is this CRT good? NEC accusync 120-BK

S

spacediver

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 14, 2013
Messages
2,715
NEC-Mitsubishi AS (accusync) 120-BK

found a couple in good condition (barely used) for a steal.

According to this site, it has a dot pitch (horizontal) of 0.22mm!!! That's as fine as the GDM-F520.

But it's apparently also a shadow mask

http://www.usfreeads.com/633469-cls.html

Any CRT old timers know much about this monitor? Hard to find info on it it seems.
 
it is probably not as good as Trinitron or Diamondtron models but nice CRT nevertheless
if you have use for them then buy them :)
 
thanks, ended up finding a viewsonic g225f so am gonna try get that one instead. It's actually for a young colleague of mine who I'm convincing to try out a crt. I've told him all about my fw900's and he got intrigued.
 
If I remember correctly, it's because the 2560x1440 acts like "free" antialiasing because the FW900 can't resolve that resolution completely.
 
then why not use a resolution that's sufficiently high to provide this effect, but at the proper aspect ratio? 1.77 is gonna distort everything - circles won't be circular anymore, etc.
 
I have a Dell P991 it's a Trinitron I bought two of them one had some massive lines going all over the place just for using it for 10 years.

I switched to ASUS led LCD a few weeks ago I'm glad I did took about two weeks to get used to it.

I was using the CRT for most everything now I'm totally converted.
 
jbltecnicspro said:
If I remember correctly, it's because the 2560x1440 acts like "free" antialiasing because the FW900 can't resolve that resolution completely.
Click to expand...

Yes, but it depends on how your like your "AA" effects. It blurs the entire image just like FXAA.

The highest sharply-resolvable image from Trinitron/Diamondtron CRTs is the following:

24" = 1920x1200
22" = 1600x1200
19" = 1280x960
17" = 1024x768

But you can go higher if you don't mind a little blur.
 
spacediver said:
then why not use a resolution that's sufficiently high to provide this effect, but at the proper aspect ratio? 1.77 is gonna distort everything - circles won't be circular anymore, etc.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not going to speak for him anymore. I'm just trying to recall the reason he gave on the FW900 forum a while back. I myself don't use a 16:9 resolution on my FW900. Hopefully he'll answer the question, but I don't know. 2304x1440 seems to do the same thing, but I remember him saying something that 2560x1440 is somehow better? I don't know. :confused:
 
defaultluser said:
Yes, but it depends on how your like your "AA" effects. It blurs the entire image just like FXAA.

The highest sharply-resolvable image from Trinitron/Diamondtron CRTs is the following:

24" = 1920x1200
22" = 1600x1200
19" = 1280x960
17" = 1024x768

But you can go higher if you don't mind a little blur.
Click to expand...

Yeah - agree with you. I was just giving his reason that he stated awhile back on the FW900 thread. I myself don't mind the "blur" and have taken my Dell Trinitron (19-incher) up to its 1600x1200 "recommended" in games. For normal desktop usage, I had it at 1280x960. The 1600x1200 definitely gave higher clarity than the 1280x960, but because it couldn't completely resolve the 1600x1200, it didn't have as many aliasing artifacts. One of the reasons I prefer CRT over LCD. When I went and got my 1080p Samsung monitor - even at 21.5 inches, it was swamped with aliasing artifacts while only being a tad sharper. I understand that's obviously what anti-aliasing is for, but my video card isn't fast enough to do that resolution with AA in recent games.
 
jbltecnicspro said:
Yeah - agree with you. I was just giving his reason that he stated awhile back on the FW900 thread. I myself don't mind the "blur" and have taken my Dell Trinitron (19-incher) up to its 1600x1200 "recommended" in games. For normal desktop usage, I had it at 1280x960. The 1600x1200 definitely gave higher clarity than the 1280x960, but because it couldn't completely resolve the 1600x1200, it didn't have as many aliasing artifacts. One of the reasons I prefer CRT over LCD. When I went and got my 1080p Samsung monitor - even at 21.5 inches, it was swamped with aliasing artifacts while only being a tad sharper. I understand that's obviously what anti-aliasing is for, but my video card isn't fast enough to do that resolution with AA in recent games.
Click to expand...

I also game on a 19" CRT (Visionmaster Pro 454), and although I do like the 1600x1200 mode for for photo/video editing, I personally cannot stand blur for anything else, so I game and browse the web at 1280x960.
 
spacediver said:
then why not use a resolution that's sufficiently high to provide this effect, but at the proper aspect ratio? 1.77 is gonna distort everything - circles won't be circular anymore, etc.
Click to expand...
aspect ratio is just fine because I can change vertical and horizontal size on CRTs
going from 16:10 to 16:9 add small black bars which I don't mind at all. I am fine with smaller viewing because increased FOV in games is worth it. Besides games are designed for 16:9 in mind as it is new industry standard.

jbltecnicspro said:
If I remember correctly, it's because the 2560x1440 acts like "free" antialiasing because the FW900 can't resolve that resolution completely.
Click to expand...
yes and no

it maybe can't resolve it completely like you say but it's not like hacks to get 2560x1440 on 1920x1080 screen either because vertical resolution is resolved 100% and only horizontal is affected and not to such drastic degree. Basically raster fonts like on Win98 made from pixel thin lines are pretty much visible even at that resolution.

Technicalities aside picture at 2560x1440 with post-processing AA looks way sharper than 1920x1080 without AA and less aliased than on 1920x1080 with 4xMSAA and MLAA. Obviously 2560x1440 is winner both image quality and performance wise :)
 
XoR said:
yes and no

it maybe can't resolve it completely like you say but it's not like hacks to get 2560x1440 on 1920x1080 screen either because vertical resolution is resolved 100% and only horizontal is affected and not to such drastic degree. Basically raster fonts like on Win98 made from pixel thin lines are pretty much visible even at that resolution.

Technicalities aside picture at 2560x1440 with post-processing AA looks way sharper than 1920x1080 without AA and less aliased than on 1920x1080 with 4xMSAA and MLAA. Obviously 2560x1440 is winner both image quality and performance wise :)
Click to expand...

Good point. You're right about the vertical resolution being technically "infinite." On my monitor it's not blur city when I jump to 1600x1200, but it's a bit less crisp, and I'm quite picky :D

My only experience has been with entry-level and mid-range AG monitors, which as a result of their lower cost do not have the top-quality dot clock and filters. Making the electron beam consistently tight would be an absolute requirement of the professional fw900, so you could really see an improvement when you go beyond the horizontal pitch.

But hey, you expect nothing less than the best for $2000 :D

The mainstream 22" AG monitors could be had for a measly $1000!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top