Anyone recently switch back to a CRT to compare input lag?

[Lonbjerg]

The real-estate on my desk is the troubling issue with where to put it atm.

Do they still make CRTs?

My Desk is 3x1 meters.

I got 2 x 21" Samsung Syncmasters on that desk.
And 2 in spare in the basement
I hate the crappy I.Q. of LDC's with a vengace.

People that say the I.Q. today is similar between LCD's and CRT's havn't got a clue....they really need to sit inf ront of a high end CRT and game for a day...and then go back to their LCD's....and then we could see how they would cringe.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Yeah, becuase you lift them around all day and thats...oh wait...:hmm:

I lived in a college dorm at the time. I moved them around enough for it to be an issue.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I lived in a college dorm at the time. I moved them around enough for it to be an issue.

Past tense...right?

There one place I never compromise at any PC.
The places where you have interact with the PC.

• Mouse
• Keyboard
• Monitor

As long as you don't think LCD's have better/same I.Q. and try to state it as an fact...you are free to compromise though.

 

[Markbnj]

A brand new high quality CRT is still superior to LCD in every way apart from footprint, weight, lack of 2560x1600 sizes and power consumption. But... there are no more brand new CRTs to be had.

So LCDs are superior now. CRTs degrade and the colour reproduction and even the correct size of image being presented degrades.

I loved my old Mitsubishi Diamondtron, but it's gone never to return.

It was also a crapshoot whether the unit you unboxed would have acceptable geometry or not. I paid well over $1000 for some high-end CRTs in my time (Nanao and NEC mostly) and set them up only to find corner geometry or convergence screwed. Sometimes you could dial it back in, other times you couldn't.

CRTs had some definite advantages, but those are massively and decisively outweighed by the advantages of LCDs... obviously, or the market wouldn't have gone the way it did.

 

[Lonbjerg]

It was also a crapshoot whether the unit you unboxed would have acceptable geometry or not. I paid well over $1000 for some high-end CRTs in my time (Nanao and NEC mostly) and set them up only to find corner geometry or convergence screwed. Sometimes you could dial it back in, other times you couldn't.

CRTs had some definite advantages, but those are massively and decisively outweighed by the advantages of LCDs... obviously, or the market wouldn't have gone the way it did.

Wut?

Formfactor and powerconsumption are the only things that could be chalked up as benefits with a LCD over a CRT?
Care to list others?!

 

[wuliheron]

Wut?

Formfactor and powerconsumption are the only things that could be chalked up as benefits with a LCD over a CRT?
Care to list others?!

LCDs are significantly cheaper and also don't tend to induce headaches and eye strain with prolonged use.

However, a British company has announced they've figured out how to produce quantum dot screens and expect the first TVs using the technology to be demonstrated within a year. They are theoretically about as thin, flexible, energy efficient, fast, cheap, and brilliant a picture as is it is possible to make.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-quantum-dot-tvs-wallpaper.html

 

[Lonbjerg]

LCDs are significantly cheaper and also don't tend to induce headaches and eye strain with prolonged use.

However, a British company has announced they've figured out how to produce quantum dot screens and expect the first TVs using the technology to be demonstrated within a year. They are theoretically about as thin, flexible, energy efficient, fast, cheap, and brilliant a picture as is it is possible to make.

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-quantum-dot-tvs-wallpaper.html

I think the best solution sadly died off:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_emission_display

The picture of a CRT, but the formfactor of an LCD...

 

[bunnyfubbles]

nope, my BenQ XL2410T already is just as fast as a CRT, that along with 120Hz is why I gladly paid $400+ for it

still nowhere near the motion clarity of a CRT but it destroys all other 60Hz LCDs

 

[Lonbjerg]

nope, my BenQ XL2410T already is just as fast as a CRT, that along with 120Hz is why I gladly paid $400+ for it

still nowhere near the motion clarity of a CRT but it destroys all other 60Hz LCDs

If you think 120Hz LCD = 120Hz CRT...you got a lot of reading up to do...

 

[Markbnj]

Wut?

Formfactor and powerconsumption are the only things that could be chalked up as benefits with a LCD over a CRT?
Care to list others?!

I agree, those are the advantages. I didn't say how many there were, or what they are, only that they decisively outweighed the advantages of CRTs. That should be obvious. Otherwise someone would still be making CRTs.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I agree, those are the advantages. I didn't say how many there were, or what they are, only that they decisively outweighed the advantages of CRTs. That should be obvious. Otherwise someone would still be making CRTs.

Oddly enoguh I consider the I.Q. to be noy only the most important factor...but also the only that matters.

Why on earth would a I downgrade my I.Q...in order to handicap my $4-500 GPU?

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

No, but I switched back to a horse and buggy to get to work.

That's cool, I haul my dirty laundry down to the river to wash it.

 

[Lonbjerg]

That's cool, I haul my dirty laundry down to the river to wash it.

I bet you downgraded your I.Q. to...rigth? :sneaky:

 

[njdevilsfan87]

I can't stand the noise CRTs make. That high pitched annoying sound...

I now have a 42'' plasma, and two 23'' lcd monitors in my room. At best with CRT tech, I could have a single monitor in my room. A reasonable TV wouldn't be possible because it's on top of my dresser which is 15-16 inches in width.

I'll pass. I'm all for the image quality of tubes, but until engineers figure out how to make them as thin as current flat panel technology, I will never again own one. The slightly better image quality just isn't worth it to me. And I also highly prefer LCDs for general desktop use, which is like 80% of my computer time anyway.

 

[wuliheron]

I think the best solution sadly died off:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_emission_display

The picture of a CRT, but the formfactor of an LCD...

Definitely not the best solution. OLED and QD displays can produce images on almost any surface that exceed the ability of the human eye to detect any difference and do so dirt cheap using so little power they can be solar powered. In fact, QDs are also of interest for producing solar power about as efficiently and cheaply as theoretically possible. Quite possibly at some point your monitor might be what powers your computer as well as itself.

It just doesn't get any better then a monitor that is dirt cheap to make, can be rolled up and stuffed in your pocket, and produces the best possible picture the human eye can detect while providing enough power to run your entire computer as well as itself.

 

[Markbnj]

Oddly enoguh I consider the I.Q. to be noy only the most important factor...but also the only that matters.

Why on earth would a I downgrade my I.Q...in order to handicap my $4-500 GPU?

I would guess that people for whom IQ is the most important factor are actually a very small segment of the market. For them there are high-end LCDs that cost about what a high-end CRT did back in the day, but still don't deliver all the IQ a CRT did. Still the market response to the technology was startlingly decisive. Within a few years of LCDs becoming affordable... no more CRTs anywhere. CRTs are just a bear to make and ship. They're heavy, hot, power-hungry, subject to magnetic influences, and susceptible to geometry issues. Even when they ship from the factory with perfect geometry a good knock in shipping can throw them off. I liked the IQ of my CRTs too, but I can't say I miss them. I just picked up a Dell U2412M, and I like it better than my best CRT (which was probably my Nanao 17" which I bought in the early 90's).

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Ok, so I'm running my CRT and it does feel like an improvement even at 85Hz vs my LCD of 120Hz. This is good. Now I am trying to set a higher refresh rate at different resolutions but I can't. What is this due from? the drivers or the CRT?

I remember using this CRT with a GeForce MX 2 or 400 along with Win 2k & XP, with refresh rates of 120Hz & more.

 

[Oil]

No because it's not worth the desk space and my eyes never liked CRTs for extended periods of time

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

I'll tell you this after hooking up my CRT to game, CRT > LCD for Unreal Tournament III

In my case, I only have to look at it to game. My NON-Game rig I use an LCD PC monitor.

 

[motsm]

Ok, so I'm running my CRT and it does feel like an improvement even at 85Hz vs my LCD of 120Hz. This is good. Now I am trying to set a higher refresh rate at different resolutions but I can't. What is this due from? the drivers or the CRT?

Windows 7 / GPU drivers for W7 typically cap the refresh rates at 85hz for my CRT. Every now and then a beta driver I install will allow higher, but I am normally alright with 85.

You can try your luck with PowerStrip however, I believe it allows you to force whatever modes you want.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Windows 7 / GPU drivers for W7 typically cap the refresh rates at 85hz for my CRT. Every now and then a beta driver I install will allow higher, but I am normally alright with 85.

You can try your luck with PowerStrip however, I believe it allows you to force whatever modes you want.

thanks for the suggestion!

 

[QueBert]

You can get CRT's that are still in great shape for free or at least dirt cheap if you look around on Craigslist. I bought 4 last year from a guy, 1 was in a box that had never been opened. When it starts to go out, I have 3 more used, but in good condition ones to switch to. Luckily I don't have to, but if it came down to it, I would easily sacrifice 95% of my desk space to accommodate my CRT. It's depressing that nobody seems to care much about IQ any more. I don't look at my empty desk space, so I don't care how much I have but I'm always looking at my monitor.

 

[Veliko]

You can get CRT's that are still in great shape for free or at least dirt cheap if you look around on Craigslist. I bought 4 last year from a guy, 1 was in a box that had never been opened. When it starts to go out, I have 3 more used, but in good condition ones to switch to. Luckily I don't have to, but if it came down to it, I would easily sacrifice 95% of my desk space to accommodate my CRT. It's depressing that nobody seems to care much about IQ any more. I don't look at my empty desk space, so I don't care how much I have but I'm always looking at my monitor.

Of course people care about image quality but that's not the sole consideration. It's about balancing everything and the relatively small increase in IQ on a CRT simply isn't worth sacrificing everything else that an LCD gives you.

 

[Specop 007]

I'd bet (lots) of money that in a true blind test you wouldnt notice the difference between the CRT and the LCD in regards to the input lag you mention.

It would be the same as asking someone to tell you what their latency was in an online game. I can tell you when I'm running a 400 ms ping. Get it down to 100 to 150 and anything below that I really cant tell much difference, certainly not in a game affecting way.

So when you say with a straight face you notice a difference in "input lag" that amounts to what, 30 ms or so, I have to call BS.

Does input lag exist? Sure. Is it truly game affecting? Doubtful, at least not for the 99% of us.

Now refresh rate, screen size, colors etc sure. But input lag? I'm skeptical.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

I'd bet (lots) of money that in a true blind test you wouldnt notice the difference between the CRT and the LCD in regards to the input lag you mention.

It would be the same as asking someone to tell you what their latency was in an online game. I can tell you when I'm running a 400 ms ping. Get it down to 100 to 150 and anything below that I really cant tell much difference, certainly not in a game affecting way.

So when you say with a straight face you notice a difference in "input lag" that amounts to what, 30 ms or so, I have to call BS.

Does input lag exist? Sure. Is it truly game affecting? Doubtful, at least not for the 99% of us.

Now refresh rate, screen size, colors etc sure. But input lag? I'm skeptical.

You're too late. I already went back to my CRT and the difference is night n day.

Sorry about your argument