shutoff) Also be sure to crank up the monitors Brightness setting before running Image restore (for example if its currently set on 20 then turn it up to 50) ,the screen will be overbright but after image restore finishes the black level should be a lot better then you can adjust the brightness to your liking.

But Ive had this happen to an older Sony G400 CRT, The image restoration feature stopped working entirely and according to the manual this can happen when the CRT reaches a certain age or is worn out.. i'm not sure exactly what conditions have to be met but im assuming there's some sort of voltage test performed before allowing image restore to be ran.

EDIT: I just realised in your case its still saying the monitor has to be warmed up, in my G400's case the option would become available but choosing it did nothing, it sounds like to me you might not be waiting long enough, and double check power saving.
Click to expand...

+1 to all of this. My GDM-F520 has seen daily use since 2002 and I.R. still works fine. I believe my G2 started to creep recently on this particular unit and I believe IR adjusted it without needing to resort to Windas. I.R. has also been able to correct some greyscale problems.
 
WOW.. you were right after 45 mins I had the option or image restore. and now it looks WAAAAY betterI am pleased with it, HOWEVER. green still looks more flush on an LCD I adjusted the digital Vibrancy and that didnt help. I am going to try Windas and report again.
 
For casual user FW900 won't be good anymore. It's hard to find good ones and LCD's brightness in non-darkened room will be superior (this also leads to "brighter" and "better" colors). But if room is darkened and screen maintained (needs windas cable and lots of patience) no lcd can really compare.

However, there is one thing that FW900 will shine on for a long time to come... gaming. I just got home from lan parties (had 900 with me) and I can only be amazed how people ever can even play with lcd. 60hz just looks awful, no wonder they can't keep up with me. And there's the lag. No matter how fast lcd, you'll alway feel a little lag in mouse movements. Don't know what causes this though, it is only annoying on desktop, not that much in games.
 
lol at this tread, anyone who thinks bright/vibrant=good is missing the point. no way in hell an lcd will ever beat the FW900 for gaming or color accuracy it's not even in the same galaxy. btw no ghosting and uber refresh rates are key, and no lcd will ever be able to do that ever, have fun with 60hz or that 120 gimmick when it finally hits pc monitors.
 
shiznit said:
lol at this tread, anyone who thinks bright/vibrant=good is missing the point. no way in hell an lcd will ever beat the FW900 for gaming or color accuracy it's not even in the same galaxy. btw no ghosting and uber refresh rates are key, and no lcd will ever be able to do that ever, have fun with 60hz or that 120 gimmick when it finally hits pc monitors.
Click to expand...

I love you state your opinion as if its a fact.:rolleyes:
 
Being able to v-sync at 85hz on this monitor is nice if nothing else.
 
Romir said:
Being able to v-sync at 85hz on this monitor is nice if nothing else.
Click to expand...
The FW900 can actually do 1920x1200 @ 95Hz. . . but since I don't see much difference in flicker and I want to preserve the tube, I still run at 85Hz.

As for the prior post. . . some things aren't subjective. Though preferences are. Regardless, though, even though that FW900 zealot was largely stating objective facts, he didn't need to be such a jerk about it. :rolleyes:
 
One thing that I loved about the CRT's was their ability to do multiple resolutions natively. This requirement has faded somewhat as video and processor power increases, though. Now I wouldn't swap my 37" Westy for any CRT in its prime or no but certainly this was the premiere monitor for a long, long time.
 
Hurin said:
I suspect that your Sony is suffering from the overbrightness bug that ruins its black levels unless you regularly tune the G2 value via Windas and the service cable that you plug into the back.

LCDs simply cannot achieve comparable black levels to a CRT. It's just not possible due to the nature of the tecnology. If your LCD is comparable to your FW900, that says something about your FW900 having issues rather than the LCD being superior.
Click to expand...

Well the black levels on the Sony are better, your're right, but it takes about 30 minutes for the tube to warm up, before that LCD is equal or better. Overall image quality is also better on the Sony but only in a darker environment.
Under daylight conditions the Sony does not provide enough brightness or contrast to enjoy this.
So at night I'm mostly using the Sony, during the day the LCD, so I have the best of both worlds ..
 
novemberrain said:
For casual user FW900 won't be good anymore. It's hard to find good ones and LCD's brightness in non-darkened room will be superior (this also leads to "brighter" and "better" colors). But if room is darkened and screen maintained (needs windas cable and lots of patience) no lcd can really compare.

However, there is one thing that FW900 will shine on for a long time to come... gaming. I just got home from lan parties (had 900 with me) and I can only be amazed how people ever can even play with lcd. 60hz just looks awful, no wonder they can't keep up with me. And there's the lag. No matter how fast lcd, you'll alway feel a little lag in mouse movements. Don't know what causes this though, it is only annoying on desktop, not that much in games.
Click to expand...

This is why I'm still using a crt as my gaming monitor, it will really give you a much better feel and perhaps a small edge in fps games. In rts or rpg games it really doesn't matter anymore, the quality of lcd panels are also much better nowadays. So a nice lcd as primary and the crt as secondary gaming display is what I like to use.
 
Boostage said:
WOW.. you were right after 45 mins I had the option or image restore. and now it looks WAAAAY betterI am pleased with it, HOWEVER. green still looks more flush on an LCD I adjusted the digital Vibrancy and that didnt help. I am going to try Windas and report again.
Click to expand...


WOW is right; I have two GDM-F520s, one new in the box and the other with about a gillion miles on it. The black level had gotton to where it looked like an LCD, because I did not know about Image Restore. I ran it and now the black level and contrast are like new again.

Amazing; who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks?

Dave
 
man , you can sell me your if you still have it. Give me a good deal since you dont like it anyway.
 
As i said in another thread , they need to remake these babies since alot of the old ones floating around are starting to crap out.
 
daveswantek said:
WOW is right; I have two GDM-F520s, one new in the box and the other with about a gillion miles on it. The black level had gotton to where it looked like an LCD, because I did not know about Image Restore. I ran it and now the black level and contrast are like new again.

Amazing; who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks?

Dave
Click to expand...

Now if only we could find a function to make our -F520s 16:10 format.
 
I've got a G400 that I snagged about a year and a half ago from someone that bought it brand new back in 2003 or so and only put about 2-3 months of actual use on it. Damned thing is awesome for a 19", easily the best one I've ever used. I can easily run most any resolution up to 2048x1536 (yes, that makes stuff extremely tiny, granted) but it's possible.

One thing that I love is I've got it adjusted to handle 1920x1200@85 Hz without breaking a sweat (meaning the picture height and width is adjusted to center the "widescreen" image where it should be). Normally I run 1600x1200@85 Hz, but whenever I encounter some HD content at proper 1080 resolution, it's nice to bump it to 1920x1200 and watch it without resizing.

Best $50 for a monitor I've ever spent in my life, and if I EVER get a chance to get an FW900 I damned well plan to do it, as long as it works great and isn't too expensive. They're old, but even I know what they're capable of and worth. Sure, I'd love to have a 24" LCD staring me in the face right now, but those damned beasts are worth it for those of us that care about the image quality.

And this comes from a guy that's owned 10 different SGI 1600SW 17.3" widescreen LCD panels over the years, still my favorite LCD ever and still one of THE best LCDs ever made in the history of computer displays. Fucking outrageous piece of hardware... ;)
 
Joe Average said:
One thing that I love is I've got it adjusted to handle 1920x1200@85 Hz without breaking a sweat (meaning the picture height and width is adjusted to center the "widescreen" image where it should be). Normally I run 1600x1200@85 Hz, but whenever I encounter some HD content at proper 1080 resolution, it's nice to bump it to 1920x1200 and watch it without resizing.
Click to expand...

I've set my 1920x1200 mode to do the same thing. I measured to get the correct 16:10 ratio, but I'd much rather have the real estate and aspect for normal computing too, instead of just letterboxing.
 
Surly73 said:
Now if only we could find a function to make our -F520s 16:10 format.
Click to expand...

When I bought my 520s I would not even consider the W900, because I did not like wide aspect. Now that I have gotten used to it, it is the other way arround. I would rather have wide aspect. The 520 does have slightly better specs tho.

Maybe I can heat the glass and strech it (he he).

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top