Mitsubishi 2070sb CRT: How to calibrate & is it normal?

M

Michael_

n00b
Joined
Jan 14, 2023
Messages
26
I just bought a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070sb for 400 bucks.
Two questions:

1.
I have 2 very thin horizontal lines 1 about 3,15" below the top, the other about 3,15" above the bottom.
Is that normal? They're very thin, i did not even notice them at first. If not normal can this be fixed? How?
I can't see them when the monitor is turned off.
Its also not as sharp (noticed reading text) as my current EIZO Flexscan EV2450. I guess that's probably normal aswell?

2.
As far as i know these crts are still superior to most flatscreens at displaying colors and differentiate shades of grey.
So i would like to use this monitor to look at some CT and MRI pictures. For that it needs to precisely display and differentiate many different shades of grey.
I already compared it to my lcd and displayed a grey scale and it does not look off but i think i should probably do a calibration on the monitor?

I never calibrated any monitor and it is the first CRT i ever bought. Back in 2003 when it was built i was about 8 years old.
So how do i go about calibrating it or checking if its even necessary? I want to do it the right way.

Apart from that everything works fine.
I currently run it @ 1600x1200 and 109hz.
 
Last edited:
For the first question, this is what you're seeing (taken from the manual):

"Thin horizontal lines are normal for an aperture grille CRT and are not a malfunction. These are shadows from the
damper wires used to stabilize the aperture grille and are most noticeable when the screen’s background is light
(usually white)."
 
Michael_ said:
Its also not as sharp (noticed reading text) as my current EIZO Flexscan EV2450. I guess that's probably normal aswell?
Click to expand...

I just connected it to an older laptop with vga output running mx linux and trinity desktop and the text appears way sharper there.
So i guess its either windows 10 related/needs configured or because of the gpu/converter used which is: https://www.delock.de/produkt/87685/merkmale.html
GPU is a Nvidia Geforce GT 1030. :)

AwesomeOwl said:
For the first question, this is what you're seeing (taken from the manual):

"Thin horizontal lines are normal for an aperture grille CRT and are not a malfunction. These are shadows from the
damper wires used to stabilize the aperture grille and are most noticeable when the screen’s background is light
(usually white)."
Click to expand...

Thanks i'm happy to see thats normal. :)
 
Michael_ said:
Its also not as sharp (noticed reading text) as my current EIZO Flexscan EV2450. I guess that's probably normal aswell?
Click to expand...

Michael_ said:
I just connected it to an older laptop with vga output running mx linux and trinity desktop and the text appears way sharper there.
So i guess its either windows 10 related/needs configured or because of the gpu/converter used which is: https://www.delock.de/produkt/87685/merkmale.html
GPU is a Nvidia Geforce GT 1030. :)
Click to expand...

Changing scaling in windows settings from 100% to 125% fixes the "sharpness" issue but obviously also costs screen space.
 
I spent some time comparing the Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070sb (CRT) with my EIZO Flexscan EV2450 (LCD).
I compared images, grey scales and even gta vice city.

To me they are relatively close, unfortunately i think the eizo is even somewhat better in regards of sharpness and contrast.

I'm not a gamer and i did not buy the monitor because i wanted a superior image so thats not a problem for me.
I actually think for the monitor being 20 years old its pretty impressiv how it stacks up.
You can see the difference pretty clearly comparing it to my 2008 laptop lcd display and i think it's probably still better than more affordable modern lcds.
I also did not calibrate the Mitsubishi yet.

That said will a Sony GDM-FW900 deliver an even better picture or just more screen space?
Because if its not delivering a better picture i think it's overhyped since we already have high refresh rate lcds. :)
 
CRTs can present text in a softer, glowy, way that some such as myself find very pleasing. However, LCD should always prevail in raw sharpness. You're basically comparing a fixed array of pixels to something that in the former case is more like a projector inside.

Dynamic range/blacks, true multi-scan, and above all these days retention of resolution during motion combined with the other positive attributes, are more why CRT is still sought by some for enthusiast purposes. Not for text...

Comparison of CRTs gets somewhat subjective. The FW900 might have some advantages, e.g., tighter pitch in the center than all but the F520 (but looser on the sides versus other CRTs), some other stuff, but the main reason I think the FW900 is popular is because its wide screen, which is vary rare. And it's bigger. And in a striking way, even more than the actual dimensions would suggest...
 
Michael_ said:
That said will a Sony GDM-FW900 deliver an even better picture or just more screen space?
Because if its not delivering a better picture i think it's overhyped since we already have high refresh rate lcds. :)
Click to expand...
More screen space to be honest. FW900's widescreen and largeness are what makes it desireable. It's not the best CRT ever made though unless widescreen support is a must. I have owned an F520, Artisan, FW900, and a couple of highend Diamondtron monitors. I would easily rank the Diamondtron among the top Trinitrons and even say they're better in build quality. :)
 
Anyone knows aside from eBay where to buy a good 2nd handed FW900? Wanting to collect the best CRT that ever been released to consumers.
 
Xar said:
Anyone knows aside from eBay where to buy a good 2nd handed FW900? Wanting to collect the best CRT that ever been released to consumers.
Click to expand...

The problem isnt buying it, it is shipping it.
 
I'm currently using the monitor on a daily basis at home.

Does someone know the specs for max. brightness and contrast?

I can't find them in the user manual.

I just found ballpark information here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_CRT,_LCD,_plasma,_and_OLED_displays

and someone saying lcds are superior regarding contrast on quora:
https://www.quora.com/Are-CRT-monit...CD-in-terms-of-resolution-and-contrast-ratios
No, LCDs are far superior to the best that CRTs ever were, in both regards. Contrary to a popular misconception, a properly adjusted CRT could not provide better contrast than current LCDs. The black level of the video had to be set somewhat into the “on” state of the CRT (i.e., there would be a little bit of beam current even at the “black” level). If you set up the CRT so that the beam was solidly off at the black level, the bottom end of the gray scale would be extremely non-linear. Even with that, though, the actual delivered contrast for both technologies would generally be limited by reflected ambient light, not what light the display would actually produce when set to “black.”
Click to expand...

But contrast ratio of Typical 200–300:1 and peak brightness of 176 cd/m2 seems too low? Especially in Super Bright Mode.
 
"200–300:1"...yeah that sounds ballpark for a CRT. "200-350 maybe". Presumably a reference to contrast within a single image, where LCD is superior. As exposed by an ANSI test pattern.

CRT goes up to 15000 :1 though or more in terms of contrast between images. So called on/off contrast. And LCDs just can't follow them into the dark scenes that benefit from that. That and that real content can be far removed from an ANSI test pattern is why CRT pictures can look so much deeper than LCD. LCDs have a work around that works pretty well though, if not perfectly, in Full Array Local Dimming. Long limited to TVs, but in many monitors now too. (Avoid the edge lit ones I guess.)

Would certainly not look to a CRT for peak brightness. Cranking the brightness distorts their pictures. Best off minimizing it and limiting CRT enthusiast use to rooms where you can dim ambient light.

I don't know anything about medical imaging or the history of displays associated therewith. However, wouldn't the images be brighter and wouldn't 4K resolution on an LCD or OLED be much better?

I love CRTs, but I'm really thinking more gaming where their beautiful pictures in a dimly lit room + preserved motion resolution still shine. Not for medical use. (Although again, I don't know much about that...)
 
Michael_ said:
I'm currently using the monitor on a daily basis at home.

Does someone know the specs for max. brightness and contrast?

I can't find them in the user manual.

I just found ballpark information here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_CRT,_LCD,_plasma,_and_OLED_displays

and someone saying lcds are superior regarding contrast on quora:
https://www.quora.com/Are-CRT-monit...CD-in-terms-of-resolution-and-contrast-ratios


But contrast ratio of Typical 200–300:1 and peak brightness of 176 cd/m2 seems too low? Especially in Super Bright Mode.
Click to expand...
That contrast is ANSI checkerboard contrast. Typical CRT monitors do about 3,000-5,000:1 contrast depending on what gamma you calibrate to, though SH1 is correct. The top end ones can go beyond 10,000:1. My old Viewsonic, which is NOT the best example of the tech, does about 3,400:1. Better than any LCD I have, and motion resolution is superior.

As for the FW-900… :(. You’re about 15 years too late. Back then they were selling for a few hundred bucks. Not anymore. I wouldn’t lose sleep over it.
 
SH1 jbltecnicspro Thanks for the clarification. :)

SH1 said:
Would certainly not look to a CRT for peak brightness. Cranking the brightness distorts their pictures.
Click to expand...

I currently run mine in SB (Super Bright) Mode all the time.
I'm happy with the picture.

Can this harm the monitor long term or will it just "distort" the picture?
I'm actually pretty happy with the picture in super bright mode 1 (picture).
 
Michael_ said:
SH1 jbltecnicspro Thanks for the clarification. :)



I currently run mine in SB (Super Bright) Mode all the time.
I'm happy with the picture.

Can this harm the monitor long term or will it just "distort" the picture?
I'm actually pretty happy with the picture in super bright mode 1 (picture).
Click to expand...
You’ll run the guns a little harder so it won’t last as long but fuck it. Yolo!
 
As jbltecnicspro said.

As to rate of decay or such, well, it's more I've assumed the effect of driving a CRT hard would not be subtle.

I have ones that have a feature like that. 3 different bands of brightness, which I run at 100 percent contrast and maybe 35 brightness or less. However, I feel ok running at full contrast, because it's running in the dimmest of the 3 bands. Oldest in usage has gotten to 18K and still looks great. I might just be lucky with that one though.

I guess maybe you're running in a bright room? I keep things kind of dim around here...
 
SH1 said:
I guess maybe you're running in a bright room? I keep things kind of dim around here...
Click to expand...

There is no daylight but four 100w incandescent light bulbs.
So its not as bright as daylight but also not dim.

But i'm currently running without super bright mode and the lights somewhat dimmed.
There are some cases where i put the super bright mode back on but most of the time i can leave it off.

That being said, i'm still experimenting with different settings. :)
But overall i'm happy with the monitor so far.
 
It's about 2 weeks now since i started using this monitor as my main monitor.
I really like everything except:

This monitor can easily do 2048x1536 @ 85hz but when i use any resolution higher than 1280x960 i have trouble reading the text. Its to small/not sharp enough.
I actually have the best results running 1600x1200 @ 85hz + 125% scaling in windows 10 settings. This gives me a usable resolution of 1280x960 according to whatismyscreenresolution.net but sharper/text is easier to read than using this resolution direct without scaling (up). Well no surprise really...
BTW: I could also use 2048x1536 + scaling of course to get it even sharper but then i'm really limited at 85hz refresh rate. Right now i could go higher in refresh rate if i wanted to.

I also tried to just make the text bigger in windows settings:
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us...-windows-1d5830c3-eee3-8eaa-836b-abcc37d99b9a
This messed up the spacing between my desktop icons (had to fix the registry) and did not even enlarge all text.
The Time and Date in the Taskbar for example it did not change at all. Some Software it also doesn't seem to change.

Is there anything i can do or is a CRT just not the best fit for windows 10?
I'm sure it will do better on Linux with Trinity desktop (KDE 3 based) or something like windows xp, maybe with the classic theme enabled.

The only thing constantly reminding me that i use an anicent CRT monitor is the fact that i can only run it at 1280x960 if i want to be able to read/see stuff easily.
 
I just used an LCD equipped Laptop from 2008 for the first time after 2 weeks of only CRT.
Its a day and night difference in text sharpness. At first you think something must be wrong with the CRT Monitor. But after a couple minutes you get used to it again. :D
 
I just took a couple pictures with my iphone.
They are not perfect and show a few artifacts that aren't there in reality. (It picked up a bit of invisible flicker)

But going by them is this how this monitor is supposed to look or should it be sharper?
Pictures have been taken using 1600x1200 @ 85hz + 125% scaling in windows 10 settings resulting in 1280x960 usable resolution.
Super Bright Mode 1 and dimmed ambient lights (room) have been applied while shooting the photos.

image0.jpegimage1.jpegimage2.jpegimage3.jpegimage4.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top