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

[Specop 007]

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

Sorry about your argument

No, its really not. You are clearly confusing fps with input lag.

I'm glad you are happy though, thats what really matters.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

No, its really not. You are clearly confusing fps with input lag.

I'm glad you are happy though, thats what really matters.

I'm not trying call anyone out. Just for facts. In-game I get 240fps with a cap on the fps. If i take it off it hits 356fps. I've been gaming like this since a yr or so with the 120Hz LCD. Instantly noticeable off the bat on the input lag with the CRT and still at these frames per second, the difference is night n day.

Good luck on your LCD

 

[OVerLoRDI]

I'm not trying call anyone out. Just for facts. In-game I get 240fps with a cap on the fps. If i take it off it hits 356fps. I've been gaming like this since a yr or so with the 120Hz LCD. Instantly noticeable off the bat on the CRT and still at these frames per second, the difference is night n day.

Good luck on your LCD

Unfortunately you are blessed with the ability to notice these differences like me. Why can't we be normal people and be happy with LCDs?

Anyway, what CRT are you using? If it is Sony based you could look into Windas and calibrating it thoroughly.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Unfortunately you are blessed with the ability to notice these differences like me. Why can't we be normal people and be happy with LCDs?

Anyway, what CRT are you using? If it is Sony based you could look into Windas and calibrating it thoroughly.

I have 2. I've got an old old Sony G400 Trinitron CRT which is on it's last legs. The above testing/comparison was done on the Sony. And I also recently picked up a KDS 19" 195tf CRT

I think they are both Sony tubes. What's wrong with the calibration?

 

[shortylickens]

I had a really nice 19 inch Philips that kicked ass on all levels. But as video power improved over the years and I was able to run in much higher resolutions I decided to upgrade to something larger.

 

[rumpleforeskin]

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.

That would be a poor use of your money

When I recieved my 1st LCD i had heard nothing about input lag, but it was evident when gaming. Not saying i would swap the desk space to have a CRT back but the lag does take some getting used to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi2OE6hSh00
example video

 

[Lonbjerg]

I had a really nice 19 inch Philips that kicked ass on all levels. But as video power improved over the years and I was able to run in much higher resolutions I decided to sidegrade to something with larger resolution but worse I.Q..

FYP

 

[know of fence]

LCD vs CRT:

- LCDs don't flicker ever: however flickering vanishes around 75Hz on a CRT. But if the afterglow of the fluorescent screen becomes permanently glowing at those rates, you sacrifice deep black.
- Truly high contrast dark black CRTs never have been cheap (or even real?) Sony's high contrast "Trinitron" brand carried over from 50/60Hz TVs.

- There is no dangerous radiation: CRT works similarly to an X-Ray tube, where electrons (cathode ray) are accelerated towards your face and then stopped, causing them to emit light. Remember those radiation stickers?
- There is no electron whistle and no static charge on LCDs. though some come with bad power bricks and audible fans.
- Cheap flat-screen CRTs never existed.
- All CRTs due to the almost square 16:12 ratio simply don't fit into a 16:9 world, even worse for cinema(scope).

 

[Rvenger]

I am surprised that Microsoft hasn't come up with a patch to nerf CRT image quality. They seem to do it with every other piece of older tech.

 

[trelin]

<soapbox>
Man, the SNR of this thread is freakishly low as regards the OP. People already know LCD's have about a billion advantages over CRT, with a few exceptions. The OP asked about input lag, it would be nice to respond in kind.
</soapbox>


I threw fits when I first switched to LCD, and for nearly two years chose to lug around my trusty old CRT whenever I played a competitive FPS. Now, another eight years later, I had become convinced that my old complaints about input lag were overblown, and that "surely it wasn't as bad as I used to claim."

One week ago I needed to use my old CRT for a short while. As I hooked it up I was grumbling to myself about the weight, and turning my nose up at the small screen size. However, when it actually got into Windows my jaw literally dropped.

Believe who you will, but to my eye the difference between my supposedly "zero input lag" IPS LCD and my trusty old Trinitron CRT is nothing short of a slap in the face of modern LCD's (no hyperbole). Bear in mind that one week ago I would have SWORN that my LCD has no input lag.


Does anybody remember using ps2rate in Windows 95/98 to up the PS/2 polling rate from 40Hz to 100Hz (or higher)? Remember the stark difference it made? The difference between my LCD and my CRT is that noticeable.

 

[QueBert]

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.

Here's what an LCD gives me

much smaller size
less energy use
less heat generated

some people would argue text looks much better, but the text on a Diamontron is close enough to me where that's a wash.

everything else is a + for CRT. I had an LCD and I was sacrificing the 2 most important things imho, image quality & the inability to run non native resolutions without effecting the IQ. More power to all the people who believe the smaller size which gives them more desk space totally negates the long list of reasons LCD are far inferior to a high end CRT.

And the IQ increase isn't relatively small, it's as big as the size difference between my CRT and your LCD. People who say this either haven't used a good CRT, or they need their eyes checked. Input lag is as big a difference as IQ too, god bless people who don't notice it, they're probably the same who could look at a TN and a high end IPS LCD and not see a difference.

 

[Magic Carpet]

I would prolly still be using my 17" NEC for games if it hadn't died. I am sure as hell people would feel the difference, given a chance. Nothing to compare it to these days. You go to a shop, you see what? TN mostly.

 

[Zorander]

I still keep a Sony G420 as the primary desktop on my HTPC. This thread tempts me to test gaming once again on the CRT. IQ not withstanding however, the experience won't be as immersive compared to the 27-30in LCDs I have been using (let along the 55in Plasma). This is the one definite upgrade I felt when I got my first LCD (27in, never had anything smaller).

I wouldn't mind sticking to CRTs if only they are still available and have resolutions comparable to today's monitors. It would be great too if they came with their own (quality) DAC. Some video cards I used in the past had lousy analog output stage and it clearly showed as fine/grainy smudges on the Sony. Upgrading video cards meant worrying if I would get a card with lousy DAC. That ceased to be an issue when I moved to LCD displays.

 

[zerocool84]

I'm happy to move away from the eyestrain CRT's gave me. Biggest reason IMO to use LCD. I still have my 19" Viewsonic in the garage but would never want to pull it out again. I had a Sony 27" CRT HDTV I replaced last month in my bedroom to a 32" Vizio LCD. Yes the colors and blacks are no where hear as great but I'm definitely happier with the new Vizio LCD.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I'm happy to move away from the eyestrain CRT's gave me. Biggest reason IMO to use LCD. I still have my 19" Viewsonic in the garage but would never want to pull it out again. I had a Sony 27" CRT HDTV I replaced last month in my bedroom to a 32" Vizio LCD. Yes the colors and blacks are no where hear as great but I'm definitely happier with the new Vizio LCD.

What Hz did you run on your CRT?

 

[Arg Clin]

I've never seen a CRT that didn't have nasty flickering or/and deinterlacing issues. But then again I've probably just never seen one that was high-end enough.

On the LCD side you don't need to go to the absolute high-end to get a decent monitor.

I'm not a competitive gamer so the input lag on LCD's do not bother me the slightest. Absolutely no reason to go CRT for me.

 

[CVSiN]

Um no... I'll keep my 3x 120 22's in Eyefinity thanks!

 

[ImpulsE69]

..this whole thread stinks of why LCD in the crap form it is became the norm. I too have a CRT that I still use for some things, and while it does have it's shortcomings, in FPS games it can't be matched so far. I use LCD primarily, and I'm "happy" with what I have now...but they just can't match the smoothness of CRT in any form.

Overall, I suppose the pros of LCD outweigh the cons, but I think the point is they have a long way to go before they are actually as great as people try to make them out to be.

 

[Red Storm]

lol, you couldn't pay me to go back to CRTs.

No thank you.

 

[Ross Ridge]

I've never seen a CRT that didn't have nasty flickering or/and deinterlacing issues. But then again I've probably just never seen one that was high-end enough.

Computer monitor CRTs don't use interlacing, at least not in the last 15 years. You can't even get modern versions of Windows to run in these ancient non-TV interlaced modes, so you weren't seeing seeing "deinterlacing" issues. The flickering is caused by running the monitor at the default 60 Hz refresh rate rather than 75 Hz or higher. It wasn't that you didn't see one high-end enough, you just never saw one configured correctly.

 

[aigomorla]

you couldn't pay me to use a crt again.

^+1 this....

i dont get blood shot red eyes with an lcd...

 

[irishScott]

No. If you think an extra few ms make that much difference in gaming, you either have no brain or are a professional gamer playing other professional gamers. Or the game is retardedly designed to depend on ms differences.

 

[Specop 007]

That would be a poor use of your money

When I recieved my 1st LCD i had heard nothing about input lag, but it was evident when gaming. Not saying i would swap the desk space to have a CRT back but the lag does take some getting used to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pi2OE6hSh00
example video

No, it wouldnt be a waste of money. It would be the same thing as saying "When I ping 2 ms in a FPS game I own, if I ping 12 ms I never kill anyone!"

The difference is so subtle it wont affect your gameplay.

Many people here who should know better are confusing fps, refresh rate and color depth with input lag.

I really, REALLY doubt anyone could sit down and play a game, take a 10 minute break then sit back down and play the same game and tell you which of the 2 gaming episodes had a 10 ms additional lag associated with them.

Now if you can notice a 10 ms difference then I wish you the best of luck at the World Finals Professional Players league.

I wont argue CRT's dont have benefits to them, but I will argue that this term "input lag" is being grossly misused.

 

[Arg Clin]

Computer monitor CRTs don't use interlacing, at least not in the last 15 years. You can't even get modern versions of Windows to run in these ancient non-TV interlaced modes, so you weren't seeing seeing "deinterlacing" issues. The flickering is caused by running the monitor at the default 60 Hz refresh rate rather than 75 Hz or higher. It wasn't that you didn't see one high-end enough, you just never saw one configured correctly.

Well not sure that the phenomenon was then. Above 60 Hz, every CRT I've used would produce distorted fuzzy images with very thin black lines in them. No amount of configuration has ever been able to solve that. At 60 Hz they would flicker like mad. (yes I'm rather sensitive to these things)

I've not used particular high end CRT's, but rather middle-to-low end - around the $ 200 - 300 price point. So I assume thats the culprit. Not saying CRT tech can't produce something good - just never seen it come at a reasonable price like it's the case with LCD.

 

[bobdole369]

I havn't downgraded to LCD's yet.
I have 2 Samsung Syncmaster pluuged in (and 2 in spare if one dies)

The I.Q. of (some cheap) LDC's are horrible compared to CRT's.

And most degradation has nothing to do with the tube, but most often a cheap second component that either can be repalced...or recalibbrated.

As for inputlag:
http://www.behardware.com/articles/632-1/lcds-images-delayed-compared-to-crts-yes.html

FTFY - IQ exceeds CRT's on a number factors including resolution since consumer level CRT's topped out at around 0.25mm dot pitch, that too. Also lots of very bad analog signal generators and terrible cables tops out your rez somewhere around 1280x1024/85hz if I recall?

CRT's are usually better in black level and contrast range but strides are made every year. LCD's are the defacto standard (well non- TN panels are) in photo work now, CRT's are simply over with.

Another big issue that folks never seem to take care of is to actually calibrate the LCD. Don't just crank up the brightness. Purchase and use a colorimeter, actually use it to adjust the color gamut to something neutral, set the contrast and brightness *correctly* - and you'll find most LCD's (yes even TN's) can be made to look much better.