CRT Monitors

Discussion in 'Video Cards and Graphics' started by NoStateofMind, Nov 16, 2012.

  1. EliteRetard

    EliteRetard Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    5,334
    Likes Received:
    384
    There's definitely that too...but I do have some kind of -VA panel as well as an IPS to compare to. The CRT is still better.

    Edit: But yes, if I could get a good quality 20-22" 1920x1440 IPS panel with at least 85hz (and low/no input lag) I would stop hanging onto my CRT so hard. Even stretched a little to 24" would probably be fine, especially since most want widescreen and you would get 2560x1440. Good quality 30" LCD's should be running up to 3k x 2k at 85hz or better. Having a 72hz mode if not 120hz could be useful for 24FPS movies and such too...

    And 1080p was SO 90s, especially with modern 100" TVs and such...we need 3800x2200 or so. YARG!

    Id still love a good old 4:3 though, 24" IPS 2150x1600@120Hz with low/no lag and a good even backlight (maybe even RGB w/ local diming?) oh and a 6mm bezel (or less)...I'd $1k for that.

    Whats up with the OLED screens, they're using them alot in phones right? Any closer to getting a useable display out of them and do they beat LCDs in every metric yet?
     
    #26 EliteRetard, Nov 16, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2012
  2. tynopik

    tynopik Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Messages:
    3,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    Sounds like you were talking about color accuracy to me

    ALL monitors blend to some degree. CRTs don't have magic all-color pixels, they combine R, G, and B pixels.


    true

    false


    No, just no

    In the Windows world, items are always rendered with the exact same number of pixels (outside of certain tweaks).

    the letter D isn't magically rendered with more pixels because Windows detects a CRT attached.

    CRT looks smoother not because Windows magically outputs more pixels, but because it's blurry/fuzzy.

    I have seen hundreds of CRTs from low end to professional grade. I have yet to see one that is as crisp as a generic LCD.

    You might like the 'smoother' look of CRTs better, but that's the same as people who like the 'mellower' sound of tube amps. In other words, you like a little bit of distortion.

    There's nothing wrong with liking that, but just recognize that the 'blockiness' of LCDs is in fact more faithfully representing what the computer is actually sending out.
     
    #27 tynopik, Nov 16, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2012
  3. njdevilsfan87

    njdevilsfan87 Golden Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,710
    Likes Received:
    1
    The first thing I noticed about the first time I ever bought a LCD many years ago was how much easier reading off the screen was. I also didn't like the curved glass of CRTs, and how the picture would appear "behind" the front of the glass - I was too young to afford any type of higher end flat screen models. Maybe the high end CRTs beat out the high end LCDs, but the generic CRTs sucked ass compared to the generic LCDs, imo. Maybe if I was old enough to afford hardware then like I can now, I'd think differently.
     
    #28 njdevilsfan87, Nov 16, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2012
  4. RockinZ28

    RockinZ28 Golden Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1,905
    Likes Received:
    0
    I still miss the awesomeness of my 22" Mitsu Diamondtron for gaming back in the day. Display just became too small. I'd drop money on a 30" widescreen high res monster of a CRT if they made them new today.

    I tried a couple large, cheap TN panels. Then I got a 30" IPS 25x16 LCD. Still shit for most gaming. It's good for colorful and bright games, but I mostly play dark games.

    Now I just rock the 58" plasma, great black levels and good response time.
     
  5. skipsneeky2

    skipsneeky2 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2011
    Messages:
    5,037
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was checking out the specs for that monitor,1800x1440 with 20'' viewable,nice.

    Today a 20"' is mostly 1600x900 if you buy new.

    Used to enjoy how blacks looked on my old dell 19'' dimension monitor that did 1600x1200,to bad some games force you into buying 16:10 and 16:9 aspect ratio monitors,or such a beast like your old Diamond would be awesome to use.
     
  6. AyashiKaibutsu

    AyashiKaibutsu Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2004
    Messages:
    9,308
    Likes Received:
    1
    I know CRTs have their advantages, but comparing crispness of a 32" monitor vs a 21" monitor is hardly fair. Much easier to have a better dot pitch in the 21". I'd also like to know your opinion of a 32" CRT after carrying it up a flight of stairs : p
     
  7. tweakboy

    tweakboy Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    9,498
    Likes Received:
    1

    I agree, but after about 2 years now,, I am used to LCD and I love it. That mon had only a 22.5 inch view @ that res... but ya I like to see things big now and clear and be able to read from far away.

    :whiste:
     
  8. Zap

    Zap Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 1999
    Messages:
    22,378
    Likes Received:
    0
    You guys are hilarious. Bulbs and 2-stroke motors and Gollum, oh my!

    Me too. I have a 17" Hansol 701P ("Professional series" and one of the best 17" CRT from when they were all curved) and some Samsung 19" flat Trinitron (forgot model).
     
  9. BenSkywalker

    BenSkywalker Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 1999
    Messages:
    8,955
    Likes Received:
    0
    Honestly they weight about the same as a high end 22" CRT monitor. Still have my 2141SB-BK here- still violently sodomizes LCDs for gaming, just have to find a shop that can give it an overhaul :(

    While I understand the point you are making, the shockingly bad contrast of every LCD ever made does offset some of the native pixel physical space advantages that LCDs have in terms of text clarity. Both of them contribute to sharpness.
     
  10. nsKb

    nsKb Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    0
    I love my FW-900, it was supposed to be a B+ quality monitor (they said it has a blemish, and it does, a tiny one in the upper right corner) but the screen is in amazing condition. Thing about LCD is there is no LCD that looks as good as an FW-900 with both moving and still images. The resolution, refresh rates, mid screen sharpness (FW-900 have around a 0.20mm dot pitch in the center and gets worse towards the edges), and lack of input lag make this a excellent gaming monitor. I'm almost tempted to pick up 2 more so I can replace my 2 GDM-520s. CRT tech should have never died, it would have been a serious contender with OLEDs in the desktop market.
     
  11. nforce4max

    nforce4max Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2012
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    0
    Seen one and don't want to know how heavy it really was. Big enough that it had handles on each side and takes two people to carry the sucker. I have a small collection of CRT monitors even though I no longer use them/ :oops:
     
  12. BTRY B 529th FA BN

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    14,146
    Likes Received:
    0

    I Almost bought one but it had a HUUGE scratch in the CENTER of the screen :(
     
  13. Magic Carpet

    Magic Carpet Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2011
    Messages:
    3,099
    Likes Received:
    1
    why not just use Plasma TV?
     
  14. Fallengod

    Fallengod Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2001
    Messages:
    5,598
    Likes Received:
    0
    Because you dont get 120-200hz out of it. :) Kind of the point of a CRT.
     
  15. FreshJR

    FreshJR Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2012
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    The issues I have with LCD's is their input lag.

    Their digital processing, LCD shutter speed, or whatever it is, makes the display a couple ms behind the output.

    When compared to a CRT side by side that is the worst drawback. I found that the input lag varies largely from one LCD to another. Either way, I don't want the dinosaur on my desk anymore.
     
  16. 3DVagabond

    3DVagabond Lifer

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    11,728
    Likes Received:
    2
    Basically, I think LCD's are "good enough" and their conveniences far outweigh their negatives. Smaller, less cumbersome, cheaper... (way cheaper to manufacture, package, and ship)
     
  17. Soundmanred

    Soundmanred Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2006
    Messages:
    10,784
    Likes Received:
    1
    You and 99.999% of people.
    I'm with you.
    I had large high end CRTs at one point and it was a rough transition to LCDs at first, but using my 65" HDTV as a monitor more than makes up for that. The lag, ghosting and other things that bother people don't bother me, and I'd never go back to those behemoths.
     
  18. Fallengod

    Fallengod Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2001
    Messages:
    5,598
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes thats true but you have to remember, gamers and people who do want or need fast refresh rates and low input lag dont want a crappy 60hz lcd. :p Thats where the difference is. If you only do basic crap on a computer and are ignorant of the benefits of low input lag and faster refresh rate, more power to you. Obviously its not "needed" if you just view emails and basic web broswering etc...

    Just like, you dont "need" a $200+ video card or a i5-2500k+, but people still buy them.....
     
    #43 Fallengod, Nov 18, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2012
  19. Soundmanred

    Soundmanred Lifer

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2006
    Messages:
    10,784
    Likes Received:
    1
    I do just about everything on my TV. Games, media, everything. Never had a problem with "lag", etc while playing games and I've never had anyone say "that's big, but it's just not great looking." (This is from people who almost have the Tweakboy mentality of "lag!, ghosting!, etc!).
    Too many people read specs and believe milliseconds actually mean anything to most people.
    I'll leave the CRTs in the trash and enjoy not sitting at a desk.
     
  20. Fallengod

    Fallengod Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2001
    Messages:
    5,598
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, im not really saying CRTS are still relevant. Ive switched to 120hz LCDS myself and havnt looked back. I was glad to get my CRT which I used for 10 years off my desk finally. I was just giving you the argument for why people wanted and used them.

    With that said, some people dont care about having top tier performance. Ignorance is bliss. Thats really the only thing I can say someone who says they "game" on a 60hz monitor and are happy with it. Im not looking to start an argument about it, just saying. Theres a difference between being a "gamer" and playing angry birds on a monitor.... Obviously you dont "need" high refresh rate and low input lag for angry birds...
     
    #45 Fallengod, Nov 18, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2012
  21. BTRY B 529th FA BN

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2005
    Messages:
    14,146
    Likes Received:
    0
    not even 1 minute of experience and my CRT died = this happened no less that an hour ago
     
  22. onething

    onething Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2012
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wish I could get my hands on a new CRT. The main problem I had with CRTs is that they start to blur over time, text becomes way too hard to read, etc. Oh and it was a pain in the ass to move around. But I really enjoyed the lack of input lag and it's responsiveness.

    Right now I'm using the Dell 2209WA, which seems to be the best non-TN panel out there. e-IPS panel running at 75hz with lower input lag than most IPS monitors. I can't seem to find a non-TN panel above 60hz...
     
  23. BoFox

    BoFox Senior member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2008
    Messages:
    689
    Likes Received:
    0
    Got 2x GDM-FW900's myself (for several years now). I also have a 24" LCD (Dell 2405FPW) and a 65" DLP HDTV compatible with 3D Vision.

    Watching movies on the FW900 is breathtaking. CRT was always great tech for watching movies, and on this best-of-the-best-of-the-best CRT ever made, my jaws are always dropped when watching movies on it. One drawback though is that it's only 22.5" viewable size - my 24" LCD does feel bigger. Also, it's 16:10, not 16:9 (which would be even better for movies). Now I just watch movies on my 65".

    What I still use the CRT for is fast-paced gaming, be it deathmatching, frag-fests, racing, or anything that requires twitch response with as little lag as possible. My 60Hz LCD has about 45ms of input lag - the response time was advertised to be about 16ms or so (I can't remember), but the manufacturer-advertised response time is almost never ever an accurate indication of the real response time with everything on the screen changing at once (like doing a 180-degree turn in a game). 60Hz is absolutely ghosty in that respect, too, due to the limitations of LCD tech grey-2-grey and white-2-black response times. Even 2ms is not ghost-free enough for perfect stereo 3D experience.

    My 65" DLP has exactly 0.05ms response time due to the 10000rpm DLP color wheel, yielding exhilaratingly ghost-free stereo 3D. I've been playing S3D with my FW900 CRT for years, but the ghosting is bad. It's different from LCD tech, in that although the CRT has instant "fire-up" responsiveness in firing the phosphors to glowing intensity, there is a cool-down period for each individual phosphor to fade from white to black. Sometimes, moving the mouse cursor across a dark background will show a slight ghosting trail.

    CRT's have a built-in bloom. At least it's not like LCD's backlight bleeding where there just cannot be true black level at all. Even with CRT's bloom, movies look 10x better quality than on LCD's in general. The pixellated nature of LCD's just don't mesh well with movie viewing experience, period. Also, I need 8x AA on the LCD to make look as smooth as 4x AA on the CRT. Sure, LCD's are a bit sharper even at 1920x1200 for games with detailed textures and stuff, but depending on the game, some games look just fine on CRT's even at 2560x1600 @ 68-69 Hz (which is the resolution I played Dead Space 1 and 2 at, due to the lack of AA for these deferred rendering games, etc..).

    Increasing the refresh on CRTs to near 120 KHz (or vertical Hz refresh near the max for whatever resolution) increases the blurriness of text. Decreasing the refresh to just what is acceptable for your tastes makes it sharper... as long as the flicker does not give you headache. 2560x1600 @ 68 Hz was manageable for me, actually - I didn't notice the flicker at all while playing games. 60Hz is another story - just 10 minutes of 60Hz gives me a headache, literally.

    140Hz for Stereo 3D is pretty cool, but that means 1280x800. I very much prefer 1504x940 @ 120Hz (which is almost the highest resolution for 120 Hz) or if you can handle a little flicker with the shutterglasses, 1680x1050 @ 108 Hz. Nvidia actually recommends 110Hz refresh rate for indoor environment that is lighted by 110Hz fluorescent bulbs/tubes (1600x1000 @ 110Hz) BTW, the aspect ratio of the CRT is actually more like 16:10.24 rather than 16:10, so doing desktop at a custom resolution with the aspect ratio in mind is ideal (like 1600x1024 or 2000x1280 or 2400x1536).

    I also enjoy watching 3D movies at full 1080p @ 96Hz, which is a perfect 4x multiple of 24fps of these movies. The flicker does get noticeable, but it's not as bad as those 3DTV's on the store shelves today riddled with absolutely unbearable flickering!!!

    For fast-paced gaming, I generally prefer 1920x1200 @ 95 Hz or 2048x1280 @ 90Hz - but sometimes I like to reduce it by 5 Hz for much more sharpness. Vsync can usually be disabled without noticing any tearing much at all at 90 Hz for many games, and makes most games that much more responsive.

    What I love about CRT tech is that it allows for such a wide range of resolutions, refresh rates, S3D support, etc.. whereas on LCD, you're stuck to 1 resolution unless you want to suffer fugly pixel interpolation (if your video card isn't powerful enough to run it at the full rez).

    In 2005, when 24" LCD's went for over $1500, Dell was the first to market an awesome 24" PVA panel for only $800. Now, 24" is ahem.. small. Right, guys?

    That's the biggest issue I have with it. 22.5" viewable, warm-up time (10 minutes after powering it on for it to not be so blurry), moderate bloom about 1-2 inches around anything really bright, bad ghosting for stereo 3D that I had to put up with for many years with like 20 games or so in S3D - even though it gave me free "effective" 2x1 SSAA due to left and right converged images blending together and priceless depth. Plus the gamma ramp is just a tad bit low when it comes to the darkest greys being nearly invisible if you want the black level to be the blackest black.

    What's the deal nowadays with the lack of real 120Hz panels? All of these BS 120Hz HDTV's just cannot handle true 120Hz input, after all these years. Even my 65" DLP does not do true 120Hz input either - it only handles stereo3D by checkerboard format of alternating L/R at 60Hz each, with slight reduction in sharpness.

    I would've expected that by 2012, we'd be seeing everything 120Hz by now. Nope, we're still stuck in the dinosaur 60Hz era. Even the fastest 120Hz TN panel can only do true 6-7ms of response time, when no more than 0.5-1ms is acceptable for perfectly ghost-free S3D. That is exactly why I have flat-out refused to buy any new LCD/LED montiors or HDTV's since the last one from 7 years ago! 60Hz has got to die!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Like 640x480 and 800x600 no longer being supported by Windows 8, 60Hz needs to go already, no matter what!!
     
    #48 BoFox, Nov 20, 2012
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2012