IPS vs CRT (Sony GDMFW900)

[elessarjd]

I know, weird topic but... I just picked up a new 24" Dell u2412m IPS monitor. This is my first IPS monitor and I really like the colors and crispness. There's one thing that is bothering me though and that's IPS glow. Which brings me to considering the Sony CRT. If I could get my hands on one of these 24" widescreen beasts and I don't mind the size and weight, is there really any other disadvantage when compared to an LED IPS monitor?

 

[Namelessme]

CRTs will have a lack of crispness when compared to LCD. They may also have geometry issues, and of course put out more heat. The biggest issue is simply the fact that they haven't made them for around 10+ years, so even if you track down a working one, no saying how long it'll last or what condition it is in.

The AG coating on the 2412 bothers a lot of people, which I would think trump IPS glow issues. If you wanted to stay with LCD, other options are LightBoost TNs (CRT-like motion, bad angles, less color accuracy), another IPS (some 27" PLS models supposedly have less glow), or go for a VA (potential ghosting, worse angles when compared to IPS).

 

[Pocatello]

OP,

you did not say what you want out of the monitor.

Your needs, professional, gaming, movie, TV, what exactly?

 

[elessarjd]

OP,

you did not say what you want out of the monitor.

My bad, I use it for gaming primarily.

CRTs will have a lack of crispness when compared to LCD. They may also have geometry issues, and of course put out more heat. The biggest issue is simply the fact that they haven't made them for around 10+ years, so even if you track down a working one, no saying how long it'll last or what condition it is in.

The AG coating on the 2412 bothers a lot of people, which I would think trump IPS glow issues. If you wanted to stay with LCD, other options are LightBoost TNs (CRT-like motion, bad angles, less color accuracy), another IPS (some 27" PLS models supposedly have less glow), or go for a VA (potential ghosting, worse angles when compared to IPS).

Thanks, that helps a lot. I'm pretty disappointed about the IPS glow. My previous monitor was an LG 25" widescreen TN panel that had a pretty washed out look and not so great viewing angles. I figured IPS would be the way to go, but didn't realize the IPS glow would bother me as much as it does. It almost looks like a bad viewing angle issue, especially in dark scenes/images. I really prefer not going to a 27" monitor, so that leaves me with TN or VA. Ghosting is a major concern of mine so I'm hesitant about VA. My old monitor was TN and I'm concerned about the washed out look in a new TN. Could it be that newer TNs will look much better compared to my 6-7 year old TN, especially considering new TNs use LED vs CCFL? I automatically assumed IPS would be the answer, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[XoR]

it is best gaming monitor for sure but for general desktop usage it is far from perfect and I strongly advise against it. First it have way too bright phosphor, it is serious design flaw and because of it it have really poor contrast ratio with any ambient light and also causes above crt average flaring which is big issue by itself. Then come eye fatigue issues. I have very good unit when it comes to wear off with great sharpness but still it is CRT... CRTs just tire eyes and that is scientific fact

It is good practice imho to use FW900 as secondary monitor only for gaming and as main display still use IPS. It have double sense because CRT like FW900 have limited lifespan and using it to display white desktop all day long would be very not nice to say the least...

 

[jbltecnicspro]

it is best gaming monitor for sure but for general desktop usage it is far from perfect and I strongly advise against it. First it have way too bright phosphor, it is serious design flaw and because of it it have really poor contrast ratio with any ambient light and also causes above crt average flaring which is big issue by itself. Then come eye fatigue issues. I have very good unit when it comes to wear off with great sharpness but still it is CRT... CRTs just tire eyes and that is scientific fact

It is good practice imho to use FW900 as secondary monitor only for gaming and as main display still use IPS. It have double sense because CRT like FW900 have limited lifespan and using it to display white desktop all day long would be very not nice to say the least...

Interesting. From reading this, it sounds like you have your G2 voltage set too high. My FW900 definitely doesn't have too bright a phosphor or contrast ratio issues. In fact, it destroys the Samsung I'm using right now.

OP - My advice is to go big or go home. That is, an FW900 is a nice monitor - really nice monitor. But there are way too many factors in getting a used one that make it not worth owning. If I were you, I'd save my pennies for a Vito A+ FW900, or don't get one at all. As far as CRT's being consumable... It's true, but I think that most harp on it more than it deserves. CRT's need calibration. There's no getting around it. I have an FW900 and I love mine. Great screen. Heavy as shit to carry. I'm going to be sending mine to Vito in California to do a calibration and have the AG removed (it's nicked). If you want some more advice, PM me.

These screens are awesome, but you have to do it right - otherwise you'll end up getting a dud. And the scary part is that there's no way of telling unless you're blessed enough to be within a short drive of one of these beauties to actually put it through a REAL test-drive. As far as vision and such is concerned... I've used mine for hours on end and I never felt tired. Then my eyes are only 25-years-old. I don't know. Not to be a CRT evangelist, but when I read posts like the above, I have to wonder if said user has an FW900 or, in this case, if there's something wrong with it. And I'm not trying to put you down XoR - but I personally don't experience the issues you're talking about.

 

[XoR]

my G2 is fine because at night black level is superb
my FW900 have AG removed due to some scratches and it made issue more pronounced
difference looks like this: (not my photo)

and this is my FW900

if LCD was showing black it would be darker (even from that angle thanks to A-TW and it's 'no ips-glow' effect ) even at 100% brightness

with AG still on its contrast at those situations was better than it is now but flaring (inner glass reflections to be precise) was bigger so removing it is tradeoff , it made one annoyance stronger and another weaker

I have my old IBM P275 which is also Trinitron but 21" 4:3 and it have dark and faster phosphor and have superior image quality with better contrast and less flaring

at work I have here Flatron 915FT Plus and it have almost black screen (LCD black) and have way better colors than GDM-FW900 and P275 and have almost no flaring at all...

 

[spacediver]

Then come eye fatigue issues. I have very good unit when it comes to wear off with great sharpness but still it is CRT... CRTs just tire eyes and that is scientific fact

CRTs tire eyes at low refresh rates. You can adjust the refresh rate of a CRT. I'm very sensitive to eye strain, and experience none whatsoever at 85hz or above.

 

[Namelessme]

CRTs tire eyes at low refresh rates. You can adjust the refresh rate of a CRT. I'm very sensitive to eye strain, and experience none whatsoever at 85hz or above.

I can't speak for others, but I think it is more the fact that text can be blurry (or blurrier) than LCDs that can lead to eye strain. Refresh rate helps, and yeah, 85 or higher was about my cutoff too, but text won't be as crisp as on an LCD.

Best idea is probably what XoR recommended above. Use an IPS (or VA) for general PC stuff, and a CRT for gaming. That assumes the OP has space for both and can find a decent CRT.

 

[SH1]

XoR -- still can't figure out what you mean by dark phosphor. In any case, if you can't adjust the intensity of the phosphors to your liking then your FW900 is probably out of adjustment or broken. A working model can have a darkly lit, but still lush and gorgeous picture.

It certainly is true that CRTs have highly reflective screens (extremely so without the anti-glare layer) and really do need controlled ambient light to show to their best advantage.

 

[XoR]

@SH1
no, I cannot adjust phosphor to my likings because they are behind thick glass in vacuum tube
for what phosphor is see Wiki

@spacediver
flicker is not only CRT problem when it comes to desktop usage
I am not suggesting it is terrible, some people may even prefer CRT to LCD but general population will find IPS to be way better for those kind of tasks

 

[SH1]

@SH1
no, I cannot adjust phosphor to my likings because they are behind thick glass in vacuum tube
for what phosphor is see Wiki

@spacediver
flicker is not only CRT problem when it comes to desktop usage
I am not suggesting it is terrible, some people may even prefer CRT to LCD but general population will find IPS to be way better for those kind of tasks

What a phosphor is? Seriously?

What is at question is what you mean by a "dark" phosphor. Do you mean it's too bright a shade of red, green, or blue? What are you talking about??

What you seem to be suggesting is that the phosphors are too luminous. If that is the case and your display is still fully functional -- this should indeed be adjustable.

 

[SH1]

@SH1
no, I cannot adjust phosphor to my likings because they are behind thick glass in vacuum tube
for what phosphor is see Wiki

@spacediver
flicker is not only CRT problem when it comes to desktop usage
I am not suggesting it is terrible, some people may even prefer CRT to LCD but general population will find IPS to be way better for those kind of tasks

(Obviously by adjustable I mean not how excitable the particular phosphors are, but am speaking with regard to being able to select the energy that is applied to them. I've had these monitors for many years and they can be very darkly lit, but still gorgeous, if the monitor is still in proper working order.)

 

[spacediver]

also, the fact that you run it at 2560x1440 72Hz might have something to do with the image quality...

 

[XoR]

phosphor is thing that get illuminated when electron beam hit it from other side
it is responsible for color of monitor screen when it is off

this monitor is OFF and when it is on black on such screen will be the same as when it is off

does this image show good black level?

any LCD, even first IPS models with 400:1 contrast ratio will destroy FW900 in black level and contrast ratio in that lighting condition

my FW900 is good condition with great blacks at night. And I run it now at 2560x1440@80Hz, have to change sig

 

[spacediver]

And I run it now at 2560x1440@80Hz, have to change sig

yea, I'm not so sure that's the best way to run this monitor. For one, it is beyond the official spec. Second, it's not the right aspect ratio, so you'd need to use the geometry controls to compensate - doesn't seem like the smartest idea.

Have you tried running 1920x1200 @ 85 hz? Do you get eye strain then?

 

[SH1]

phosphor is thing that get illuminated when electron beam hit it from other side
it is responsible for color of monitor screen when it is off

this monitor is OFF and when it is on black on such screen will be the same as when it is off

does this image show good black level?

any LCD, even first IPS models with 400:1 contrast ratio will destroy FW900 in black level and contrast ratio in that lighting condition

my FW900 is good condition with great blacks at night. And I run it now at 2560x1440@80Hz, have to change sig

Though I don't know how much variation there is in raw phosphor color in that respect, I certainly agree that CRTs need controlled ambient lighting to display to their best advantage.

As to resolution, I assume 2560 is to effect an intentional blurring to achieve a kind of free anti-aliasing. I did the same with the original Halo to kind of make up for that game's lack of PC supported anti-aliasing back then...

 

[Vega]

Ya, the FW900 was really more suited to 1920x1200 as that's about what the dot pitch size in the phosphor screen is. Resolution above that didn't really help anyway on the 22.5" viewable.

 

[jbltecnicspro]

Ya, the FW900 was really more suited to 1920x1200 as that's about what the dot pitch size in the phosphor screen is. Resolution above that didn't really help anyway on the 22.5" viewable.

Agreed. I almost never use the max resolution and always keep it at 1920x1200 or lower.

 

[Valnar]

You sure you didn't talk yourself into hating the IPS glow? Sometimes reading too much on the Internet is bad for your sanity. Yah, it's there, but it doesn't bother me. I just keep some lights on in the room. You shouldn't be playing in the dark anyway (same is true for watching TV in the dark without bias lighting).

Saying that, I'm going to purposely muddy things up the opposite way and be Devil's advocate. Compare your IPS or a CRT to a TN panel on this page, especially the viewing angle test.
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

 

[Mark Rejhon]

Compare your IPS or a CRT to a TN panel on this page, especially the viewing angle test.
http://www.lagom.nl/lcd-test/

I am personally far less bothered by this, than I am bothered by LCD motion blur. LightBoost, all the way. (or G-Sync monitor's confirmed strobe mode)