Monitors
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
You are currently reading a thread in /g/ - Technology
Are CRTs the best solution for a poorfag looking for amazing image quality?
Or can I get anything better for less than a hundred aud?
Sorry about the mess, was fixing my room up when I took this.
>>54280386
>Are CRTs the best solution for a poorfag looking for amazing image quality?
Maybe, maybe not. At the $100 and under level it's more about luck than any particular design choice.
Look for something well made on the used market. If you can find a 16:10 CRT monitor that would be swell. If you find a 24" IPS LED LCD then that would be great too.
>>54280386
Old dell ultrasharps are
If you are lucky enough to find one. Cheap
![viewsonic-vcdts23852-2m-g220fb-20-graphic-series-crt-monitor--3e6[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/GXVaTfC.jpg "viewsonic-vcdts23852-2m-g220fb-20-graphic-series-crt-monitor--3e6[1].jpg")
And if you are a true bottom tier absolute poorfag, yes, old CRT monitors will provide the best image quality.
You can usually find 20" CRT monitors on craigslist for $20 or less. Sometimes free.
>>54280386
try these listings
http://www.ebay.com.au/sch/Monitors-/80053/i.html?_udhi=100&_mPrRngCbx=1&LH_BIN=1&_from=R40&_nkw=24%22%20monitor&LH_PrefLoc=2&_dcat=80053&rt=nc&LH_ItemCondition=1000|2500|3000
>>54280541
How are the black levels? I wouldn't want to drop to 60hz either.
>>54280856
>How are the black levels?
Not so good. 60hz isn't as much of an issue with LCDs since there's no flicker.
>>54280905
Poor black levels would suck, and it's not a flicker issue, I haven't even noticed it when I set my monitor to 2048x1536/60hz, though I normally run it at 1600x1200/75hz.
My eyes aren't the sharpest, but I hate the washed out look and oversaturated look of my friends 1080p desktop monitor. It looks like there's a white blanket on top of the image and it's way too bright. If he turns brightness down it looks even worse because it starts to look more grey than white.
>>54280386
>CRTs
>Image Quality
kek.
People buy CRTs for the refresh rate, anon, not some semblance of quality. Put it next to a modern LCD (or OLED) and check with a magnifier or loupe, they are a blurry fucking mess at pixel scale.
Also, say goodbye to straight lines on the screen if you've got a speaker, power supply, or anything else with a magnet/coil remotely nearby
These things are dime a dozen in junkyards for a reason
>>54281055
Bait
>>54281055
>People buy CRTs for the refresh rate, anon, not some semblance of quality.
Don't make posts about things you don't understand. High refresh rates are nice, but they are not the only thing CRTs have going for them.
higher quality version of this image here.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1657/26415432930_30a9c56668_o.png
>>54280386
>Are CRTs the best solution for a poorfag looking for amazing image quality?
No. Some silly people try to spread myths but CRTs are just terrible and belong to hell. And more importantly, after all these years, a piece you could get somewhere is likely to fail soon.
Look for cheap 23" IPS. They used to go around 100 USD at some point, but if you can't find affordable one new, try second-hand. If it has LED backlight, it shouldn't be a big problem if it is 2-3 years old.
>>54281244
>Look for cheap 23" IPS.
Which will look shittier than a 20" $5 CRT monitor.
The only reason to buy a shitty LCD is desk space. Otherwise save up and pay $80 or more for one that's actually decent.
> spread myths but CRTs are just terrible and belong to hell
I don't understand why autists like you are so triggered by old technology still being good. Some kind of generational thing? Ashamed of the the mid-2000s tech you grew up with?
>>54281055
what a fucking beyond retarded statement to make
>>54281298
>Which will look shittier than a 20" $5 CRT monitor.
False.
>I don't understand why autists like you are so triggered by old technology still being good.
Because it is bullshit.
>>54281157
the image quality on the CRT is far worse than what the LCD displays
are you legit blind?
>>54281298
>Which will look shittier than a 20" $5 CRT monitor.
it won't, nice mediocre try
there's plenty of good older technology around, but your average consumer tier CRT from 15 years ago is not it
>>54281336
I thought so too, but then after a few seconds I noticed the lenovo had too much backlight visible, while the crt doesn't have that issue.
>>54281336
They are very close to one another, with the LCD showing more detail and the CRT having better contrast. As is typical.
Insinuating there is a world of difference between them only shows your devotion to shitposting.
>>54281055
2 words
IPS. glow.
>>54281352
This very basic $5 Gateway CRT monitor will have better color reproduction and contrast than a cheapo IPS monitor you can get for $50.
http://cincinnati.craigslist.org/sop/5455532488.html
It will compete with monitors in the $100 range. And that's used LCDs. Buying new you have to go even higher.
>>54281244
>90s gif
>hates CRT
>IPS
IPS have shit black levels and they glow and typically have backlight bleed
>>54281336
CRT has near infinite contrast levels
and go up to 2560x1920p
>>54281352
Ill agree average CRTs arent anything special but the top tier ones beat LCDs except for maybe the best VA panel.
>>54281416
It exists. And?
Every technology has flaws. Flaws of CRTs are bigger issue though. Like the absolutely paltry brightness (100 nits if you are lucky, IIRC?). Those things and outside daylight absolutely didn't work together. Indirect sunlight even = unusable.
Another problem: fuzzy pixels thanks to the shadow mask. Terrible trait, although some person will probably try to claim it is natural antialiasing or some other BS.
Another problem: small diagonals. Size just matters - it is trivial to get 23-27" with LCDs. GL getting a nicely large CRT.
>>54280386
>>54281352
That's not a consumer crt
>>54281476
yea fuck man i forgot about all those time I was using my 25kg 21" CRT outside in direct sunlight
>>54281476
>fuzzy pixels
at 2560x1920? it's all about that dot pitch
>size
a 20" 4:3 CRT screen has the same vertical height as a 24" 16:9 LCD
and 16:10 CRTs existed
>sunlight
Most CRTs have a light coating that resists reflections
Have you ever used a glossy LCD? its much worse
and dont spread shit about those matte finishes that ruin the colors of IPS panels
>>54281472
for competitive gaming there isn't still isn't (and likely will never be) anything LCD offers that beats a good CRT
>>54281472
Backlight bleed isn't really a big issue. LCD has strong brightness, so it shines strong enough to limit the effect of backlighting. It might be a problem for people who use them in dark, but that is something I don't like personally. Actually, CRTs working well in darkness is one of their strong point... big value there for somebody else maybe.
If you care about black levels, get VA screen.
>CRT has near infinite contrast levels
and go up to 2560x1920p
In reality you were dealing with not so good image because of ambient light being too strong for the CRT's brightness to overcome it. So "infinite" contrast wasn't of much use unless you were vampire living during night with lights of.
----
re: your ad hominem... I am an encoder who deals with these oldies and indeed, I renounced CRTs because they suck. IPS LCDs are my choice of display technology until something else like OLEDs is affordable.
>>54281523
>a 20" 4:3 CRT screen has the same vertical height as a 24" 16:9 LCD
And the horizontal size doesn't matter? Good luck finding a 24" 16/10 CRT.
>>54281576
>I renounced CRTs because they suck
lmao
if CRT could have been manufactured to the same width as LCDs there wouldn't be LCDs
>>54281576
>Backlight bleed isn't really a big issue
You only look at white screens? I bet you use the standard 4chan style as well
>And the horizontal size doesn't matter
unless you are watching a widescreen video the entire screen is never your line of sight.
>In reality you were dealing with not so good image because of ambient light
confirmed underage who has never used a CRT
Bump
![IMG_0179[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/SBpX4yY.jpg "IMG_0179[1].jpg")
>>54281595
They can and were.
>>54280386
You would have to find a CRT (monitor) hich has been used very little for that to hold true.
Anything still around now that isnt an esteemed model is going to be way worn out, faded colors and dying guns.
speaking of old display technologies
why were plasmas phased out?
they can compete with CRTs
and about OLED, people have been waiting for 10 years or more for OLED PC monitors to come out and they never did
I dont have much hope
the industry is set on depriving us of contrast
>>54281609
I used them since 1996 till 2006. Daily. Can you say the same? I'm 32 too.
>>54281595
Live in your own little world for what I care, but consider this:
LCDs killed CRTs in market in a time period when they were significantly worse than current LCDs (now that IPS is fully mainstream, the difference to even year 2006 when the battle was long over is big).
LCDs killed CRTs in market at the time when the former were 2-3x as expensive as the latter. That is not gonna be a coincidence or alien conspiracy, man.
P.S. Captcha is starting to annoy me, which is probably Providence telling me to stop wasting time. Thanks and good night.
>>54281609
I don't care which side of this you're on, and I won't say which side I am, but can we please not resort to calling each other underage? It has no real relevance, can't be proven, and it is trite.
>>54281576
Lol
>>54280386
Get a job fakken abo scum
>>54281595
LCDs beat CRTs because they weigh a fraction of the amount and need less power. Image quality is less important than these two things.
>>54281654
>Anything still around now that isnt an esteemed model is going to be way worn out, faded colors and dying guns.
This is a /g/ myth that needs to stop. Most used CRT monitors look as good as the day they were bought. They are not like consumer televisions.
>>54281687
You are aware these extraordinary models you keep pulling out have cost more than a car then? If you want to argue using those, compare to today's profi highend. Normal people never came across these.
>>54281713
I'm gonna question your experience, memory, or seriousness.
I don't get it. CRTs are fuzzy and have that stupid convex shape. Thats not even considering the power draw and desk space. A fat CRT isn't as cheap as it sounds
>>54281713
Tell it to my 19 inch 1280x1024 85hz dell which has to be cranked up all the way to see any kind of detail in dark images/scenes.
It's so bad npw that I have to turn up the display driver's brightness and contrast, thus ruining the actual picture quality.
It was a fantastic monitor when I unboxed it in 2000. Hell, it was still fantastic a decade later.
Phospur decay is real buddy.
>>54281757
-Most- CRT monitors. You anecdote is accepted, but I will consider it alongside the 50 or so of them I have owned which have not exhibited any issue (and the 3 or 4 which have).
>>54281690
they weight a fraction of the amount because they are much thinner, which is what is exactly what i'm talking about in the post you replied to
power savings didn't sell LCDs, size did
>>54281638
if your objective is to show that there were CRTs manufactured with the same width as LCDs why the fuck have you posted a picture from that angle
>>54281744
>CRTs are fuzzy
The best CRTs are quite sharp. Any perceived fuzziness can be put down to differences in display technology. I assure you there is no loss in detail when you are looking at something like a 1080p blu-ray on a Trinitron with a fine pitch screen.
Reminder just because your grandparent's CRT TV looks like shit doesn't mean all CRTs are.
![IMG_4532[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/1mhEzsb.jpg "IMG_4532[1].jpg")
>>54281472
>CRT has near infinite contrast levels
Not true. I love CRTs but they do have limits.
When I owned a KD-34XS955 I could set the screen to pitch black and turn off all the lights in the room. I could still see the screen glowing. This was one of the best CRTs ever made.
Still looked absolutely fantastic and I've only seen some very high end plasma and LCD screens that could equal it. And I only payed $200 for it in 2010.
>>54281905
it is a television
we are talking about CRT Monitors not consumer televisions.
Also that looks like an HD CRT which has all the problems of LCDs and CRTs
>>54281905
>glow
>HD CRT
fuck off
HD CRTs are some type of hybrid CRT that have some of the shittiest blacks I've seen on a CRT
>>54281931
please, please stop replying to posts about things you don't know anything about
>>54281946
>>54281931
you two faggots have overlooked that every PC CRT monitor is an "HD CRT"
There is literally no difference in potential black levels between that TV and something like an GDM-FW900. The technology used in each of them is extremely similar. The XS955 is basically just an oversized computer monitor with a few bells and whistles tacked on for multi-media.
>>54281979
nice job
Tell me about how good HD CRTs anon.
Tell me of their benefits and how they compare to normal CRTs.
Educate me since you are correct right?
preach
>>54281946
>hybrid CRT
That's not how any of this works.
>>54281905
You'll be able to see some glow on ANY CRT on an all black screen with no ambient lighting. What matters is if it's too little glow to be noticeable with an actual picture, even very dark content, and in my experience a good CRT can pull that off. Neither of my LCDs are watchable at all in the dark, and suck for dark content that would justify viewing in the dark.
>>54282013
HD CRTs use digital processing
resulting in lag and every other problem with LCDs
PC CRTs don't use digital scaling etc etc
They don't have backlight glow and operate at 31+Khz
>>54282052
My crt has a super faint glow even if it's been off for a few days.
Is this normal?
>>54282052
>What matters is if it's too little glow to be noticeable with an actual picture,
Well, you're right about this. On the same CRT (the XS955) I can watch a scene in the movie Cast Away which takes place at night over the ocean during the plane crash. This is a very dark scene that still has a lot of details.
On a good CRT this scene looks absolutely pitch black in the areas it needs to, while still preserving the detail.
On a LCD without any fancy contrast enhancement this scene is foggy and lacks impact. If you turn on image enhancement features you crush black and lose detail. There's no real good way to view it.
The pure black screen is a stress test that isn't too applicable to actual viewing, but scenes like that in Cast Away will matter.
>>54282087
>off for a few days
You know CRT's have to warm up before optimal viewing right?
>>54282065
"HD CRTs" have backlight? Explain, dear CRT superiority expert.
>>54282065
Lag is literally the only problem they share with LCDs, and the lag on them is usually 1 frame or none at all.
Every other problem with LCDs like contrast or response time is completely separate and different. For the most part they are non-issues with high definition CRT televisions.
>>54282115
typo
*glow
I've never noticed glow on a CRT
I was referring to anon's experience with his HD CRT 'glowing'
I was saying whatever glowing issue his HD CRT has it isn't present on PC CRTs
>>54282025
HD CRTs like the XBR960/XS955 are some of the best looking displays ever made. They have extremely good color, contrast, and clarity. They represent the near-peak of CRT technology. The only better CRTs you'll ever find were those manufactured for medical or professional usage.
There is also the concept of luminosity of a display. This is different from the brightness of a display. Instead it is the ability for the screen to seem vibrant and color saturated. PC monitors and those intended for medical use are designed with a lower luminosity in mind because they will be viewed from up close for long periods of time.
Televisions are designed with higher luminosity because they are viewed from farther off and for lesser periods of time.
If you compare a high quality PC CRT monitor right next to a high quality production monitor (same luminosity as a television) you will find the PC CRT monitor looks dull in comparison. There's nothing wrong with the PC monitor, it's only a design difference. This is also not limited to CRTs.
>>54282096
Yep, that's exactly the kind of stuff I had in mind. A beautifully detailed dark scene in a movie or game can be completely ruined by the kind of glow a typical LCD has. Granted, some VA panel TVs seem to show much higher contrast ratios than anything I've tried, so maybe those would be a different story.
>>54282065
Digital scaling is no fun, but when is it really going to be an issue? Use 1080 sources or none at all.
>>54282087
You're just seeing the glow of the phosphors from what little ambient light there is. It's not actually creating the glow.
>>54282175
http://www.electronicspoint.com/threads/glow-in-the-dark-crt-freaky.46345/
One of first google results. It makes sense to me for the phosphors to glow due to ambient light or due to the light from other active pixels around. It has been 8 years since I watched my PC monitor, so I can't confirm it completely for sure but I think it is probably true.
>>54282087
>Is this normal?
yup, kind of eerie when you're trying to go to sleep in a room with several of them. Those screens are covered in phosphor, which has a little glow no matter what.
>>54282175
The point is that the glow has nothing to do with it being HD. If it glows more than any other CRT, it's due to being out of adjustment or that model is just poorer by design. It has nothing to do with the HD capability whatsoever.
>>54282224
>>54282240
Thanks anons. Was wondering if I was hallucinating since my camera couldn't capture the glow.
Glad that's cleared up
>>54281713
>Most used CRT monitors look as good as the day they were bought. They are not like consumer televisions.
No, consumer CRT monitors are a whole lot like consumer televisions in that their guns and phosphors wear out. You don't hurl and catch electrons at 30kV without wear & tear.
I've been through a few CRTs over the years and each time I replaced one it was because the display had grown too dim.
>>54281905
>turn off all the lights in the room. I could still see the screen glowing
It'll do that even when powered off. The phosphor screen will react weakly to even ambient radiation in the environment.
The spookiness of this effect was one of the inspirations for the TV in the movie Poltergeist.
>>54282651
We're talking more glow than the ambient glow.
>>54282579
Could you just reapply the phosphors?
It's sad to think that one day in the near future every CRT will be dead
>>54282668
I've never heard of a CRT being re-phosphored.
Back in the mid-century era, it was common for TV CRTs to be rebuilt, but the only thing done with rebuilding or replacing the gun(s) as they wore out far quicker than the phosphors. Last I heard there is only one CRT rebuilding operation left in existence, and they focus on antique television CRTs rather than monitors.
>>54280386
I really like my FW900, and the F520 my friend has is really better, but 16:10 is important to me.
The problem is CRTs on this level are often pretty expensive. Good luck ever getting a Master Pro 514.
I love watching sports on a CRT.
>>54280972
You can set bias lighting and any monitor with at least 1000:1 static contrast monitor will look as if it had decent black levels
>but I hate the washed out look and oversaturated look of my friends 1080p desktop monitor. If he turns brightness down it looks even worse because it starts to look more grey than white.
Shit's calibrated to look like a TV in your local mall, a decent monitor profile would fix that, if the monitor allows for it decent settings would fix that
>>54281055
>sharpness fags
Enjoy your shitty aliased text
>speakers that aren't even shielded
what the fuck anon
>>54281576
>In reality you were dealing with not so good image because of ambient light being too strong for the CRT's brightness to overcome it. So "infinite" contrast wasn't of much use unless you were vampire living during night with lights of.
Contrast in any display goes to shit if ambient conditions are shit
>I am an encoder who deals with these oldies and indeed
Literally no experience aside from setting x264 to placebo then
>>54281737
>You are aware these extraordinary models you keep pulling out have cost more than a car then? If you want to argue using those, compare to today's profi highend. Normal people never came across these.
Most Trinitron's weren't far from those monitors
Trinitron's were common as fuck
>>54281905
>When I owned a KD-34XS955 I could set the screen to pitch black and turn off all the lights in the room. I could still see the screen glowing. This was one of the best CRTs ever made.
There was something wrong with yours, or you set up badly
There's no glow in my '92 XBR^2, though it is in near pristine condition, aside from that shitty PSU that shit's itself from time to time
>>54282096
This is more of LCD's being set up like shit from the factory regardless from the settings, there would be enough impact and no black crush if it was calibrated decently, unless it literally had something like 200:1 contrast
>>54281476
>Like the absolutely paltry brightness (100 nits if you are lucky, IIRC?)
120 nits was the SMPTC recommendation for brightness in direct view sets, pretty much any CRT could do that without problems
You're thinking of projectors over big screens
>>54282749
I'm going to miss CRTs
>>54281668
>why were plasmas phased out?
Manufacturers couldn't get the dot pitch small enough to make 4K TV's, since 4K is the new meme they simply phased out the stuff
>and about OLED, people have been waiting for 10 years or more for OLED PC monitors to come out and they never did
You can get Sony BVM's for a gorrillion dollars
>>54282668
>>54282749
It can be done but no one does it nowadays
>>54283015
How difficult to do it yourself? I'm still using km old crt purely for nostalgia and it already has a dead pixel. If it dies I'll be heartbroken, I've had it for almost 15 years now. From before I was 10 years old.
>>54283062
It's difficult as in impossible without the proper machinery
>>54283062
You can't. You have to create a vacuum and have a clean room plus actually know how to do it which I can't help.
>>54283062
>CRT
>dead pixel
>>54283130
Dust covers up a phosphor or gets caught on the mask/grille sometimes.
>>54281795
width isn't the dimension you're talking about.
>>54283134
I imagine the dust would've had to be in there somewhere since manufacture.
My 60Hz 1080p TN panel just died. Should I look at getting an IPS or stick with TN?
Mainly using it for gaming, but I don't really care that much about 120/144Hz. Is the higher response time of IPS even noticeable?
>>54282749
>I've never heard of a CRT being re-phosphored.
Isn't this what a CRT rejuvenation machine does?
>>54283351
>Is the higher response time of IPS even noticeable?
no, unless you have a website gaymer shit site that proclaims otherwise or are a retard who eats such a sites "journalism" up.
prove me otherwise. not some fag on neogafs response or a meme tier web site statistic. actual scientifically proven evidence..... im waiting..........im still waiting......
>>54282956
>Literally no experience aside from setting x264 to placebo then
Isn't it great assuming that people disagreeing with you are doing so because they are idiots.
Well, in the end I will have left a real work behind me whereas you produce rants on 4chan. I don't fancy that everybody out there will clearly see that I did well, but hopefully few people with insight might realize it.
>>54282956
>unless it literally had something like 200:1 contrast
That's what most LCDs have when you turn off their fancy schmancy black level enhancements and such.
>>54283446
I'm far from an expert, but my understanding of CRT rebuilding is that the guns are either replaced or rebuilt with new filaments and cathodes and nothing is done with the phosphors.
Be sure to sit close to get a nice tan from the radiation
>>54283468
>not using a panasonic plasma with 10,000:1 contrast
usually i would call such a person a poorfag but its literally cheaper to buy top tier shit then meme tier casual shit nowadays. retards. just fucking retards....
other chans be better.....
>>54283456
I have IPS screen that can flicker when you have pan in anime where a high contrast shift happens over a panning edge. The ghosts cause flicker and it looks bad.
I still prefer it despite that (and general response effect, ips glow, black level...), because the static image quality is just somewhere else.
>>54283468
Haven't some modern VA panels exceeded 4000:1 actual contrast? Even most cheap junk these days will show at least 700:1 in actual testing.
>>54283468
This is bullshit. Static contrast is 800-1000:1, reviews objectively measure it. Don't make up shit.
>>54283500
you do know that 99% of lcd/led/plasma screens give off more radiation and cancer causing the CRT`s right? or are you a memeTard from le reddit...................... check your science shit retard.
like are you over 21? if you where youd notice the articles and proof and self evidence that modern meme le HD monitors are shit.
>>54283506
Please show me a good plasma with such contrast which is in the price range of poorfag OP. Otherwise kindly stfu
>>54283535
Yeah they do, that guy is just wrong. It is about 1000:1 for TN and IPS (1500:1 for some exceptional), 3000-4000:1 for VA which have better black levels.
>>54283535
Maybe, don't really enough to say. But that's why I said most, and not all.
>>54283535
some panasonic plasmas where 10,000:1
eat lcd meme tach shit up your reddit asshole though bro. at least google shit before shitposting.
>>54283584
Proper science links or you are just making shit up. Which would not be new in this thread.
>>54283561
Whatever it is they look like gray foggy shit when you turn everything off.
>>54283602
>implying I was shitposting
>implying I even like LCDs
Maybe you quoted the wrong post.
>>54283626
You didn't actually try to test your theories for real, I see.
LCDs emit photons only, CRTs emit high energy electrons, google "electron gun"
>>54283587
>in the price range of poorfag OP
see now your lowering the bar. you expect me to spoonfeed you to a amazon or leddit listing or something. do your own research faggot. ive scooped up 800-1500$ tv sets that retards sell for 100-200$ on craigslist/amazon resellers/ebay because they think a cd is better or whatever is the meme nowadays. shit with "4k" out now you can get top tier shit for next to nothing. sorry gtg enjoying my 42inch panasonic 3d plama hdtv in my gamer room. only paid 195$ on a 1200$ product what was selling as such in 2013.
enjoy you halo on your meme vizio lcd or whateverf faggot. im playing all the pc/console games at 1080p amd or nvidia 3d. becauee i scooped up the glasses/box for like 10 bucks because im not retarded like you or the seller who bought them at 250 us dollars\.
>>54283657
The test is simple.
Contrast/Black enhancements on: good black, but details crushed
Contrast/Black enhancements off: black are actually dark grays, but details are visible
Ain't no way over the mountain with this for LCDs. It's a fundamental limitation of the technology. You can minimize it a lot, and there are some great looking LCDs out there, but it's always there. We'll have cheap, large size OLEDs before you see it corrected.
>>54283720
Even $200 is still getting a bit out of the poorfag range.
> you expect me to spoonfeed you to a amazon or leddit listing or something.
>/g/ is for the discussion of technology and related topics
If you ain't going to discuss the topic at hand by OP then GTFO
>>54283724
There is absolutely no reason that details should be crushed on an LCD. A properly calibrated LCD will have a black level as deep as the backlight allows and not crush any dark details whatsoever. What you describe is just seriously botched calibration.
>>54283680
>implying YOU KNOW or can show WHAT THE FUCKING DIFFERENCE IS
sorry your a retard with no masters or at LEAST a bachelors. maybe then you could prove why you arent a reatrd.
>muh meme terms and words
>this is bad because it sounds worse and was in a movie that gave a guy super powrers
kill yourself kiddo.
pic related, i found your crew on facebook
Thoughts on this?
http://www.amazon.com/Acer-R240HY-bidx-23-8-Inch-Widescreen/dp/B0148NNKTC/ref=zg_bsnr_1292115011_8
I'm concerned about ghosting on IPS, but I'm also coming from a 60Hz 5ms TN panel that I got as a gift. It had noticeable ghosting despite being TN, so I figure it can't be any worse.
I wasn't anticipating having to buy a new one right now, so I can't spend a lot on a higher end model.
>>54284785
Why not get one of those korean panels and overclock it?
>>54281055
Shut the fuck up,SHUT THE FUCK UP
I'm tired of you newfags who don't know anything about tech posting here
There's a reason why Sony still sells Trinitrons to Hollywood for 23K a pop
Now go kill yourself you fucking shitter
>>54284975
They do?
Brand new?
>>54284785
>4ms lag
>under 24 inch
>shitty specs
>that price
why?
amazon has better at 100$ and free prime shipping.
what a gay
>>54281157
>I'm poor
>I'm smarter than you
Keep buying $100 CRT monitors anon, what a good idea
>>54283765
A properly calibrated LCD will simply not have that great of blacks. At least not compared to good CRT monitors. You have to crush them.
Read the AV Science forum, and you'll find post after post where the users have settled on crushing the black just a little bit because they prefer it to a washed out image.
>>54285016
Link me to a better one, because that's about the best IPS I can find on Amazon for <$150. And it does have prime shipping on it, which I have.
I can't go much larger than 24" because of my desk, not that I need to. My old one was 21" so it's still an improvement.
>>54285007
They do for Hollywood
At like $20-30K a pop
>>54285245
Fuck I'm jealous.
But why?
>>54285245
They dont but you tried. The new Sony BVMs etc. are all OLED displays.
>>54283461
>real work
>encoding for animu groups
sure thing senpai
>>54285409
Not long ago they were still making the small BVM's, but I guess they discontinued them in favor of small OLED's
Last time I checked their page they only listed OLED's for small monitors
>>54285516
yea for professional use CRTs are outdated and useless for the most part.
Crts waste power and the image quality sucks.
>>54286092
(you)
>>54285995
How about for consumers?
>>54282791
>Good luck ever getting a Master Pro 514
Should I do it ?
>>54287044
Fuck yeah!
If it works.
>>54281689
got a problem cunt?
Whereya live op? I can post you an lcd monitor with bretty gud image quality.Just depends on where you live,dont really want to pay a fortune sending.
>>54280386
Yes.
I used an old Sun CRT that I bought for $5 until late 2014 when it died.
>>54288964
Sun CRTs are the best, it's unfortunate mine doesn't have dvi though.
>>54288923
No need, I got a friend donating me an old dell 1680x1050 screen with built in usb hub and speakers.
If I don't like I'll put it aside for a side build(probably an orange pi pc) to cut down on power consumption.
I doubt you'd be close enough for shipping anyways.
NSW, rouse hill.
>>54288998
Yeah that'd cost me more than the monitors worth.Best of luck with it all mate
>>54289073
Cheers mate.
>>54281055
ex-CRT evangelist here, this guy's got a point. CRTs are shit if you want crisp pixels.
>>54289714
>what is native resolution?
>the post
>>54281472
> near infinite
wtf? what does this even mean?
>>54280509
>You can usually find 20" CRT monitors on craigslist
rofl no you fucking can't
>>54286857
dependent upon application, they have use left. I.E. old gaming, if you still watch laser disc, vhs, even dvd, or hell if you're nostalgic that's technically still use.
>>54281576
>In reality you were dealing with not so good image because of ambient light being too strong for the CRT's brightness to overcome it
The 144Hz LCD I have now still isn't as responsive as any of the CRTs I've had.
>>54280386
>using CRTs
Enjoy your blindness and your eyes being burned.
ITT: CRTfags rewriting history and acting like people didn't switch to LCDs for a reason.
Me when realizing thread is still alive the next day. Optimistically thinking though, maybe it is just one weirdo fighting the world.
>>54283724
>The test is simple.
Yeah, no.
The test is that you take a probe and fucking measure the thing. Contrast is an objective characteristics. There are guys who do that for reviews if you weren't living in a dream. I know one actually, so they are not some alien matrix illusion.
[spoiler]Of course the results are contrary to your wishful impressions so you will just dismiss them.[/spoiler]
>>54292291
I was posting in this thread last night, went to bed, spent a full day at work, came home and it's still going
>>54292255
technology isn't driven by what performs the best, it's driven by what works the best
LCDs may have had shittier quality and limp feature sets but they saved space and power while being good enough for most tasks
