why some people think CRT monitors are better than LCD?
>>51742834
Because some CRT are better than bad LCD
Because they have fast response times and nice blacks.
But a good quality lcd has those too, and are way less bulky.
Higher refresh rates, better blacks, better response times.
>>51742834
Incredible colors and refresh rates. They only lack the ``fits in my skinny jeans'' form factor homosexuals who are the vocal minority like to whine and cry like the bitches that raised them without fathers did,
>>51742834
When they refer to CRTs, they really mean the top-tier GOAT CRTs like the Trinitrons and the Diamondtrons. Those still comfortably hold their own even today. CRTs are famous for their true blacks.
They're larger and more susceptible to distortion via magnetism
Same reason guitarists like tube amps over solid state.
they cause cancer
>>51742906
>fast response time
>nice black
>>51742913
>>51742920
I have 19" Viewsonic P95f. I cant use it because there isnt enough space in my desk, but how good is it?
>high resolutions
>high refresh rates
>black that is actually black
Nowadays, recent LCDs have those features as well, but CRTs had it decade earlier.
And the overall rugedness.
I mean try to crack a CRT screen without using a hammer or dropping in on concrete from 2nd floor
>>51742834
>Higher refresh rates, better blacks, better response times.
Higher refresh rates, better negros, better response times.
>>51742906
This. There's also the round pixels versus square pixels issue, making aliasing far less obvious on a CRT. Even normal fagstoff have started to figure that one out
>Hey anon, I dug out my old Nintendo. It looks way better on my old TV than my new one, how weird is that?
>>51742834
Because they are for certain applications.
They have great color and contrast, no input lag at all in most cases, and have the ability to switch resolutions.
In addition to this they have a certain look and feel about them that makes them appropriate for playing old video games (although they will do a fine job for new as well).
I watch the HD version of Star Trek: TNG on an old CRT in 1600x1200 and it looks spectacular.
>>51742906
>nice blacks
I powered up my crt the other day
holy fuck the blacks
the blacks are amazing compared to even my IPS displays
>>51743006
>fagstoff
Autocorrect strikes again. *normalfags
Because of placebo bullshit people keep telling themselves like this >>51742906 crock to cover up the fact they just want to be "different" and "unique."
>>51742967
Pretty nice monitor. Connect your PC to it sometime and try playing some 1080p video on it.
Or perhaps even something fancy like Crysis.
>>51742991
>I mean try to crack a CRT screen without using a hammer or dropping in on concrete from 2nd floor
Why is this considered a selling point for electronic devices? Hitting them with hammers is not part of their operating procedure.
>>51743023
I've only seen OLED displays come close to what CRT's have in black levels
you can still see some backlight though
Ideally, a black pixel's appearance should be similar to that pixel's appearance when both it and the display are powered off
>>51743063
so you don't have to buy new ones when you look at them funny
>>51743063
Never needed to perform percussive maintenance?
>>51743063
Crashing into a fucking wall at full speed while drunk is not part of an operating procedure of a car.
So why do we make a selling point on all those safety features?
![IMG_4532[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/prWrZxM.jpg "IMG_4532[1].jpg")
CRTs look smooth.
The best picture I ever saw on anything was on my old Sony XS955 Super Fine Pitch Trinitron CRT HDTV.
There is no loss of detail with this smoothing. Instead it is a difference in the overall shape and nature of how pixels are created in the image. LCDs simply can't do it.
Don't forget viewing angles. I recently finally went from CRT to LCD and I bought an IPS because it was supposed to have good viewing angles for an LCD. It's shit. Anything other than straight on has noticeable fogginess.
>>51743078
>you can still see some backlight though
>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED
>An OLED display works without abacklight; thus, it can display deepblack levels
I don't know what you saw but when an OLED screen is displaying black that pixel is OFF. There's not backlight because the entire screen is made up of Light Emitting Diodes, you know, LEDs.
>>51743148
>entire screen is made up of Light Emitting Diodes
forgot about that, I think I might have been thinking of something else
Autism I guess. It's the same reason some people think vinyls sound superior to digital CDs.
>>51743140
IPS panels keep their color but lose their brightness so to speak at wider viewing angles. Non IPS LCDs are even worse, the colors are terrible and at wide angles, theres huge discoloration.
>>51742910
>>51742913
They used to have those, but they have been overtaken. LCD color gamut is now lower than many lcd (both TV and monitor). Refresh rates were 85hz at 1600*1200 and 100hz at 1280*1024, no match for lcd's running double the pixels and refresh rates. The crt's only managed these numbers at 21", good luck finding one bigger and better (maybve ask John Carmack he had a nice widescreen one waaaay back when).
>>51743187
You can't directly compare refresh rates when LCD is sample-and-hold and CRTs aren't.
>>51743187
There's cheapness to consider too. You can often pick up a nice CRT monitor which will sync up to 120hz at 1024x768 for about $20 or less. Very nice for FPS.
>>51743174
I personally don't prefer vynl, but in most cases vynl releases have better mastering, as well as being excluded from the loudness bullshit most CD's get mastered with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
![IMG_20120916_113606[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/RtbVEpH.jpg "IMG_20120916_113606[1].jpg")
>>51742834
They are better if you're playing older 4:3 content.
Show me an LCD that can play a Neo-Geo game better than the best CRT.
>>51742834
use to get massive headaches with a crt, when i went to an lcd i no longer had the headaches.
sure i miss the real blacks, but god damnit do i like the 24 inches, 1920x1200 progressive, not to mention the less weight... as my hands have progressively gotten worse and worse weight is a real issue.
at least on my crt, there was a noticeable blurring to it, something that isn't there with the lcd.
that said, i still have the crt as a backup in case the lcd breaks.
I just recently got a crt. 19" 1600x1200 75hz.
Beautiful screen, but the darks are much darker and the brights are a little less bright, when compared to an lcd.
Can't play games in the dark anymore, as soon as I walk into a dark building I'm blind. I guess that's the advantage of LCDs, having a backlight.
Still think the crt looks nicer though, the LCDs I have are too bright and if you turn the brightness down they look like ass.
>>51743218
Vinyls also degrade more than a digital CD though, making them an obsolete format. The mastering thing is debatable.
>>51742877
this
they are still better except for OLED
>>51743312
You had your refresh rate too low. 60hz with a PC CRT monitor is too flickery for web browsing.
>>51743320
that is true though
a friend of mine collects vynl's, and while they sound nice, he gets autistic over playing them too many times
>>51743337
>CRT at 60hz
that's how you get eye cancer
>>51743318
>Can't play games in the dark anymore, as soon as I walk into a dark building I'm blind.
You will have to adjust the gamma setting for your games to compensate. This is a normal behavior.
The "adjust the brightness until X thing disappears" adjustment is not accurate on a CRT. Just put it wherever you feel comfortable. For me it was usually 3/4 of the way to the right.
>>51742834
Input lag and response time are negligible and the blacks/contrast ratio is great. It's excellent for gaymen still.
>>51743210
Well I'll put it like this, how many individual occurs can reach screen display per second the crt can display 1 million pixels at 100 gps, whereas my lcd can do 4 million at 120 fps. As for the lcd retaining the image as opposed to the crts fading phosphor - lcds can sync the back light to their refresh rate, basically doing the same thing.
>>51743563
top slag m80
>>51743563
How in the flying fuck did my phone garble this post so bad. Im mean just wtf
![CT-cVDsVAAAp1LU[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/S2fLsYn.png "CT-cVDsVAAAp1LU[1].png")
>>51743600
>posting from a phone
I almost took you seriously.
>People still falling for the CRT shill
>>51743563
Who is that anal amazon?
>>51743856
Why would someone shill a technology you can't even buy new anymore?
If anything I hold back on sharing the goodness of CRTs because it seemed last year as if Sony PVMs were becoming fashion items for hipsters.
>>51743989
You're too late it already happened. It's in process right now, soon the whole thing will explode and all the hipsters will use a CRT. The prices are a bit bloated right now, basically they are large paperweights at the moment so you don't want to pay a lot for them. It might be a decent investment, once the party starts.
>>51742942
Tube amps sound better tho. Warmer. Brighter. A lot more depth. This is why they are king.
>>51743563
>lcds can sync the back light to their refresh rate
Yep, and it's seriously a great step forward to see it being implemented, but that fact is that the vast majority of them don't, very few can, and none do by default. And without it, a 85Hz CRT will have far smoother/clearer motion than a 144Hz LCD.
>>51742951
kek
>>51742834
>1600p OLED tier picture for £10 is not a selling point.
CRT > LCD
>>51742834
because braun tubes give u brain cancer you fag
>>51743218
>but in most cases vynl releases have better mastering, as well as being excluded from the loudness bullshit most CD's get mastered with
None of this is true. Most of the time, Vinyl is just sent through the RIAA EQ from the brickwalled mastered and everyone calls it a day. You might superficially gain some more DR, but that's just due to some extra spikes from the medium; not the actual recording.
>>51743320
Records don't degrade on a quality turntable. Of course they will if you play them on a Crosley, just like a CD would if you put it in a Walkman and shook it while playing.
>>51744386
>Records don't degrade on a quality turntable.
yes they do
physics, bitch
>>51744386
>physical contact
>wont degrade
sure it wont...
>>51744420
>>51744438
What are counterweights?
>these are the "audiophiles" that post here
>>51744459
That's not how physics work. Being played inherently degrades the record. Now how long this takes before the extra introduced noise becomes audible is debatable.
>>51744490
You can clean records too, y'know. "Physics."
Why has no one created an ultra-high definition vector display? Like an oscilloscope that can display trillions of points at once in a range of all of the colors in existence?
vector displays > raster displays
>>51744520
The needle will gradually deform the groove. You can't get around that.
>>51744490
Obviously by "quality turntable" he meant one of those laser turntables that make zero contact since obviously he is not stupid.
>>51744578
>laser turntables
Whoa, I didn't even know that existed desu
I play melee competitively and you can tell the difference between an lcd monitor and a crt since most of the tech required has 5 frame windows at most
>>51744594
>>51744578
pretty nifty
http://diffuser.fm/laser-turntable/
>>51744529
Because casual video games don't require military-grade hardware.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIQ9IXSUzuM
>analog fags BTFO
>>51744658
>$15,000
It never ceases to amaze me how much money audiophiles can waste.
>>51744645
Who's your main, my man?
Input lag is lower with any decent CRTs
>>51743323
oled is not better, it's just a term you know and you like your phone's screen because it's bright
>>51744763
guessing a spacey if he's concerned about frame windows
>>51743148
Could be some leakage from a really bad backplane.
>>51742920
I used to have a couple FW900s. Wonderful things.
>>51743006
The popular aperture grill, Trinitron style, is a grid, not like the circular shadow mask.
>>51744941
Probably. I was hoping so that I could trash him on netplay if he replies. :^)
>>51744887
Plz be troll
>>51744718
This video is amazing.
LCDs often have issues like poor backlight uniformity, backlight bleeding, dirty screen effect etc.
They also tend to have shitty contrast (except for VA panels) and higher response time.
>>51744529
They started to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penetron
>>51744718
I don't see what BTFO of CRTs in this video.
CRTs accept digital signals just fine, and the analog conversion done by them internally is trivial.
>>51744718
Holy shit, this video is absolute gold.
>>51744887
OLED is almost as different from CRT is to LCD, it is a completely different technology.
>Mfw crt fags
growing up i do not ever recall colors on my crt tvs and monintor being "DEEP" or "RICH". What I distinctly remember is that I found the colors "mostly blue" to be subdued.
>>51743140
kinda like this pic
but i kinda like that high pitch that crts have
>>51743989
>Why would someone shill a technology you can't even buy new anymore?
Is there any reason to use CRTs besides older fighting games?
>>51745549
Perhaps you should read the thread before asking dumb questions.
>>51745507
If you're average 4chan user age you were never in the golden age of CRTs. Anyone 25 and under probably only saw shitty Wal-mart specials from brands like Emerson or Orion.
>>51745367
It's directed at the vinylfags.
the "crts have true blacks" meme is my favourite meme.
>>51742834
Because CRTs did almost everything better
I'd still use them if they still built them
>>51745536
I don't know how much of a new-fag you are, but the pejorative of someone who likes things to an extreme level is a "Fan Boy".
Shill is a pretty recent term to make it into main-stream vocabulary.
Basically CRT is still the master race. I own 6x Sony GDM FW 900's and I basically know all the capacitors, and have a ton of back up capacitors to the point where I can keep them in pretty much new condition image wise indefinitely.
>>51746178
>6x Sony GDM FW 900's and I basically know all the capacitors, and have a ton of back up capacitors to the point where I can keep them in pretty much new condition image wise indefinitely.
I wish I were comfortable around the FW900 boards when I had mine. What a waste.
>>51746230
You can still find them in Tech Junk Yards and very rarely on eBay.
Look for any silicon recycling / tech recycling facilities in your area. These things were very popular and you'll find quite a few of them.
It wasn't until my Eizo FG2421 that I put away my CRTs entirely. Dat 5000:1 static contrast ratio. Dat 120Hz display at resolutions an FW900 couldn't manage, plus 240Hz blacklight strobing with minimal impact on brightness.
And even before then, it was only the best of the best like the top end Sonys, NECs, and professional graphics artists monitors that were really worth using over a decent LCD.
>>51742834
Because I can't put my coffee mug on top of an LCD.
>>51746306
>Eizo FG2421
>VA instead of IPS
Nice try.
>>51746340
VA has greatly superior contrast and black level.
>>51746321
Yes you can, you just have to center it properly.
>>51746385
and the slightest bump knocks it over
gg newton
>Muh crt is better than lcd
>I'll compare a high end crt to a to an early cheap lcd
>>51746356
Inferior colors in general though.
>>51746301
I don't relish lugging them around. That was how I got mine the first place: the artist using them didn't want to pay to ship them out of the country, and I picked them up.
I guess I can go scrounging around for one again. Not like the OLED revolution is getting here soon.
>>51746306
I would have bought one, but I heard about all sorts of issues early in its run.
>>51746497
The problem is if a OLED breaks down, who's going to fix it?
If a CRT breaks down, you can keep running with just some easy to find capacitors and a steady soldering hand.
>>51746420
>>I'll compare a high end crt to a to an early cheap lcd
>Halo and HL2 on DVD discs
>P4 badge on that desktop
that comparison was probably made when that Dell monitor was brand new you troglodyte
>>51746628
>fixing crt
ZAP
>>51742834
Hipsters
>>51746420
early LCDs were anything but cheap, and that comparison was anything but invalid when that old ass pic was taken
>>51746659
maybe if you're the average mobileposting pleb who browses this shitty board
>>51746659
No.
>>51746628
Not like you can do pixel surgery, but there's the problem. Got one right in the middle of my laptop display, past its warranty. What can you do?
As long as the phosphors are still good, maintenance is good. Did you ever have to fiddle around with WINDAS calibration?
>>51746653
>>51746670
>still defending crts
>>51742834
>why some people think CRT monitors are better than LCD?
God go back to ESOL Rajish
For nostalgia feelings desu
Old school anime/cartoons look way better on CRTs and have a better feeling. Retro games also have a better feel on it.
>>51746773
That looks like really shitty calibration. At least try before you bait.
>>51746841
CRT filters have come a long way.
>>51746178
I have a GDM FW900, but the picture quality is bad. Lowest brightness and max contrast get me a sort of okay picture, but there's some other problems too. There's a line of dead pixels across the screen, and there's interference in the bottom right quarter of the screen. Is this fixable or should I give up on it?
>>51746178
would you be willing to part with one? Mine fell and Its aperture grille is completely broken and irreparable. I really loved it. I haven't been able to find one in a decent condition and cost in a while in my area.
>>51747125
I have 2 that are going to be the last part of my 3x3 ( 9x FW 900 ) wall / array.
I need one more my self ;D
>>51744185
>warmer and brighter
I hope you don't mean both at once.
>>51747257
wow, how do you even run that?
That's crazy.
Pics pls.
>>51747357
Two good visuals
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FScNdwuIm64
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBj3RfMGOV0
>>51744718
this is what jontron would be doing if he applied himself in school
CRT has much better colors. If I could get an lcd with colors like that I'd vote for Trump.
>>51746178
I posted that image because it was an example of a person that would profit from more people using crt's
threads like these make me with I had a flat CRT instead of the rounded hitachi
it's alright, it does 1600x1200@85hz
theoretically, with a digital input's bandwidth, could you get a CRT to go to refresh rates like 144hz at high resolutions?
>>51743006
That's not why it looks better
It's because CRT's aren't Fixed Pixel Garbage and they don't upscale shit
>>51743563
>lcds can sync the back light to their refresh rate, basically doing the same thing.
No they fucking can't
You're still highly dependent on your FPS/HZ you retard
60fps@60hz on a short persistence CRT is still going to look way better than 120fps@120hz on Lightboost(strobing)
Short Persistance CRT have 0.01ms of blur
The lowest you can have with Lightboost is about 1.4ms
LCD's should fuck off and Laser Displays should fucking get some serious R&D already
>>51748796
Forgot one thing
On a CRT you will have the same amount of persistence blur at any framerate/hz
On an LCD you're dependent on your framerate
So the best you can do right now is 144FPS@144hz which is just 1.4ms of blur
To even match a short persistence CRT(0.01ms blur) you need 1000FPS@1000Hz
This is why LCD's suck and they need to get abandoned already
We need better Display Technology than this sample and hold garbage
why do people like lo-fi?
>>51748796
>Laser Display
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_video_display
neat
>>51742834
CRTs over LCD/LED only appeal to autists
enjoy the radiation and shitty resolution
>>51748814
>10 microseconds
That is not CRT persistence. That is the step response of the phosphors, but they decay much more slowly so that you can actually use the display. It usually somewhere between 1-2ms for computer displays.
>>51748924
>enjoy the radiation
about as much as staring at a microwave
>and shitty resolution
last time I checked, 1600x1200 wasn't shit
compared to whatever the fw900 runs at, it is shit
>>51748952
you aren't supposed to stare at microwaves though..
>>51748819
They're already in those new Pico Projectors but they need a lot more R&D and Invesment before they can be ready for TV's and Traditional Projectors
Basically they have no persistence,no blur,no input lag,no scanout lag,no pixels,no phosphor(so no phosphor trail),it works like a CRT(scan a pixel at a time and it's not fixed-pixel),has extremely wide gamut etc.
It's the only display technology that can surpass CRT's so far
Here's a good read on them in this thread http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1156
Too bad though..that so far Lasers have only been used in big time display tech as only a Light Source for DLP Projectors
>>51748929
It is for Short Persistence Phosphor CRT's like BVM's and such
The GDM FW900 for example is a Medium Persistence Phosphor that's about 1ms of persistence blur
lightbright monitors when
>>51749065
just hook a grid of RGB LED's into a lcd controller
>>51742834
Things LCDs do better:
> flat screen
> potentially no flicker (ccfl or LED backlight with high-freq pwm or dc control)
> can do variable refresh rates (not concurrently with strobing yet though)
> uniform and stable geometry
> much thinner and lighter
> can be arbitrarily big
> thinner bezels
> no trinitron damping wires for larger screens
> pixel sharpness at native resolution
> wider color gamut for LED-backlit
> can be brighter (not always good for all uses)
> higher overall pixel bandwidth (2160p120 next year vs. 1200p100 for best CRTs ever)
Things CRTs do better:
> no lag
> no color shift on off-angles
> usually better black levels than LCD
> better motion clarity from short phosphor activation times
> better color gamut than most LCDs
> better color at high refresh rates/motion speeds due to no overdrive
LCDs are mostly better than CRTs ever were, but some of the remaining deficiencies are pretty significant.
In particular, there will always be a tradeoff in LCDs between response time, viewing angles, and black levels.
That said, I can deal with that if I can get my hands on a UHD@120Hz with variable-refresh and strobing IPS display, which will be real in 2017 if not next year with the advent of DP 1.3.
Requesting CRT buying guide.
>>51750389
1. FW900
/EOF
>>51743092
because they protect the people in the car
>>51750589
It looks amazing. But I cannot find a single European seller of this. It must be super rare.
>>51742834
The only reason why CRTs are not superior technology now is because their development was stopped.
Imagine if all the effort that was put into LCD monitors was put into CRTs instead.
Apart from that, I really like the analog nature of it.
>>51742834
It scales better to different resolutions than LCDs that only have a single fixed resolution, meaning it's better for the various shitboxes I collect and use.
Because they read a forum post from 2006 and now they think they're experts.
Pic related are likely the same bunch of people.
>>51743014
IPS displays aren't known for their deep blacks.
>>51750885
CRTs already hit the point of diminishing returns ages ago.
Horizontally-flat Trinitrons were pretty much the culmination of the technology.
Where else was there to go?
Slightly better phosphors?
Modestly tighter pixel pitches?
A little better bandwidth?
CRTs in the late 90s were on a dead end since their weight scaled slightly more than cubically with diagonal and they had pixels that were less sharp than LCDs and still had to be readjusted for ambient magnetic fluctuations to correct geometry.
They were great for vidya and watching movies and TV (especially sports), but LCDs are so much better for most workstation uses it's not even funny.
Source: owned a 22" Iiyama that could do 1600x1200@100Hz.
Is there a reason for the giant bezel on CRTs?
>>51750999
>where else was there to go?
Dunno man, sed?
>>51750999
Better phosphors, flatter screen, less noise, faster start-up times, better colour representation, less energy consumption, alternative inner gases or tube materials, thinner bezels. Or, maybe some new and experimental designs like multi-tube or composite pohosphor design, presistance screens, only re-draw areas that need updating.
>>51751124
>alternative inner gases
>the rest of that post as well
Not the guy you were responding to but you should go learn a bit about CRTs before posting on a technology board.
>>51742834
crt whine makes my head hurt
>>51751124
Thinner aperture grilles would be a start. Monocrome there CRTs had a electron dot pitch that would allow 8k. Divide this by 3 for a max for color assuming aperture grilles don't limit it. The highest I've heard of is a .21 aperture grille and a .19 shadow mask (measured differently. The AG is better). These are clearly limiting factors.
>>51751139
I know that there is a vacuum inside. But vacuum cannot be perfect. There will be little air inside. Like they start using helium in hard drives nowadays, why not to first fill tube with helium and then make vacuum out of it.
>>51751139
When they started making fist shitty LSD displays with 20ms response times. Nobody would imaging that it will become like modern flexible OLED.
>>51751173
Because electrons and helium atoms interact with one another and you'd never get a picture in the tube, probably just a glow.
>>51751153
Cathode ray tube whine is only audible for CRT TVs (hsync). Other than that it's probably transformer coil whine, not really specific to CRT technology.
>>51751221
Helium is just an example. CRT scientists should find a better option.
>>51751239
You don't understand. ANYTHING in the tube will cause the electron beam to scatter. That's why it's a vacuum. Besides that, any artifacts caused by the imperfections in a CRT's vacuum are not going to be visible.
>>51751191
>tfw my display measures 52ms B-W-B response time
>>51751269
No you don't understand. Perfect vacuum is impossible. But we can choose very little of what gas will be in the tube besides vacuum.
>>51751295
...
>>51751300
Vacuum simply means low pressure. It doesn't mean absence of any matter. No tube can withstand such a low pressure, it will blow up.
>>51751295
You don't need a perfect vacuum nor does it matter what gas is inside because in the end the vast majority of the electrons will make it from the back of the tube to the phosphors. Any imperfections caused by this will be so small that you'd never notice them.
>>51751324
>Vacuum simply means low pressure. It doesn't mean absence of any matter. No tube can withstand such a low pressure, it will blow up.
Wow, thanks professor for the basic fucking physics lesson.
The small amount of trace gases don't have a noticeable effect on the cathode ray though, numbnuts.
>>51751336
>Any imperfections caused by this will be so small that you'd never notice them.
>Audiophiles
Hehe there must be a videophile race with their CRT rigs.
CRT to LCD is what vaccum tube amp is to transistor amp.
>>51751362
There are, people who spam shit like "muh blacks, viewing angles" etc. Used to be more common on /g/.
They don't get pissed over nanometer differences in position though. Audiophiles are alone in that one.
>>51751354
Not him but you should really read threads before posting. At least you're anonymous.
>>51751153
my lcds whine
can't complain, got three for .90€
>>51749487
So LCD's are better at mostly unimportant stuff?
Oh and you forgot to write about how LCD's look like absolute shit below their native resolution
And Flicker is good
Flicker is needed to eliminate motion blur
The only reason LCD doesn't visibly flicker is because of sample-and-hold shit they use(which cause motion blur)
>>51746306
>minimal impact on brightness
I don't get this argument anyway. I turn all monitors down well below 50% or they are way the fuck too bright. Strobing doesn't cut luminance by that much and even if it did, you could just crank the brightness all the way up.
FG2421 is a great monitor but it's a shame you can't control the strobing feature more. You can only strobe at 120hz with about 2ms of display persistence. On some of the benq monitors you can strobe at any refresh rate and at 1ms persistence. A lot of games and content are locked at 60fps so the fg2421 is basically shit for that.
I wish we could have seen what SED or FED displays would have been like. They were basically flat CRT's.
How long until commercial AMOLED monitors and laptops?
>>51750988
Pls be troll
>>51743563
Who's this cooch mahooch?
>>51742945
Nice meme. Yep, because everyone in the world who watched TV or used a computer before around 2005 has cancer.
>>51744185
no lol
>>51742834
CRTs are faster have superior gamma and contrast than any LCD on the market.
The real reason why CRTs are no longer being made is because of eWaste. CRT require a lot of heavy metals in their construction.
RoHS and other eWaste reduction initiatives that took effect around 2000s were death knell for CRTs.
>>51752577
>>51747325
>Line 6 kiddos
>>51752816
Real Reason is they are heavy as fuck.
Most businesses don't give a fuck how good the blacks or response time is all they care about is how easy they are to move and how expensive the upkeep is both of witch are way worse for CRT's
>>51744576
Then you get nice crackling sounds as warm as a nice chimney fire.
>>51748814
>>51748929
>>51749056
What is backlight strobing? Lightboost and displays like FG2421 with it as a built in feature.
>>51751643
I'm pretty sure the strobing feature still works at other refresh rates.
And you can force games to run at a specified refresh rate even if their framerate is fixed elsewhere.
>>51742834
For the same reasons some idiots prefer vinyl over digital, 2D film cinema over digital 3D IMAX, 24 FPS movies instead of 48+, animatronics over top of the line CGI, etc.
Bunch of dumb, broke hipster morons that are stuck in the past and like all sorts of crackling and popping over their music, and low frame rate , blurry, dirty image over their video.
So basically, dumb hipsters living in the past.
>>51743092
Because cars are supposed to be driven around at high speeds and are potentially dangerous, you moron.
Monitors are supposed to just chill on a safe desk, inside a safe place for years in a row, they don't need fucking reinforced screens and fucking crumple zones.
What a fucking idiotic example you gave, does being that dumb hurt?
>>51753691
You missed the point of the discussion completely. Phosphor persistence is about the duration that the screen is illuminated for, just as in LCD techniques of reducing motion blur.
>>51753755
CRT can fall back on data unlike those other things.
Because they can explode
How awesome is that
>>51753830
Yeah, what data?
The day I switched from a CRT to an LCD back in 2003 was the day I stopped fucking my eyes up with a bullshit, harmful technology that not only shoots xrays at your face for 10 hours a day, but it also has a shitty, distorted image and is dim as fuck.
Now, I have a 55 inch OLED TV with an amazing image for movies, an ASUS PG279Q 165hz IPS 1440 Gsync monitor for games, and another 40 inch 4k Phillips VA monitor with amazing contrast for photo and video editing.
CRT is trash for broke hipsters.
Can't wait until they all fucking break so I can stop hearing you fucking fedora man children kissing CRT's ass constantly.
>>51753954
Oh, and I completely forgot about the horribad, eye cancer inducing flicker that CRT monitors had.
I also forgot about their atrocious, high pitched 16000 hertz whine when they are powered on.
I used to get fucking headaches from that shit.
>>51753292
Nah, weight and volume weren't really issues in the business setting.
It came down to bottom line cost. LCDs became affordable and were good enough around mid-2000s.
CRTs were killed off because you cannot make a RoHS compliant model.
>>51753077
nope
>>51753954
You never have been behind a quality CRT with a video card that has half-decent RAMDAC.
It still blows any LCD out of the market in terms of color accuracy and speed.
LCDs have always suck at input latency, speed and color accuracy.
The real shame is there was going to be a viable upgrade from CRTs in the form SED/FED mointors. Too bad the tech is trapped in patent troll hell.
>>51753954
The easy and smooth scaling, the black pitch, and the color/contrast stability. It beats LCDs in those aspects soundly.
>xrays at your face for 10 hours a day
This is the most tired and ill informed critique about CRTs. They don't, and you even get to make a jab at how they don't, because they mix the very glass with lead. This doesn't happen.
>>51754008
>flicker
Unfortunately, you can't fully rid yourself of motion blur otherwise.This includes your 160Hz sample and hold display.
>16000 hertz
TVs, specifically from flyback noise at broadcast rate.
Because they're poor and in denial. I know because I was once poor and in denial too. It's the same reason they insist that ancient Thinkpads are great. If they're exceptionally poor, they may have never used a brand new flagship product and simply don't know how much better they are. Stick any CRTfag in front of an XR341CKA and they will give up their CRT in a heartbeat.
>>51754044
>Nah, weight and volume weren't really issues in the business setting.
Bullshit. Our techs are much, much happier that they don't need to lug around CRTs anymore. I feel bad for our inventory and transport people because we're still decommissioning a bunch of CRT All-in-Ones (mostly eMacs) and they have to cart around 30 of them at a time, which is fucking back breaking.
>>51754218
Are business and industrial grade LCD or other types of flat panel monitors any good?
Or affordable for that matter?
>>51754232
Not really. We pay the premium because of the additional warranty and support you get from business-grade products. Beyond that, you can usually get just as nice (or nicer) products for cheaper if you skip out on those protections. You would probably vomit a little if you saw how much we are paying for some devices. But it's worth it because they have a proven track record, and paying a tech to figure out what is going wrong with a bunch of hodgepodge hardware would cost more in the long run.
>>51751643
>I wish we could have seen what SED or FED displays would have been like. They were basically flat CRT's.
I don't know about SED but FED definitely was not CRT Quality
As Mark Rejhon of Blurbusters here explains
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/64-direct-view-single-tube-crt-displays/1296596-would-you-consider-crt-technology-superior-lcd-plasma-10.html#post_24734721
>>51753691
Just as I explained
You're still dependent on your FPS/Hz while strobing
Strobing at 60fps@60hz equates to about 2-3ms of persistence blur for example
Short Persistence CRT's are 0.01ms
Medium Persistence CRT's are 1ms
Both at any framerate/hz
Also Strobing produces more flicker than a CRT so there's that too
>>51751086
SED/FED were always a pipe dream.
Their panels basically turned to complete shit suddenly, and the dimmer they were, the faster they would get dimmer.
Their electron emitters get eroded by any gas in the gap that gets ionized, but normal use releases gas from the phosphors as does damage from the eroded tips itself.
The result is a positive feedback loop of whole-panel pixel death by fading, that nobody ever came close to figuring out how to solve.
While OLED is still currently shit, its aging at least slows down as its gets dimmer.
>>51754308
I just want to touch on this a bit more. You can get great business-grade products and they will be expensive, but usually we don't even buy those outside of specific circumstances. Remember, most of these devices are going to be used by normalfags like Carol in Accounting and she barely understands how to use a computer in the first place, much less will appreciate a high quality monitor. In fact, lots of them have shit eyesight and will run the monitor outside of its native resolution to make things larger, even though they're slightly more blurry (DPI adjustment usually doesn't work well with ancient proprietary applications, so lowering resolution is often the only solution).
If you're planning on buying business-grade equipment for home use, I'd recommend buying it used, since that usually brings the price back down to a reasonable level. The downside to this is that you usually wont get bleeding-edge equipment like that, because the market is only flooded with those devices (dropping the price) when they're being decommissioned by the thousands.
>>51754391
The FG2421 double strobes at 60Hz according to blurbusters.
>>51754450
And that likely means double the flicker of a CRT to achieve roughly about 1.5ms of blur(which is still more than a medium persistence CRT)
You can also do shit like 60fps@120hz but then you get double image
>>51754391
>Short Persistence CRT's are 0.01ms
The shortest decay phosphors are like that, but I can't see that they used that type in a computer display.
>>51754491
It means half the flicker of a CRT at 60Hz ya git. The FG2421 is actually acceptable at 60Hz instead of murdering your eyes with visible flicker. And CRTs have double image when running 60fps@120Hz as well.
>>51754546
Just did a quick search
http://forums.blurbusters.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=8&start=30
It's the same as playing 60fps@120hz
You get double image
>>51754573
I'm not sure what else should be done. 60Hz single strobe is physically intolerable.
>>51754613
>60Hz single strobe is physically intolerable
Make the duty cycle longer. How badly do incandescent bulbs flicker to your eyes?
>>51754543
Some do use it
Most use medium-persistence
BVM's and PVM's are good example of Monitors that do use those
[spoiler]Hopefully one day Laser Monitors become a thing...goodbye persistence/motion blur and goodbye input lag[/spoiler]
>>51742834
Because they enjoy getting cancer.
>>51754613
Yeah...that's why somebody somewhere most likely is working on some sort of solution to eliminate double-imagining
>>51754629
Doesn't that also mean more sample and hold blur? I'm curious, what does the BENQ Z-series he talks about in the top post >>51754573 implement for 60Hz?
>>51751086
>>51751643
>>51754086
> SED/FED patent hell
this is basically correct:
>>51754405
nobody could ever figure out how to make electron emitters that were both cheap to manufacture and were durable enough for thousands of hours of use in a gradually degrading vacuum.
these things looked great in a lap and as a demo, but it's a hard and unsolved problem to make millions/billions of nanoscopic needle tips that are resistant against plasma but made of a material that can be cheaply chemically etched.
>>51754648
No it means less sample and hold blur since it's essentially the same as strobing at 60fps@120hz
>>51754645
The only alternative is interpolation, which causes artifacts and increased latency. 60fps is just shit, and we should stop pretending it's acceptable.
>>51743263
But what about emulators when talking about playing old vidya?
I mnea, you can use a 4:3 aspect ratio creen and it would work just fine or even better, wouldn't it
>>51754118
>Unfortunately, you can't fully rid yourself of motion blur otherwise.This includes your 160Hz sample and hold display.
Sample-and-hold blur would be almost impossible to notice at 1000Hz. This would be ideal, because flicker is still easily visible at 1000Hz.
24/30fps = slideslow (doesn't even count as motion)
60fps = low framerate, the absolute minimum tolerable
120fps/144fps = medium framerate
1000fps = high framerate
>>51754744
Interpolation is garbage
I'm not referring to anything specific...just thinking that there's probably people out there who know of this problem and are probably researching a fix or something(one could say I'm too hopeful)
This is not just a matter of playing vidya or surfing the net though(even though most new vidya you can only get around 60fps due to how unoptimized they are or sometimes they're stupidly capped to that framerate because of dumb chink devs making lazy ports)
Sports for example are broadcasted at 60fps/hz(or if you live in Europe like me at 50fps/hz) and they definitely look like garbage due to the motion blur
>>51754819
There is no other option. If you have fixed framerate 60fps content (and there's a shitload of it out there), you must have at least one of:
>Obvious flicker
>Frame duplication ghosting
>Sample-and-hold blur
>Interpolation
Pick whichever is least annoying to you. If you don't want any of them then you need literal magic.
>>51744718
I don't care what he's talking about he's the best
>>51754765
>playing with black bars on the side
Anon plz
And also emulators are far from perfect
You also can't run them at their native 240p resolution in an LCD
Trying to hook up a Neo-Geo Arcade Stick to a PC can be a pain in the ass too(you'll most likely have to through a lot of adapters before you find a good one)
There's no LCD that can match the Motion Quality of that CRT posted by that guy either
Overall it's a pain in the ass and not worth it if you're seeking for an optimal(and authentic) experience
>>51751562
>Oh and you forgot to write about how LCD's look like absolute shit below their native resolution
I did. I simply don't do any retro gaming etc. nowadays to think about it.
>And Flicker is good/needed to eliminate motion blur.
>The only reason LCD doesn't visibly flicker is because of sample-and-hold shit they use(which cause motion blur)
Flicker/strobing is only good when there's on-screen motion you want the user to be following with his eyes.
The rest of the time it's just an eyestrain-inducing nuisance.
Nothing does it currently, but LCDs in principle could do adaptive strobing based on variable sync input rates and detection of degree of frame buffer change for the best of both worlds.
>So LCD's are better at mostly unimportant stuff?
topkek. different people and different use cases have different needs.
CRTs are great for many things, but viewing and editing static documents is dramatically better on LCDs than CRTs ever were.
The biggest thing I left off my list was superior maximum pixel density for color display of LCDs.
200+ dpi monitors already exist and handheld displays show the possibility of at least 4x that.
CRTs peaked around 100 dpi, but even 100 dpi LCDs are distinctly perceptibly sharper.
>>51754793
>flicker is still easily visible at 1000Hz
Not necessarily.
>>51754819
>Interpolation is garbage
Unfortunately you don't have alternate solutions. There isn't new information to display, so you can only adjust the duty cycle then to counter balance crispness and flicker.
>>51754648
Persistence blur, but you were dealing with more of it from the double image to start with.
>>51754793
Too bad 1000fps@1000hz is a fallacy(which is needed to rival a Low Persistence CRT at 0.01ms)
You can't really achieve that shit...it's just a theory that doesn't work well in practice
>>51754853
Again I'm talking about stuff that might happen in the future
I'm fully aware of how things are now
>>51742920
Pretty much anything made by Sony was great, and a shitton of manufacturers rebranded Sony stuff
You can find a Trinitron on pretty much anything, and pretty much any Trinitron is almost as good as a FW900
>>51754936
You'd have to completely redesign the entire human visual system. Not simply some cyborg eye implant, but replacing major portions of the brain. It's much more difficult than just remaking all the 60fps stuff at higher framerates.
>>51754893
>I did. I simply don't do any retro gaming etc. nowadays to think about it.
That's just ignorance
This isn't just about retro vidya
There's a lot of older material out there like old shows and movies out there that are stuck in resolutions like 480i for example
And that shit is useful if you want to run the latest game at a decent framerate and you have an outdated card or something for example
Flicker is hardly a thing at 100hz+ on a CRT so I don't get you there at all
>>51745507
>I distinctly remember is that I found the colors "mostly blue" to be subdued.
Trinitrons and other jap sets had their default color temps at 9300K, that's why it looks blue, they also looked brighter this way which was one of the main ways how retards picked up a TV, and still do
Fortunately on a lot of them you could change the temp setting to "warm" aka 6500K or D65, which is the correct setting
They were still way of from D65, that's something I don't miss from those days, but at least the primaries were fairly close to SMPTE-C and they were pretty linear unlike most LCD's
>>51754987
No you wouldn't...you're exaggerating
200 years ago we could have never imagined the television even existing
Anything is possible
>>51754907
>a Low Persistence CRT at 0.01ms
I doubt such thing exists. I've seen a lot of CRTs, and they all have noticeable persistence. It's not directly comparable to a strobed LCD because the phosphor decay is exponential, but subjectively it's similar to about 1ms persistence.
>1000fps@1000hz is a fallacy
>You can't really achieve that shit.
Why the fuck not? I can emulate a NES at 1000fps, and there are a lot of NES games that are more fun than most modern games. (although note that resolution needs to be increased to avoid wasting the higher framerate, because otherwise you get obvious pulldown artifacts if your motion isn't an integer number of pixels per frame).
>>51755031
Sample-and-hold blur is generated in the brain because sample-and-hold motion is unnatural. You can't make some minor tweak to fix it. It's a byproduct of millions of years of evolution.
>>51754793
>flicker is still easily visible at 1000Hz.
you are a retard who confuses flicker perception with discrete strobe detection.
flicker is when you can consciously or near-consciously perceive the pulsations of the strobes on even a static image.
the limit for this is between ~70 and ~150 Hz for nearly all individuals, and it's easier to perceive in your peripheral vision than in your central vision.
on the other hand, retinal detection of individual strobed images has no real upper limit, but you need more instantaneous brightness and higher spatial and temporal contrast to notice one or more strobed images.
e.g., a 800 m/s rifle bullet could be illuminated with a sufficiently bright 10kHz strobe to clearly see bullets images ~3" apart in the air for a moment.
you could do the same thing with a railgun slug and an even brighter strobe at 1MHz, etc., but increasing strobe rates are useless all real-world scenarios, since the real point is to be able to keep motion sharp while your eyes are tracking something.
>>51754632
>BVM's and PVM's are good example of Monitors that do use those
I cannot find any data to establish that.
>>51755031
No. I'd sooner expect an advancement in interpolation than that.
>>51746773
>not even setting the contrast right on one of the sets
Keep shilling senpai
>>51755050
>you are a retard who confuses flicker perception with discrete strobe detection.
They are the same thing unless your eyes are perfectly still, which they are not. Saccadic masking is not sufficient to blank out high contrast images. Once you're past about 80Hz the annoyance is reduced, but it's not gone because the flicker reappears whenever you move your eyes.
>>51755016
So "Dynamic Contrast" was a thing even back then
God I hate that shit
>>51748517
>theoretically, with a digital input's bandwidth, could you get a CRT to go to refresh rates like 144hz at high resolutions?
You are limited by the tube mainly, but in theory a high enough grade tube should be able to do that
Maybe some Barco beast was close to doing that
>>51755100
I used to game at 180Hz (640x480, theoretically it could do 800x600 at that resolution but the geometry was very poor at 800x600) on my old Iiyama Vision Master Pro 454.
>>51750389
Anything Trinitron or similar
Ie. Sony or Mitsubishi Diamondtron, there's others, Dell rebadged a ton of both, Apple exclusively used Trinitron's too
It should still be fairly bright, it it isn't bright either the tube or the phosphors are worn out
>>51755048
>I doubt such thing exists.
There are such phosphors, just that I don't think they they are used in media displays.
Step response is exponential anyway, CRT phosphor or not
>>51750978
Back then there was literally no support for HiDPI
>>51755130
>Step response is exponential anyway, CRT phosphor or not
That's not really relevant to strobed LED backlights that spend almost all their time in a steady state (on or off).
>>51754613
Is it really that shitty? Is there some video somewhere that shows this? Reason I ask is I'm trying to decide between a VG248QE vs XL2411Z (I'm poorfag). Mainly interested in the 60hz strobe for consoles. The XL would be $70 more, but doesn't sound like it'd be worth it if the strobing is really that terrible.
>>51755048
Like I said short persistence CRT's are 0.01ms
There's also a thing called "Oscilloscope CRT's"(that are used in Hospitals) which can be as low as a few micro seconds
No you can't
NES games are all locked at 60fps unless you can reprogram them from scratch you can't do that
Next time don't be retarded
Either way the number of things you can run at 1000fps@1000hz is low...you definitely won't be able to run the latest games any time soon
And even old games like Quake probably have limitations to how much you can push them in terms of framerate so it varies from game to game
I was talking about the double imaging effect there not Sample-and-Hold Blur(which is not present in CRT's anyways)
>>51755195
60Hz single strobe would be similar to CRT flicker at that low refresh, right? I can't stand CRTs at 60Hz anymore.
>>51755188
Yeah, the PWM illumination from LED backlights cuts off really fast. Still follows the rule of exponential response.
>>51755221
Flicker to display rate does not generalize across all CRTs.
>>51755010
>There's a lot of older material out there like old shows and movies out there that are stuck in resolutions like 480i for example
480 looks like blurry ass on a large/close screen regardless of display type.
The content simply wasn't meant to be consumed in that manner.
When 8k displays come out, realistic CRT emulation filters will be possible, but I still wouldn't want to sit <5 feet from a 30"+ display when using them.
>And that shit is useful if you want to run the latest game at a decent framerate and
poorfag problems.
>Flicker is hardly a thing at 100hz+ on a CRT so I don't get you there at all
100Hz scanning is only tolerable on a CRT since they weren't big enough to fill your field of vision.
I could perceive the 100Hz flicker on my old 21" CRT, especially on smooth bright backgrounds in the corners.
On a 30" or larger LCD monitor, 120 Hz strobing gives me headaches after a few hours.
What I really want is UHD@120Hz or better with variable sync and adaptive strobing so I can edit shit all day in sample-and-hold and automatically get motion clarity when I'm watching a high-fps video or doing vidya.
I'd really love 8k@120Hz with >=36b color, but even DP 1.3 with DSC won't get us there.
Even more remote is the chance of 240+Hz LCDs, which is the point where I actually start giving CRTfags credit for their complaints.
>>51755208
>No you can't
>NES games are all locked at 60fps unless you can reprogram them from scratch you can't do that
>Next time don't be retarded
I never said I was emulating it at the original speed, or displaying all the frames I calculated.
>And even old games like Quake probably have limitations to how much you can push them
Quake can hit 1000fps with the right sourceport and modern hardware (again, not necessarily displaying all the frames you calculated).
>>51743563
Lexy from UK she used to be on xhamster. Her account was deleted.
>>51755086
try again.
flicker is independent of eye motion.
stare at the middle of a 60Hz blank white screen if you don't believe me.
it's a product of fucking with your motion detection direction selective ganglions, not microtremor-aided edge detection.
>>51755208
>There's also a thing called "Oscilloscope CRT's"(that are used in Hospitals) which can be as low as a few micro seconds
Oscilloscope CRTs are typically higher persistence that TVs/monitors, not lower.
And really 1ms class persistence is perfectly acceptable. Don't forget you still have the motion artifacts from the limited spatial resolution no matter how low your persistent is, so reducing it to microsecond levels won't make much difference.
>>51755344
"Flicker" is not a precisely defined word. If it looks like flicker then it is flicker. The mechanism doesn't matter.
>>51755313
The only way to achieve 1000fps on a NES Game via emulation is play the games at like 15 times their original speed which is downright unplayable
Keep in mind these are old games which were programmed around the framerate too
>>51755391
Yes, but they could be hacked to run in super-slow motion and then emulated at high speed. The only thing missing is the display hardware (and DLP can easily do 1000Hz refresh, so it's technically possible).
>>51755358
>Oscilloscope CRTs are typically higher persistence that TVs/monitors, not lower.
There still exist ones that have microseconds of persistence so that doesn't disprove my post at all but ok
>>51755414
That's bound to be a recipe for disaster
They did that for some games like Kingdom Hearts 2 Final Mix for PCSX2 to achieve 60fps and a lot of the bosses were way harder because of fucked-up timings...just imagining playing Lost Levels that way makes me shudder
Either way it's too much of a pain in the ass
Picking a CRT Monitor for cheap(that can accept 15khz signals) and running it in 240p via CRT_emudriver or Soft15khz and running the emulators that way would still be a much better experience
