Talk me out of getting a CRT?

I

icor1031

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
1,295
I'm using a Catleap, now. It works well for everything, except gaming. There's so much blur in FPS games, that I can't figure out where to aim.

I was considering the Asus VG248QE (144Hz, LightBoost), but I read that:

It has a thick anti-glare coating. And, they changed their glue so it's almost impossible to remove it. Because of the coating, colors are washed out.
It's a TN, so the colors are going to be at least moderately bad.
Lightboost creates a purple(?) hue, so I'm left with:

Low saturation, purple hue, $270 lighter wallet, and a grainy image - just to gain low blur.


Is there any reason that I shouldn't look for a 21" CRT for gaming?
 
icor1031 said:
Is there any reason that I shouldn't look for a 21" CRT for gaming?
Click to expand...

I'm writing this on an EIZO T966. My FW900 is sitting in storage due to some issues, so this is my only active monitor. No LCD's in the house. Tried an IPS 4 months ago, one of the better ones, didn't like it at all and returned it.

The only issues with the CRT are the daytime glare, and the fact that 21" feels a bit cramped after a while. But it's not -too- bad. Still enough to be immersed in games especially with the great black level and colors. So I'm not complaining really and I picked it up fairly cheap back in 2010. Made in 2003 still works flawless. I'm not really interested in any LCD offerings right now so I hope it keeps running.

If you can find one in good shape that isn't too dark and the colors screwed up, then I'd say go for it. I didn't regret my purchase that's for sure.
 
Why we would talk you out of getting CRT? They are awesome. I'm just worried that you won't be able to find anything locally or it could be damaged with horizontal lines etc. In general you want it to do at least 1024x768@120hz and note that anything above 19-21" will happily do that as it was considered for professional use.
At the end If you give up on the idea, lightboost apparently is not so bad but it introduces some input lag which is why some quakers find it better to play without. The display technology is all screwed up at the moment, they are milking this whole LED/TFT fiasco as much as they can. Really I wanted is IPS + 144hz + lightboost in the next 2 years or so in case my CRT packs up.

p.s 4:3 > 16:9
 
pros of CRT:
1. CRTs have 0ms input lag
2. High refresh rates
3. Strobing so super smootch motion fluidity
4. Old games that do not support high resolutions look good
5. Superb color rendition
6. Superb contrast ratio
7. Cheap
8. Perfect viewing angles

cons CRT
1. Small diagonal size
2. Look outdated
3. 4:3 aspect ratio
4. VGA connector is needed and some new cards do not have it

pro LightBoost:
1. CRT motion fluidity
2. Larger diagonal size than CRT
3. Look more modern than CRT
4. 16:9 aspect ratio

cons LightBoost:
1. Weak color rendition
2. Weak viewing angles
3. Higher input lag than CRT

Best gaming monitors are GDM-FW900 and Eizo Foris FG2421. If you can afford either one then get it. If not get smaller CRR or LB.

21/22" CRT may be too small if game is run at 16:9 with black bars so you should consider this. Also issue of VGA connection being kinda outdated and removed from never cards will be if it is not already big problem. There is one DP to VGA converter that may be useful to make this non-issue but I have yet to buy it and test if it works properly. But such CRTs are cheap and colors are superb to anything LCD related so if someone near you sell one then you may buy it and use until better LCD monitors become available or until you buy GPU without VGA :)

LightBoost have on the other side kinda bad colors but at the same time is much more future proof and for competetive gaming it is good enough. Normal IPS for desktop and LightBoost monitor for gaming should be good combination.

You should consider G-Sync version, especially if you own Nvidia card that have improved color rendition in flickering mode and support G-Sync obviously which should give superb stutter-free gaming experience in never games with maxed out details and AA.
 
What causes the colors to go bad?

4ort said:
I'm writing this on an EIZO T966. My FW900 is sitting in storage due to some issues, so this is my only active monitor. No LCD's in the house. Tried an IPS 4 months ago, one of the better ones, didn't like it at all and returned it.

The only issues with the CRT are the daytime glare, and the fact that 21" feels a bit cramped after a while. But it's not -too- bad. Still enough to be immersed in games especially with the great black level and colors. So I'm not complaining really and I picked it up fairly cheap back in 2010. Made in 2003 still works flawless. I'm not really interested in any LCD offerings right now so I hope it keeps running.

If you can find one in good shape that isn't too dark and the colors screwed up, then I'd say go for it. I didn't regret my purchase that's for sure.
Click to expand...





That Eizo is a *VA.. The blur on my CPVA monitor is insane! I assume the Eizo has fast pixel refresh?
How does it compare to a CRT?


Also, you mentioned G-SYNC. Currently, the only monitor with G-SYNC compatibility is the Asus that I mentioned above, as I understand. And, the AG is frightening. Moreover, with the cost of the monitor + GSYNC kit, I could get that eizo.

XoR said:
pros of CRT:
Best gaming monitors are GDM-FW900 and Eizo Foris FG2421. If you can afford either one then get it. If not get smaller CRR or LB.

21/22" CRT may be too small if game is run at 16:9 with black bars so you should consider this. Also issue of VGA connection being kinda outdated and removed from never cards will be if it is not already big problem. There is one DP to VGA converter that may be useful to make this non-issue but I have yet to buy it and test if it works properly. But such CRTs are cheap and colors are superb to anything LCD related so if someone near you sell one then you may buy it and use until better LCD monitors become available or until you buy GPU without VGA :)

LightBoost have on the other side kinda bad colors but at the same time is much more future proof and for competetive gaming it is good enough. Normal IPS for desktop and LightBoost monitor for gaming should be good combination.

You should consider G-Sync version, especially if you own Nvidia card that have improved color rendition in flickering mode and support G-Sync obviously which should give superb stutter-free gaming experience in never games with maxed out details and AA.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
My CRT is in the closet since like 7 months ago got rid of my huge CRT desk and replaced it with a metal folding table it beats having two PCs setup in one room.
 
When it comes to eye strain / eye fatigue, LCD > CRT by far.

I worked on CRTs for years and owned a Sony 19" and a DELL 21".
Once I saw the sharpness and image "stability" of an LCD, the CRT appeared like an old flickering blurry TV to me. Even at 100Hz.

Why are we talking about CRTs in 2014? This technology became commercial in 1922, just let it die and move on.
That resistance to change will not make LCDs better. Negative feedback about them will.
 
I don't know why you should be asking someone to talk you out of something you want and think you'd benefit from.

For me, the two issues are size (volume) and power consumption.

I've never had a problem with FPS motion blur on an LCD--at least not where it impacted my game, though maybe you're far better than I am. :)
 
icor1031 said:
I'm using a Catleap, now. It works well for everything, except gaming. There's so much blur in FPS games, that I can't figure out where to aim.

I was considering the Asus VG248QE (144Hz, LightBoost), but I read that:

It has a thick anti-glare coating. And, they changed their glue so it's almost impossible to remove it. Because of the coating, colors are washed out.
It's a TN, so the colors are going to be at least moderately bad.
Lightboost creates a purple(?) hue, so I'm left with:

Low saturation, purple hue, $270 lighter wallet, and a grainy image - just to gain low blur.


Is there any reason that I shouldn't look for a 21" CRT for gaming?
Click to expand...



i'm using a benq xl2411t atm which has the same panel as the asus vg248qe. lightboost does indeed eliminate motion blur, however at the cost of washed-out, drab colors and grayish blacks, despite all tweaking.

were you able to overclock your catleap, and if yes, how much? did it still blur at 120 hz?

i wouldn't mind the smaller diagonal of a fw900, it's just its bulk and weight that puts me off.
 
icor1031 said:
Is there any reason that I shouldn't look for a 21" CRT for gaming?
Click to expand...
4:3

icor1031 said:
Also, you mentioned G-SYNC. Currently, the only monitor with G-SYNC compatibility is the Asus that I mentioned above, as I understand. And, the AG is frightening. Moreover, with the cost of the monitor + GSYNC kit, I could get that eizo.
Click to expand...

Asus will be selling that model with G-SYNC will $399

with CRT wouldn't settle for anything other than FW900/Variant because of 16:10
 
Last edited:
Another con to CRTs is that you are staring into a particle accelerator.

Gave up with monitors myself, got some 720p 120hz LED DLP projectors.
 
CYB34 said:
I worked on CRTs for years and owned a Sony 19" and a DELL 21".
Once I saw the sharpness and image "stability" of an LCD, the CRT appeared like an old flickering blurry TV to me. Even at 100Hz.
Click to expand...

I agree. When I tried my first LCD many years ago I ended up returning it and going back to CRT for a time. Image stability and clarity was something I immediately missed when I did so. Not having to deal with convergence, moire, or geometry issues was quite an asset as well.

Icor, look into the Asus MX279H. Rich, accurate colors and accurate grayscale out of the box, excellent marks for input lag at displaylag.com, an adjustable overdrive feature (forgot the name) that lets you fine tune motion blur handling. I tried one recently, and liked it quite a bit - nearly kept it, but ultimately wanted something bigger.
 
That might stop me from getting a CRT.. unless I can get a good deal on an FW900 (yeah, right..)

John721 said:
I agree. When I tried my first LCD many years ago I ended up returning it and going back to CRT for a time. Image stability and clarity was something I immediately missed when I did so. Not having to deal with convergence, moire, or geometry issues was quite an asset as well.
Click to expand...
 
For what it's worth, I finished Far Cry 3 on a 19-inch Dell M991 CRT at 1600x1200 75hz. I later finished it on a 1920x1080 monitor as well (this was before I had my FW900). I didn't feel the 4:3 aspect killed the experience for me. In fact, the only advantage the LCD had was that it was widescreen. Every other aspect, the CRT spanked the LCD (this tube has minimal use on it, and convergence, black levels, white levels, and geometry are still spot-on).

Go ahead and grab a CRT. There are tons of new Diamatron's that are new if you know where to look. You say you're in the midwest? Where exactly? There's an HP Diamatron (it's a Mitsu rebrand) 22-inch CRT in St. Louis that's apparently brand new for only $100. That monitor would absolutely blow many screens out of the water. Except, of course, if you HAVE to have widescreen.

Me? I'm not bothered by 4:3 and even prefer it in most cases. So I don't know what people are talking about when they say that the FW-900 is the only monitor you should consider. I would even suspect they don't own one and don't know of its shortcomings either (and I don't mean the obvious heft and power consumption).

Do know though, that CRT's drift over time. And that everything on a tube is "drifteable." Whereas with LCD monitors, you have to worry about the backlight dimming over time (or is that even an issue with LED's now?), with CRT the following will drift:

Focus, geometry, white-point-balance, luminance, black-levels, convergence, etc.

If you plan on keeping it for a while, you'd be wise to learn some CRT calibration while you're at it, and pick up a couple of used instruments on Ebay.
 
I was using a Philips 109p4 (and still do as I prefer it for Photoshop) exclusively for a very long time and getting a PWM-free LCD was a godsend for my health. Eye strain reduced drastically, headaches disappeared, face no longer felt flushed and the odd feeling of having something stuck in my throat is gone. I'd say I'm glad to be rid of CRT as my main display.

If you do color critical work and you're ready to recalibrate geometry every once in a while (I had to do this often as changes in room temperature were wreaking havoc. I also had to recalibrate colors occasionally), I wouldn't dissuade you from using a CRT. As long as you don't spend too much time on it. I know some people are more sensitive to CRT-related physiological problems than others, but everyone is susceptible to a degree.

Also, make sure you've got a good VGA cable. They will affect picture quality.

Oh and, keep them away from magnets of any sort.
 
I'm in SD.

jbltecnicspro said:
For what it's worth, I finished Far Cry 3 on a 19-inch Dell M991 CRT at 1600x1200 75hz. I later finished it on a 1920x1080 monitor as well (this was before I had my FW900). I didn't feel the 4:3 aspect killed the experience for me. In fact, the only advantage the LCD had was that it was widescreen. Every other aspect, the CRT spanked the LCD (this tube has minimal use on it, and convergence, black levels, white levels, and geometry are still spot-on).

Go ahead and grab a CRT. There are tons of new Diamatron's that are new if you know where to look. You say you're in the midwest? Where exactly? There's an HP Diamatron (it's a Mitsu rebrand) 22-inch CRT in St. Louis that's apparently brand new for only $100. That monitor would absolutely blow many screens out of the water. Except, of course, if you HAVE to have widescreen.

Me? I'm not bothered by 4:3 and even prefer it in most cases. So I don't know what people are talking about when they say that the FW-900 is the only monitor you should consider. I would even suspect they don't own one and don't know of its shortcomings either (and I don't mean the obvious heft and power consumption).

Do know though, that CRT's drift over time. And that everything on a tube is "drifteable." Whereas with LCD monitors, you have to worry about the backlight dimming over time (or is that even an issue with LED's now?), with CRT the following will drift:

Focus, geometry, white-point-balance, luminance, black-levels, convergence, etc.

If you plan on keeping it for a while, you'd be wise to learn some CRT calibration while you're at it, and pick up a couple of used instruments on Ebay.
Click to expand...
 
Siamese Almeida said:
I was using a Philips 109p4 (and still do as I prefer it for Photoshop) exclusively for a very long time and getting a PWM-free LCD was a godsend for my health. Eye strain reduced drastically, headaches disappeared, face no longer felt flushed and the odd feeling of having something stuck in my throat is gone. I'd say I'm glad to be rid of CRT as my main display.

If you do color critical work and you're ready to recalibrate geometry every once in a while (I had to do this often as changes in room temperature were wreaking havoc. I also had to recalibrate colors occasionally), I wouldn't dissuade you from using a CRT. As long as you don't spend too much time on it. I know some people are more sensitive to CRT-related physiological problems than others, but everyone is susceptible to a degree.

Also, make sure you've got a good VGA cable. They will affect picture quality.

Oh and, keep them away from magnets of any sort.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I know that certain people do have this issue, and I'm glad to say that I'm not affected. Sorry to read this. :(
 
icor1031 said:
*No* results for FW900 in the midwest. lol
Click to expand...
Lol the odds you finding one local this very second is slim to none.
Shit gets posted all time so you never knows could find one tomorrow.

Posted link for future searches
 
Last edited:
The sony was sold as an SGI and I believe an HP as well.
My buddy had the SGI one and held on to it till it failed.
I think it was around 90lbs.
 
CYB34 said:
When it comes to eye strain / eye fatigue, LCD > CRT by far.

I worked on CRTs for years and owned a Sony 19" and a DELL 21".
Once I saw the sharpness and image "stability" of an LCD, the CRT appeared like an old flickering blurry TV to me. Even at 100Hz.
Click to expand...

I disagree. While LCDs are sharper with static images, I got way less eye strain with CRTs. Any PWM LCD is automatically eliminated from being strain free, and all LCDs have terrible motion sharpness. I always had high quality CRTs, though, cheaper ones were bad.


Why are we talking about CRTs in 2014? This technology became commercial in 1922, just let it die and move on.
That resistance to change will not make LCDs better. Negative feedback about them will.
Click to expand...

LCDs are a poor display technology and a regression compared to CRTs in many ways. Just because something is old, doesn't mean it is inferior. Their pros compared to LCDs by far outweigh the cons for me.
 
Meeho said:
I disagree. While LCDs are sharper with static images, I got way less eye strain with CRTs. Any PWM LCD is automatically eliminated from being strain free, and all LCDs have terrible motion sharpness. I always had high quality CRTs, though, cheaper ones were bad.




LCDs are a poor display technology and a regression compared to CRTs in many ways. Just because something is old, doesn't mean it is inferior. Their pros compared to LCDs by far outweigh the cons for me.
Click to expand...

CRT's in some circumstances are just vital. But for the VAST majority of users CRT's are done and over with. If you even go as far as to buy what's widely considered the best one readily available it seems like you'll still have a bitch of a time getting it working right. Its not as simple as plugging in and just "go".

While we on this forum as very much the minority on this topic , the rest of the world has moved on. Even if you buy a barely used FW900 its already quite an old monitor which means you have to deal with failing components. Just look at the FW900 Ebay topic for how that can go and just how frustrating it can be. If you invest the time and money it can be really rewarding but its still a dead technology for the most part.

We will all just have to patiently wait for the improvements that are coming and will become standard in a few years time. OLED didn't save the day like we thought it would and its still years away from being ready for our needs so we'll have to hope things like ULBM , G-sync/Freesync , 120hz as a standard refresh rate and continual panel improvements get us there faster.

At this point I would only personally recommend a CRT to the absolute motion freak who doesn't mind a lot of tweaking and possibly hardware repair depending on the age and usage of that monitor. I myself really had a big conflict regarding buying a FW900 , I really wanted one but the amount of issues I would be dealing with were almost as great potentially as the benefits.
 
^^ Pretty much. An Eizo FG2421 (or one of the newer, non-hack lightboost monitors) does what most gamers need except for the extreme. I really don't see how doing all the various adjustments and maintenance required to a ten-year-old monitor is worth it to play video games at home. But I'm over 30 now and even computer builds get long in the tooth at times.

2014 sounds like it should be a pretty good year for gaming monitors anyways.
 
If you're looking for something closer towards CRT's virtues (e.g., depth of image, big dynamic range), Vizio is supposedly releasing a 50 inch 2160p 64 zone full array local dimmer for $1000 later this year.

64 zones is not enough to really approximate an emissive display, such CRT, OLED, etc., and no idea about motion, lag, and such, though...still it's definitely caused some excitement....
 
phillyboy said:
^^ Pretty much. An Eizo FG2421 (or one of the newer, non-hack lightboost monitors) does what most gamers need except for the extreme. I really don't see how doing all the various adjustments and maintenance required to a ten-year-old monitor is worth it to play video games at home. But I'm over 30 now and even computer builds get long in the tooth at times.

2014 sounds like it should be a pretty good year for gaming monitors anyways.
Click to expand...

If you know what you're doing, it should take four-five hours tops to recalibrate an FW900 (assuming you have a good unit :D). Simply warm it up, go through the steps in WinDAS, make sure it's correct. Done. Do it again one year later. It's not at all inconvenient as it may seem.

EDIT: I should reiterate though. It does take practice to get it correct. I myself am getting there... Slowly but surely. But even still, I have a bunch to learn. For me - it's a blast and I really love it. I can totally see why people don't want to go through the hassle though. In full disclosure, I'm a programmer and a musician, so I like studying and doing tedious things for hours on end. ;)
 
CRT's are great, but 4:3 and small screen size sucks. I couldn't imagine ever going back to a 20" monitor again.


You will hate your self from going 27"-->20"
 
Hagrid said:
I don't miss my CRT's. Too much room it took!
Click to expand...

desk-3-2004.jpg


room-2012-1.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top